Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Day of Understatements... (RED primes)

Peter Majtan said:
That is that RPP's are sharper at T1.8 then MP's at ANY T, be it T1.3 or T1.8
I have never seen lens this sharp across the entire area. Virtually no visible sharpness or brightness fall-off...

:) Peter
Click to expand...

MTF, please show on that "beauty" and for entire T stops range!!!

Also together with photo and video samples and then we can have later a strong feeling and a big trust or a "faith" to that shawn "facts"!

Let us see it all online!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe it looks like a sort of lens "clinic" demand(s) but that's how it is with lenses of any sort...
 
Maybe you can't flip it because 18-50s are so over-saturated right now.

I wonder if the prime set will fetch a lower rate 2 years from now when everyone and their mother owns one...
Time will tell

Shawn Nelson said:
Jim, thanks for noticing. I had no idea that the 300mm is the same mechanically as well! So I take back my final comment completely.

You are correct in that the 18-50mm looks great! I've shot some fun stuff with it. I guess it's just hard watching it's value fall like a rock. I've never seen glass (to a mount that it still in ever-increasing use no less) fall in value by so much so fast. I was hoping to flip mine for 75% of value (which is usually pretty damned easy with glass) to somehow leverage into your prime set. No dice. But that's not your problem. Anyways, thanks for the clarifications. On my earlier comment, can you have the 18-50, 300 & 18-85 there at NAB as well to compare against the RPPs?
Click to expand...
 
Peter Majtan said:
That is that RPP's are sharper at T1.8 then MP's at ANY T, be it T1.3 or T1.8
I have never seen lens this sharp across the entire area. Virtually no visible sharpness or brightness fall-off...

:) Peter
Click to expand...

Peter, did you see just 65mm RPP or some other FL RPPs lenses as well?
 
Peter Majtan said:
That is that RPP's are sharper at T1.8 then MP's at ANY T, be it T1.3 or T1.8
I have never seen lens this sharp across the entire area. Virtually no visible sharpness or brightness fall-off...

:) Peter
Click to expand...

T1.3 speed doesn't exist with RPPs so they could not compete with MPs in that aperture.

RPPs are good to compare with Arri/Zeiss Ultra Primes T1.9, Cooke T2 S4/i or similar speed lens sets in a both, cine or FF35 offers.
 
Mike Prevette said:
Jim,

As I'm sure you know It's a classic law of consumer logic. People will equate quality with price, regardless of facts staring them in the face (see: British automobiles)
Click to expand...

When DV gear started to appear at NAB, people claimed it would never compete with analog Betacam even though a whole NLE system would cost less then one Betacam deck. We speculated the NLE market would wander over to laptops too, but people loved their good old faithful gear that is now long gone.

So "pros" often act like your consumers and still equate price with performance, but in the digital age, the technology train may leave the station without them.

Laying on the tracks with an ear on the rail,

Rosco
 
Andrew said:
Unfortunately lenses do not have firmware that you can upgrade.
Click to expand...

I know I'm being a pedantic ass, but there actually is firmware in the 18-50 and 50-150 lenses that enables the /i data system. Some early 18-50 units need a firmware upgrade in order to function properly with the RED /i pin upgrade.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I know I'm being a pedantic ass, but there actually is firmware in the 18-50 and 50-150 lenses that enables the /i data system. Some early 18-50 units need a firmware upgrade in order to function properly with the RED /i pin upgrade.
Click to expand...

I knew that you will point it out..............:-)
 
I agree 100% with Fredrik and Mitch.

I seem to be constantly trying to explain the different 'characteristics" of lenses to people all the time and am rarely successful in that fight. It is something very 'emotional', and not technical at all. And it is misleading to just use the term 'warmer', etc. It is not about a slight color change in post. You have to think more in terms of something that is akin to texture — and it can be as subtle as it is complex. It may be closer to the touching of textiles and fabrics. Even the way light interacts with different textures under different lighting conditions may be another example.

Like Fredrik, I'm personally less interested in what is being shown on a projector with charts etc, and am more interested in the particular characteristics of the lenses. Do they 'feel' more like MP's? Do they 'feel' more like S4's? Do they have their own 'feel'? All these charts and specs are like having chemists dissecting the Ph balance (and such) to death over the 'perfect' bottle of wine. It will mean nothing until that bottle interacts with the oxygen in the room.... and after that your mouth. And then if you add other variables to the mix, like the food you are eating (say the complex nature of light and the way it interacts with all the texture in a given scene for comparison)... again, a whole different feel.

I have no doubt that the RPP's will probably be technically amazing (my guess is they will have more of the feel of a MP). And I love the obsessive compulsive qualities of Mr. Jannard (the most interesting scientists and artists share that same beautiful malady—and I say that as a compliment.) And as set at more than a fair price twice over, these lenses will be a gift from Red. But remember, artist don't all just paint with 'perfect' oils. There is a reason that some use f*cked up, horrible mediums when it suits the tone, texture and/or feel they are after. Right tool for the job, kind of thing.

Todd
 
Jannard said:
Yes. Data sheets coming.

I agree that there are times when an "imperfect" lens is the best choice. There are times when anamorphics are just what the doctor ordered. And a LensBaby can be a useful tool (seldom). But I want my standard set to be neutral and match the resolution that I'm shooting. I don't want to waste the time shooting 5K with a lens that konks out at 4K. People want more resolution. "I want to shoot 5K so I get a real 4K image". It seems completely counter-intuitive to then put a lower resolution lens on that camera.

The RPPs are matched to our sensor in every way. We know what the microlens on every pixel needs and we give them (all 5K of them) what they ask for.

If you like a certain "look" of a lens, a lens projector can tell you, mostly, what causes that look. Maybe it is the sharp center resolution and softer edge resolution. OK. I get that. But what happens when you take that same lens and shoot 5K instead of 4K? Do the edges go wickedly soft (usually yes)... assuming that there is actual coverage that far out. And assuming that the light falloff doesn't turn into obvious vignetting. How do you tell? Put it on a lens projector and you'll get a pretty good idea.

Jim
Click to expand...

I’m glad to hear that there will be real data sheets, perhaps an opportunity to be brave and proud of your lenses, as some of the other manufacturers seem to cowardly custards on this issue. Also really happy to hear that you can achieve high res and even illumination for 5k, it means that these lenses are much better for the application than anything else that exists (people are getting much more lens than they realize!).

Well, we are a little bit perverse in what we look for in a lens. Some of things we are engineering are for use with larger sensors for Medium format such as Mamiya and Leaf for 3d graphics and S-3d. We hope to transfer this technology to the large sensor Epic and Scarlet. Given that we reconstruct complex scenes in 3d from multiple stereo views, RESOLUTION is everything for us. So right now we favor the use of partially re-engineered Schneider Apo-Digitar lenses (in particular the 5.6/47mm). It has very low distortion [less than 0.3% at 30mm radius)] (which we like) as they can be calibrated more accurately to remove distortion which is important for fitting multiple 3d fragments. However they have an appreciable light fall off which can be compensated by a gradated filter. On the other hand we do try to engineer for retro focal lenses but tend to draw the line at 2% maximum radial distortion (about half of the ZF’s exceed that). Sometimes for example a (Schneider Digitar 2.8/28mm) may have 3% distortion but the distortion curves for infinity 4 meter and close up are almost identical (which is unusual) and makes it easier to calibrate also. We also used to put Hassleblad 50mm lenses on Kodak 14ns, because of the large image circle the radial distortion was effectively cut in half, the rays were “straighter” and produced very nice imagery from a 14 million pixel CMOS sensor, as compared standard Nikon glass.

Jim If there was a chance you could determine or publish distortion curves for three different distances (i.e. infinity, 4 meter and close up) (like Schneider) then that would be truly wonderful.

Cheers V much,

Eric
 
Jannard said:
It doesn't measure "character"... which sounds a lot like anomalies to me. Jim
Click to expand...

Yes but it is those anomalies that make the S4s so popular. They certainly don't match up to the Ultra/Master Primes on a projector. Honestly you need both Objective and Subjective testing. As a DP you want your lenses to be sharp, but not so perfect as to be clinical. This is my biggest problem with Master Primes, they are so good they're boring. I know how fond you are of your S4s jim so I'd be willing to bet the Red Pro Primes have some character not discernible on a projector.
 
Peter Majtan said:
I have never seen lens this sharp across the entire area. Virtually no visible sharpness or brightness fall-off...

:) Peter
Click to expand...

I'm just worried about what the cost is of this performance is in some other areas.

Does this mean we won't be getting a nice solid disc ala s4s in the bokeh?

Can we get a shot of an out of focus lightbulb? :D (After the red party unveiling of course.)

One of my favorite aspects of most cooke glass is that even the out of focus areas are 'sharp'.
 
Evin Grant said:
Yes but it is those anomalies that make the S4s so popular. They certainly don't match up to the Ultra/Master Primes on a projector. Honestly you need both Objective and Subjective testing. As a DP you want your lenses to be sharp, but not so perfect as to be clinical. This is my biggest problem with Master Primes, they are so good they're boring. I know how fond you are of your S4s jim so I'd be willing to bet the Red Pro Primes have some character not discernible on a projector.
Click to expand...

The characteristics we all like about the Cooke lenses ARE visible on a lens projector (mostly). You can see a very great resolution at the center, then a slow falloff of resolution at the edges. You can see where the light falls off and you can see the contrast difference vs. a MP. It is pretty easy to see why one would like an S4. The problem comes when you go from 4K to 5K. The resolution and light falloff continue rapidly outside 30mm. What might work very well for a 4K image now is not the same on 5K.

You get to decide what you want. But I think it is your best interests to know exactly what you have to choose from and why.

A lens projector doesn't tell you everything, but it certainly tells you more than you are giving it credit for. I have spent weeks with this tool and I now know WHY I like what I like and why I don't like what I don't like. Information is never a bad thing. And I'm not suggesting that you ignore the seat of your pants. I hope you are not suggesting that you should ignore a lens projector. The two are connected. One can help explain the other.

Jim
 
Specular highlights do seem to render in a far superior way on the 18-100mm Cooke. In the comparison posted earlier on this thread I was amazed at everything the 18-85 did, but was bothered by the donut shaped bokeh on the manikin's glasses. The rest of the out of focus wouldn't bother so much as highlights which attract more attention. However having a more defined bokeh does seem like a big ticket for which I would pe prepared to say goodbye to other things. The balance is clearly shifted when you consider price though. XY for this much or YX for less?

I suppose you can't have it all. Unless this is possible with Primes where it wasn't with the zoom?

Peter Majtan said:
That is that RPP's are sharper at T1.8 then MP's at ANY T, be it T1.3 or T1.8
I have never seen lens this sharp across the entire area. Virtually no visible sharpness or brightness fall-off...

:) Peter
Click to expand...

Ok, so one more time, just to be 150% clear... and because it sounds like they are walking on water. Are you saying that the RPP you saw projected was sharper at T1.8 than MPs at f/5.6?!

It can't be... could it? Wouldn't that be like moving from Pentium II's to Nehalem with nothing in between?
 
Jannard said:
The characteristics we all like about the Cooke lenses ARE visible on a lens projector (mostly). You can see a very great resolution at the center, then a slow falloff of resolution at the edges. You can see where the light falls off and you can see the contrast difference vs. an MP. It is pretty easy to see why one would like an S4.
Click to expand...

And, to continue on the S4/post debacle, it sounds these would be two more things easily added in post if you decided to... onto a sharp edge to edge capture. AND you could refrain from adding them ad an added tool for deep focus wide shots, moments of boredom/lack-of-chemistry/realism/etc as you felt it was best.

In a world where post continues to get faster, cheaper, and easy... clinical is best.

Watching Destroy After Reading, which I believe the Cohens shot on MPs... I felt that boring/sterile feel often, and it was PERFECT for the movie. S4's would have worked against the actors IMO.

If you can buy 5 sets, more power to ya... but in the digital age, if you are now going to finally be able to purchase your first set, clinical is wise.

Will they make you "feel" warm and fuzzy inside? Well I thought we should wait and see the images for something like that. I have looked at Izzy's close up SO much...
 
I think what is lost in my posts on this subject, and I admit not having done a very good job here, is the fact that we embrace "feel". We don't think that "feel" and "resolution" are mutually exclusive. The RED ONE is our best piece of evidence. The RPPs have a soul, just like the R1. But it comes from a high resolution foundation. Our coatings are one of the least mentioned features... that will change as people actually shoot these lenses.

Jim
 
Given that these primes are coming very soon, I sure as hell hope that EpicX is *at least* six months afterwards. Given this economy and soforth, I can do one or the other this year, and EpicX is top of priorities. If you can announce at the Reduser party that EpicX is Q1 of 2010 and the primes are $15k or below, I'll be doing everything I can to buy a set :-D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top