Jump to content


Photo

2K with 16 lenses


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 florence gaven

florence gaven

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Paris/Stavanger

Posted 16 June 2009 - 09:48 AM

Hey, what do you guys think of shooting with the RED on 2k, to be able to do slow motion, and also (and mostly) to mount super 16 mm lenses? i can get hold of Optar-Illumina 9,5mm, 16mm, and 50mm, T1,3 primes that cover s16mm. What do you think? ANY INPUT WOULD REALLY HELP
thanks
  • 0

#2 Nigel Smith

Nigel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 16 June 2009 - 10:12 AM

Hey, what do you guys think of shooting with the RED on 2k, to be able to do slow motion, and also (and mostly) to mount super 16 mm lenses? i can get hold of Optar-Illumina 9,5mm, 16mm, and 50mm, T1,3 primes that cover s16mm. What do you think? ANY INPUT WOULD REALLY HELP
thanks

Hi Florence
That's what I'm planning to do Florence, until I can afford Red lenses. I tested mine out [Zeis T1.3 Primes, Canon 8-64mm] on a red last week and they seemed fine, so have ordered a Red one.
Some folk think the images might turn out a bit soft/low res - see here:
http://www.cinematog...showtopic=36770
and here:
http://www.cinematog...showtopic=37284

Edited by Nigel Smith, 16 June 2009 - 10:13 AM.

  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 June 2009 - 11:02 AM

I'm not a fan of shooting 2K on the RED -- it looks like what it is, a major crop and enlargement of the image. 3K works fine though.
  • 0

#4 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 June 2009 - 07:28 PM

You'd be much better off going 4K or 3K using old re-mounted Russian Lomo's than going 2K with the best 16mm format lenses that money can buy. Using only a quarter of the Bayer chip just isn't enough samples. You paid for those photosites, so use them.





-- J.S.
  • 0

#5 Jamie Metzger

Jamie Metzger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco

Posted 18 June 2009 - 06:36 AM

Posted Image

Posted Image

Red at 2K 16:9. ISO 250 50-75mm focal length (can't remember) @ f/4

I've been adding slight contrast adjustments to get back some sharpness.
  • 0

#6 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 19 June 2009 - 03:21 AM

Just to add to Jaime's post, that was shot on an older zoom lens (Fuji? I forget). The Optar primes we used seemed sharper. Jaime can you post some stills from the Optars?

To the OP, the Optars will all cover 2K. The wider lenses will not cover 3K, but the 50mm will cover 4K 16:9.
  • 0

#7 Joe Walker

Joe Walker
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Birmingham, AL

Posted 22 June 2009 - 02:33 PM

To the original poster,

Here's my opinion FWIW. One of the biggest problems with shooting RED is that when you want to do slow mo shots, you've got to take a rez hit one way or another. Personally, what I've found is that deciding whether to shoot 3K or 2K for your slow mo shots really depends more on your post workflow as to which one you pick and how slow you need the shot to be. For instance, if your post is going to be the old FCP to Color route, when using the Log and Transfer function in FCP it automatically resizes 4K to 2K, 3K to 1.5K, and 2K to 2K. So if you were to shoot 60fps @ 3K, in the end with this workflow, your 3K shots will only be 1.5K, whereas 2K shots will stay at 2K. Which sort of takes the steam out of shooting 3K in that scenario. Every post route is different. If the post route is going to be working with only the H proxies or the M proxies, then using 3K over 2K is a much better idea. Or if you're going to transcode your R3D files in REDCine or REDAlert, then using 3K would be better. It's sort of the deal with the devil that you have to make.

And...FWIW..Most of the work we do is commercials destined for broadcast, and most eyes that come through the edit/color suite can't tell the difference between the transcoded 4K and 2K shots...I can, our director can, most of our editors can...but the vast majority of our clients can't...even at the 1080p level. Now, if I were shooting for a major motion picture going to cinemas near you...i'm pretty sure I'd be shooting all the 24fps at 4K and shooting all the slow mo on an Arri 435 and scanning the film @ 4k! Just to keep it all consistent...well...or as consistent as possible.

Ironically, I can remember back when RED was in the VERY BEGINNING stages there was this promise that one day it would shoot 4K at 60p. To a certain extent, I'm still anxiously awaiting that day. Although, reality tells me that that feature will probably be moved over to the Epic line of cameras. Still, one can wish!

Hope all that helps.
  • 0

#8 Jamie Metzger

Jamie Metzger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco

Posted 22 June 2009 - 08:10 PM

To the original poster,

Here's my opinion FWIW. One of the biggest problems with shooting RED is that when you want to do slow mo shots, you've got to take a rez hit one way or another. Personally, what I've found is that deciding whether to shoot 3K or 2K for your slow mo shots really depends more on your post workflow as to which one you pick and how slow you need the shot to be. For instance, if your post is going to be the old FCP to Color route, when using the Log and Transfer function in FCP it automatically resizes 4K to 2K, 3K to 1.5K, and 2K to 2K. So if you were to shoot 60fps @ 3K, in the end with this workflow, your 3K shots will only be 1.5K, whereas 2K shots will stay at 2K. Which sort of takes the steam out of shooting 3K in that scenario. Every post route is different. If the post route is going to be working with only the H proxies or the M proxies, then using 3K over 2K is a much better idea. Or if you're going to transcode your R3D files in REDCine or REDAlert, then using 3K would be better. It's sort of the deal with the devil that you have to make.

And...FWIW..Most of the work we do is commercials destined for broadcast, and most eyes that come through the edit/color suite can't tell the difference between the transcoded 4K and 2K shots...I can, our director can, most of our editors can...but the vast majority of our clients can't...even at the 1080p level. Now, if I were shooting for a major motion picture going to cinemas near you...i'm pretty sure I'd be shooting all the 24fps at 4K and shooting all the slow mo on an Arri 435 and scanning the film @ 4k! Just to keep it all consistent...well...or as consistent as possible.

Ironically, I can remember back when RED was in the VERY BEGINNING stages there was this promise that one day it would shoot 4K at 60p. To a certain extent, I'm still anxiously awaiting that day. Although, reality tells me that that feature will probably be moved over to the Epic line of cameras. Still, one can wish!

Hope all that helps.



bear in mind that when you see red footage on a TV set, it looks fantastic compared to on the web. Also, we are looking at a still frame grab and analyzing it, compared to watching the footage in motion.

I don't have the time to post any shots with the primes right now, but I will later.

I also ran into the high speed issue on a music video that wanted to use a 10mm ultra Prime. We were pumped on using it till they said they wanted to shoot 120fps with it....there goes your FOV and the reason for renting such an expensive but beautiful lens.

I've been shooting 2K on a lot of projects lately and have been thank full to not be dealing with 4K.
  • 0

#9 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 23 June 2009 - 01:58 PM

Since 2K digital cinema supports 48 frames per second why not shoot in this format?
  • 0

#10 Joe Walker

Joe Walker
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Birmingham, AL

Posted 24 June 2009 - 11:09 PM

Since 2K digital cinema supports 48 frames per second why not shoot in this format?



I'll take a stab: Because 48fps does not look cinematic. The same reason that 30fps and 60fps are not regarded as cinematic. 24fps has been burned into the heads of so many throughtout the world as the "cinema" frame rate.

I once performed a highly un-scientific poll at the university I was studying at here in Birmingham. I showed two clips to a large group of students from many different backgrounds, religions, places of birth, nationalities, etc. Both of the clips were shot in the southside section of town at a very famous fountain. Both were shot at the same time of day, virtually same stop, lighting, camera placement, etc. Only difference was one was shot at 24fps and one at 60i (29.97). I asked the group of assembled students, which one looked like a movie. ALL responded the one shot at 24fps was the one that looked like a movie. I repeated this test two years later with three clips, one shot at 24fps, one shot at 30fps (30p) and one shot at 60i. All but three responded that the 24fps clip was "movie-like", two responded that the 30p clip was "movie-like" and only one responded that the 60i clip was "movie-like".

Un-scientific...yes. But the results only confirmed what I've believed all along. You can't shake 24fps from the world-view of cinema. Attack me if you want, I'm just saying....
  • 0

#11 florence gaven

florence gaven

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Paris/Stavanger

Posted 25 June 2009 - 05:27 AM

hey so thanks for all that input, i will be doing test on sunday with 2k and optima 16 lenses, then 3k with the same lenses and crop the 9.5 and 16 (i know the 50 mm will cover even 4k) in post, then same setting with 3k red zooms, then hvx200 with the 16mm lenses. I will post images and comments if you guys are interested. thanks again
flo
  • 0

#12 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 25 June 2009 - 11:42 AM

But it is already happening and it is going to cause a lot of shake ups. Digital 2K cinema supports up to 48 frames per second and there is nothing anybody can do to stop that. Even if content is shot at 24 frames per second each frame in a digital cinema will be projected twice so that means less flicker and an improvement over the double bladded shutter. Also 48 frames per second can indeed look very cinematic as long as the drama portions of the movie are shot at 24 frames per second with the action portions of the movie shot at 48 frames per second. The problem with shooting an entire movie at 24 frames per second is that while indeed the cinematic feeling is preserved but whenever there is fast action the footage totally falls apart in a blurry mess.
  • 0

#13 Nigel Smith

Nigel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 30 June 2009 - 03:31 AM

hey so thanks for all that input, i will be doing test on sunday with 2k and optima 16 lenses, then 3k with the same lenses and crop the 9.5 and 16 (i know the 50 mm will cover even 4k) in post, then same setting with 3k red zooms, then hvx200 with the 16mm lenses. I will post images and comments if you guys are interested. thanks again
flo

Great.
Look forward to it :)
  • 0


CineLab

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

CineTape

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC