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?

Focusing is always a challenge, no matter what kind of lenses you're using. No one ever said focusing was easy, and everyone blows shots. The 1:1 mag in Build 17 is a great addition for all of us.

But posting an out of focus shot as proof for your arguments shows a particularly unrefined understanding of the elements of a good shot.

But since "the doctor" is apparently in, here is the difference between a shot that is in focus and a shot that is out of focus. These are approximately the same size, both 2x magged in Photoshop. The difference should be obvious.

The one that is in focus was shot with a RED 18-50mm lens, not even a Master Prime. It's just what I happen to have on my desktop.

Evaluating the quality of bokeh requires that the shot in question be in focus in the first place.
 
To continue this discussion above I would like to add some bad example of

that still lens getting out of the focus because DP plays with lens as a bad boy focus puller.

The situation:

There is a couple walking about 100 m up to Belvedere Museum Upper Building.

RED camera with me as DP is in front of Museums doors on the right.

Lens Canon EF 75-300mm @ f/5.6 set on Canon 40D before.

Mount: IMS for RED with Canon EOS mount (dumb).

Distance to the couple at the beginning of the shot is about 100m and at the end is about 6-7m.

Couple_Canon75-300mm_1K.jpg

A couple, a casual passer-buys with an unknown identity.

Couple_route.jpg

The couple route and the position of RED camera.

1K footage>>>>

So again to mention that I was accordingly pulling a couple out of the focus because I was performing a test of the particular lens.
 
Meryem Ersoz said:
Focusing is always a challenge, no matter what kind of lenses you're using. No one ever said focusing was easy, and everyone blows shots. The 1:1 mag in Build 17 is a great addition for all of us.

But posting an out of focus shot as proof for your arguments shows a particularly unrefined understanding of the elements of a good shot.

But since "the doctor" is apparently in, here is the difference between a shot that is in focus and a shot that is out of focus. These are approximately the same size, both 2x magged in Photoshop. The difference should be obvious.

The one that is in focus was shot with a RED 18-50mm lens, not even a Master Prime. It's just what I happen to have on my desktop.

Evaluating the quality of bokeh requires that the shot in question be in focus in the first place.
Click to expand...

Meryem,

My sample is a handheld RED shot and with totally different lighting (partly from the celling and partly from the computer or available light).

Probably your RED shot was with fixed camera on tripod and chosen lighting for the lens that is not fast enough for available light shootings.

Gil_01.jpg

What about this latest shot from a couple days ago with Canon FD L 50 mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2, available light is an ordinary neon tube form celling,>>>out of focus, ugly bokeh ???
 
Don't assume you know the conditions under which I was shooting...that was a completely run and gun documentary shot, under outdoor daylight conditions. You can make all the excuses that you want for your shooting conditions, but you're the one who posted an out of focus shot as proof of the quality of the bokeh, not me, I'm not responsible for your shot selection or discernment.

I did not anywhere state that *every* still lens shot displays this quality. I was just stating my personal observations that not all still lenses seem to handle bokeh in a motion environment as well as they reproduce it in a still environment.

Even the images from good still lenses seem to break down, somewhat, when motion is applied. This may or may not be true, and I'm sure it is not true in every situation. It's a hypothesis. As an owner of many fine still lenses, this is merely an object of curiosity to me, worthy of investigation, and not an ideological stance.

That said, having worked with Master Primes as well, I can certainly vouch for their "wow" factor - some friends and I did a quick test of a 50mm MP against the RED 50-150mm at 50mm. I like the RED lenses very much myself, and think they are often wrongly criticized. They are a screaming bargain, for the price/quality. But those MPs are noticeably better in a side-by-side comparison. It's not just a reputation thing -- the imaging is superior, hands-down.

There is nothing "elitist" about the truth....
 
as someone already said.. we all love you sj.. you're our hero!
 
Thanks FM gang,

I would like to finish my participation in this tread that has gone in many (also some wrong)

directions and digressions with the following fact sheet about telephoto lenses that includes

a lot of still lenses and it is from Panavision.

Maybe somebody could explain how you can effectively pull a focus with a still telephoto glass

that is on Panavision camera lens list (digital or analog) (!?).

Also don't count on so called Panavised lenses and just count on non-Panavised lenses.


Panavision_telephoto_lenses.jpg


Taken from "Panavision Camera Catalogue" Quote/page 53 link>>>

Also more still lenses you can find on other pages of this extensive Panavision catalog.
 
seems the elitist quote has left so much talk.. uncomfortable cine-style talk..

what sj has demonstrated is that red is truly a revolution.. the use of still lenses is.. as someone already said.. an "inconvenient truth" about red revolution.. no matter the grade of its limitations.. give me a simple example where there are no limitations.
 
People are acting as if the use of still camera lenses on a cine camera is a new thing, a revolution, when it has been going on for decades -- look at "The Black Stallion", most of the famous island sequence was shot on an Eclair Cameflex with Nikon lenses. Haskell Wexler was adapting still camera lenses for his cameras in the 1970's, as was Kubrick. The same advantages and disadvantages, the same problems, existed back then as now. This is an old topic.

Using still camera lenses on a movie camera may be convenient or financially advantageous or creatively appropriate, but the fact that the RED can be adapted to use other lens mounts hardly crosses the line into becoming "revolutionary", or if it is, then companies like Eclair or Aaton or Cinema Products were equally revolutionary thirty years ago...
 
David Mullen ASC said:
People are acting as if the use of still camera lenses on a cine camera is a new thing, a revolution, when it has been going on for decades -- look at "The Black Stallion", most of the famous island sequence was shot on an Eclair Cameflex with Nikon lenses. Haskell Wexler was adapting still camera lenses for his cameras in the 1970's, as was Kubrick. The same advantages and disadvantages, the same problems, existed back then as now. This is an old topic.

Using still camera lenses on a movie camera may be convenient or financially advantageous or creatively appropriate, but the fact that the RED can be adapted to use other lens mounts hardly crosses the line into becoming "revolutionary", or if it is, then companies like Eclair or Aaton or Cinema Products were equally revolutionary thirty years ago...
Click to expand...
but several thousands of 35mm digital cinema cameras in the hands of many.. having the possibility of using still lenses.. are a revolution correct? :wink:
 
I asked an AC only a few months ago about putting a still lens on a crash camera... laughably he said, "Why would you want to do that? The Panavision lenses are so much better."

And here this PV lens is in a crash box, behind plexiglass... :)

I'm thinking, that by reading this thread: no one has changed their opinion of the kind of glass they use or plan to use. Circumstance is going to dictate any DP's choice.. whether it be budget, the look or both! Maybe the real "arguement" at hand is if a given lens has delivered as expected?

~Sarah
 
FMG battery said:
but several thousands of 35mm digital cinema cameras in the hands of many.. having the possibility of using still lenses.. are a revolution correct? :wink:
Click to expand...

or tragic, it all depends what the end result is going to be.

The bottom line is that because it is possible to use still lenses it does not make them useful or desired for most of cinema applications. Yes, you can use a your grandma's 1970 Volvo wagon on a race track, but you would be fooling yourself you could get the same result as the Ferrari.

Cine lenses are specifically designed for their intended purpose and the fact that you can use inferior substitutes does not make it a revolution....unless you belong to Proletariat, of course :bleh: LOL
 
Of course that is an old topic when you can find still lenses listed even on Panavision Camera Catalog.

Revolutionary is that RED camera costs 17.000 USD, then it sold in about 5000 units till end of 2008 and also can adopt all types of lens mounts for cine or even most of still lenses.

Revolution mainly means:

1. Complete change from one constitution to another
2. Modification of an existing constitution.

LINK>>>

RED is definitely changing or modifying a constitution of high end digital cinema acquisition market.

For example Dalsa Corporation sold Dalsa Cinema to ARRI just because Dalsa Cinema lost money during RED rising on the market.

Some people would like to oppose to those facts and some people would like to accept those facts.

Also massive potential and use of different types of still lenses is a main part or RED sale success.
 
Pawel Achtel said:
Cine lenses are specifically designed for their intended purpose and the fact that you can use inferior substitutes does not make it a revolution....unless you belong to Proletariat, of course :bleh: LOL
Click to expand...
gotcha :innocent:
 
I bet it was an "elitist" who once said:

"I do NOT need to eat raw food, I can cook it."

"I do NOT need to be cold, I can wear clothes."

..but then we still have sushi and those big guys who jump in lakes in the middle of winter... lol.

~Sarah
 
It depends.. I never eat or have eaten sushi before and I survive. :gun:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top