PDA

View Full Version : PL Cine Glass for Stills Photography?



Tom Lowe
11-28-2008, 08:15 AM
http://www.abelcine.com/store/files/products/t_1001228.jpg

So, with Epic or Scarlet FF35, will I be able to shoot stills with a lens like the 18mm Master Prime 1.3? Right now there really is not any still lens that fast, that wide.

If so, it's sort of a niche setup, I realize, but an interesting side benefit of the whole DSMC concept.

Evin Grant
11-28-2008, 08:56 AM
Remember the Master Prime will only cover an S35 or DX size sensor. It's the equivalent of a 28mm in full frame 35mm. For low light work your best bet would be a full frame sensor and a 28mm f1.4 Nikkor or 24mm F1.4 Canon L II.

Tom Lowe
11-28-2008, 09:11 AM
Remember the Master Prime will only cover an S35 or DX size sensor. It's the equivalent of a 28mm in full frame 35mm. For low light work your best bet would be a full frame sensor and a 28mm f1.4 Nikkor or 24mm F1.4 Canon L II.

Oh yeah, I see what you are saying. Good point. *slaps head* Duh. :blush:

Nothing to see here folks, just move along. :)

Nils J. Nesse
11-28-2008, 09:13 AM
For low light work your best bet would be a full frame sensor and a 28mm f1.4 Nikkor or 24mm F1.4 Canon L II.

... Or Leica 21mm F1.4 (http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/5917.html)!

Tom Lowe
11-28-2008, 09:16 AM
I have the EF 24 f/1.4L.

How much is that LEICA 21 f/1.4? And can it be fitted to a Canon EOS body? :)

Charles Angus
11-28-2008, 02:20 PM
Focus throw would be obnoxiously long for stills work, I would think.

Evin Grant
11-28-2008, 02:55 PM
I have the EF 24 f/1.4L.

How much is that LEICA 21 f/1.4? And can it be fitted to a Canon EOS body? :)

It's for the M series so no the FFD is too short, but if you can swing the $6K price tag you can probably afford an M8 too.

Charles Angus
11-28-2008, 11:51 PM
Sorry, should have been more clear. I meant a Master Prime...

Charles Angus
11-28-2008, 11:56 PM
The 18 might not be that desirable, but there could be room for this at the other end, though - there's nothing out there like a 150mm T1.3 except a Master Prime... The equivalent of a ~200mm F1.2 on full frame - now that's crazy!

Pawel Achtel
11-29-2008, 12:43 AM
Oh yeah, I see what you are saying. Good point. *slaps head* Duh. :blush:

Nothing to see here folks, just move along. :)

No, you have a point there!

Firstly, when you have lens wide open, you want to accurately adjust focus at night. Well, how do you dial in right focus on Canon 24mm f/1.4? Using MP you simply set the focus and it is spot on.

Secondly, Master Prime is 1/2 stop (50%) faster at f/1.2 (T1.3) then the fastest wide angle FF35 lens.

Thirdly, MP will cover bit more than S35 frame and it is razor sharp edge to edge, corner to corner wide open and will outperform any still glass out there by miles. I would also go with 14mm instead of 18mm. It gives you well over 90° horizontal angle, where as 24mm on FF is only 74°.

...oh, wait! I think have one http://achtel.com/smiles/clown.gif

Sanjin Jukic
11-29-2008, 03:44 AM
Thirdly, MP will cover bit more than S35 frame and it is razor sharp edge to edge, corner to corner wide open and will outperform any still glass out there by miles. I would also go with 14mm instead of 18mm. It gives you well over 90° horizontal angle, where as 24mm on FF is only 74°.

...oh, wait! I think have one http://achtel.com/smiles/clown.gif


I want to see here an example of "razor sharp edge to edge, corner to corner wide open" 14mm MP T1.3.

Just four crops from the corners at 4K.

Pawel Achtel
11-29-2008, 02:15 PM
I want to see here an example of "razor sharp edge to edge, corner to corner wide open" 14mm MP T1.3.

Just four crops from the corners at 4K.

Sanjin, you still haven't tanken excursion to a lens projection facility? :biggrin:

Seriously, grab some of your favourite lenses and make appointment with Arri in Vienna. You will be able to see lens performance and compare much better than on any grabs. Trust me, it is worth the bus ticket.

Stephen Williams
11-30-2008, 04:44 AM
Sanjin, you still haven't tanken excursion to a lens projection facility? :biggrin:

Seriously, grab some of your favourite lenses and make appointment with Arri in Vienna. You will be able to see lens performance and compare much better than on any grabs. Trust me, it is worth the bus ticket.

Hi Pawel,

If Sanjin saw some of his stills lenses @ 1.4 compared to a master prime he might start crying.

Stephen

Roberto B
11-30-2008, 05:24 AM
no comment

FMG battery
11-30-2008, 05:30 AM
guys guys guys..

you've been evil towards sj :love:

this community would be a different place without his posts.. a sad place actually.. a poor landscape too.. stephen.. imagine your home w/out jim murdoch..

a few of his posts can be funny.. he's funny!

most of them are full of knowledge about he's used to post.. a far far better knowledgeable poster about cinema (and man) than jim murdoch we must say..

sj has a clue which is lost in many of you.. research.. this guy does research.. okay.. we all should admit.. sj included.. sometimes his findings go straight to the opposite he would like to show..

anyway.. granted his toys.. he should have a lot more than for a bus ticket.. afaik he's a successful shooter..

btw.. a lot of us are w/ him on this fight.. there's not easy to beat him w/ better arguments.. fair ones

Simon Smith
11-30-2008, 06:17 AM
I second filmmaker. Did you check it Sanjin? No more signature. Respect.

Sanjin Jukic
11-30-2008, 08:35 AM
Filmmaker's gang and Simon Smith,

thanks for your support.

Pawel Achtel and Stephen Williams,

there is no a big need right now to go in Arri rental and get one MP

just because of the test that have to be shown at the forum.

But for that case I would like to quote another example that exists in a real film.

It's about Le Scaphandre et le papillon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401383/) or in English "The Driving Bell as the Butterfly"

by Julian Schnabel (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0773603/) and shot by Janusz Kaminski, ASC (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001405/) (Won 2 Oscars for cinematography).

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/butterfly1.jpg
From "American Cinematographer" (http://www.theasc.com/), January 2008.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/butterfly2.jpg
Shot by Arri/Zeiss Superspeed lens.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/butterfly3.jpg
From "American Cinematographer" (http://www.theasc.com/), January 2008.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/butterfly4.jpg
Shot by Lens Baby 2.0.

So if still photo glass works for Janusz Kaminski, ASC it should also work for any other cinematographer.

Stephen Williams
11-30-2008, 08:52 AM
there is no a big need right now to go in Arri rental and get one MP
.

Hi,

You don't need to rent a lens, just go to Arri Rental & put one up on the projector, you would learn a great deal. The only reason not to go is you might prove yourself wrong.

Stephen

Sanjin Jukic
11-30-2008, 09:08 AM
Hi,

You don't need to rent a lens, just go to Arri Rental & put one up on the projector, you would learn a great deal. The only reason not to go is you might prove yourself wrong.

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

I don't need to proof anything.

Because I didn't say that still glass is sharper then MPs.

Increasing the sharpness that you can get with digital acquisition

you can loose a magic that has "film grain" to the audience.

To much sharpness can make your actors and actresses to "suffer" on a big screen.

That can somehow to "kill" your movie.

Something that is perfect doesn't mean that is always good especially in a film "aesthetic".

I saw it last time when I was in "Quantum of Solace" big theater screen projection.

Daniel Craig and Judy Dench both look "awfully" out-washed and old.

Only Olga Kurylenko as a young get a bit better just because of her younger skin.

All that thanks to the Arri/Zeiss Master Primes sharp lenses :) .

Stephen Williams
11-30-2008, 09:10 AM
Hi Stephen,


All that thanks to the Arri/Zeiss Master Primes sharp lenses :) .

Hi,

Remember the film went through a D.I., sharpening is always added.

Stephen

Sanjin Jukic
11-30-2008, 09:16 AM
Then we get "Smart Sharpen" something like a plug in Photoshop and to make it our still glass RED clips even sharper as we would need or to add grain or lens blur if we would need an opposite.

Tom Lowe
11-30-2008, 09:53 AM
I for one would not be surprised if a good FF35 still lens, like the Nikon 14-24 or Canon EF 35 1.4 L, for example, took a top cinema zoom lens or even a prime to school in certain head-to-head tests.

I think it is unwise to mock still lenses as being inherently inferior to cine glass.

Dave Blackham
11-30-2008, 10:03 AM
Hi,

You don't need to rent a lens, just go to Arri Rental & put one up on the projector, you would learn a great deal. The only reason not to go is you might prove yourself wrong.

Stephen


Sanjin, has a well respected view here and his posts are useful and informative. I for one value his input.

Dave

Sanjin Jukic
11-30-2008, 10:15 AM
Sanjin, has a well respected view here and his posts are useful and informative. I for one value his input.

Dave

Dave,

thanks for your understanding.

---------------------------------------

Also to quote:

"From my many sources, I learned a lens operated to its best advantage at an aperture of T4-5.6."

Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC (http://www.deakinsonline.com/articles/di.php)

So @ F or T 4 to 5.6 a lot of still glass can "feel" very comfortable in a comparison with cine glass.

Steve Sherrick
11-30-2008, 12:05 PM
This is going down the same road that other threads have gone. It always comes back to the same idea. A DP will choose what to use based on the story, the budget, their taste in glass, and an assortment of technical requirements. I understand the interest in comparing, but it always seems to get personal with this topic. Tom asked a question about cine glass for stills photography. It was less about what's better cine or still? He just wanted to know if he could use one on his still camera.

Stephen Williams
11-30-2008, 12:12 PM
I for one would not be surprised if a good FF35 still lens, like the Nikon 14-24 or Canon EF 35 1.4 L, for example, took a top cinema zoom lens or even a prime to school in certain head-to-head tests.

I think it is unwise to mock still lenses as being inherently inferior to cine glass.

Tom,

Go to your local rental house & you can see for yourself, no need to guess!

Stephen

Pawel Achtel
11-30-2008, 12:37 PM
Hi Pawel,

If Sanjin saw some of his stills lenses @ 1.4 compared to a master prime he might start crying.

Stephen

It's not just that.

Lenses are best evaluated on a projector. You can't see on a crop what you can see on the projection screen.

You can see the size of image circle. You can see CA, distortion and resolving power of the lens unaffected by CMOS de-bayer. You can compare UPs with MPs with still glass at various apertures and various focal lengths quickly and easily - lots of fun!

You can also see breathing and how easy or difficult the focusing is. Within an hour you will have so much fun and knowledge that can not be replaced by someone else's opinion or samples.

For me it was very interesting to see the difference (or lack thereof) between MPs and UPs at longer focal lengths. I couldn't tell them apart, which means that, if you don't need that extra stop, you can save a lot of money by using Ultra Primes. But, the story changed substantially for wide angles. I also found how performance of most still glass went out the window when fully opened. Also, another lesson to do with accuracy of focusing - big eye opener how it affects performance of a lens. In many cases this is the main limiting factor :whistling:

I loved it. I will be going to Arri again this month with whole bunch of rehoused long PL glass to play with. I can't wait.

Pawel Achtel
11-30-2008, 12:51 PM
I for one would not be surprised if a good FF35 still lens, like the Nikon 14-24 or Canon EF 35 1.4 L, for example, took a top cinema zoom lens or even a prime to school in certain head-to-head tests.

I think it is unwise to mock still lenses as being inherently inferior to cine glass.

Most cine lenses are optimised for fully opened aperture.

The Nikon 14-24mm is an awsome lens. I wish there was a way to re-house it for long and accurate focus throw and PL mount. That's the only thing where it is inferior to cine glass.

Sanjin Jukic
11-30-2008, 02:21 PM
I cannot offer any lens projector evaluation online :) but I can offer 4K tiff files

for the comparison between the two "ordinary" lenses,

one is cine PL lens Arri/Zeiss and another one is still glass Nikon F.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/arri-zeiss-nikon85mm.jpg
Arriflex/Zeiss 85mm Planar T2 (left) and Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 D (right)

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Arri-ZeissPlanar85mmf2at2-8.jpg
TIFF 1. Arriflex/Zeiss 85mm Planar T2 @ 2.8, 48 MB>>> (A008_C002_1130P4_00000.tiff)

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Nikon85mmAFDf1-8at2-8.jpg
TIFF 2. Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 D @ 2.8, 48 MB>>> (A008_C001_1130D5_00000.tiff)

Right button, "2 x click to save as" is recommended for download.


The both 4K tiffs are processed in Red Alert, ASA 320, (K 3946, Tint -18 from Auto WB in camera)

and output is done at

Color Space: Camera RGB

Output LUT/Gamma: RED Log

that you could somehow "crush the blacks" and CC as you would like it.

For the comparison - do it yourself.

Tom Lowe
11-30-2008, 02:33 PM
Tom,

Go to your local rental house & you can see for yourself, no need to guess!

Stephen

What 21-megapixel FF35 digital cinema body am I going to put them on for the test? :whistling:

I'm not trying to diss cinema glass -- far from it! But I see some disrespect for still glass that seems questionable, IMO.

Pawel Achtel
11-30-2008, 03:47 PM
Sanjin,

Good cine glass will outresolve 5k, even wide open. So, your comparisons of frame grabs do not really tell you much.

Most modern 85mm lenses will be very sharp and high contrast (high MTF). Try 14mm.

Not sure what is the point of comparing an antiquated Arri/Zeiss Superspeed lens to a modern Nikon.

Tom,

It may be just me, but I find still lenses on still cameras a bit limiting in the ability to focus. Probably 90% of time I focus manually when taking stills. I am not sure if this is just economy or weight that influences still picture lens design that makes them difficult to manually focus. I think this is what makes cine lenses on still cameras compelling. It is not for sports or wildlife photography, but for landscapes I think cine lenses have an advantage.

I will be checking the performance of MP14mm against Canon 24mm MK II when I can get my hands on one. What I am interested in is size of the image circle as well as performance on the edges. It may be that MP14 will cover almost FF35, in which case it would be superior choice for night sky photography. But, the 24mm may have superior image circle that will gather more light than the 1/2 stop faster MP14mm, in which case it would be a winner for night time skyscapes.

Stephen Williams
11-30-2008, 06:47 PM
What 21-megapixel FF35 digital cinema body am I going to put them on for the test? :whistling:

I'm not trying to diss cinema glass -- far from it! But I see some disrespect for still glass that seems questionable, IMO.

Hi Tom,

A lens projector, no camera is needed. The idea is to what the lens is capable of on its own.

Stephen

Joe Walker
11-30-2008, 09:24 PM
The problem with still glass is that its very difficult to get a color matched set of prime lenses, not that that's a huge deal with today's color correction software, but it's just an annoyance. Furthermore, most still lenses are not adapted for follow focus, remote zoom/iris, or even matte box accomodation. Sure you could have all that added, but PL cine lenses have all that and they're tested, and they're battle proven with most AC's, which is what 90% of us in the creative industry need. I'm sure still glass is more than capable of pulling off beautiful imagery in the "cine-needs" category, its just horses for courses. If you can make still glass work, fine, go for it.

Sanjin Jukic
11-30-2008, 11:18 PM
Pawel and Stephen,

you are only just talking and talking.

We all know here very well that a modern cine glass is mechanically superior than still photo glass for the most of movie pictures application.

Also optically I would say in a lot of cases but not in all.

Longer telephoto lenses at the most rental houses in the world are still Canon, Nikon or Leica still glass with converted mount in PL.

Also use of aspherical floating elements started with still glass.

For example Canon 50mm f/1.2 Aspherical is for a lot of lens experts the best still lens design in the world even if it made at 1985.

Today all new Leica lens designs (at last 10 years) have aspherical elements.

BTW, optical quality of aspherical lenses is something that "driving crazy" guys like Pawel or Stephen which they think you would get

only with Arriflex/Carl Zeiss Master Prime lenses that design is not older then about 4 years.

http://www.arri.de/prod/cam/master_primes/img/spherical-aspherical.jpg
"The above illustration shows the basic principle of how an aspherical lens works. Spherical lenses are subject to „spherical aberration,“

which means that they cannot focus all light rays of a given color frequency onto the same plane. The further away a light ray is from the optical center,

the more pronounced this aberration becomes, making this a crucial issue for fast lenses with their larger diameter elements.

To compensate for spherical aberration, additional lens elements are needed that make the lens heavier and introduce other performance issues.

Aspherical lenses, on the other hand, are lenses with complex curved surfaces, offering excellent aberration correction and thereby providing

superior resolution performance. Aspherical lenses can be made smaller, lighter and in general, better than similar lenses which employ

only spherical elements."

From ARRI site>>> (http://www.arri.de/prod/cam/master_primes/mp_articles.htm)


http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page81_files/page81_3.jpeg
Canon 50mm FD f/1.2 SSC Aspherical


"This Canon lens is an amazingly effective lens and a superb design in itself.

Of course it lacks the sparkle and transparancy in small details that we can see in better designs,

but they are of lower maximum aperture. Some commentators called the Canon FD 1.2 aspherical

the best standard lens in the world. It is hard to disagree."

From Erwin Puts lens expert>>> (http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page81.html)


http://us.leica-camera.com/assets/media/img13699.jpg
LEICA M8.2, ISO 320, f/0.95, 1/90 s

"After more than 30 years, Leica breaks its own record and introduces the world's highest-speed aspherical lens:

the LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f/0.95 ASPH. It is the successor to the famous LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f/1 ASPH.,

which was added to the product range in 1975. Thanks to state-of-the-art optics and mechanical technologies,

Leica has succeeded in achieving substantial improvements over the previous model. With nearly identical dimensions,

a noticeable increase in lens speed has been achieved. The extremely shallow depth of field (DOF) at open aperture produces

portraits and detailed studies of unequalled aesthetic effect. Even when just slightly stopped down, the result is outstanding image quality,

comparable to the LEICA SUMMILUX-M 50 mm f/1.4 ASPH, which is considered the best standard lens ever produced.

When used in available light photography, the lens exceeds the perception of the human eye.

Even the light from one candle can be sufficient for handheld photography.

A "floating element" retains high image quality even in the close-up range.

Vignetting and distortion have also been visibly improved compared to the 50mm f/1."

Technical details>>> (http://us.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_3877.pdf)

From Leica Camera AG site>>> (http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/5915.html)

Pawel Achtel
11-30-2008, 11:27 PM
Sanjin, We are discussing usage of Cine lenses on Still Picture cameras here. Not sure what your ranting about using still glass on motion picture cameras has to do with the discussion.

http://achtel.com/smiles/beatdeadhorse.gif

Sanjin Jukic
11-30-2008, 11:50 PM
Pawel,

do you know any mount adapter that can deal with PL to Canon EOS, Nikon F or Leica M???!

I do not know any.

Just because PL register is 52mm, EOS 44mm, Nikon F 46.5mm and Leica M 27.95mm.

LINK>>> (http://www.markerink.org/WJM/HTML/mounts.htm)

Tell me how is possible to have discussion about that topic??!

http://achtel.com/smiles/beatdeadhorse.gif

Only its possible to have vice versa stuff like I can get and test on my R1.

More about that details I would not say any word now because that not makes advertising here.

Search the forum.

Pawel Achtel
12-01-2008, 12:34 AM
Tell me how is possible to have discussion about that topic??!


Sanjin,

It is not possible for such adapter and therefore Tom placed this thread under DSMC General forum, because DSMC opens such posibility for the first time.

Like Tom, I also would like to make some educated decisions about best glass for night time lapse and landscape photography. Of course, it can be done with still picture lenses and larger FF35 format possibly benefiting the end result, but possibly cine lenses may offer better speed, sharpness and improved focusing. Some of them may even cover FF35. I do not have strong opinion either way. I can see advantages of both. Therefore, like Tom, I have great interest in this discussion.

I will check with Arri if they have EF and Nikon mounts for their projector. If they do, I'd like to get my hands on the best wide angle still glass and compare them with MP14mm. It may be that, for example, Canon 24mm f/1.4 MKII will have usable (sharp) image circle significantly larger than MP14mm. If the surface area of this circle is more than 50% larger, then it would be a better lens from the light gathering capability perspective (MP14mm is 1/2 stop faster). On the other hand, MP14 may cover sufficiently large area or, may be significantly sharper on the edges when wide opened. Who knows?

It would be nice to have only one set of good PL glass and be confident that it would do two functions well. Otherwise, two sets of lenses are needed to get the best results.

Sanjin Jukic
12-01-2008, 12:51 AM
Pawel,

this exactly is leading us to the main topic I have here at the forum and everybody knows that: Universal lens mount that is possible to get on R1.

With that mount you just test and choose within seconds the lens (cine or still) that could fit your application, need, style and emotion.

Swapping lenses in seconds between PL, Canon FD, Leica M, Nikon F, Canon EOS, Leica R, Contax/Yashica, B4,...etc... simply lens choice FREEDOM.

Dave Blackham
12-01-2008, 01:17 AM
Any one know if a FF Scarlet/Epic can window its sensor to be S35 ? I guess it can but have no conformation of this. I think its relevant to the discussion.

Dave

Pawel Achtel
12-01-2008, 01:58 AM
Any one know if a FF Scarlet/Epic can window its sensor to be S35 ? I guess it can but have no conformation of this. I think its relevant to the discussion.

Dave

Dave,

FF35 Epic (not sure about Scarlet) can have any resolution windowed within 6k FF35 sensor. If your lens covers 34mm circle, you can just crop within that circle. We already established that S35 lenses would have at least 5k crop on FF35 sensor. So, there is no resolution loss as compared to 5k S35 sensor.

So, most punters (me included) are looking to get the 6k FF35 Epic. But, how much more coverage we will get out of S35 PL glass remains to be found. Someone reported that longer MPs will cover full 6k on FF35. But wide MPs may not cover full FF35 or may cover it with some loss of resolution in the corners.

Tom Lowe
12-01-2008, 08:22 AM
As Pawel said, the original intent of the thread was to discuss cine lenses on a FF35 Scarlet or Epic for stills or timelapse. So I will look forward to hearing about the possibilities of a 14mm Master Prime on a FF body. It will depend on how much of the sensor it covers to determine if any advantage is gained over still glass like the forthcoming 24 f/1.4 L II.

Marc Berger
12-01-2008, 10:26 AM
The biggest revolution for still photography -using cine glass with Pl mount- will be the anamorphic lenses!!!
Marc

Thomas Dobbie
12-01-2008, 04:19 PM
I did look at the possibility of having an adapter made for PL glass on my Leica's.
It's certainly possible on an M series camera,although you would have to focus by scale,(not a problem as MP's are so accurate) it's expensive though.
Not possible with a reflex,without major surgery to the camera body.
I did once come across somebody who was offering Olympus 1/2 frame cameras with a PL mount,can't find the link now.
Certainly be interesting when Scarlet and Epic FF35 arrive,that'll add a bit of spice to the eternal lens debate,no doubt the usual suspects will still be arguing,sorry discussing.
Tom.

I Bloom
12-01-2008, 04:48 PM
Hi Pawel,

If Sanjin saw some of his stills lenses @ 1.4 compared to a master prime he might start crying.

Stephen

Lol!!!!! You win Stephen. This is the best post ever.

It evoked a 360 steadicam shot. We can all stop now. Jarred you can unplug the servers.

IBloom

Stephen Williams
12-02-2008, 04:17 AM
Lol!!!!! You win Stephen. This is the best post ever.
IBloom

Hi Ian,

The Samaritans were engaged at the time when when I made that post

Stephen

Sanjin Jukic
12-02-2008, 07:02 AM
Hi Ian,

The Samaritans were engaged at the time when when I made that post

Stephen

Stephen is never giving up, the same as me :) .

I'm shooting with T1.1 lens.

I shot with R1 using Leica-M 50mm Noctilux f/1.0 (Canada) and f/0.95 ASPH (Germany).

f/1 should be something like T1.1 that is much faster than T1.3 compared with any MP.

I only know that Panavision has one spherical lens Super Speed MKII 55mm T1.1 Close focus to 2'6" (http://www.panavision.com/product_detail.php?maincat=1&cat=195&id=81&node=c0,c3,c22,c23,c24).

Also have a look at the TEST footage shot on R1 with Noctilux f/1.0 at night in Vienna>>> (http://www.purgatorymagazine.com/_downloads/lenstests/Leica_Noctilux_50mm_f(1)_720p_h264.mov)

All shot wide open at T1.1 and sometimes is too much light.

R1 Mysterium is "light hungry" sensor, so guys BRING IT ON (the fastest lens).

Get faster glass as possible even using still photo lenses.

The footage output done at RA, ASA 320, shutter 1/48, K tungsten, no any CC.

Also I will remake WB in RA and make the lens flare much better looking at this footage soon.

Better compression too.

Stephen Williams
12-02-2008, 08:18 AM
Stephen is never giving up, the same as me :) .
.

A colleague once likened me to the beggar in the Meaning of Life, "penny for the blind".

Sanjin Jukic
12-02-2008, 09:57 AM
A colleague once likened me to the beggar in the Meaning of Life, "penny for the blind".

Great :clown2: .

Btw. I'm re-rendering the footage right now.

New link is coming up.

Stay tuned.

Pawel Achtel
12-02-2008, 03:00 PM
OK, guys.

I made an appointment with Arri for 16th of December to play with the projector and MTF machine. They only have PL mount available, so I can't project still camera lenses. But I will certainly project a few Master Primes and measure size of usable (sharp) image circles for various focal lengths. We will also test some longer rehoused still lenses: Canon 150-600mm, Nikon 400mm and Nikon 500mm for their sharpness and overall performance.

Anything elese you would like me to check?

Many thanks to Stefan and Rey of Arri Australia for their generous invitation.

Jason Sinclair
12-04-2008, 05:56 AM
I checked out pawels master primes out wed night..

There is no debate those lenses blow everything out of the water even on the dell monitor we were viewing on. They are the most magnificent pieces of equipment i have ever seen...

I am extremely jealous because i only have nikons but i know better when i see it... Not just the corners which are just sharp everywhere you look wide open but also
absolutely every aspect of the lens from how the noise looks better to bokeh etc etc...

They are no doubt amazing lenses.... That little picture last page of some ancient film lens that is not what we are talking about. The master primes are amazing...

Anyone who has not seen one... First have a look before you speak and anyone that has... well, you know what i mean...

Before wed i was deluded from what i read too but no more...

Emmanuel Cambier
12-04-2008, 10:06 AM
Hi Pawel,

It would be nice to know the Image Circle of as many lenses as possible.
I would be curious what it measures for the Hawk anamorphic lenses, so that we know what to expect once we'll put them on the FF35.

Emmanuel

Zaphod
12-10-2008, 02:33 AM
Panavision has quite a few 50mm T1.0 lenses (the f-stop is less than 1.0 on these lenses as far as I know).

Pawel Achtel
12-16-2008, 03:38 AM
OK, guys: I just came back from Arri where we projected and measured several lenses. They were my Red 300mm, MP75, MP35 and MP14 and here is what we saw:

Red 300mm

On the projector, the lens is shap corner to corner and 80 lp/mm was just visible at f/2.8. There was no visible CA at all. Image circle is about 48mm, hinting at FF35 origins of this lens.

On the MTF machine we got around 26% MTF at the centre for 50 lp/mm (*) fully opened (f/2.8). The MTF peeks at about 30% around f/4 mark. There is some small flare off centre, but nothing too dramatic.

This lens should just about cover FF35mm. It is a very sharp lens rendering uniform and distortion free image.

Zeiss Master Prime 75mm

On the projector, this lens is extremely sharp corner to corner. 100 lp/mm is visible at f/1.2 ! The image circle covers just over 37mm diameter.

On the MTF machine the lens reads MTF 37% at f/1.2 and peeks at MTF 66%just below f/5 for 50 lp/mm (very fine detail).

Zeiss Master Prime 35mm

On the projector, this lens is ridiculously sharp corner to corner and 100 lp/mm is visible at f/1.2. The image circle covers just 31mm diameter. At the very edge of the 31mm diameter circle there is tiny amount of CA, but it disappears entitely on the 30mm diameter (15mm from centre).

On the MTF machine the lens scores remarkable 42% MTF fully opened (f/1.2)and peeks at stellar 72% just above T4. Remember, we are talking about extremely fine detail here at 50 lp/mm.

Zeiss Master Prime 14mm

Now, this one defies physics. We did the measurements twice because we did not believe our eyes.

On the projector we set the lens just 0.6m from the screen to fill it. The image circle is around 31.1mm diameter. There is no CA, not even in the corners! At f/1.2 the lens resolved 120 lp/mm quite clearly. No, not just in the centre, IN THE CORNERS!

On the MTF machine the lens resolved 50 lp/mm with remarkable 43 % MTF, which quicky jumps up and peeks at MTF 74% just above T4 before diffraction steps in.

Conclusions
Longer lenses are likely to cover more than S35 real estate, normal and wide don't. The Red 300mm is a very sharp lens, with no visible CA and just a tiny bit of flare.
Master Primes are in a league of their own. If you think there is a still lens that can outperform them, think again. They perform substantially better at f/1.2 than any still lens at f/5.6. Master Primes peek their resolving power at just above f/4, after which they become diffraction limited.

There is no doubt in my mind that, compared to the best still picture lenses, Master Primes are still significantly sharper. And, they achieve this performance at f/1.2 and even at 14mm. To me, those properties make them very desirable for stills and time lapse.

I would like to thank Ray and Stefan from Arri Australia for inviting me again to their toy shop.

(*) Most lens manufacturers give MTF figures for 10 lp/mm and 30 lp/mm. Those figures are not directly comparable with the measurements made here at a frequency of 50 lp/mm. Besides, most MTF figures published are not at f/1.2 either.

Steve Sherrick
12-16-2008, 08:39 AM
Pawel, thanks for this test. Those are some impressive results. I am amazed by the performance of that 14mm. And your test of the 300mm Red lens seems consistent with what others have said.

Tom Lowe
12-16-2008, 08:50 AM
Thanks Pawel. Now I just have to make the big bucks like you so I can get a 14mm Master Prime of my own!! :)

Is it possible to test lenses like the Nikon 14-24G or Canon 35mmL on a projector like that?

Nils J. Nesse
12-16-2008, 01:44 PM
Red 300mm

On the projector, the lens is shap corner to corner and 80 lp/mm was just visible at f/2.8. There was no visible CA at all. Image circle is about 48mm, hinting at FF35 origins of this lens.


Excellent. Now please make the rest of the Red primes cover FF35 as well, so I won't have to think about other PL glass.

Sanjin Jukic
12-16-2008, 02:06 PM
Pawel.

thanks for the tests.

Hope that "your excellent" test results justified investment in 3 MPs.

What I'm missing here are more facts like a sort of lp/mm graphs or any other

documentary photos from the instruments you were getting results.

But never mind because that's how I would like to do it but I'm not doing it at all :) .

For the illustration at the link further is one comparative test about high resolution

with several lenses done from the professional lens expert Erwin Putz (http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page61.html).

Pawel Achtel
12-16-2008, 02:47 PM
Thanks Pawel. Now I just have to make the big bucks like you so I can get a 14mm Master Prime of my own!! :)

Is it possible to test lenses like the Nikon 14-24G or Canon 35mmL on a projector like that?

Small correction, Tom, I am good at spending big bucks, not making them :w00t:

Arri Australia does not have Nikon or Canon mount on their projector. I tried to guess-timate mathematically as to what comparative performance the 14-24 G could have and it looks that it is still some way off the MPs in the off axis performance. From various MTF charts that I have seen, it looks like the 14-24 (whilst superb and significantly better than just about any other wide angle lens) still does not have the flatness of field that MPs have and MTF drops as you move away from the centre. The biggest drawback, however, is not the inferior sharpness, it is ability to get the best sharpness due to focusing difficulty. If you played on a lens projector, you would know what I mean. A cine lens you can focus using scales and it is spot on. And you need loooong scales to nail the 100 lp/mm marker. Focusing by eye is almost impossible at this level of detail.

In relation to light gathering capability for night time shooting, the 14-24 would need to cover 2.4 times more sensor area at f/2.8 and the EF 24mm f/1.4 II would need to cover 50% more area to collect equivalent amount of light as MP. This means they would need to cover sharp 50mm and 38mm image circles respectively to be equal in this respect. So, the Canon 24mm has some hopes for this application. It will be good to see its off-axis performance and flare when it becomes available.

Tom Lowe
12-16-2008, 04:43 PM
Pawel, do you have any thoughts on the Contax N Zeiss 17-35 (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/cz17_35/v_nikon1735/index.html)? It's corners seem to be sharper than a razor, but maybe at the expense of the center of the image. One of the members here whose opinion I respect has one converted to EOS mount and swears by it. One thing I am interested in is finding a wide lens that can shoot straight into the moon (moon in frame) without much flaring.

Here is a shot from last week with a naked EF-S 10-22 on my 350D body shooting directly into the moon. Usually this lens is awesome at avoiding too much flare. But look in the lower left corner, as well as near the moon itself...

http://i41.tinypic.com/2lng0fd.jpg

:help:

Pawel Achtel
12-16-2008, 05:11 PM
From just looking at the MTF charts, the Contax doesn't seem to be in the same league as the Nikon 14-24mm or Canon L primes.

Regarding flaring, it is tough. As you say, it is a very nice shot you have there, if not for the flare. I am getting flare in about 50% of shots and loss of contrast is often very significant.

I sold the 10-22 mainly because of that, although I did manage to do some sunrises and sunsets with it without flare, it was pain the arse. The 17-40 L was even worse and reliably produced strong, green flare. With MPs, you just don't think about flare - there isn't any.

I look forward to the new Canon 24mm f/1.4 II. For me, it is the only still lens that has the potential to please for this type of work. Manual focusing at night is one issue other than optical performance that may be problematic.

Tom Lowe
12-16-2008, 05:23 PM
On the 5D2, for this type of shooting, manual focus is no longer an issue. The LiveView x10 joystick function means that you can get razor-sharp focus, even in like 1/2 moonlight. It's flat out amazing. It's a game changer. I have not tried it in totally dark skies yet, but I would not be surprised if I was able to focus on stars... live.

I just got a new 24 f/1.4 Mark I, and it's way better than my last copy. It's really crisp and fast. I will probably get the Mark II when it comes out, if reviews are good. But I also really need a 14 to 17mm ultra wide. Right now it's between the 14-24 G Nikon (with that crazy 16-9 adapter), the 17-35 Nikon (with manual iris ring), the EF 16-35 II, and the Contax N 17-35.

Pawel Achtel
12-16-2008, 05:34 PM
Right now it's between the 14-24 G Nikon (with that crazy 16-9 adapter)...

I didn't know there was an adapter. The Nikon could be good for daylight time lapse if it doesn't flare too much. Do you have some details on the adapter?

Tom Lowe
12-16-2008, 05:41 PM
http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/

The problem is, the adapter is kind of a crazy invention, and it has suffered "Birger"-like delays, etc.

Pawel Achtel
12-17-2008, 12:15 AM
On the 5D2, for this type of shooting, manual focus is no longer an issue. The LiveView x10 joystick function means that you can get razor-sharp focus, even in like 1/2 moonlight. It's flat out amazing. It's a game changer. I have not tried it in totally dark skies yet, but I would not be surprised if I was able to focus on stars... live.


That's great, but what I referred to is more the focus scale short throw. At f/1.2 there is not much DOF and even on the massive focus scales that MPs have, the difference between sharp and out of focus is tiny at this level of detail. How do you turn the focusing ring by fraction of a millimeter, say 0.2mm? You see what I'm getting at? The limitation when using still glass is on the other side of the camera.

I think this difference alone makes PL glass very desirable for this kind of shooting. If I could only bolt that MP onto the 5D MKII....Jim, you need to hurry up with that Monstro chip, I think :biggrin:

Valeriu Campan
12-17-2008, 02:13 AM
This forum is turning into a school yard bully competition:
My MP is sharper than yours!

Everybody seems to thrive for the picture perfect: uber sharp, no noise, no artifacts, no vignetting...

... and who secretly is asking the colorist to throw in a vignette here and there, to soften THAT corner, to desaturate this, to crush that, who is complaining that digital cameras make actors look plasticky, like ninja cartoons.

Like microphones, lenses are different, have personality, quirks, swings and moods. Learn, embrace and enjoy the difference.

Vive la difference

Pawel Achtel
12-17-2008, 02:29 AM
Indeed we all have different tastes, but this is not the subject of this thread. I enjoy my pictures sharp, with good contrast, no flare, no noise and no vignetting and my "actors" look just fine through sharp and non-distorting lens :bleh:

Sanjin Jukic
12-17-2008, 03:44 AM
http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/

The problem is, the adapter is kind of a crazy invention, and it has suffered "Birger"-like delays, etc.

16 : 9 Nikon G to Canon EOS mount adapter is shipping now.

I have got one but still did not test it because do not have any good Nikon G glass at the moment.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/NikonGtoEOSadapter1.jpg
Nikon G to Canon EOS mount adapter on my desk.


Pawel, do you have any thoughts on the Contax N Zeiss 17-35 (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/cz17_35/v_nikon1735/index.html)? It's corners seem to be sharper than a razor, but maybe at the expense of the center of the image. One of the members here whose opinion I respect has one converted to EOS mount and swears by it. One thing I am interested in is finding a wide lens that can shoot straight into the moon (moon in frame) without much flaring.

Here is a shot from last week with a naked EF-S 10-22 on my 350D body shooting directly into the moon. Usually this lens is awesome at avoiding too much flare. But look in the lower left corner, as well as near the moon itself...


To avoid any bad lens flare effects try Leica R lenses, for example Leica Vario-Elmarit-R 1:2.8-4.5/28-90mm ASPH (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/305179-USA/Leica_11365_28_90mm_f_2_8_4_5_Aspherical_Vario_Elm arit_R.html)

"Flare properties
I made a special study of the flare properties of the lens, as this is the one area where lenses have to go ‘a bout de souffle’. Veiling glare is hardly visible at all focal lengths, implying there is no loss of contrast when the background is much brighter than the subject itself. When the sun is obliquely shining into the lens, and is behind the subject, one can see some secondary reflections of small extent in the picture, but the well-known diaphragm blade reflections are not visible. With the sun flooding the image, there is of course a bleaching out of the picture details, but in such a situation one would change the position slightly to evade this direct confrontation with the sun.

In general I would say that for veiling glare the lens is better than the average Leica lens, and for secondary reflections it is slightly better."

From Erwin Puts, a professional lens expert (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/lenses/page88.html).

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/lenses/page88_files/page88_3.jpeg


That's great, but what I referred to is more the focus scale short throw. At f/1.2 there is not much DOF and even on the massive focus scales that MPs have, the difference between sharp and out of focus is tiny at this level of detail. How do you turn the focusing ring by fraction of a millimeter, say 0.2mm? You see what I'm getting at? The limitation when using still glass is on the other side of the camera.

I think this difference alone makes PL glass very desirable for this kind of shooting. If I could only bolt that MP onto the 5D MKII....Jim, you need to hurry up with that Monstro chip, I think.

Pawel,

somehow you could "nail" focus even with wide open using fast still glass in photography and

for a movie with moving objects is a bit difficult but it can be done in a certain way.

Have a look at this short documentary test shot on RED1 using Canon 50mm FD l f//1.2 @ wide open f/1.2

from one of the parties in my shop:

Black Cherry Flash Footage 50 MB>>> (http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Black_Cherry/Black_cherrry.html)

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Black_Cherry/chick02.jpg
Black Cherry: shot on RED1 using Canon 50mm FD L f//1.2 @ wide open f/1.2 all time.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Black_Cherry/chick03.jpg
Black Cherry: shot on RED1 using Canon 50mm FD L f//1.2 @ wide open f/1.2 all time.

Pawel Achtel
12-17-2008, 03:58 AM
somehow you could "nail" focus even with wide open using fast still glass in photography and

for a movie with moving objects is a bit difficult but it can be done in a certain way.

Have a look at this short documentary test shot on RED1 using Canon 50mm FD l f//1.2 @ wide open f/1.2 from one of the parties in my shop:


But this footage is almost entirely out of focus. :) LOL

Sanjin Jukic
12-17-2008, 04:02 AM
But this footage is almost entirely out of focus. :) LOL

Pawel,

just show me your (documentary) footage with "in focus" moving objects @ wide open T 1.3 using MPs or any other PL glass :) :) LOL GOL.

It was a party and DP+AC all in one (that was me) was a bit drunk (we all were drunk, girls, boy, etc...) and was turning a focus ring always in wrong direction :) .

Tom Lowe
12-17-2008, 06:54 AM
That's great, but what I referred to is more the focus scale short throw. At f/1.2 there is not much DOF and even on the massive focus scales that MPs have, the difference between sharp and out of focus is tiny at this level of detail. How do you turn the focusing ring by fraction of a millimeter, say 0.2mm? You see what I'm getting at? The limitation when using still glass is on the other side of the camera.


I understand. And having that joystick/x10 zoom feature available with MPs would help, especially with these tiny focus adjustments. The new Red cameras will have enough resolution to really punch in by x10. I hope this is a feature Jim will consider adding.

sceneeast
12-17-2008, 09:49 AM
http://cgrv.blogspot.com/2008/12/canon-announces-biggest-step-in-digital.html

Is this a joke?

Bob Demchuk

Sanjin Jukic
12-17-2008, 09:57 AM
It's HDV only and a good PS (Photoshop) work.

http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/canon_luke_digital_video_slr_holagraphic_imaging_c amera.jpg
Canon LUKE CAMERA.

David Swan
12-17-2008, 12:18 PM
This is a wind-up, right?

hunterrichards
12-17-2008, 12:23 PM
Thats more like an MSPaint job...

Pawel Achtel
02-17-2009, 01:01 AM
Sorry for poor picture quality - just using my "state of the art Telstra mobile phone with breath-taking 2 mega pixel built-in camera". More to come on weekend when I may have more time to play with this baby.

Sanjin Jukic
02-17-2009, 01:07 AM
Great!

Waiting!

Ash Bolland
02-17-2009, 02:38 AM
"MPs, you just don't think about flare - there isn't any. "

We have been using MP's for the last 4 gigs - they do flare mate....

Pawel Achtel
02-17-2009, 03:08 AM
"MPs, you just don't think about flare - there isn't any. "

We have been using MP's for the last 4 gigs - they do flare mate....

What do you do to achieve this? :clown2:

richard peterson
02-17-2009, 07:05 AM
Nikon stills glass in the field

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/img/pic_009b.jpg

the 24-70 f2.8 cost about 1500.00

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/sample.htm

Mike Prevette
02-21-2009, 02:38 PM
Ahh I just came to this thread late. I have a PL to Leica M adapter that I've used over the last couple years. It works well on the M8 since the chip is smaller and a little closer to a movie frame size. I had it made by a guy in Australia. I'm getting ready to list it on ebay if anyone is interested.

http://www.freedomfromgravity.com/stuff/ebay/DSC_1292_s.jpg
http://www.freedomfromgravity.com/stuff/ebay/DSC_1293_s.jpg

Pawel Achtel
02-21-2009, 03:13 PM
Ahh I just came to this thread late. I have a PL to Leica M adapter that I've used over the last couple years. It works well on the M8 since the chip is smaller and a little closer to a movie frame size. I had it made by a guy in Australia. I'm getting ready to list it on ebay if anyone is interested.


Nice toy, Mike. I didn't know there was anyone in Australia that could make such a mount.:biggrin:

I am hoping to try mine later today....will report soon.

Pawel Achtel
04-09-2009, 04:21 AM
Now, that's more like a lens... :sifone:

Paul Leeming
04-09-2009, 04:40 AM
Pawel, that's insane!! I LOVE IT!!! :D

The ultimate director's finder, now with capture capability!

Cheers,

Paul

Jeff Kieffer
04-09-2009, 05:56 AM
Woa,

That's very nice. Could you share some details, how is the PL mount fixed to the Canon body. Or is it just an adapter?

I'm really interested in such a solution!

Thanx,

Jeff

Pawel Achtel
04-09-2009, 06:06 AM
Woa,

That's very nice. Could you share some details, how is the PL mount fixed to the Canon body. Or is it just an adapter?

I'm really interested in such a solution!

Thanx,

Jeff

Adapter is not possible. PL mount is bolted to the camera after removing the original Canon mount. Holds perfect back focus too. The only trouble is that, without removing the mirror box from the Canon, some of the lenses do not fit. I am looking into removing the mirror box as the rig is operational without the optical viewfinder using Live View mode.

Anyone interested in this solution, you can email me at pawel.achtel (at) 24x7.com.au

Tom Lowe
04-09-2009, 09:19 AM
Holy crap!! WOW!

Could this be done to 5D2? How much of the FF35 sensor would be covered by the 14mm MP?

Jeff Kilgroe
04-09-2009, 11:53 AM
That's really cool, Pawel. :)

I want to say that the 14mm MP gives just slightly less than a 32mm image circle. FF35 coverage probably looks something like this:

http://www.rojomojo.net/images/ff35coverage.gif

Sanjin Jukic
04-09-2009, 12:00 PM
Now, that's more like a lens... :sifone:

Looks great, Pawel! :thumbsup:

Can we get also some of that snap shots at the original size!!!! :sifone:

Pawel Achtel
04-09-2009, 03:36 PM
Holy crap!! WOW!

Could this be done to 5D2? How much of the FF35 sensor would be covered by the 14mm MP?

Yeah, you should be able to do this to 5D2 too. But, on most cine lenses you would only use portion of the FF35 sensor. The Canon 50D sensor seems to be perfectly matched to cine glass and the resolution.

Pictured is the MP 75. The MP 14 seems to protrude more into the mirror box, which I am trying to figure out how to remove :head_explode:

Sanjin Jukic
04-10-2009, 12:34 AM
Shot with Arri/Zeiss Master Prime 75mm, 14mm,... Canon 50D sample pictures (snap shots) as soon as you can Pawel, please!!! :yikes: :beer: :sifone:

Tom Lowe
04-10-2009, 12:40 AM
Yeah, you should be able to do this to 5D2 too. But, on most cine lenses you would only use portion of the FF35 sensor. The Canon 50D sensor seems to be perfectly matched to cine glass and the resolution.

I don't think the 50D's ISO performance is anywhere near the 5D2s. But rumor has it that the 60D should have excellent ISO performance, with a new DIGIC V processor.

Do you have any thoughts on the 50D's high ISO performance? I'd love to see a couple sample astro shots once you figure out how to get that 14mm on that baby. :gun:

Pawel Achtel
04-15-2009, 03:40 AM
Another picture :cool:

Sanjin Jukic
04-15-2009, 03:46 AM
Pawel,

very nice,

but what about the sample test pictures, snap shots, etc...

Pawel Achtel
04-15-2009, 03:49 AM
You will need to wait a bit longer. I've been way too busy shooting on Red One :cool:

Sanjin Jukic
04-15-2009, 05:05 AM
:crying:

Thanks!

Waiting...:yikes:

Tom Lowe
04-15-2009, 07:04 AM
Another picture :cool:

That's like something from out of a dream....

http://i41.tinypic.com/2itilhi.gif http://i41.tinypic.com/2itilhi.gif http://i41.tinypic.com/2itilhi.gif

Pawel Achtel
04-16-2009, 02:39 AM
That's like something from out of a dream....

http://i41.tinypic.com/2itilhi.gif http://i41.tinypic.com/2itilhi.gif http://i41.tinypic.com/2itilhi.gif

hehehe, thanks, Tom. Looks like Arri may do an article about it.:)

Douglas Underdahl
04-16-2009, 07:24 AM
Uh, Pawel - who did that conversion for ya? Wink, wink?

Mike Prevette
04-16-2009, 02:07 PM
Is it easyish to swap the mount between cameras should you decide to upgrade? if so is EF shooting retained with the mount off?

I was looking last night, and if you mounted the PL mount thought the 4 preexisting lens mount holes, you should have enough room for a PL mount to slap on top of it and still be safe. MOAR TOYS!

Harry Lipnick
04-16-2009, 02:25 PM
Too cool. Pawel, do these cover the whole sensor? Does your Canon have a FF sensor, or something more like the Nikon D80, 1.6 crop. (Sorry, I'm a Canon neophyte.) Well done to everyone who pulled this project off. Very cool.
Peace,

-Harry

Sanjin Jukic
04-16-2009, 02:33 PM
Great kit pictures for Arri advertising but no any single sample shot!???

Supposed to be that he still has a problem about that the MP's lens back touches a mirror of the cam.

Pawel Achtel
04-16-2009, 04:20 PM
Uh, Pawel - who did that conversion for ya? Wink, wink?

Howdy, I got in touch with a smart dude frquenting this forum and he did the conversion for me. :smash: :yikes: :thumbsup:

Sanjin, there is no problem with MP75. As explained, I am flat out and simply have no time to make and post a picture to do it justice. I've been shooting with Red One a lot lately. I can post some frames from Red One, MPs and Red 300mm that would do the justice to both the camera and the glass.

Michael Hastings
04-19-2009, 07:47 AM
When you get some time it would be nice to see a comparison between the MP and the Canon 85L F1.2 MKII.

Sanjin Jukic
04-19-2009, 08:06 AM
Sanjin, there is no problem with MP75. As explained, I am flat out and simply have no time to make and post a picture to do it justice. I've been shooting with Red One a lot lately. I can post some frames from Red One, MPs and Red 300mm that would do the justice to both the camera and the glass.

Hi Pawel,

OK as you said then I'm waiting :yikes:

DAVID McNAMARA
04-19-2009, 08:14 AM
I have the EF 24 f/1.4L.

How much is that LEICA 21 f/1.4? And can it be fitted to a Canon EOS body? :)

Can the Leica lens be converted for cinema (PL mount focus gears and scales?)

Sanjin Jukic
04-19-2009, 08:20 AM
I have the EF 24 f/1.4L.

How much is that LEICA 21 f/1.4? And can it be fitted to a Canon EOS body? :)

No way to put Leica - M 21mm f/1.4 on EOS camera just because

the register number (Register = distance flange to film plane/sensor (http://www.markerink.org/WJM/HTML/mounts.htm)) for Leica - M is 27.80 mm (http://www.markerink.org/WJM/HTML/mounts.htm)

and for Canon EOS is 44.00 mm (http://www.markerink.org/WJM/HTML/mounts.htm)

But you can put Leica-M 21mm f/1.4 on RED1 with IMS...

Dave Blackham
04-19-2009, 10:29 AM
Can the Leica lens be converted for cinema (PL mount focus gears and scales?)

Leica R may be able to be converted, ask Les Bosher. He has just put a PL mount on one of my Telephoto lenses its superb.

PatrickKrebs
04-21-2009, 10:05 AM
You've seen the Izzy footage right?
I'm pretty sure any frame of your film will stand on its own as a "Still"

Pawel Achtel
04-21-2009, 03:47 PM
You've seen the Izzy footage right?
I'm pretty sure any frame of your film will stand on its own as a "Still"

Some of them do, some of them don't.

When you shoot motion picture you set relatively slow shutter of 1/48 to 1/60 [s]. To do so, you put a lot of NDs in front of the lens on a bright sunny day. Each frame containing motion will have motion blur, which you do not want to have on a still. Stills you shoot with fast shutter speeds in general.

Also, framing for motion picture is often different, the composition is often larger (wide angle) as the subjects move from edge to edge. Also, usage of the frame is different. Still portrait shots are common, but using a frame of a motion picture to do this is not practical or possible.

Last, but not least, a still camera setup would be a lot smaller and lighter allowing you to make mostly hand held shots.

Having said that, I managed to get some reasonable frame grabs from Red One footage. :)

Tom Lowe
05-03-2009, 08:42 AM
Pawel, rumors about the Canon 60D are increasing in frequency. I'm assuming it will be out relatively soon, with a new Digic V processor to cut the noise. Another candidate for chopping!!

I think 60D with mirror gutted then fitted with 14mm MP = Godliness.

Pawel Achtel
05-03-2009, 04:16 PM
Pawel, rumors about the Canon 60D are increasing in frequency. I'm assuming it will be out relatively soon, with a new Digic V processor to cut the noise. Another candidate for chopping!!

I think 60D with mirror gutted then fitted with 14mm MP = Godliness.

That would be awesome, Tom. However, I still haven't worked out how to gut the mirror box. The mirror itself can be easily removed, but the box appears to be part of the body that needs to be machined out :smash: I may give it another go in a couple of weeks. I am bit flat out at the moment.

Pawel Achtel
05-17-2009, 02:27 AM
OK, finally here is a still picture taken with EOS 50D and a PL MasterPrime lens.

Sanjin Jukic
05-17-2009, 02:54 AM
Thanks Pawel,

looks nice.

Tom Lowe
05-17-2009, 06:51 AM
Would it be possible to convert a Canon 5D Mark II to accept the MP 14mm? Tearing out the mirror would be fine as long as it's possible. I don't even use these cameras for shooting regular stills - only timelapse, and only in LiveView. How much of the sensor would the 14mm cover? I guess if you're starting with 21MP, losing a percentage of that is not really a big deal!

Pawel Achtel
05-18-2009, 03:05 AM
Would it be possible to convert a Canon 5D Mark II to accept the MP 14mm? Tearing out the mirror would be fine as long as it's possible. I don't even use these cameras for shooting regular stills - only timelapse, and only in LiveView. How much of the sensor would the 14mm cover? I guess if you're starting with 21MP, losing a percentage of that is not really a big deal!

I think it is possible, it is just a major job. I am tempted to rip more guts out from the 50D, but maybe not just yet. It is not a reversible modification. :smash: The body has to be machined out :out: If the 50D works, 5D II should be fine too.

Tom Lowe
05-18-2009, 07:09 AM
Heh. I need to find a paying gig with a budget I can use to chop a 5D2. I couldn't bear to pay for one with my own money and butcher it, especially since I don't own a MP! The one thing I really want to know is how much of the FF35 sensor would be covered by the 14mm MP?

If it only covers a roughly APS-C sized sensor area, there is barely any gain over the Canon 24mm f/1.4 (aside from increased quality perhaps). Then again, I am quite happy with the performance of the EF 24L. At APS-C, the 14mm would be roughly 22mm, right? Pawel, if it is possible, could you tell me what the equivalent focal length would be of a 14mm MP on the 5D2? 20mm? 19mm?

Also, can anyone tell me what it costs to rent a 14mm MP in the LA area?

Pawel Achtel
05-18-2009, 04:46 PM
Tom, the image circle of the MP 14mm is 31.1mm. See my report here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=346908&postcount=52

The focal length is, well the same, regardless of crop. The angle of view on full image circle will be approximately 100 degrees diagonal. It is a very wide lens. See the images taken with Red One and MP 14 attached.

Tom Lowe
05-18-2009, 08:30 PM
So the FOV on a FF35mm sensor would be something like 17mm-18mm? I don't care if I lose a little bit of real estate on the sensor. That's incredibly wide for a 1.3 lens. You mentioned f/1.2 on that linked thread. Is that the 14mm's f/stop equivalent?

BTW, Pawel, I always appreciate you answering my noobish questions here.

Pawel Achtel
05-18-2009, 08:56 PM
So the FOV on a FF35mm sensor would be something like 17mm-18mm? I don't care if I lose a little bit of real estate on the sensor. That's incredibly wide for a 1.3 lens. You mentioned f/1.2 on that linked thread. Is that the 14mm's f/stop equivalent?

BTW, Pawel, I always appreciate you answering my noobish questions here.

Yes, Tom it is very wide and very fast (T1.3, f/1.2) lens, but what impresses me most is that it also appears to be the sharpest of all MPs and substantially sharper and more contrasty than any still glass I have ever seen. It is sharper than MP 35mm and sharper than MP 75mm. It's performance fully open is simply hard to believe.

BTW, I enjoy your time lapses and they are the best I have seen. Nothing noobish about them.

Tom Lowe
05-18-2009, 09:07 PM
17mm f/1.2 (100-degree FOV) is a dream spec for me. I might have a big job coming up in late summer that I would love to pitch this setup for--if I can talk the producers into it. 14mm MP on the 5D2. Booyakasha!

Jarred Land
05-18-2009, 09:19 PM
wow great shots Pawel...

Pawel Achtel
05-18-2009, 09:29 PM
wow great shots Pawel...

Thanks Jarred, but: No, great lens and great camera. I just pressed the red button :)

Seriously though, all of those shots were taken with motion control and it makes a lot of difference how the lens renders the space in motion.

Tom, there is 50/50 chance that, after trying to adapt to MP 14mm the camera will be an expensive door stop. Would you be prepared to take that risk even with the 50D?

Tom Lowe
05-18-2009, 10:11 PM
Tom, there is 50/50 chance that, after trying to adapt to MP 14mm the camera will be an expensive door stop. Would you be prepared to take that risk even with the 50D?

The 50D would not interest me due to the crop factor and lack of ISO 6400 shooting. By the time you add on the crop factor, you are getting closer to the 24mm mark. I am looking for a significant FOV gain over the EF 24L, and the tiny f/stop bump doesn't hurt either, not to mention the stunning quality. Would I be prepared to take the risk? Yes, if someone else is paying for it. :sifone:

I need to get a music video or TVC gig that will have a nice little equipment budget to try this.

Pawel Achtel
06-07-2009, 06:10 AM
It is amazing how many parts can be taken out of Canon 50D and it still works! I reckon the reason they are so expoensive is because they put way too many parts in them to start with. Anyway, this deficiency was fixed today. Irreversibly :smash:

Viewfinder optics - gone, mirror - gone, lens control board and contacts - gone, mirror flip mechanism - gone, mirror box - mostly gone :) There is also about a dozen other parts I have NFI what they are for, but obviously not terribly important - gone.

OK, so it is not DSLR camera anymore. Can't see a damn thing through the optical viewfinder. I was never a big fan of optical viewfinders anyway. But, the MP 14mm fits like a glove, back focus is perfect and the camera takes beautiful pictures. :happyhappy:

And remember, never ever try this at home. There is a very fine line between a revolutionary DSMC and an expensive door stop. :cryin:

Tom Lowe
06-07-2009, 08:19 AM
Bravo, Pawel!

:smash::happyhappy::cheers2::smash:

Sanjin Jukic
06-07-2009, 09:07 AM
Very good Pawel!

Also did you see these video shots on Panasonic GH1 & Hot Rod PL Deluxe - Body Mount Style! by Illya Friedman:

http://ts.vimeo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/138/753/13875349_100.jpg

"So today I realized that the Panasonic Lumix GH1 together with the Hot Rod PL (Deluxe) make probably the lightest,
easiest and most flexible body-mount style rig on the planet.

Super easy to use- no effort was involved in this quick video. If I had actually planned it out and adjusted appropriately,
I could have done something cool, instead I just look like a goof."

Body Mount Style! by Illya Friedman>>> (http://www.vimeo.com/4895326)

or

http://www.hotrodcameras.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/welcome-home1.jpg
HOTRODCAMERAS>>> (http://www.hotrodcameras.com/)

or

http://ts.vimeo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/120/982/12098279_100.jpg

Behind the Scenes on Philips new GH1 Short with PL mount>>> (http://vimeo.com/groups/JAG35/videos/4630484)

or

JAG35sp @ Joshua Tree Nat. Park Graded>>>> (http://vimeo.com/groups/JAG35/videos/4626167)

or

http://prolost.com/storage/post-images/SmallPL.jpg

Would you like a little camera with your mount?>>> (http://prolost.com/blog/2009/5/9/would-you-like-a-little-camera-with-your-mount.html)

Pawel Achtel
06-07-2009, 03:35 PM
Thanks guys. Your support and encouragement greatly appreciated. :thumbsup:

It was a lot harder than I thought and required some heavy tools and force to make it happen. The camera certainly looks like a door stop. But I am happy with the result.

I'm bit snowed under at the moment, so pictures coming next weekend.

Tom Lowe
06-08-2009, 02:00 PM
Pawel, here's the rumors for the new 60D:

15.1 megapixels
ISO 100-25600
7 fps
Digic V
Movie-mode: 1080p with 30 and 24fps
build in GPS for geo-tagging
only a SD-card slot (no CF)
148×109x75mm and 738g

:smash::smash::smash::smash:

Pawel Achtel
06-16-2009, 02:29 AM
I told ya guys, I was desperate to get the damn thing fit inside the hole. Do you think it is still under Canon's extended warranty? :rofl:

Andrew Walker
06-16-2009, 02:40 AM
I told ya guys, I was desperate to get the damn thing fit inside the hole. Do you think it is still under Canon's extended warranty? :rofl:

Heavy tools, you weren't kidding. The area around the sensor looks like it was chewed out with a chisel. I have yet to mess with the 5D2 so how is the focusing with the LCD now that you don't have an optical viewfinder.

Pawel Achtel
06-16-2009, 02:46 AM
Heavy tools, you weren't kidding. The area around the sensor looks like it was chewed out with a chisel. I have yet to mess with the 5D2 so how is the focusing with the LCD now that you don't have an optical viewfinder.

It is perfect. Vast improvement over the stock model. :)

Focusing with the screen is much easier than with the optical VF because you can magnify the image. Just like Red One :)

Seriously, it was a big job. I needed to remove the mirror and all the other bits around the mirror box, then seal the sensor from contamination and do some serious carving. Looks ugly. Works perfectly. :)

Andrew Walker
06-16-2009, 03:38 AM
It is perfect. Vast improvement over the stock model. :)

Focusing with the screen is much easier than with the optical VF because you can magnify the image. Just like Red One :)

Seriously, it was a big job. I needed to remove the mirror and all the other bits around the mirror box, then seal the sensor from contamination and do some serious carving. Looks ugly. Works perfectly. :)

As long as it works who cares how it looks inside. I wouldn't go showing that job around to clients because it might make them nervous but maybe yours expect this kind of work from you. Very interesting project. I really need to try out the 5D2 because I think for my timelapse work it would look cool with it. But for right now my 40D does a kickass job.

Tom Lowe
06-16-2009, 07:11 AM
Some of the wider panavision lenses (and I'm sure MPs) will not fit on the 5D2 because of the plastic "well" behind the EOS lens ring. There is no real need for that plastic well to be there, that I can tell, but Canon just never thought that anyone would be trying to put MPs on their still camera, so they did not maximize the open area inside the camera. Chopping is all that can be done!

I think DSMC cameras like FF35 Scarlet and Epic should have no problems like this, right?

Sanjin Jukic
07-09-2009, 12:15 PM
"The Canon 5d looked dreadful, just truly awful." wrote Geoff Boyle FBKS

in CML list forum (http://www.cinematography.net/subs.html) at "BSC film & digital image evaluation" multi camera test event that took time last month in England.

Roberto B
07-09-2009, 12:21 PM
geoff boyle FBKS yeah.. me will not sleep tonight :zombie_smiley: btw.. geoff who? :emote_hippie: how many frames shot by "mr who" have me truly seen since the old S8 times just before the K-3 days?

here's a clip shot on that "advanced touristic camera".. ehehehehe sorry sj couldn't resist..
a fine example of something dreadful, just truly awful..

http://www.vimeo.com/5539236