Why not RPP's?

[James McLellan]

I've been looking for a film in widespread distribution that was shot with red pro primes and can't seem to find one. Something theatrically released. Does anyone know of any?

Is it that they are considered too heavy or too sharp? Anyone want to weigh in on this?

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

I guess movies with widespread distribution had a healthier budget and therefore either Master Primes, Cookes or some anamorphic solution (which RED doesn't offer it yet) were used.

Here's a test comparing MPs, Cookes and RPPs: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38346

 

[Steve Das]

...Something theatrically released. Does anyone know of any?

Is it that they are considered too heavy or too sharp? Anyone want to weigh in on this?

I don't know...Asked same question myself before and no responce.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

they are great for personal use..but quite frankly, they dont have the greatest rent-ability.. especially for major motion pictures

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

I suppose they must have been used on some features, but it might got hidden under circumstances I think.

A director I know was certain to use them on his new feature, and he was 100% assured they were very good..... but then suddenly a guy who shoots 1 day a year, or 5 days the last ten years , if you know what I mean just talked him out of it, so they ended up using cookes, just mostly because of snobbism..


admit , how should they look like , if they had to say it was shot on RPP's ,
the film would definately have lost all of it's potential for being professional

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

not saying no film has used it.. im just saying the big studio pictures probably shot on zeiss, cooke, angenieux

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I've looked long and hard for a big film that uses RedOne's and RPP's. They don't exist. Out of the biggest R1 productions, most use Angeniuex, Cooke and Zeiss. The only big films I could not find lens information on is Soderberghs... you might want to check those films out (Che / GF experience).

That's your best bet for finding top tier films using RPP's.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

I've looked long and hard for a big film that uses RedOne's and RPP's. They don't exist. Out of the biggest R1 productions, most use Angeniuex, Cooke and Zeiss. The only big films I could not find lens information on is Soderberghs... you might want to check those films out (Che / GF experience).

That's your best bet for finding top tier films using RPP's.

Yah many of the people in the industry (in LA and Canada) I've talked to say they're hard to rent ... unless being added in an attractive indie package. Definitely never heard of them being used on major Hollywood features.

But pretty much most DP's want that snob appeal of a Zeiss UP or MP, Cooke, Angenieux or of course Panavision ... and unfortunately Red lenses, though performance is great, don't have that same cache or tradition.

It's for this reason that I will probably get a set of 2 Optimo Rouges (16-42, 30-80) to start my Epic package, rather than RPP's. Because even though the Rouge set is twice as much -- I actually think they will ROI faster. And yes, a max speed of 2.8 kinda sucks but it will cover 99% the stuff I'm doing this year ...

 

[Dave Edsall]

I've looked long and hard for a big film that uses RedOne's and RPP's. They don't exist. Out of the biggest R1 productions, most use Angeniuex, Cooke and Zeiss. The only big films I could not find lens information on is Soderberghs... you might want to check those films out (Che / GF experience).

That's your best bet for finding top tier films using RPP's.

I'm fairly certain that Che was shot with Panavision glass.

I don't have much evidence to back this up but I believe that the majority of the sets of RPP (of which there are many now) are owned by smaller rental houses and individuals. The large rental houses that supply big budget features don't carry RPP (Panavision, Clairmont, Otto, CSC). Keslow is probably the biggest house to carry RPP. When you think that a "big budget" feature will need upwards of 4-5 cameras, 2-3 sets of lenses an accessories, it's a lot harder for a small shop to make a bid.

 

[George Butterfield]

Rental houses already had their glass before the RED ONE was invented. It's in the rental houses best interest to say their glass is adequate. The indy production can now afford to buy its own equip, EPICS and RPP's, you will see a lot of EPICS and RPP's in the future.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

But pretty much most DP's want that snob appeal of a Zeiss UP or MP, Cooke, Angenieux or of course Panavision ... and unfortunately Red lenses, though performance is great, don't have that same cache or tradition.

Wouldnt say its a "snob appeal"
there is a reason why zeiss, cooke, and angenieux glass is the mainstay in the industry..
and its not for bragging rights.. there is a "look" or quality of certain lenses..

I as a DP wont choose MP personally because I like a little more character, so I am more fond of older glass.. no news there..
and RPP's while great bang for bunk for personal shooters.. do have that MP sterile look..
dont get me wrong though.. I have seen some really pretty images come from both MP and RPP. Im not puting down either glass.
we all have personal taste in lenses.. I like dirty. Ketch and others likes clean.
I respect that, because it gives us different flavors and looks.. I cant say Ill always use older "dirty" glass.. sometimes i pull out my zeiss zfs and shoot clean.

bottom line.. RPPS do look great, but havent caught onto the mainstream rental train yet. If someone really wants the master primes, but cant budget it.. RPP's may def be the way to go.

I expect lenses to become a better investment real soon.. with all the PL mount cameras coming out.. RPPs will make their way onto more productions...

 

[Steve Das]

I'm fairly certain that Che was shot with Panavision glass.

Yes..seems you are right..but Red 18-50 zoom was used also..as the
production had 2 of them on Part II.

Part One of "Che" was shot in 2.40 anamorphic with Panavision lenses, Part Two was shot spherical 1.85, probably with a mix of lenses including the Red 18-50mm.

Rental houses already had their glass before the RED ONE was invented. It's in the rental houses best interest to say their glass is adequate. The indy production can now afford to buy its own equip, EPICS and RPP's, you will see a lot of EPICS and RPP's in the future.

Think you are pretty much right on with this.

 

[James McLellan]

Thanks Folks

Thanks Folks

Most of this confirms my suspicions. I've been pricing out different primes and it's looking like RPP's are not the only prime in the $20000/set range so even though they are a great deal I had ruled out price. Ideally I'd like to see a film and not know, then have someone inform me it was shot on RPP's. Then I'd have a good idea what I think. In my head I think I am leaning toward Zeiss standard or ultra primes that are lighter. Ultra's are not in the same price range but perhaps I just shoot with two or three. I bet I could cover most things with an 18, 32/50 and 85.

Thanks for your thoughts everyone.

Cheers,

 

[Nick Gardner]

I think more than optical quality, when you are spending big bucks on your production, you want all of the accurate focus marks that the more expensive lenses offer. That was one of the trade offs for price, a less precise focus scale. If you are blowing $20k an hour you don't want to blow takes or waste time because the lenses are not marked out as well as S4s.

 

[Steve Das]

You should read the S.A.L.T. lens test reviews..very informative.
Don't give up on the RPP's untill you've shot with them..David
Mullen gave them high praise.

(Opinion 2: David Mullen)
David Mullen’s impressions from S.A.L.T.

Some background: I mainly shoot with Panavision cameras and Primo lenses, so I don’t have much experience with other lenses....So take whatever I say with a grain of salt…

The Red Pro Primes were generally excellent, I mean, scary-good for the most part. They seemed a bit on the cool side, more like Zeiss than Cooke in that regards....

The Red Pro Primes, to me, seem like the most bang for your buck in terms of cost-to-quality ratio. They seem just like lens sets that cost three or four times as much. But someone should check the 50mm to see if the coatings can be improved in terms of the crisp green ghost reflection. And the 100mm could be improved, but then, so could everyone else’s....

The Zeiss Ultra Primes, which I normally use when I’m not shooting Panavision, were not as well-matched as a set as I thought. But otherwise, they are workhorse lenses.

The prettiest lenses for interesting flares were the Zeiss Super Speeds and Standards – if I were going for that “Close Encounters” or “Blade Runner” look without using anamorphics, those lenses would be the best for that.

 

[Timur Civan]

I think more than optical quality, when you are spending big bucks on your production, you want all of the accurate focus marks that the more expensive lenses offer. That was one of the trade offs for price, a less precise focus scale. If you are blowing $20k an hour you don't want to blow takes or waste time because the lenses are not marked out as well as S4s.

+1

At 20k an hour you dont want ANYTHING blowing takes.

 

[Jim McKinney]

The only thing in this price range are the "standard" Zeiss primes, which have been around a very long time, and are battle-tested. I might be shooting a low budget feature next month with my Red, and if so, will use my RPP's. But if it was bigger budget, I would go with Cookes or UP's. RPP's are great looking glass. Red Corp. did a magnificent job getting these out to market for the Red owner/op that was looking for affordable glass that was both "current", yet affordable, (in what was otherwise a seller's market at the time.) However, with the demands of production, and the greater range of lenses, (along with the markings issue), I'll go for the mechanics and logistics of the "older" lenses. I still think RPP's are great glass, and an incredible value though.

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

My observation is this: A Red camera package rental for the run of a show (not including glass) has been very affordable to many productions, particularly in this day and age of shrinking available resources. Removing the need to purchase film stock, then the processing and so on, for example, reduce the bottom line for a producer and PM.

DOP's in the past have made the case (usually in prep) to find a way to shoot film; after all prior to Red there was no true digital alternative to film when talking about dynamic range and so on...one of the unwritten trade offs was this understanding that given the fact a DOP is responsible for the look of a film or show the DOP gets to choose his/her glass.

Because Red has resulted in savings in other areas of the budget, this generally becomes an area where the DOP gets what he/she wants, and there is the cash to play, especially if a rental house has all that 35mm glass sitting around but just lost out on the film package.

And I know from experience big rental houses are notorious for carving out great deals to remind the bean counters that they have the ability to sink the little independent who owns their own R1 MX package...which is why so many of the big rental co's have their own MX's -an affordable camera with a decent ROI that enables you to package it with stuff you've already earned your money back on ages ago. It's net cash in. Period.

And let's face it...as an artist, if given the opportunity wouldn't one want to work with the best tool -in this case glass- that gives the most interesting visual characteristics?

Given all the above I still intend to shoot our next fews features with RPPs...but our features are in the sub $10 Million range. I hope I can continue to evolve my looks for the RPPs because my investment means I will be pushing the whole package, and I hope I will have a variety of results to back up the justification...

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I'm fairly certain that Che was shot with Panavision glass.

Also RPP didn t exist at that time.

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

I'll get myself a set and use them along others when I'm shooting.

I'm still thinking there used more often then we can find out right now, but it's just not mentioned, or let's be honest , how much foreign movies do we actually get to see by ourselves once in a lifetime??

I've seen many dvd's and blu-rays in the videorental place, from which I never had heard. Local movies must be glad over here if they reach the 100.000 visitors figure in theatres..... so a lot of movies we will never hear about, even if shot on MP's, UP's, cookes or rpp's. might be different in the states with indies , but here????