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 :)

Why cine lenses?

In simple terms, it's nothing more than choosing the right hammer for the job at hand.
In my tool box I have a couple of hammers that I use for most around the house work.
I don't own a jackhammer, but I can always rent one when needed.
 
To me the bottom lines for lens choice on RED One are:


1) RED One, though termed a “digital cinema” camera, derives the majority of its technology pedigree from the DSLR industry, followed by a moderate amount of technology from the video industry, and least amount of technology from the film industry.

2) RED One, though termed a “digital cinema” camera, as per RED’s and Jannard’s own statements over the past three years, was also designed to be used in multiple other non-cinema genres and applications, most notably the myriad of hybrid cine/EFP and pure EFP industries. From the beginning, scalability, utility, and flexibility of RED One were RED’s stated goals for the camera. (I did the first published magazine interview with Jim Jannard clear back in early 2006, and I’ve been around RED since the very beginning, so my statement on this is perfectly accurate).

3) Though stills lenses have occasionally been adapted to the cinema industry over the years, in the case of stills lenses on RED One, it is workers in the non-narrative cinema and non-cinema industries and genres of hybrid cine/EFP and EFP who are the largest percentage of users of 35mm stills lenses on RED One.

4) RED has manufactured a 35mm stills lens mount for RED One, which is a very clear indication that the camera was alternately intended to be used with 35mm stills lenses, should an owner or user desire to do so.

5) Everyone using RED can’t afford cine lenses, thus the more affordable option of 35mm stills lenses is a viable alternative. Those users can then rent cine lenses on a per-project basis.

6) If RED One productions are not destined for the big screen, but rather for television, business media use, etc., with their commensurately lower production budgets, then the optical and aesthetic results of 35mm stills and B4 lenses are more than satisfactory for the intended presentation medium.

7) Depending on the production values needed for a project, cine lenses, 35mm stills lenses, and even B4 lenses are viable choices for use on RED One. There is no “best” lens choice for RED One – just a “best lens choice for each particular production or shot sequence”.

8) With very few exceptions, cine lenses are the best choice for large budget, large crew, union, narrative cinema productions.

9) 35mm stills lenses are very often the best choice for low to low/moderate budget independent productions where a high degree of mobility is needed and crew sizes are small.


I could go on and on to list maybe fifty other good scenarios or reasons for certain productions to consider using 35mm stills lenses.

I love cine lenses! They are solid, the optics are usually superb, and they are the best choice for certain ample budget productions, aesthetic needs, ergonomic needs, and crew compositions. But I also love 35mm stills lenses for their affordability, their high cost to performance ratio, their high focal length/low weight capabilities, their single operator capabilities, and on and on. Again – though cine lenses obviously have the best materials and durability, in the production world there is no across the board “best” lens choice, but rather “the best lens for each production or shot sequence”.

With the convergence of the formerly-separate industries of film, television, video, and still photography, and flexible cameras like RED One (and Epic, Scarlet, DSMC) serving its needs, we all need to respect each others knowledge, experience, genre choices, and resulting equipment choices. I think its time to stop bickering and start collaborating!
 
The Third Man said:
Thanks Gibby.

Well said again.
Click to expand...

My pleasure...and thank you for your passion for 35mm stills lenses Sanjin. I definitely share that passion. But I'm also passionate about using cine lenses or B4 lenses when they are the right choice for a production I'm working on. What is amazingly cool to me is that we have all those options with RED One - that is very, very, very cool!
 
I just find it amusing that anyone who can afford a RED camera and expensive still lenses is willing to play class politics...this is a $20,000 camera we're talking about -- without any lenses attached at all, cine, still, or lensbaby.

Why are phrases like elitist and proletariat even in play? It's somewhat ridiculous. Marx and Engels should be rolling in their respective graves....Thorstein Veblen may be the more appropriate theorist for underpinning this discussion....
 
rameshjai said:
I wonder if there's a writer's forum somewhere discussing whether one needs the latest computer to write a bestseller.:mellow:
Click to expand...
thread's quote.. no.. reduser's quote
grinning-smiley-004.gif
 
Gibby said:
My pleasure...and thank you for your passion for 35mm stills lenses Sanjin. I definitely share that passion. But I'm also passionate about using cine lenses or B4 lenses when they are the right choice for a production I'm working on. What is amazingly cool to me is that we have all those options with RED One - that is very, very, very cool!
Click to expand...

Thanks to you too Gibby again.

Of course that a low price, diversity of production type, diversity in optical choice from cine, via EFP to still lenses and gorgeous pictures that RED camera makes are already a choice of many thousands RED Users worldwide.

Also I'm very big fun of cine glass from all those great makers/renters like Panavision, Arri, Zeiss, Cooke, Angenieux, Hawk Anamorphic, Optica Elite, Schneider-Century Optics and RED.
 
The Third Man said:
Thanks to you too Gibby again.

Of course that a low price, diversity of production type, diversity in optical choice from cine, via EFP to still lenses and gorgeous pictures that RED camera makes are already a choice of many thousands RED Users worldwide.

Also I'm very big fun of cine glass from all those great makers/renters like Panavision, Arri, Zeiss, Cooke, Angenieux, Hawk Anamorphic, Optica Elite, Schneider-Century Optics and RED.
Click to expand...

Yes, everyone of us here are "lensaholics" (addicted to lenses) - and I think that's great!

Light passing through glass is the starting point for how we all make our living...I'd call that common ground...
 
with the due respect "charming chap"..
grinning-smiley-004.gif


but me prefers to be "screenaholic" or "screenplayaholic" instead.. ehehehehehe
 
rameshjai said:
I wonder if there's a writer's forum somewhere discussing whether one needs the latest computer to write a bestseller.:mellow:
Click to expand...

No, and you don't need RED One to create a good film either.

However, people should not be fooling themselves that typical high production values resulting from multi-million dollar feature film budgets can be achieved with a few hundred dollar still lens and your flat mate pulling the focus, just because they have Red One. It may be good option to have for some, but horses for courses. Still lenses are not an equivalet substitute for proper cine glass.

beatdeadhorse.gif
 
Pawel Achtel said:
No, and you don't need RED One to create a good film either.

However, people should not be fooling themselves that typical high production values resulting from multi-million dollar feature film budgets can be achieved with a few hundred dollar still lens and your flat mate pulling the focus, just because they have Red One. It may be good option to have for some, but horses for courses. Still lenses are not an equivalet substitute for proper cine glass.

beatdeadhorse.gif
Click to expand...

If you are creative guy then you can search, test and improvise.

If you are not so creative in that way supposed to be that you are sort of "label guy" and your creativity and your confidence is strictly related to "owe" or to "deal" with a certain famous labels and brands. If not you are lost.

Report from one multi-million dollar production:
"Two Special Lenses for Barry Lyndon" article from American Cinematographer.

Barry_Lyndon_screenshot.JPG

Kubrick's use of wide angle to telephoto zoom lenses in many shots flattened perspective, allowing him to present his 18th century settings in a way that nearly replicates paintings of the period.
 
Hi,

Kubrick worked as an Indie, he could spend days on a single shot. Large productions don't have the same time available.

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

Kubrick worked as an Indie, he could spend days on a single shot. Large productions don't have the same time available.

Stephen
Click to expand...

That's great.

Today, a talented and charismatic cinematographer or a director has an opportunity with affordable tools like a RED to do experiments by himself, collect a knowledge and experience with use of a diverse still glass long before even any serious production starts.

Rodney Charters, ASC CSC is a right example.
 
Rodney Charters shot travel video with Canon still lenses and stated outright:

"this is a much better price point, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend these for solid drama"

http://www.reel-show.tv/index.html?vidId=00074

see 8:40

Kubrick was looking for extreme high speed and low-light capabilities not available on any existing cine lens and also hard to find in the still world.

He was innovating for a very specific application, not scoffing at industry standards.
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

Kubrick worked as an Indie, he could spend days on a single shot. Large productions don't have the same time available.

Stephen
Click to expand...
finally.. a post you can be proud of. :wink:
 
I just don't understand where the argument is?

No one is disputing that still lenses can be used to make beautiful films. Only thing that's said is that something created with the purpose for what it's used for will have the advantage of being specialized for it's purpose. Now I don't understand what the argument against that actually is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top