Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 not RPP's?

Zakaree Sandberg said:
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...
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say Zak ... I definitely believe there are distinct looks many DP's are going for with the high-end glass (as well as markings/ergonomics) .... and like you I tend to prefer glass with a bit more character (like Cooke ... or even somewhere in between such as Leica or Angie) ... versus super-sharp but sterile. That said, I do love a lot of what I've seen with MP's and UP's .... just not always my first choice. To me Leica/Panavision is probably ideal -- still super sharp but not quite as cool as Zeiss.

Anyway, my point about "snob appeal" was this -- there are many DP's where, even if you showed them extensive tests/charts/etc of the RPP's performing as well or ever better than these other legendary brands -- they simply would not be open to using them because it's not a prestigious lens name. I'm not saying RPP's ARE better, I'm just saying that even if they were it wouldn't matter to many DP's. Of course not all DP's are like that ... but it IS one of the reasons why RPP's are a bit more challenging to rent out IMHO. As a lens brand, Red still does not have much cache.

For instance ... imagine telling someone in the industry (or even here on the Red forum!) ... "hey I'm shooting a feature on an Epic S35 with Panavision Primos ..." -- they will be like "Whoa!" And if you substitute RPP's in there for the Primos the reaction will still be good ... but not quite be the same :)

Anthony

P.S. -- As an aside, I've appreciated how supportive Red is of other glass companies, never disparaging anyone and never speaking competitively or negatively about another lens brand being used ... that is really awesome to me.
 
Last edited:
If someone is spending $100 million on a film, the EPIC is the best solution at any price. EPIC is not being used because it costs less than other solutions.

However, there is comparatively little incentive to use RPP's when the budget allows for MP's or PP's. I believe RPP's are RED's little gift to "the rest of us" that want/need the same quality on a reduced budget. Glass is also much more subjective and always will be.

If RED had wanted to compete with those other lenses in terms of branding, they would have priced RPP's at $100k+, limited supply and kept them exclusive. They would have sold at the higher price and probably made the same or greater net profit. I'm glad they didn't.

-michael zaletel
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe Girlfriend Experience was also shot with anamorphics, but I don't know what kind. On imdb it just says Red camera and lenses, so maybe there are some RPP shots in there somewhere? The movie looked great.
 
RPP's are great. But a hard sell.

Showed a DP the 300mm yesterday (thanks Eirik), and the response was very positive. But untill actually using it, the presumptions were not too good.

But to refrase an old slogan:

Noone ever got fired for buying Zeiss...
(and we all remember what happened with the Big Blue shortly after...)
 
Hi,

Reds first lens the 18-50 has IMHO had a negative effect.

I looked at buying a set of RPP's, however the lack of close focusing was a deal breaker for me. I could have added extra marks to the focus scale.

Stephen
 
What is this Big Blue event you mention Gunleik?

I would say the factors are:

1. Stigma (low cost and first impression from the first zooms)
2. Focus marks (often biggest factor)
3. Size and Weight
4. Newtonian rings (unless they fit into the style)
5. Slightly less sharp than the best (style is a factor)
6. Slightly less contrasty than the best (style is a factor)

It will take a near flawless generation to earn Red its place among the best lens manufacturers, and given how little could be improved on RPPs I'd guess the next will get that going.

0.00002
 
Gunleik Groven said:
No one ever got fired for buying Zeiss...
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I do recall buying a Zeiss scope many years ago for my rifle and first time I looked through it, something was amiss. There was a giant, perfectly captured thumbprint right in the middle of an internal lens. Boy was I steamed!

So, even Zeiss can produce something that isn't perfect. But they do make great glass, sometimes they'll even put their thumbprint on it.
 
I like the RPPs quite a lot and even had possession of a set for a few months when they first came out. I shot a few projects on them and generally consider the glass excellent. For me the biggest drawback was weight, I have back issues and the three wide RPPs were just too heavy for me to work with comfortably. Also I think with the addition of the marks by Duclos the RPPs become an even more appealing proposition.

Here is a commercial I shot on them for Fox... (Obviously not the films footage)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDVliiqk82Y
 
David C said:
I believe Girlfriend Experience was also shot with anamorphics, but I don't know what kind. On imdb it just says Red camera and lenses, so maybe there are some RPP shots in there somewhere? The movie looked great.
Click to expand...

Girlfriend Experience was the single ugliest film I have ever seen, in my opinion. It actually made us postpone buying a Red (no really, it made me worry, and we put it off). I'm glad we changed our minds, but I couldn't even sit through that movie because of how unappealing its look was to me. To each their own I guess.

That said, RRPs are good lenses - they have a look, and all brands do. I think there is no "right answer" for lenses - as all discussed here are technically quite excellent, but they all yield different feels. I for one love vintage glass, shot with geared heads for an old Hollywood feel. I also love the hyper-real DOF falloff of some Canons. But... Taste is a really tricky thing.
 
One Ché was shot on Panavision anamorphics and the other on RED 18-50mm zooms. Soderbergh has used the 18-50mm and 17-50mm quite a bit. The news on the RPPs hasn't gotten out very well to the big budget guys... but lots of projects are using them.

Jim
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
What is this Big Blue event you mention Gunleik?
Click to expand...

BigBlue...
Up to a point a PC was an IBM. In computer history, it lasted for ages, and I think they had this slogan up until -94 at least.

"Nobody ever got fired for buying an IBM" is actually used as the quint-essential example of FUD-marketing on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

Back on topic:
Focus marks and weight of the wider three, are all relevant reasons. The three longer are heavier than MP's.
They don't scream "handheld best solution of the year", either.

But optically I really like them a lot.
And for single-man operation (without an AC) the markings are less of an issue. But they fall a bit in between markets:

A bit on the heavy side for the one-man-handheld-band.
lacking precision of marks for the full fledged operations.

I see that.
But there are compromises to all choises. Shot Supers or Standards or Optimo HR or Masters or Ultras or... something else... lately.

The Ultras are arguably a very good middle-ground for all the technical issues, but you can get a ful set of RPPs for the price of a 185...

Question I think most people don't really ask themselves in the right way before deciding on glass is:

What are my core needs?

And then go:

Sure, but be realistic...

The RPPs would gain a lot of more traction...

Yup... and if RED decided to re-mark them with higher precission without rising the price. Which won't happen, as they are already a very good deal.

And I have to agree with Stephen Williams...

We have one 18-50 laying around at one place I work.

The fact that it exists and that the photographers have tested it, makes RPP a non-option.

The 18-50 was the right thing for the right audience.
Their individual quality is very different, though. I have seen good, and I have seen a few really bad. Anyways, it is not what the film-guys expected, but what a lot of early adopters brought to the production table early on.

Used by a pragmatic user like BigLu. It is pure gold.

Used like an Angie by someone expecting Zeiss/Angie performance, it simply sucks.

This is a huge big house - in our scale - currently mounting 4 drama productions in parallell. Less good glass than the RPPs are chosen because of the 18-50...

I am not saying I agree on the choice, but it is a simple fact...
 
I own a set of RPP's and use them all the time for local, regional and national commercials. For me they come somewhere between the 'qualities' of Cooke's, (S4's and later), and Ultras. This is a response to the image. I also have a set of SII/SIII and 20-100 and 25-250, I use these if I want to go softer, more old school.

When I shoot international product for larger corporate bodies with large agency/client/director input I invariably rent a set of Ultras whether it be 35mm, Red, Alexa or whatever. It is just easier that way to deal with expectation. I recently put up three similar focal length lenses on a three camera shoot for Pepsi with Carlos Tevez from these manufacturers for an Argentinian director who 'knew' his lenses. We put RPP, Cooke S4 and an Ultra on a wide shot of the stage area, each on a different camera and available to compare in real time, and let him choose his lens just by looking at the image. Let's just say he had a very hard time telling the difference but ultimately decided the S4 was too soft, (He thought this was the RPP!), and liked the contrast in the Ultra. So we shot with the ultras.

When I show people the variety of work I have done over the past 3 years of being a red owner, (I still shoot 35mm, Alexa more recently and some 5Dii/7D,) people have some trouble deciding what format they were shot on and this becomes the major topic of conversation. Red lenses have got a poor reputation from the early days of the 18-50mm. Guys used to Primo's and Zeiss alternatives were never going to accept the telescoping front end and sometimes variable build quality, for them this was unnaceptable. However, it enabled low budget guys to get images without having to hire in. But it has coloured the impression of Red glass for a number of industry professionals used to more expensive alternatives at that time and resisting the digital revolution. They are now shooting happily with Canon 5D's and off the shelf still's zooms.
 
it is the exact same guys who do not want to touch RPPs...
Click to expand...

Same here, but 50% of my client use RPP's after seeing my showreel and compared the canon lenses marks and barrels with RPP.

The other half usually take Superspeeds. But budgetwise (i mostly do videoclip and web commercial), they go to cheaper rental house and get some mkI or II.. shot wide open, with high CA, and bad collimation which is worse... :violin:

The only reason I really find valid is the weight. 18-25-35 Rpp are darn heavy.
A good AC, even if it's not as practical, can deal with less focus marks. At least, I do.

Though I own RPP's, I find myself using Masters and S4 anytime I can.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
I, too find this slightly funny, as it is the exact same guys who do not want to touch RPPs...
Click to expand...

Gunleik,

I shot with a director who poo-poo'd RPP's on a Red shoot but insisted that my CP2's were not a necessary expense on a 5Dii shoot as the Zooms were 'good enough'! Go figure?
 
I said this so many times I can't remember, The RPP's are some of the Sharpest Cine Glass out there, and now side by side with
our MP's I see it, I always considered the MP's the Sharpest and absolute bets Glass in the Industry, bar none, still do, and
when seen both images form them and the RPP's I'm very happy I have the RPP's as well ;)

They are heavy, yes, they are big, yes, but do they really, really Sharp and KICK A%$#@, YES!!

Ever since we got them back form the collaboration with Duclos, to add Focus Markings this lenses are now so SWEET ;)

Those that do not use them, is either out of a Big ego, or do to size, I do understand those that go UP for size and weight, I
totally understand those that go MP's for the highest quality but most importantly Speed, I just don't understand those that
have the need to save money and no problem in using heavy and large glass, but absolutely choose not to shoot RPP because
they are not Arri or Cooke.
 
Costelloe, that is understandable. Argentine soccer players have a blinding aura of unnatural soccer skill which can play tricks on your eyes if they are too close. ;)

Ketch, would you please post a quick iPhone picture of the Duclos focus marks? Don't worry if you can't, I just haven't seen them and I am curious to see how the scales look after the botox.
 
Jannard said:
One Ché was shot on Panavision anamorphics and the other on RED 18-50mm zooms. Soderbergh has used the 18-50mm and 17-50mm quite a bit. The news on the RPPs hasn't gotten out very well to the big budget guys... but lots of projects are using them.

Jim
Click to expand...

Did RED improve the focus markings or is it being done by third parties?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top