PDA

View Full Version : FF35 Cine Glass: Get Ready



Tom Lowe
12-27-2008, 10:44 AM
I was thinking about this the other day. For all the hooplah and speculation regarding DSMC and its various cameras and components, the one piece of the puzzle that remains most interesting to me is: FF35mm cine glass.

Why is this so important? Because sensor techonolgy begins to hit a wall in terms of how many photosites can be crammed into a given piece of real estate on a CMOS chip. The Canon 50D has been scorned for trying to pack too many pixels into a relatively small sensor.

The only direction to go, just as with high-end DSLRs, is larger "full frame" sensors. Jim had the vision to see this trend coming, pivot his entire company on a dime, and devote large resources and energy to moving FF35 technology into the digital cinema realm.

Others are guaranteed to follow.

The smart guys out there, right now, are going to start looking into producing, rehousing, retrofitting, and by all methods available creating high-end FF35 cine glass with 25MP+ resolving power. That's where the action is going to be, my friends. :gun:

Rick Darge
12-27-2008, 10:57 AM
Yes, but who will step up to the plate first? :w00t:

Kyle Presley
12-27-2008, 11:02 AM
I was thinking about this the other day. For all the hooplah and speculation regarding DSMC and its various cameras and components, the one piece of the puzzle that remains most interesting to me is: FF35mm cine glass.

Why is this so important? Because sensor techonolgy begins to hit a wall in terms of how many photosites can be crammed into a given piece of real estate on a CMOS chip. The Canon 50D has been scorned for trying to pack too many pixels into a relatively small sensor.

The only direction to go, just as with high-end DSLRs, is larger "full frame" sensors. Jim had the vision to see this trend coming, pivot his entire company on a dime, and devote large resources and energy to moving FF35 technology into the digital cinema realm.

Others are guaranteed to follow.

The smart guys out there, right now, are going to start looking into producing, rehousing, retrofitting, and by all methods available creating high-end FF35 cine glass with 25MP+ resolving power. That's where the action is going to be, my friends. :gun:

Great post, Tom. I'm glad RED chose this route rather than 4/3

Dave Blackham
12-27-2008, 11:29 AM
Leica R stills glass is already used in rehoused Lenses by Van Diemen, its reportedly very good. Some say on other threads on this board these lenses are only bettered by master primes.

Id be interested to know opinions, if Leica lens Mechanics, which are very good for stills work, are up to the task as they are with external ear rings fitted.

Dave

Stephen Williams
12-27-2008, 01:35 PM
Leica R stills glass is already used in rehoused Lenses by Van Diemen, its reportedly very good. Some say on other threads on this board these lenses are only bettered by master primes.

Id be interested to know opinions, if Leica lens Mechanics, which are very good for stills work, are up to the task as they are with external ear rings fitted.

Dave

Hi,

They cost as much as cine lenses but generally are not as fast, it's possible just expensive.

Stephen

Tom Lowe
12-27-2008, 01:44 PM
Stephen, are you ready to jump on the FF35 train?

http://www.refundexpress.net/images14/colorful.gif

Stephen Williams
12-27-2008, 02:24 PM
Stephen, are you ready to jump on the FF35 train?

http://www.refundexpress.net/images14/colorful.gif

Hi Tom,

No, but I have shot vista vision efx plates, I am happy with 35mm image size.

Stephen

Pawel Achtel
12-27-2008, 03:08 PM
Tom, I think I will respectfully disagree :)

Short of landscapes and a few specialised applications, the S35 format seems to fit the need perfectly. The DOF is "right", there is no "problem" with resolution, the accessories and workflow are well established.

FF35 creates all sorts of challenges and problems:

1. Decreased DOF and difficulty in pulling focus
2. Large, even more expensive, lenses to match those S4s, UPs and MPs and, they don't exist.
3. Unmanageable data rates, time consuming post work-flows, etc...

The question is why fix a problem when it is not there? I think further advances will be to actually make that 4k-6k usable, easier to focus, easier to manage and improve overall aspects of workflows and ergonomics rather than jumping on pixel-counter train.

I think we won't see FF35 cine lenses exceeding (and this would need to be by sufficient margin) good S35mm glass. I can't see how this could be done cheaper than producing Ultra Primes or Master Primes. I don't think the market is there for such lenses.

I can see formats other than S35 as specialised, but certainly not mainstream. Sure, I will use FF35 for a couple of shots in my film, but the bread and butter is going to be S35 regardless of how many pixels can be creamed onto larger sensors.

It is like cars: they are not becoming any faster any more, but safer, more economical, more ergonomic, more reliable, more functional, cheaper.

I think the same factors will drive further progress in digital cinematography: reliability, ergonomics, functionality and price. Maybe frame rates will change, DR will improve, but S35 and 4k post workflow are going to stay for many more decades.

Sanjin Jukic
12-27-2008, 03:20 PM
I'm fine :pirate: because almost 90% of my glass (still) is FF35 ready.

But I'm a pirate :pirate: here with my IMS for RED1.

David Mullen ASC
12-27-2008, 03:24 PM
I think the market will respond -- if more and more people are shooting movies in FF35, someone will start making cine lenses for that market. In the meanwhile, expect a lot of people adapting still lenses for that work just as is done for large-format movie work.

If FF35 moviemaking doesn't catch on, then there will be little incentive for lens makers to cater to that specific market.

Joel Kaye
12-27-2008, 03:55 PM
If FF35 moviemaking doesn't catch on, then there will be little incentive for lens makers to cater to that specific market.

Do you think it'll catch on? Do you see a need currently not being fulfilled?

I'm just not sure what the benefit is really. Seems S35 with more dynamic range would be more appreciated than larger formats. I have enough trouble managing RED data as it is right now. Do I really need to double or quadruple my render times from here only to see the output shrunk for delivery anyhow?

Am I missing something obvious?

Thomas Dobbie
12-27-2008, 04:08 PM
Leica R stills glass is already used in rehoused Lenses by Van Diemen, its reportedly very good. Some say on other threads on this board these lenses are only bettered by master primes.

Id be interested to know opinions, if Leica lens Mechanics, which are very good for stills work, are up to the task as they are with external ear rings fitted.

Dave

Hi Dave,
the Van Deimen leica conversions only use the glass elements.To the best of my knowledge none of the leica mechanics are used. Van Deiemn used a patented focusing mechanism using variable pitch wireform,one of the reasons they are so unique. They are unfortunately no longer made.
The quality of the sets varied a little,all extremely high quality,but the VFG sets are generally regarded as being the finest,with matched glass sourced directly from Leitz.
I believe only six of these sets were made,I have one,I'm not sure where the others are.
Mr Tony Covell who posts on these boards was the man responsible for originally commissioning these VFG lenses.
These lenses would be extremely expensive if they were made again today,they are certainly not what you expect from converted stills glass.
I'm quite happy with S35 for my current needs.
Tom.

Emmanuel Cambier
12-27-2008, 04:13 PM
The Cine glass for the FF35 already exist, it's called Anamorphic Lenses.

Emmanuel

Tom Lowe
12-27-2008, 05:02 PM
Do you think it'll catch on? Do you see a need currently not being fulfilled?

I'm just not sure what the benefit is really. Seems S35 with more dynamic range would be more appreciated than larger formats. I have enough trouble managing RED data as it is right now. Do I really need to double or quadruple my render times from here only to see the output shrunk for delivery anyhow?

Am I missing something obvious?

To achieve a beautiful and pristine holy grail "True 4K," an FF35 6K sensor is the ticket, IMO. That's the way it works with stills, so why not for video?

Perhaps down the road an S35 Monstro at 6K could be built, but for now Jim has said it is not possible. FF35 Monstro 6K is possible in the near future, and that camera will soon represent the gold standard in digital cinema, IMHO.

People who are concerned about shallow DOF can just stop down the lens and bump up the ISO. Again, DSLR trends show us that ISO/ASA ratings are going into the stratosphere.

As far as data, perhaps Red will consider a 1/2 resolution sRAW-style option that scales RAW in camera down from the full-frame sensor, or some other similar option. They are offering 1080p downsampled off the full sensor already in the specs. But yeah, I agree with you that data is an issue. Keep in mind that the S35 Epic is already 4- or 5K (depending on the S35 lens?), so going up to 6K isn't all that much of a leap to worry that the data could wipe you out. The new high-data-rate 5K is already enough to wipe you out. :)

The good news is that computing power and storage continue to double every 11 months or so. :gun: :gun:

Jonas Rejman
12-27-2008, 05:07 PM
The Cine glass for the FF35 already exist, it's called Anamorphic Lenses.

Emmanuel

To my knowledge, anamorphic 2:1 lenses cover 4:3 standard 35mm frame. They are not even suitable for use in s35mm, because that would mean a shift of the optical axis.

The new 1.3x anamorphic lenses, made by Vantage Films cover s35mm size frame.

What anamorphic lenses are you referring to, that would cover a FF35mm frame?

David Mullen ASC
12-27-2008, 09:24 PM
Sure you can use anamorphic lenses in S35, it's just that anamorphic lenses are normally used on 35mm cameras where the mount is centered for the sound aperture, not the silent (Full / Super-35) aperture. But if you stuck an anamorphic lens on a Super-35 camera it would work just fine, it's just that now the image is centered for Super-35, so making a contact print and sticking an optical soundtrack on the left would not work. Super-35 photography always ends up being repositioned / resized to fit within the smaller sound aperture area of a 4-perf 35mm print if you are planning on making release prints with sound (composite prints.)

The other reason to not use an anamorphic lens on 4-perf Super-35 is that you don't need to -- a 2X anamorphic lens on a 1.33 : 1 negative format gives you a 2.66 : 1 image, wider than you need. You only need a 1.20 : 1 negative area when using 2X anamorphics. And on a 16x9 (1.78 : 1) format, a 2X squeeze gets you a 3.56 : 1 image when unsqueezed.

The reason for the Vantage 1.33X anamorphics is not to cover S35, but that if you are going to shoot with a 3-perf 35mm camera or a 16x9 35mm sensor, you don't need a 2X squeeze to fit 2.40 onto 1.20, you need a 1.33 squeeze to fit 2.40 onto 1.78 (actually you need a 1.345X squeeze, but 1.33 is close enough...)

Truth is that 3-perf Super-35 and the 16x9 RED sensor is smaller than 4-perf Super-35 and shorter than the 4-perf 35mm anamorphic aperture. And standard 2X anamorphic lenses would cover those areas just fine, it's just that a 2X squeeze is too much for a 16x9 shaped sensor. But there is no problem with lens coverage.

Anamorphic cine lenses are designed to cover the 4-perf 35mm anamorphic aperture (21mm x 17.5mm). Though most would also cover the 4-perf Super-35 aperture (24mm x 18mm), and definitely would cover the RED ONE sensor (about 22mm x 12.5mm used in 4K mode) they do not necessarily cover the much bigger FF35 aperture (36mm x 24mm) anymore than a spherical cine lens would.

The off-centered optical axis for lens mounts in 35mm sound aperture photography only exists so you can make contact prints off of the negative with room left on the side for an optical soundtrack. It has no bearing on digital photography, or film photography that does not need to be contacted printed to make prints with soundtracks. Digital photography and Super-35 photography (going through a D.I. process) end up being recorded out to a 35mm sound aperture format so sound prints can then be struck off of the negative created.

David Mullen ASC
12-27-2008, 09:43 PM
Do you think it'll catch on? Do you see a need currently not being fulfilled?

I'm just not sure what the benefit is really. Seems S35 with more dynamic range would be more appreciated than larger formats. I have enough trouble managing RED data as it is right now. Do I really need to double or quadruple my render times from here only to see the output shrunk for delivery anyhow?

Am I missing something obvious?

I don't think most filmmakers are dying to use larger sensors with the attendant depth of field challenges, it's just that if making the sensor larger than S35 gets you more resolution, more dynamic range, less noise, and more sensitivity, I think a lot of filmmakers would live with the problems of a larger sensor just to get that extra quality. Otherwise, I think most would rather the sensor stayed S35 in size and somehow we managed to get that extra quality. It just may not be possible to improve things dramatically without resorting to physically larger sensors.

SF Geek
12-27-2008, 11:21 PM
David, would you shoot 2x Anamorphic on a red S35 chip (Cropped for a 2.40 finish)?

Emmanuel Cambier
12-28-2008, 09:19 AM
Here is a little diagram to lay down some of the maths that has been discussed around here.
Please double check it and feel free to comment.

Thanks to Pawel Achtel for the Master Primes image circle dimension.

Emmanuel

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/152_1230484915.gif

Tom Lowe
12-28-2008, 09:33 AM
Hi Tom,

No, but I have shot vista vision efx plates, I am happy with 35mm image size.

Stephen

Just in case, we will leave a seat open for you on the Digital FF35 Express. :wink:

http://www.refundexpress.net/images14/colorful.gif http://www.refundexpress.net/images14/colorful.gif http://www.refundexpress.net/images14/colorful.gif

Pawel Achtel
12-28-2008, 01:53 PM
Thanks to Pawel Awel for the Master Primes image circle dimension.


Awesome! Thanks for this, Emmanuel. I like this teamwork.

I also wanted to add that the 31mm was a usable and sharp image circle. The acctual image circle was slightly larger, with some brightness and sharpness fall-off.

Tom Lowe
12-28-2008, 02:23 PM
Pawel, was that image circle for all MPs?

How does that image circle compare to other PL-mount cinema 35mm and S35mm glass? I wonder if Jim had Master Primes in mind when he made Epic's S35 30mm?

Since the S35 cut-off is 30mm, then probably even with MPs productions will shoot S35, which is apparently 5K on the S35 Epic. (Do we know what the resolution would be for S35 windowed on the FF35 Monstro?) That might be enough for "True 4K," though I'm a big believer in massive oversampling, especially in low light.

David Mullen ASC
12-28-2008, 02:45 PM
I see there is a 5K mode listed for the 6K FF35 Monstro EPIC -- since it is probably a windowed mode, there's a chance that the Master Primes would just barely cover that area, since 6K = 36mm wide, then 5K = 30mm wide. Of course, the lenses would all behave a bit more wide-angle if you're trying to get a 30mm wide image out of a lens meant for a 24mm wide format.

Pawel Achtel
12-28-2008, 02:55 PM
Pawel, was that image circle for all MPs?

No, 31mm was the smallest and measured for the 35mm and the 14mm. The 75mm had larger image circle (38mm) and the Red 300mm covered the entire FF35.

That might be enough for "True 4K," though I'm a big believer in massive oversampling, especially in low light.
It would cover around 5k in 2.40:1 on all MPs. What is appealing is that the MTF of MPs at the resolution limit of the sensor is still quite high, it is across the entire field of view and it is available at f/1.2. And this is what swings my decision to go with MP/S35 format rather than Still glass/FF35. I would still use Still glass/FF35 combination, but only for specialty shots, such as night time lapse. Just about anything else calls for MP/S35. Even day-light time lapse will benefit from MPs due to their incredible resistance to flaring and accurate focusing scales.

Fredrik Callinggard
12-28-2008, 03:21 PM
A friend of mine guessed that you most probably would "kind of" cover it around the 50mm Master Prime but we're going to do tests.

Emmanuel Cambier
12-28-2008, 04:00 PM
Since the S35 cut-off is 30mm, then probably even with MPs productions will shoot S35, which is apparently 5K on the S35 Epic. (Do we know what the resolution would be for S35 windowed on the FF35 Monstro?) That might be enough for "True 4K," though I'm a big believer in massive oversampling, especially in low light.

A 2.40:1 image from the windowed FF35 using the MPs will roughly be 4760px X 1983px

Emmanuel

Tom Lowe
12-28-2008, 04:03 PM
Sounds like that 75mm MP might be a popular item!! :)

Pawel, I'm surprised that you are not planning to get FF35 with its increased DR? At least then, you would have the option of throwing on some FF35 glass for certain specific projects.

Emmanuel Cambier
12-28-2008, 04:11 PM
I see there is a 5K mode listed for the 6K FF35 Monstro EPIC -- since it is probably a windowed mode, there's a chance that the Master Primes would just barely cover that area, since 6K = 36mm wide, then 5K = 30mm wide. Of course, the lenses would all behave a bit more wide-angle if you're trying to get a 30mm wide image out of a lens meant for a 24mm wide format.

When I was puting up the diagram, I got a shock when I realized the MPs whouldn't cover the 30mm X 15mm S35 sensor. As you can see the corners will vignette, this is due to the 2:1 ratio of this sensor.
The widest you will get is around 4760px same as with the FF35 windowed.
So their dosen't seem to have any advantage going with a S35 sized sensor.

Emmanuel

Pawel Achtel
12-28-2008, 04:14 PM
Sounds like that 75mm MP might be a popular item!! :)


My understanding is that all longer focal length MPs cover 38mm image circle, not just the 75mm.



Pawel, I'm surprised that you are not planning to get FF35 with its increased DR? At least then, you would have the option of throwing on some FF35 glass for certain specific projects.

Oh, I will get a FF35 for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It is just that I will be mostly shooting S35 with PL lenses.

Pawel Achtel
12-28-2008, 04:40 PM
According to my calculations (based on Brook's sensor chart: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23770), the Mysterium-X would allow for 4860x2048 (2.37:1) assuming 30mmx15mm (5120x2700), pixel size 0.0059mm. I think 4860x2048 would be very compelling acqusition format for 4k finish. It would also allow for some look around area.

The FF35 Monstro would allow for just a whisker less resolution with its slightly larger 0.006mm photosite size.

Joel Kaye
12-28-2008, 05:11 PM
Otherwise, I think most would rather the sensor stayed S35 in size and somehow we managed to get that extra quality. It just may not be possible to improve things dramatically without resorting to physically larger sensors.

OK, I get that idea. IF a larger sensor is required in order to get more dynamic range then people would want it. I'm kinda hoping they can pack the dynamic range into s35mm because I'm already happy with the resolution for the kinds of things I shoot. Maybe that's not possible. I haven't been keeping up with all the specs being tossed around. I kinda just want to see the footage vs. RED when possible.

Tom Lowe
12-28-2008, 06:01 PM
FF35's 30mm S35 mode might be cutting it very close for a "True 4K" finish. The spatial efficiency needed for that (85%) is actually beyond what most of us consider possible from Bayer-filtered cameras. I think it's even beyond what Jim and Graeme have stated is possible (as of right now). Many people say that 70% spatial efficiency is much more realistic, especially for low-light shooting.

The IQ gained by shooting full 6K might be significant vs 4.7K origination. We'll have to wait and see how all this plays out.

Antoine Baumann
12-29-2008, 05:20 AM
When I was puting up the diagram, I got a shock when I realized the MPs whouldn't cover the 30mm X 15mm S35 sensor. As you can see the corners will vignette, this is due to the 2:1 ratio of this sensor.
The widest you will get is around 4760px same as with the FF35 windowed.
So their dosen't seem to have any advantage going with a S35 sized sensor.

Emmanuel


Don't forget there will probably be some pixels left for "view around", so I guess, as on the redone, you will not use the full 30x15 to record but somewhere around 28x14.

I am Still for a 4 perf 35mm sized monstro sensor for epic.

ciaow,
antoine.

Michael Lindsay
12-29-2008, 12:58 PM
...Pawel, I'm surprised that you are not planning to get FF35 with its increased DR? ...

I've only shot under water a couple of times (once with the Red) and the last thing I needed was less contrast!

I can understand why underwater guys need the sharpest, most contrasty and fastest lenses..

Red's 5000k native must work well with all that red light loss?

Pawel?

regards

Michael L

Pawel Achtel
12-29-2008, 02:23 PM
I've only shot under water a couple of times (once with the Red) and the last thing I needed was less contrast!

I can understand why underwater guys need the sharpest, most contrasty and fastest lenses..

Red's 5000k native must work well with all that red light loss?

Pawel?

regards

Michael L

Yes, the native 5000K colour temperature is very nice.

Daniel Browning
12-30-2008, 12:25 AM
FF35 creates all sorts of challenges and problems...Decreased DOF and difficulty in pulling focus



I don't think most filmmakers are dying to use larger sensors with the attendant depth of field challenges...

I would like to point out that the DOF challenges will not exist in daylight, when one can stop down and compensate with ND.

In artificial or low light, it will be a little more difficult, but not much. If the FF35 sensor has the same performance per area as the S35 sensor, but twice the area, then one may underexpose by over a stop and still collect the same amount of light (less intensity per area, but spread out over a larger area).

Increase gain in post and you'll end up with the same brightness, noise, etc. as the S35 image.

Typically, smaller sensors have better performance per area than larger ones. On top of that, underexposure is much harder on compression.

With those factors considered, I expect that FF35 will have only a 1/3-stop loss in control over DOF at the deep end (for a given image quality / noise level), and not the 1.3 stops that one would get with film (due to non-linear response preventing underexposure).

Pawel Achtel
12-30-2008, 12:45 AM
So, what you are saying is, if suitable lenses were available, one could use say f/2.0 FF35 lens and achieve similar performance and DOF as f/1.2 S35 lens, except there will be more headroom for highlights, right? Interesting point.

The question is then, where do we get high-MTF FF35 cine lenses? The Red 300mm is certainly a good one. Not as sharp as MPs, but certainly sharp enough. I like it. Maybe Red can step in and provide bigger selection at wider angles? This would be a very interesting approach.

Can someone report on the image circle of the Red 18-85 Zoom, please? If it covers more than 38mm image circle at wide end, I think I would kill for one. :biggrin:

At the moment still lenses are very limited due to their inferior mechanics. Also, most wide angle still lenses have sharp falloff in MTF as you go off centre. Also, finding a wide still lens that doesn't flare is next to impossible. I guess the availability of glass will be the key.

Daniel Browning
12-30-2008, 01:19 AM
So, what you are saying is, if suitable lenses were available, one could use say f/2.0 FF35 lens and achieve similar performance and DOF as f/1.2 S35 lens, except there will be more headroom for highlights, right? Interesting point.


Exactly right. Basically, what it all comes down to is the aperture. Not the f/number (which is "relative" aperture), but the the physical aperture, absolute opening, or "hole in space". The physical aperture of 32mm f/1.2 is 26.6mm. The physical aperture of 50mm f/2.0 is 25mm. They both provide the same FOV on S35 and FF35, respectively, and the DOF is the same because of the same physical aperture (~25mm).

This extends to *all* formats. For any given AOV, subject distance, and absolute aperture (not f/number) the DOF is the same for lenses on S35, FF35, Scarlet, and even 617. With larger formats, it's the same because of longer focal lengths and narrower f/numbers (ignoring bellows factor). For smaller formats it's the same because of shorter focal lengths and wider f/numbers. For example, with a 16.4-foot subject distance, all of the following camera/lens combinations will have the same 40 degree horizntal AOV and 6.7 feet DOF:



Scarlet 2/3": 14mm f/0.9
4/3" DSLR: 24mm f/1.6
Super35: 34mm f/2.2
Still FF35: 49mm f/3.2
645: 76mm f/5.0
617: 220mm f/14


They all have approximately 15mm physical aperture despite the 7-stop difference in f/numbers.

[At 16.4 foot subject distance, bellows factor is not very significant, even for the 617 format lens. I used h/CoC=1200 for all of the above to arrive at 6.7 feet DOF. The actual DOF will of course vary by the resolution, post-processing, and display environment, but I'm not trying to address those.]

Incidentally, all the lenses have same amount of light falling on the sensor as well (assuming the same transmissivity). Furthermore, the lenses even have the same issues with diffraction: if the sensors all had the same total resolution (e.g. 3K in 617), they would all experience the same amount of diffraction at the same physical aperture (not f/number). (RED is planning the larger ones to have more resolution, which is good of course.)

So physical aperture is a big factor in a lot of things. Many photographers tend to focus on "relative" aperture, whereas other fields (e.g. astronomy) have a greater connection to the physical aperture (which is useful for understanding things about different sensor sizes, especially).




The question is then, where do we get high-MTF FF35 cine lenses?


That's a key question, maybe even the biggest one, and there are undoubtedly many other challenges as well.

Pawel Achtel
12-30-2008, 01:30 AM
That's an excellent point you've made, Daniel. Thanks for that!

Pawel Achtel
12-30-2008, 02:29 AM
OK, let's take the consideration one step further. Let's consider diffraction limit of two lens systems from two extreme examples Daniel provided:

Scarlet 2/3": 14mm f/0.9
617: 220mm f/14

They both have approximately 15mm physical aperture and similar angle of view. Is the resolution affected equally by diffraction? Well, the answer is, suprisingly, NO!

The optical system with the larger sensor will be more affected by diffraction. Why?

This is because the distance to the focal plane also increases with focal length, and so the airy disk diverges more over this greater distance. As a result, the two effects of physical aperture size and focal length cancel out. The 617 will be affected by diffraction at f/14 (absolute 15mm) much more than the 2/3"at f/0.9 (also 15mm absolute aperture) .

This is also why diffraction limit of a short focal length lens is about the same as that of a long focal length for the same relative aperture (f stop), but not for the same physical aperture.

Now, not so clear cut once we consider diffraction limit :whistling:

David Mullen ASC
12-30-2008, 10:04 AM
With those factors considered, I expect that FF35 will have only a 1/3-stop loss in control over DOF at the deep end (for a given image quality / noise level), and not the 1.3 stops that one would get with film (due to non-linear response preventing underexposure).

A digital sensor does not break the classic rules regarding depth of field; being able to underexpose is only a workaround solution to compensate for the inherent difference in depth of field due to the size of the sensor, focal length chosen to match field of view, distance focused, f-stop, and Circle of Confusion figure used.

Besides, we're comparing the depth of field difference between the S35 sensor of the RED versus the FF35 sensor of the EPIC, so film's response to light is not a factor. That difference will be, practically speaking, about 1.5 stops once you match f-stop, field of view, and distance focused. You may be able to compensate by rating the larger sensor faster and thus stop down the lens, but that doesn't mean that the true depth of field difference is less than 1.5 stops, just that there may be solutions to work around that.

1/3 of a stop falls within a margin of error in exposing, so you could practically say that a 1/3 difference is ignorable, which means that a 36mm wide sensor and a 24mm wide sensor have no real difference in depth of field characteristics? That is not logical.

Let's just be honest about the differences and find solutions to deal with it, rather than tell ourselves that it's not really an issue.

Cristina S
12-30-2008, 11:05 AM
Besides, we're comparing the depth of field difference between the S35 sensor of the RED versus the FF35 sensor of the EPIC, so film's response to light is not a factor. That difference will be, practically speaking, about 1.5 stops once you match f-stop, field of view, and distance focused.Since it's 2x sized, isn't just 1 stop of difference?

David Mullen ASC
12-30-2008, 12:07 PM
Generally if you look at depth of field charts... you see that simply switching to a focal length of half or double the previous one causes a four-stop difference in depth of field.

But you also have to double or halve the Circle of Confusion figure because you're comparing images blown-up or shrunk to match each other, i.e. you're assuming that comparisons in depth of field are being made between images presented at the same size. So that four-stop difference between two lenses with half or double the focal length becomes only a two-stop difference once you halve or double the Circle of Confusion figure.

So generally you can figure that the magnification factor is also the difference in practical depth of field in f-stops. So, for example, 35mm is 2.5X the difference in size with the 2/3" format, and the depth of field difference is also 2.5 stops.

Now all of this ignores a few real-world issues like MTF, etc. that may affect perceived focus fall-off. For example, I've done some quickie unscientific tests of depth of field differences between 2/3" and 35mm digital cine cameras (using a row of receding focus charts) and they more or less fall into what the traditional math tells you about the practical depth of field, i.e. a 2.5-stop difference. In other words, when I stopped the 35mm digital cine camera down by 2.5-stops, it matched the depth of field of the 2/3" camera, once I matched distance and field of view.

But camera assistants constantly claim that 35mm digital cine cameras have less depth of field than 35mm film cameras of the same size target area. I think one factor is this higher MTF of the digital cameras, causing a more obvious or visible fall-off or difference between what is considered in focus and out of focus. Some people have made the same claims just comparing a Zeiss Master Prime to a Cooke S4, that the snappier look of the Zeiss makes it appear to have less depth of field. I'm not sure if that's true or simply that the higher contrast of the lens makes it easier to see when the focus is on or off. I found when shooting on the Genesis, for example, that it was always really obvious when the lens was slightly off-focus.

Tom Lowe
12-30-2008, 02:25 PM
The question is then, where do we get high-MTF FF35 cine lenses?



Yep, that is the question! And that question is going to start getting asked more and more and more often, I bet, as all of us come to grips with FF35 digital cinema.

Regarding still lenses on the wider end, two lenses that interest me on the Epic/Scalet FF35 are the Nikon G 14-24 and the Contaxt N Zeiss 17-35. The latter is said to be damn near flare resistant, and the former holds crazy edge sharpness. I'm going to jump into the Nikon G 14-24 soon and start shooting 5.6K RAW timelapse with it on the 5D2. I'm guessing that the results will be very nice.

Of course, as you have pointed out many times, these still lenses are not ideal in terms of mechanics and focus throw.

Geoff Yerke
12-30-2008, 02:44 PM
The Nikon G 14-24 is a fantastic lens. Highly recommended.

Pawel Achtel
12-30-2008, 02:45 PM
Tom,

Yes, the Nikon G 14-24 on Canon 5D2 has the potential to work nicely for night time lapse, but remember, it is not going to be as bright as a Master Prime fully opened. I wonder if the 5D2 could be chopped up and patched with PL mount welded onto it? :w00t: Hmmm, tempting....

Tom Lowe
12-30-2008, 02:56 PM
Tom,

Yes, the Nikon G 14-24 on Canon 5D2 has the potential to work nicely for night time lapse, but remember, it is not going to be as bright as a Master Prime fully opened. I wonder if the 5D2 could be chopped up and patched with PL mount welded onto it? :w00t: Hmmm, tempting....

Okay, you chop up yours first and try it! :) :construction: :)

BTW, the EF 24 f1.4 I seems to shoot really well with the 5D2 for night timelapse. The resolution and sharpness look very good. If the Mark II is a big improvement, then that is a serious lens for FF35, too.

Sanjin Jukic
12-30-2008, 03:06 PM
Tom,

don't get afraid about Master Primes.

It's like a make up or face lifting.

Nothing special.

Movies are not changed because master primes just arrived!!!!!!!!!!

It was and it will be another type of low light shooting.

You are already on 5DMkII.

Rent or get 50mm f/1.2 oe 85mm f/1.2 and you'll see what you get with MP.

And last but not least, best if you would rent MP to test by yourself on R1.

Pawel Achtel
12-30-2008, 03:08 PM
Okay, you chop up yours first and try it! :) :construction: :)


Butchering brand new and perfectly good filming equipment was always appealing to me. I can probably try with the 50D first and see what comes out. Where would I buy the camera side PL mount from?

Tom Lowe
12-30-2008, 03:20 PM
Sanjin, a 14mm 1.3 Master Prime would be a little bit of a game-changer for me, since the closest thing on FF35 would be the 14-24 @ f/2.8. For night/star shooting, that 14mm MP would be HUGE, assuming I had a body to shoot with.

Pawel Achtel
12-30-2008, 03:23 PM
Where would I buy the camera side PL mount from?

Oh, I have an idea.

Sanjin, how much do you want for your "obsolete" Red One PL mount? :biggrin:

Daniel Browning
12-30-2008, 03:38 PM
My point is that the larger format, on equal footing , is capable of all the same things that the smaller system is, including diffraction, resolution, DOF, and light gathering power. In some circumstances (e.g. noise and dynamic range in bright daylight), the larger format can be superior "for free". But in other circumstances (e.g. low light), it can only be superior if the aperture is increased (and the DOF made thinner).


Equal footing, to me, means both systems have a lens of equal physical aperture, the same sensor performance per area, the same total resolution, nonlinear capture, and totally raw (no compression). In real life, compression will favor the smaller system because the larger system must underexposed, which is harder to compress. I don't know how REDCODE will react with that, but I'm guessing the loss of 1/6th stop. Nonlinear mediums, such as film and "video", don't respond to underexposure linearly, like RAW digital, so that workaround does't work as well. Also, sensor performance (read noise, QE, FWC) per area doesn't scale perfectly with total sensor area, so that sensors 1/20th the size tend to have twice the performance per area, and smaller differences in size have smaller differences in performance per area. I'm guessing that the difference in size between S35 and FF35 will result in another 1/6th stop, leading to 1/3rd stop total difference.


OK, let's take the consideration one step further. Let's consider diffraction limit of two lens systems from two extreme examples Daniel provided:

Scarlet 2/3": 14mm f/0.9
617: 220mm f/14

They both have approximately 15mm physical aperture and similar angle of view. Is the resolution affected equally by diffraction?


Yes, as long as you have the same expectations for both then they are affected equally by diffraction. It's only when you expect *more* from the larger format that it is affected more by diffraction (in a manner of speaking). To get more resolution one would have to accept at least slightly thinner DOF, but at least you can know that any resolution+DOF combination the smaller system is capable of can be done at least as well (if not better) on the larger system.

The reason is that when both systems have the same effective resolution, the diffraction effects are the same. The effective resolution would be the same if both were projected at 2K. At higher resolutions (e.g. 20x60 prints), the 617 28K will show higher resolution than the 3K 2/3", unless the f/stop is so narrow that diffraction knocks it down to the resolution of the 3K, but at no time will the 617 28K have *less* resolution for any given DOF, which leads to my point about both being affect by diffraction in the same amount for a given physical aperture.



The optical system with the larger sensor will be more affected by diffraction...because the distance to the focal plane also increases with focal length, and so the airy disk diverges more over this greater distance.


The greater divergence of the airy disk is compensated perfectly by the much larger CoC, as when you scale the CoC with the format size (i.e. expect the same resolution from both systems). In my post I mentioned the effect of both cameras being limited to the same capture resolution (3K), where the pixels are so large on the 617 that the larger airy disk caused by diffraction has no effect. The effect is the same if they have different capture resolutions but the same output resolution, such as 2K projection.

In other words, your position is based on the use of a *smaller* h/CoC (horizontal AOV divided by CoC), whereas my point of view is based on using the *same* h/CoC, such as h/CoC=1200. So h/CoC is essentially the resolution of the system (capture through display). The typical method to calculate the scaled CoC is with the diagonal AOV, but I think horizontal AOV is more useful in cinema.

It's only when you *expect* more resolution from the larger format that equality is lost. For example, if you choose a physical aperture that is *almost* diffraction limited on the 2/3" 3K, then use the same phsycial aperture on 617 28K (a much longer focal length and much narrower f/number), you will not get anywhere near the increase in resolution expected from 3K to 28K. But if you only expect 3K as in the 2/3", you'll definitely get that.

I promise that I'm not trying to make this more complex than it is. Hopefully by explaining my point here I will learn to describe in a simpler and clearer manner in the future.

Daniel Browning
12-30-2008, 03:43 PM
Thank you for the response, David. The clarity and succinctness of your posts are something we all strive for. I'm always too laconic or overly wordy.


A digital sensor does not break the classic rules regarding depth of field; being able to underexpose is only a workaround solution to compensate for the inherent difference in depth of field due to the size of the sensor, focal length chosen to match field of view, distance focused, f-stop, and Circle of Confusion figure used.


If the classic rule you are referring to is "larger formats are not capable of the same deep DOF as smaller formats in low light", then I think the workaround does break that classic rule. A RAW uncompressed digital sensor is completely linear, and reducing the exposure 7-fold will result in exactly 7 stops less image information per area. If you compensate for the per-area loss by increasing area 7-fold, then the total information captured is the same.

Essentially, RAW uncompressed digital is a medium where the workaround works really well. Two factors that make it imperfect, though, are compression (even REDCODE will not be perfect in this regard, I expect) and sensor performance per area (i.e. smaller sensors tend to do better per area).




Besides, we're comparing the depth of field difference between the S35 sensor of the RED versus the FF35 sensor of the EPIC, so film's response to light is not a factor.


True, I only mentioned it because the expectations of most people are based on nonlinear systems, such as film, video, and JPEG. Uncompressed RAW, as in DSLR and some digicams, is the medium where the workaround scales perfectly.

I'm not a film expert, but humor the following attempt to illustrate with an example. Imagine Super8 film with dimensions of 5.46mm X 3.07mm (1.78 aspect). A 7mm lens would have a 42 degree AOV. Shooting in relatively low light, say the best exposure is at T/2.8 (for a nice, meaty neg). On top of that, the very deep DOF provided by a 7mm T/2.8 on Super8 is critical for the shot.

To shoot the same scene with a VistaVision camera and the same film stock as in the Super8, a 46mm lens is needed (for the same 42-degree AOV and perspective). Shooting at f/2.8 would also yeild a nice, meaty negative of much higher quality than the Super8, but it would also cause much, much thinner DOF, ruining the shot (or at least making it much more challenging on the puller!). One must stop down to f/18 to get the same, deep DOF and focus pulling difficulty (or lack thereof). That's over five stops of underexposure. Even though the VistaVision has over 50 times more area, the underexposure will cause *more* than 50 times less light to be recorded on the film, because more of it falls on the non-linear part of the negative. (That's my understanding, at least. I don't know if flashing the film with 5 stops of light would get enough of the response up into the linear range to get results as good as the Super8, but it would be neat if it did.)

With RAW uncompressed digital, 50 times more area perfectly compensates for 50 times less intensity per-area.




That difference will be, practically speaking, about 1.5 stops once you match f-stop, field of view, and distance focused. You may be able to compensate by rating the larger sensor faster and thus stop down the lens, but that doesn't mean that the true depth of field difference is less than 1.5 stops, just that there may be solutions to work around that.


The point was made that FF35 has more challenging/difficult DOF than S35. My response is that it's only more difficult if you expect higher quality (such as resolution, light gathering power, etc.) in low light. For the *same* quality level, the DOF is the same. So if you shoot low light, and you don't want thinner DOF than S35, then FF35 will not give you increased quality. But when you shoot in ample light, the FF35 will let you have the increased quality *without* the penalty of thinner DOF, until diffraction starts the law of diminshing returns. In other words, FF35 can do the same, and in some circumstances, it can do more.



1/3 of a stop falls within a margin of error in exposing, so you could practically say that a 1/3 difference is ignorable, which means that a 36mm wide sensor and a 24mm wide sensor have no real difference in depth of field characteristics? That is not logical.


It will make much more sense if, instead of thinking about the sensor:


a 36mm wide sensor and a 24mm wide sensor have no real difference in depth of field

Think about the lens:


a 15mm aperture lens and a 15mm aperture lens have no real difference in depth of field

The fact that one is "49mm f/3.2 on FF35" and the other is "34mm f/2.2 on S35" are almost beside the point: they both have the same amount of glass. An imaginary 11mm f/0.7 on some super-tiny format would also have the same DOF/performance. Essentially, it doesn't matter how big the sensor is, as long as the physical aperture of the lens is the same, the DOF and light gathering power in low light will be too.

One has a very bright light focused on a tiny area, the other has a dim light focused over a large area. When you magnify them both for display at the same size, the bright light of the tiny sensor gets magnified a *lot* and spread out over a large area, where as the dim light of the large sensor gets magnified a *little* and spread out over the same area.

My central theme is that larger formats, if they are totally linear, can do anything a smaller format can do, and sometimes do it even without the penalty of thinner DOF. For many people, that "sometimes" will not be worth the extra cost and other downsides of FF35 (assuming it even had proper lenses to begin with!). But the reason I bring all this up is that for some people, such as those shooting in ample light, or those who can somehow deal with thinner DOF in low light, will definitely benefit from FF35.

Pawel Achtel
12-30-2008, 04:32 PM
Thanks Daniel, you made some excellent points.

On a side note, I was imagining a "normal" lens for the 617.

The size of airy disk diameter is approximately:

D = 2.4 x λ x f, where λ is the wave length, f is a focal ratio

From this equation, we can estimate that the lens will start to be diffraction limited at around f/5.

Let's assume a "normal" lens, say 600mm. A subject at 3m, will have a DOF of 3mm, and this is with the lens stepped down right to diffraction limit!

Open it up to f/2.8 and somebody tell me how to follow focus with 1.5mm DOF.

Of course, if we use a modest telephoto lens for this format, say 1200mm, and get 2m from our subject, the DOF will be a width of a hair....

Any comments?

Sorry, I got side tracked away from the original subject, but it kinda flows from the above considerations.

Edit:
Not to mention the physical aperture of a 1200mm f/2.8 lens: 428mm. That's a lot of glass! If someone can make it lighter than 200kg (500lb) it would be a genius.

Daniel Browning
12-30-2008, 04:56 PM
Let's assume a "normal" lens, say 600mm. A subject at 3m, will have a DOF of 3mm, and this is with the lens stepped down right to diffraction limit!


If by "normal", you mean the AOV of a 50mm lens on FF35 and a 32mm lens on RED ONE, that is a horizontal AOV of 39 degrees. A 39 h-AOV lens on 617 is a 220mm lens. 600mm has a 5.5 degree h-AOV on 617 format, which is like a 220mm lens on RED ONE, well into super telephoto territory.



Not to mention the physical aperture of a 1200mm f/2.8 lens: 428mm. That's a lot of glass!

Pfft. I have a 1250 f/5 in my garage that's $500 brand new. Perfectly corrected for chromatic abberation over the entire visible spectrum, though it does have some S.A. and coma. 428mm apertures sell for under $2200 now-a-days and weigh less than 70 pounds.

Happens to be a reflector, though. :)

David Mullen ASC
12-30-2008, 05:51 PM
The depth of field difference between a larger and a smaller sensor assumes matching field of view, distance, and f-stop, which also implies the same sensitivity -- if you can just stop down on the larger sensor because of a higher sensitivity or a greater ability to underexpose, of course you will gain more depth of field to compensate for the inherent difference.

But this doesn't mean that the 1.5-stop effective difference between a S35 and a FF35 sensor is imaginary -- it is something to be factored in, something to be acknowledged and dealt with, just as when comparing shooting between any two formats.

A 1/3" DV camera has 2-stops more depth of field than a 2/3" camera, which in turn has 2.5-stops more depth of field than a 35mm camera -- those are all issues that have to be factored in, often by controlling the f-stop.

So yes, the depth of field difference between a S35 and a FF35 camera can be compensated for... if you stop down the FF35 camera by 1.5-stops, either by adding more light, or by underexposing, or because the FF35 camera is more sensitive than the S35 camera. But that doesn't mean the 1.5-stop difference doesn't exist, just that there may be solutions.

Just take a S35 camera and an FF35 camera, match field of view, match distance, and match f-stop and then look at the depth of field difference. You'll find that if you stop down the FF35 by 1.5-stops, the depth of field will then look more or less identical to the S35 shot. If I owned a FF35 digital camera, I'd shoot some charts and demonstrate that easily. It would also demonstrate that just stopping down by 1/3 of a stop would not be enough to compensate.

it works the other way as well.. anyone who shoots 2/3" video and 35mm digital on the RED could tell you that there is a depth of field difference of about 2.5-stops. Like I said, I did a test of that comparing the F900 and the 35mm Genesis camera over at Panavision using a receding diagonal line of focus charts, and the practical difference came out to 2.5-stops.

Daniel Browning
12-30-2008, 06:22 PM
So yes, the depth of field difference between a S35 and a FF35 camera can be compensated for... if you stop down the FF35 camera by 1.5-stops, either by adding more light, or by underexposing, or because the FF35 camera is more sensitive than the S35 camera. But that doesn't mean the 1.5-stop difference doesn't exist, just that there may be solutions.


Agreed.

Douglas Underdahl
12-30-2008, 06:31 PM
I agree with David - and I can tell you that from shooting a feature on 35mm at a 2-2.8 split, that using a FF35 frame digital camera is going to have some mighty tiny depth of field, unless you could rate it at at least ASA 1000. It's not a happy experience to see actors moving in and out of focus just by leaning toward the camera slightly. Really, T4 is a good stop to work with for RED or 4 perf 35mm for interiors - the actors can move and it gives your AC a "stop he can live with". I suppose if FF35 Monstro gives us 14 stops of DR and has more sensitivity than RED1, then it could be worth it, but otherwise, for most interior work, that tiny depth of field is going to make it not something that I want to deal with. I mean, look at poor Heath Ledger leaning in and out of focus in the interrogation scene in Dark Knight. What, are we going to tell him that he's only allowed to move side to side, or that he has to work out each lean in and out with the focus puller in advance? I like to let the actors have as much leeway during a performance as possible.

Tom Lowe
12-30-2008, 07:35 PM
This is why higher ISO/ASA ratings are very important. The 5D2 has ridiculously awesome high-ISO capability, so I am assuming that RED will also make big advancements in ISO/ASA ratings by the time Monstro FF35 hits the streets.

David Mullen ASC
12-30-2008, 07:36 PM
Well, I've shot four features in 35mm anamorphic and it's a similar challenge -- basically you try to commit to working at an f/4 inside unless there is a good reason for a wider stop, like in a candlelit scene, night exterior, etc.

If there is extra quality from shooting in FF35, just as in shooting in 35mm anamorphic, someone is going to find a way of making it work for them.

My main concern is not so much the lower depth of field, which can be compensated for to some extent, it's the lack of cine optics that cover FF35 -- if focus-pulling is going to be more challenging whenever you get into a low-light situation, you don't want your lenses to be making things even harder due to their mechanical design. At least 35mm anamorphic lenses are designed for cine use.

But it's all doable -- after all, "Dark Knight" was partly shot on IMAX, which uses adapted large-format optics, and the depth of field challenges are even greater with that format compared to FF35. The IMAX frame is 70mm wide, that's almost a 3X difference compared to S35 and a 2X difference with FF35.

Pawel Achtel
12-30-2008, 07:58 PM
Fully agree with you, David.

Let's see what lenses we can get and then decide on the format. At this stage I don't see better lenses than UPs and MPs (if you like primes). They perform superbly wide open, they are plenty sharp and the mechanics make the job repeatable and efficient. Give me an equivalent set of lenses for FF35 image size and I will have a compeling reason to shoot FF35 or even 645.

Knowing how expensive and difficult it is to make good cine lenses, I am skeptical that we will see anything as good as Zeiss cine lenses covering full FF35 or 645 frame. Until we have a good selection of such lenses, shooting format larger than S35 will remain more of a specialty, in my opinion.

David Mullen ASC
12-30-2008, 09:52 PM
Well, in a sense, the larger the format, with more resolution, the lower the MTF of the lens can be because the format itself naturally can capture more fine details. Hence why large format movie cameras can get away with fairly ordinary optics sometimes and still deliver lots of fine detail.

My issue is more the mechanics of manual focus-pulling, barrel rotation, focus marks, etc., all the things needed to make the job of the focus-puller easier.

Tom Lowe
12-30-2008, 10:00 PM
If I was an industrialist, I would start rehousing still FF35 lenses for cinema use.

Douglas Underdahl
12-31-2008, 06:01 AM
For me, the larger sensor doesn't offer much, except possibly better dynamic range. Certainly there have been large format features in the past, like Dark Knight, Patton, Far and Away, 2001, etc. and those that have dealt with microscopic depth of field, like Barry Lyndon, but after seeing the 4k show at the RED booth, it's hard to justify all the trouble that using the large sensor would entail. I'm actually more intrigued by the 2/3" Scarlet offerings. But of course, someone could come up with a script that cries out for the larger sensor - I just can't think of what it would be right now.

Scope was thought up as a way to maximize the negative area and provide a widescreen experience to combat television. Stocks were slower and grainier then, and Scope offered increased quality over simply cropping the Academy area to 1.85. The larger gate in the projector also mean the image was brighter on the screen. But as stocks became less grainy and faster, it became Scope's visual artifacts that kept it alive as a format that says "big movie experience" to the audience. One might argue that choosing Scope means going 2.40 vs 1.85, but in my experience, both Scope and flat pictures are screened 2:1 in most all cinemas - they chop the sides off of Scope pictures, and the tops off of flat pictures so they can use just one screen with fixed masking in each theater. Only special theaters change their masking when switching formats - how many times have you been to a theater lately and seen the curtains move before the show? Kubrick was so distressed by seeing the sides cut off 2001 that he never shot a wide movie after that. And now with Scope, as David says, you have many of the same challenges as you would with FF35 - larger lenses, shallower depth of field, so that you try to get to T4 for interiors. With a fast FF35 sensor, this could be workable, but if it comes out as, say, ASA 320, then you will have to pour a lot more light onto the set to make that stop, which is more work. How would you shoot Zodiac this way? You have all those night scenes, and at F4 you'd lose the lights off the city. Here, the 2/3 sensor of the Viper makes sense.

Just some ramblings.

Harry Clark
12-31-2008, 07:11 AM
As usual, David is correct.
I'll chime in that I can tell you for sure there is a difference in perceived DOF between digital cinema and 35mm. We did a film vs. Red vs. D-21 test and the falloff looked steeper on the digital formats. Perhaps the thickness of film emulsion graduates the falloff? Or maybe the MTF in digital is higher by nature?
Regarding FF35...
I'll just say that if there is an incredible, perceivable difference on the big screen (which there could very well be) then many people will likely make use of the FF35 format. The ability to reposition will be useful, and plate work is a no-brainer. Cropping and using anamorphics is an interesting idea too. But David's points regarding the challenges of focus-pulling are well-founded. It's hard enough to get it right in S35. And it ALL shows up on the big screen. AND there is usually not a second, or third chance to get it right on a movie. A few soft shots and the AC is fired. It happens every day. Professional moviemaking is a warlike, ruthless business, and the AC is the point man. Having to light to a higher stop, or relying on the latitude of the sensor to underexpose may not be ideal for many DPs. Spending more money on lights means DPs will have fewer choices somewhere else down the line in the budget. And underexposure might negate some of the DR advantages of the larger sensor.
Also, DPs will want to know that a pro solution exists for optics, because if the day slows down due to focus issues, it's on their head too. If there is a large enough market, I'm sure Zeiss, Cooke, and Angeniuex will all step in. I'm also sure that Jim & Co. have something up their sleeve here. It would represent, for them, a better opportunity in the lens business than the current 35mm design where so many great solutions already exist.
Who knows? Maybe Arri and Panavision already have 65mm sized sensor cameras in the works, with quiet co-development in place with Cooke, Zeiss, Angeniuex, or Leica. And finally, Doug is right to point out that 2/3" is still a viable format that can produce stunning images and allow for very fast shooting, especially in episodic, where speed is essential. The choices could get very confusing soon.
But FF35 will certainly have its place.
My hedge is to get the S35 Epic-X trade in, and add a Scarlet FF35 for the plate work and the DR advantage, when necessary. I'll have it all in one case as "one camera". The interchangeable modules make this a very workable solution.
And we will all have to wait and see, as it's all speculation now...
Cheers,
Harry

David Mullen ASC
12-31-2008, 09:09 AM
What lenses does the 4K Phantom 65 use, by the way? Mitch? That sensor is 51mm x 30mm, bigger than FF35, and essentially a 2X magnification factor to deal with, not 1.5X.

Andrew Walker
12-31-2008, 10:14 AM
One might argue that choosing Scope means going 2.40 vs 1.85, but in my experience, both Scope and flat pictures are screened 2:1 in most all cinemas - they chop the sides off of Scope pictures, and the tops off of flat pictures so they can use just one screen with fixed masking in each theater. Only special theaters change their masking when switching formats - how many times have you been to a theater lately and seen the curtains move before the show? Kubrick was so distressed by seeing the sides cut off 2001 that he never shot a wide movie after that.

I'm not sure what theaters your going to but I know for a fact that modern theaters change the masking and aperture plates between 1.85 and 2.35. If its some hole in the wall theater that's be around forever run by mom and pop, then yes I would believe that everything is shown in a 2:1 aspect ratio. The very first theater I worked at did this and it was a hole in the wall. But all multiplexes and all of the single screens I've ever worked at or seen a movie at change their masking to fit the aperture of the show. Of course they change lenses as well, I just didn't put that in the original list because its a given.

stephan orlandic
12-31-2008, 10:54 AM
What lenses does the 4K Phantom 65 use, by the way? Mitch? That sensor is 51mm x 30mm, bigger than FF35, and essentially a 2X magnification factor to deal with, not 1.5X.

David,
Phantom 65 is using lenses in Mamiya 645 standard,
and Super PL.
Resolution of sensor is 4096x2440.

Regards

Douglas Underdahl
12-31-2008, 11:13 AM
Well, sure, they change the mask (aperture plate) at the projector, Andrew, but do they change the shape of the SCREEN by moving curtains, or flipping black panels up or down? I've only seen this happen a few times, most notably at the Zigfeld in NYC.

Bruce Allen
12-31-2008, 02:21 PM
One might argue that choosing Scope means going 2.40 vs 1.85, but in my experience, both Scope and flat pictures are screened 2:1 in most all cinemas - they chop the sides off of Scope pictures, and the tops off of flat pictures so they can use just one screen with fixed masking in each theater. Only special theaters change their masking when switching formats - how many times have you been to a theater lately and seen the curtains move before the show?

I don't think they crop 2.35:1 to 2:1. Even in little theatres in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa (where tickets cost $2) I was used to either the screen matting changing mechanically, or the curtains opening wider for the 2.35 stuff.

RE: FF vs S35... personally I'm betting the increase in surface area will mean A LOT, eg:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700/iso-3200-comparison.htm

For example... say you are shooting some night wide angles. Focus pulling not critical.

Quite likely a 14-24mm Nikon at 2.8 recorded FF will yield a superior image to a set of T1.3 Master Primes recorded S35?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Tom Lowe
12-31-2008, 02:41 PM
One mistake that people make is thinking that digital cinema is somehow immune from the same laws as digital stills photography. The guys at c.com constantly seem to be arguing that cinema has nothing to do with digital stills -- that for whatever reason, cinema cameras are "special" and will be immune from the same laws as stills camera. I always scratch my head at that.

Sure, there are legacy issues where cinema companies and rental houses are really accustomed to cinema 35, but it's really only lenses and some capabilities of focus-pullers that are legacy. Most of the techniques and dollies and lights and accessories would be the same if you moved up to FF35. Distribution is heading toward all digital in a hurry. The only issue is glass, and as many have said, where there is a need, the market will oblige.

My question is: Why NOT shoot FF35?

We assume ASA/ISO ratings will increase, so DOF can be controlled. Would any serious stills shooter choose a Canon XTi over a 5D with its full frame? No way. So why would cinema shooters be any different? The image quality gain of FF35 Monstro over S35 should be significant.

Even if you want to shoot MPs, many of them nearly cover the whole FF35 anyway.

David Mullen ASC
12-31-2008, 03:28 PM
Most of the theaters in L.A. that I see movies at properly show 1.85 and 2.39 with adjustable screen masking. I've only run into a couple of smaller screens in older multiplexes that went for that "everything at 2:1" compromise. Once was at a cheap second-run theater in the Valley and the other time was at a shoebox screening room at the old AMC14 Century City, which doesn't exist anymore. Otherwise, most theaters show the proper difference between the two projection formats, though not all do it properly, i.e. widening out for the scope print. Some smaller spaces will lower a mask top & bottom for scope, and some split the difference, which isn't too bad either -- they open up the sides a little and close down the top & bottom a little for scope prints.

Douglas Underdahl
12-31-2008, 04:04 PM
My experience with theaters that aren't in LA is just the opposite. I've been in theaters in Rotterdam, Avignon, NYC, NJ, PA, and Houston over the last few years and I often see a good percent of the the image projected onto the black sides and bottom masking. Theaters get close with standard, off the shelf projector lens focal lengths and projector gates, then make up for keystoning and different projection sizes with black masking at the screen. I remember seeing Who Framed Roger Rabbit and there was considerable business happening at the bottom of the screen that just disappeared. Also saw Road Warrior at the St Marks in NY (no longer exists) and they would flip a bottom mask up or down manually to go between Scope and flat. Spielberg also gave up on Scope, partly for this reason too, but went back to it for the last Indiana Jones because the first three were Scope and he wanted to keep the look.

Of course, what may be worse is poor focus, and the worst of all: turning down the voltage on the bulbs to save money on electricity. Boy, I've seen some dim movies, even at newer, big chain theaters.

Pawel Achtel
12-31-2008, 06:51 PM
Quite likely a 14-24mm Nikon at 2.8 recorded FF will yield a superior image to a set of T1.3 Master Primes recorded S35?

Why do you think so?

Tom Lowe
12-31-2008, 07:52 PM
Why do you think so?

Because 6K shot with Monstro FF35 on a Nikon 14-24G will probably compete with S35 Mysterium-X shot on MPs.

chuck colburn
12-31-2008, 07:54 PM
Because 6K shot with Monstro FF35 on a Nikon 14-24G will probably compete with S35 Mysterium-X shot on MPs.

Have you done this?

David Mullen ASC
01-01-2009, 12:02 AM
I'm spoiled here in L.A. and love going out to see a movie, so I could never understand people who would rather watch it at home on DVD.

Then I did a movie in New Mexico, in Santa Fe, and while I was living there for three months, had to put up with some abysmal projection, constantly. It got very depressing. Tried to see "The Brothers Grimm" at the time, and the theater couldn't hold the film flat in the projector gate, so one half of the image was completely soft and telling them to check the focus didn't help.

Pawel Achtel
01-01-2009, 02:29 AM
Because 6K shot with Monstro FF35 on a Nikon 14-24G will probably compete with S35 Mysterium-X shot on MPs.

The Nikon 14-24 is 2.5 stops slower. Assuming it covers 43mm image circle wide open, this results in sensor area of 1385mm2. Master Prime covers 31mm with the area 754mm2. Clearly, MP will provide better light sensitivity than the Nikon.

It will also provide higher range of DOF before diffraction limit. So, your control of DOF range is far greater with a MP than with Nikon. The Nikon won't be as shallow and won't be as deep as MP will let you.

Both lenses are very sharp, although from what I have seen MP seems to have an edge.

Not sure about flaring. The Nikkon, being a zoom, should flare significantly more than the MP.

Breathing? MPs do not breathe.

But, the main difference will boild down to how accurately you can focus them, and I have some prediction to the expected result here.

I'd love to use FF35 lenses when FF35 Epic becomes available. It is just I can't see any good candidates to replace MPs at this time.

chuck colburn
01-01-2009, 07:00 AM
I'm spoiled here in L.A. and love going out to see a movie, so I could never understand people who would rather watch it at home on DVD.

Then I did a movie in New Mexico, in Santa Fe, and while I was living there for three months, had to put up with some abysmal projection, constantly. It got very depressing. Tried to see "The Brothers Grimm" at the time, and the theater couldn't hold the film flat in the projector gate, so one half of the image was completely soft and telling them to check the focus didn't help.

Might have been an alignment problem with the lamp housing. Odd as it sounds I ran into this problem with the projectors at Melnitz Hall (UCLA Film School). Optically you would think a soft focus would be only due to an error in the gate or a problem with lens alignment to the the gate, but alignment of the xenon lamp to the gate is critical to sharp focus on the screen.

Rudi Herbert
01-01-2009, 07:47 AM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the increased focal length options, especially at the wide end, that come with FF35 sensor areas and the lenses. How about all the underwater shooters out there? On a FF35 sensor, a 15mm lens gives you about 90 degrees of horizontal coverage, whereas in a S35 design, it's only about 70 degrees. That's why extreme lenses like the Zeiss Superspeed 8mm had to be designed to achieve the same width than a 12mm lens would achieve on a FF35 sensor. I known not everybody needs to shoot underwater or in situations where wide angle shots are needed at all times, but to me, that's the main shortcoming of the S35 area as compared to FF35, since I come from a stills photography background where I had lots of amazing options for wide angle work and very limited ones when I finally got into film work.

Now the thing is, we don't need for companies like Zeiss or Cooke to make a whole new line of lenses from scratch, this is something they'll probably won't do, at least not for a long while, but I'm sure some intelligent, entrepreneurial companies or individuals will start rehousing still lenses for FF cine use on a large scale, which is what most IMAX productions have used for years, and despite all arguments between the quality difference of still vs. cine lenses, you just need look at any IMAX film on that giant screen and see how great rehoused still lenses can look. Those lenses will pave the way IMO, and though rehousing them won't be cheap, I'm sure they will still be A LOT cheaper than the equivalent Zeiss or Cooke options, which sell on the $30-40K range...Here I am, dreaming of shooting on the FF35 Epic with a nice, rehoused Nikon 17-35 zoom, or Jesus, Mary and Joseph, a 10-20mm zoom underwater, now that's worth waiting for!

Dave Blackham
01-01-2009, 08:35 AM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the increased focal length options, especially at the wide end, that come with FF35 sensor areas and the lenses. How about all the underwater shooters out there? On a FF35 sensor, a 15mm lens gives you about 90 degrees of horizontal coverage, whereas in a S35 design, it's only about 70 degrees. That's why extreme lenses like the Zeiss Superspeed 8mm had to be designed to achieve the same width than a 12mm lens would achieve on a FF35 sensor. I known not everybody needs to shoot underwater or in situations where wide angle shots are needed at all times, but to me, that's the main shortcoming of the S35 area as compared to FF35, since I come from a stills photography background where I had lots of amazing options for wide angle work and very limited ones when I finally got into film work.

Now the thing is, we don't need for companies like Zeiss or Cooke to make a whole new line of lenses from scratch, this is something they'll probably won't do, at least not for a long while, but I'm sure some intelligent, entrepreneurial companies or individuals will start rehousing still lenses for FF cine use on a large scale, which is what most IMAX productions have used for years, and despite all arguments between the quality difference of still vs. cine lenses, you just need look at any IMAX film on that giant screen and see how great rehoused still lenses can look. Those lenses will pave the way IMO, and though rehousing them won't be cheap, I'm sure they will still be A LOT cheaper than the equivalent Zeiss or Cooke options, which sell on the $30-40K range...Here I am, dreaming of shooting on the FF35 Epic with a nice, rehoused Nikon 17-35 zoom, or Jesus, Mary and Joseph, a 10-20mm zoom underwater, now that's worth waiting for!

This is a very good point. A good deal of our work is underwater and wide optics are difficult to come by so we would welcome FF35 for this reason alone. We have Canon L glass for some of our stills hire equipment but are considering using Leica R glass for the New red camera's both which would be usable in their own way.

There's been some discussion about rehoused Leica glass by Van Diemen which are reportedly excelent in PL mount. If it is possible to mount Leica R glass on Epic and Scarlet then if the mechanics are up to it then surely this is a very viable option for some projects. Leica stills lenses are very good mechanically with long throw focus and rotates cinewise so if equiped with external gears then it may be good option for FF35 and also S35 when the tighter angle of view is useful or can be accomodated. Im not a focus puller so would be interested in any practical views of using Leica lenses in this way ?

May be its stating the obvious but not all Red projects are for cinema distrubution and also not all shot in the Hollywood style of having large crews etc (no critisim intended) but for smaller documentary and feature shoots they may be well suited.

Dave

David Mullen ASC
01-01-2009, 09:21 AM
May be its stating the obvious but not all Red projects are for cinema distrubution and also not all shot in the Hollywood style of having large crews etc (no critisim intended) but for smaller documentary and feature shoots they may be well suited.

Dave

Sure, I can see the advantages if you need super wide-angle lenses, which are not used that much in narrative cine shooting... but why would a smaller documentary or feature having an easier time dealing with less depth of field of a FF35 sensor over a S35 sensor? Often small shoots use smaller lights and thus lower light levels at times, making the issue more critical.

Documentaries often are better off the other way, with a 2/3" sensor and greater depth of field, than a FF35 sensor and much lower depth of field, since they are following around unrehearsed moving subjects with no second takes allowed. Of course, there are many types of documentaries and not all subjects are challenging, focus-wise.

But I question the notion that the FF35 format is going to be a friend to the low-budget filmmaker working faster, with smaller and less experienced crews. Or the documentary filmmaker running into an unknown situation as things are happening all around them. Or the wildlife filmmaker as some lion is charging the lens. The lower depth of field and the use of still camera lenses is only going to make more work for them, not make things easier, just as it would for the documentarian to shoot with a VistaVision camera, minus the size & weight issues.

I'm just questioning the implication in your post that cine lenses for some reason are made with big crews in mind. I've gone out and shot features with just one assistant using cine lenses with as tiny a crew as any doc or EPK.

Let's be clear, this is not a big crew vs. small crew issue, or a Hollywood vs. everyone else issue, it's simply an issue of manual follow-focusing using a focus puller and measurements & marks vs. other methods of follow-focusing, like operator eye-focusing. This doesn't have to be a big political issue, it's just a practical issue. And it's important to at least start thinking about the implications of the FF35 format in terms of how it affects focusing, especially for anyone used to shooting in 2/3" video, which in practical terms, has 4-stops more depth of field than FF35.

Dave Blackham
01-01-2009, 09:44 AM
Sure, I can see the advantages if you need super wide-angle lenses, which are not used that much in narrative cine shooting... but why would a smaller documentary or feature having an easier time dealing with less depth of field of a FF35 sensor over a S35 sensor? Often small shoots use smaller lights and thus lower light levels at times, making the issue more critical.

Documentaries often are better off the other way, with a 2/3" sensor and greater depth of field, than a FF35 sensor and much lower depth of field, since they are following around unrehearsed moving subjects with no second takes allowed. Of course, there are many types of documentaries and not all subjects are challenging, focus-wise.

But I question the notion that the FF35 format is going to be a friend to the low-budget filmmaker working faster, with smaller and less experienced crews. The lower depth of field and the use of still camera lenses is only going to make more work for them, not make things easier.

I'm just questioning the implication in your post that cine lenses for some reason are made with big crews in mind. I've gone out and shot features with just one assistant using cine lenses with as tiny a crew as any doc or EPK.

Let's be clear, this is not a big crew vs. small crew issue, or a Hollywood vs. everyone else issue, it's simply an issue of manual follow-focusing using a focus puller and measurements & marks vs. other methods of follow-focusing, like operator eye-focusing. This doesn't have to be a big political issue, it's just a practical issue.

David, thanks for the comments they are very helpful in trying to understand the problems here. My point was really just trying to locate glass that was able to cover FF35 that may be optically good but less costly than Cine glass and has suitable mechanics. It may be that stills glass just isn't an option even if it does cover an FF35 frame due to the added practical challenges of the larger sensor. Also as you say the larger sensor adds to the challenge. One thing for sure is less experienced crews are always slower to work that experienced ones what ever the equipment. Thanks again for your view,

Dave

David Mullen ASC
01-01-2009, 09:56 AM
I think you've hit on the real issue, which is cost.

Still camera lenses are cheaper, and thus a lot of people want to find a way of making them work for motion picture shooting. I can understand that, and personally, if I bought an FF35 EPIC, I'd probably outfit it with more affordable still camera lenses and just rent cine lenses when needed.

Dave Blackham
01-01-2009, 12:14 PM
This might not be the right threat to raise this but here goes anyway. I just called a couple of friends who work with a major broadcasters and are evaluating Red for Drama and feature use. They say their interim view which is still being formed is that 3k (and associated windowing of the sensor) might be their preferred capture resolution/sensor size with Red One as the focus issues are challenging when compared to 2/3 cameras and 2k isn't thought to be up to the job, it seems 2k its yielding approximately a similar resolution to 720 capture. In other words 3k/windowed may be a good compromise for HD television work. So this issue of lenses emerges again.

With Red and other camera manufacturers creating larger sensors FF35, 645 and so on and broadcasters thinking smaller may be preferred there seems no common agreement here for TV work at least....

Tom Lowe
01-01-2009, 12:22 PM
Are you thinking about buying a DSMC camera, David?

David Mullen ASC
01-01-2009, 01:10 PM
I would consider it if I had another couple of good years of income and it made sense for my work, business-wise.

When shooting features, I've often had a problem getting certain establishing shots or lyrical transition shots, sunsets, landscapes, wildlife, etc. because of time constraints, but if I owed an EPIC, let's say, I could go out and get them on my own during post and give them to the editor.

This would be more likely than me outfitting a complete production package for a feature for use as an A-camera, which would require a lot more money just to meet my typical requirements on a studio picture.

Robert Horwell
01-01-2009, 01:53 PM
Hi Dave,
the Van Deimen leica conversions only use the glass elements.To the best of my knowledge none of the leica mechanics are used. Van Deiemn used a patented focusing mechanism using variable pitch wireform,one of the reasons they are so unique. They are unfortunately no longer made.
The quality of the sets varied a little,all extremely high quality,but the VFG sets are generally regarded as being the finest,with matched glass sourced directly from Leitz.
I believe only six of these sets were made,I have one,I'm not sure where the others are.
Mr Tony Covell who posts on these boards was the man responsible for originally commissioning these VFG lenses.
These lenses would be extremely expensive if they were made again today,they are certainly not what you expect from converted stills glass.
I'm quite happy with S35 for my current needs.
Tom.

I've got a set of the VFG thomas, yes the are awesome lenses.

Pawel Achtel
01-01-2009, 02:44 PM
... you just need look at any IMAX film on that giant screen and see how great rehoused still lenses can look. Those lenses will pave the way IMO...

Rudi, with all due respect, which particular IMAX underwater film you are referring to? The sharpest once I have seen were shot on 2/3" HDCAM camera! I am yet to see an underwater IMAX shot on 70mm that would resolve more than 1k underwater. The reason is very simple: curvature of field. The larger the image plane, the bigger out of focus corners. I encourage you to see Coral Reef Advanture, for example, and honestly say whether it is the scenery and Howard's camera work that you like or whether it is the image quality. In my view the image quality is shocking. I've seen sharper images shot on HDV (mainly because of smaller sensor size and therefore smaller effect of field curvature). I still liked the film, though.

Unless you have a dedicated U/W wide angle lens, like Nikonos 15mm f/2.8, I am not aware of any optics that are able to adapt terrestial rectiliner beyond 90 degrees FOV and resolve more than 1k on the edges. Sure, you can design large and heavy achromatic doublet, like Phenom, but the loss of contrast and edge resolution are substantial and often negate any advantages. And, this is much easier thing to do with a small image sensor. A nightmare with a large one.

Your sensor resolution accounts for nothing underwater. You can shoot 28k, if you like, and the final result will be limited to the optics which, I can assure you, won't resolve more than 1k beyond 100 degree FOV.

I certainly see no benefit of FF35 for underwater unless you somehow adapt the Nikonos 15mm f/2.8 or design your own.

Andrew Walker
01-01-2009, 08:08 PM
On the subject of projection and frame size I think some people are getting a little confused as to what happens with a projector and how many things need to be setup for a good show. If the image on the screen appears to be too low as in framing of the shot or to high then its a framing problem inside the gate. Most projection booths don't run the alinement film that they should, (RP-40). So you have a shot on the screen that can sometimes show you things that you weren't suppose to see, like boom mics and stuff like that. 1.85 or Flat films have way more room for this type of error as most filmmakers don't option for a 1.85 matte being put on the film. So many projectionist think the movie looks fine when in fact its framed up to high or to low.

If your seeing an image on the masking it could be a number of things. Either the masking wasn't adjusted right in the presents for that format or someone hit the projector with something moving it slightly out of alinement. It could also be that the aperture plate isn't in all the way. Someone said that they had a projector that had loose film in the gate causing the film to be out of focus. That could be the problem but most of the time you just get a lot of movement on the screen. If the film seems to go in and out of focus in only certain locations on screen then the theater there might have their lamp adjusted up way too high. This literally cooks the film warping it. So when its in the projector gate the film buckles back and forth.

In the LA area projection isn't always perfect. I frequently have to go and tell someone that something is wrong and watch them try and fix what I am seeing. But most of the time these people have no real training and its like watching a monkey trying to F%$# a football.

Pawel Achtel
01-02-2009, 01:56 AM
Tom,

You will be interested in the early test of the new Canon 24mm f/1.4 II. The news is not good, unfortunately. The lens is not even as good as the MK I, according to quite detailed and methodical tests:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

This sort of defeats the purpose of the 21 Megapixels fo the 5D, although, it does get better around f/4....who cares?

This is a real bummer. I was hoping 5D II + 24mm f/1.4 II would be the ultimate combo for night time lapses, but from the test results it seems this lens is not in the same ball park as MP 14mm unless you stop it down to f/4-f/5.6. There does not seem to be any fast and sharp FF35 lens available, I'm afraid. :waaa:

I am going ahead with butchering EOS 50D to accept PL lenses before Red ships DSMC, I think :devil:

Charles Angus
01-02-2009, 02:42 AM
I am going ahead with butchering EOS 50D to accept PL lenses before Red ships DSMC, I think :devil:

Sounds fun...

Tom Lowe
01-02-2009, 06:58 AM
Pawel, have you considered chopping an old 5D instead of 50D, or do you have a reason for choosing the 50D?

Daniel Browning
01-02-2009, 08:24 AM
You will be interested in the early test of the new Canon 24mm f/1.4 II. The news is not good, unfortunately. The lens is not even as good as the MK I, according to quite detailed and methodical tests...


Yeah, hopefully Bryan's unit is just out of tolerance.



This sort of defeats the purpose of the 21 Megapixels fo the 5D, although, it does get better around f/4....who cares?


I'm not sure I agree here. Bryan's site doesn't have a comparison between the 1ds3 and 5d using this lens, but I can assure you from personal experience (and Bryan himself, actually, since I asked him before I bought the 5d2) that the 24mm benefits significantly from the additional resolution. The MTF is low, sure, but there is a lot more low contrast detail to pull out even in the extreme corners wide open.



I am going ahead with butchering EOS 50D to accept PL lenses before Red ships DSMC, I think :devil:

That would be really neat.

Roberto Lequeux
01-02-2009, 09:09 AM
I wonder how FF35 and windowed S35 would cut together? Could we do that? Perhaps make the switch from scene to scene and carefully pick the lenses being used? Especially when only outputting 2k or 1080p... does that sound dumb?

David Mullen ASC
01-02-2009, 09:18 AM
Sure it could be done, especially if everything will end up at a lower resolution like 2K or 1080P for mastering.

It may make a D.I. session a little more complicated with different format sizes, that's all, but that's not a big deal. I've done 2K D.I.'s with 1080P material slipped in there, for example.

I was thinking along the same lines, that perhaps you could use cine lenses on the 6K FF35 camera and end up roughly in a 5K-ish windowed mode, and then use a still camera lens for when you wanted to shoot 6K full-frame, like for a wide shot or an efx plate.

Of course, if you are going to switch between PL-mount cine lenses and still camera lenses, it would be easier if they all had the same mount rather than switch the camera's mount.

Rudi Herbert
01-02-2009, 10:09 AM
Rudi, with all due respect, which particular IMAX underwater film you are referring to?

Pawel,

Interestingly, I wasn't referring to underwater IMAX films, I haven't seen one of those in a long time as I find them insufferable for the most part, with the cheesy music, the worn out visual references and the overall feel good approach, which I understand is somewhat of a neccessity for a medium that relies on attracting families to its theathers, but still, great but no thanks for me. I, of course, could be wrong when it come to Howard Hall or others, but I haven't found the overwhelming need to go see things titled "Coral Reef Adventures" or the like in a long time. My last underwater IMAX film was "Ocean Men", and that's just because I worked as a consultant on it as the subject matter is very close to me. It was shot by Bob Talbot (don't know what optics were used) and it looked, for the most part, really good, even the scenes in very deep water.

My comments were aimed more at the POSSIBLE solutions based on still lenses being rehoused, something rare but not uncommon and which could experience a jolt of a kick start once the FF Epic is released. Those lenses could potentially fill a not so small niche and be sold for reasonably cheaper prices than something developed by Zeiss, Cooke and the like.

Now, in terms of underwater use specifics, I can relate to your pursuit of perfection in lenses, having been like that myself, but I will say that I started producing better images and films once I stopped (ok, maybe not stopped, but decreased) worrying about resolution and sharpness and concentrated more on getting the best possible shots to serve the story I was trying to tell. I also started enjoying music again a few years ago when I stopped obsessing about the fidelity of the my never-ending do it yourself system and started listening to MP3's on an Ipod :-) Now, for what is worth, resolution is not as important to me as angle of coverage, so if forced to shoot between a lens that will produce stunningly sharp images edge to edge but won't allow me to fit everything I need to fit into the frame at a given distance from the subject and another lens that will indeed give me the image I'm looking for but not look so sharp, although acceptably so for 99% of viewers, especially for TV bound projects, then I will choose the latter without a hint of hesitation. But to each his own. I just plainly refuse to go underwater with a maximum filed of vision of 70 degrees or so. But again, to each his own.

And as for the adored Nikonos 15mm lens, to add to what I already said about it in another thread somewhere, I will say that that type of technology can be replicated by a capable company or technician nowadays WITHOUT A DOUBT, and better yet, starting with much more modern, better still optics than the original Nikon 20mm upon which the Nikonos 15mm is based. So, I for one, I'm looking forward to all the wide angle possibilities that no doubt will become available, even if slowly at first, once the FF Epic is out there.

My two devaluated pennies,

Roberto Lequeux
01-02-2009, 12:48 PM
Then you get to shoot FF35 when you need the added FOV and shoot windowed S35 the rest of the time which is a bit less resolution, though that may also be a good thing, and you use the sweet spot of the lenses. Interesting stuff.

Have a lot of you guys considered the Zeiss ZF lenses? I remember reading about them compared to Super Speeds and they actually performed slightly better or equal in sharpness... also the focus ring is supposed to be quite spectacular for still lenses... plus RPlenses removes the steps in the aperture and fits them with permanent gears and hoods... sure they won't fly with certain customers but something to consider given their cost and performance, right?

richard peterson
01-02-2009, 02:43 PM
the pictures from the D3x (24mp) and nikons 14-24mm F/2.8 are incredible.

The 14-24 extreme edge sharpness is through the roof even wide open.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/361-nikkor-af-s-14-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review?start=1

Rumor is nikon has had the D3x on the drawing board for sometime and their new lenses seem to resolve really nice with the 24mp sensor (perfect fit); Its like the knew this would be an issue and got it right.

I thank the new nikon zooms and zeiss zf primes are the way to go if you want the most out of the FF35. But only time will tell... Plus they are cheap :)

Pawel Achtel
01-02-2009, 02:45 PM
Pawel, have you considered chopping an old 5D instead of 50D, or do you have a reason for choosing the 50D?

5D will be the next patient in the queue. :devil:


I wonder how FF35 and windowed S35 would cut together? Could we do that? Perhaps make the switch from scene to scene and carefully pick the lenses being used? Especially when only outputting 2k or 1080p... does that sound dumb?

I've done it here:

http://achtel.com/production/Grace%20under%20Pressure%201152x480%2025fps%207Mbp s.mov

The time lapse sequences are FF35, the topside is S35 (Red One) and underwater is 2/3" HDCAM. As David mentioned, a little bit more work in post, but overall gives you more creative flexibility, depending on the best format for the shot.


Have a lot of you guys considered the Zeiss ZF lenses?
I'd use ZFs or, C/Y Zeiss for some shots. They not very fast compared to modern cine glass. But having two different mounts is not workable for me. I would need two separate cameras and the shoots I mostly do don't lend themselves for two separate rigs. Changing mounts in the field is out of question. Having universal mount, like IMS introduces all sorts of variables in FFD. I need one single mount and perfectly collimated set of lenses and, if I have a choice, it is the PL.

REDneck
01-02-2009, 02:48 PM
the pictures from the D3x (24mp) and nikons 14-24mm F/2.8 are incredible.

The 14-24 extreme edge sharpness is through the roof even wide open.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/361-nikkor-af-s-14-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review?start=1

Rumor is nikon has had the D3x on the drawing board for sometime and their new lenses seem to resolve really nice with the 24mp sensor (perfect fit); Its like the knew this would be an issue and got it right.

I thank the new nikon zooms and zeiss zf primes are the way to go if you want the most out of the FF35. But only time will tell... Plus they are cheap :)

isn't that zoom designed for APS-C? and since it's an AF wouldn't the focus throw be really short?

Pawel Achtel
01-02-2009, 02:52 PM
the pictures from the D3x (24mp) and nikons 14-24mm F/2.8 are incredible.

The 14-24 extreme edge sharpness is through the roof even wide open.


If it was f/1.2 I'd have no hesitation whatsoever. At f/2.8, it does not give you any advantage in low light shooting (when FF35 is compelling) over a MP14mm on S35.

Another drawback would be short focus throw.

Otherwise, yes, it is a good lens.

Jacek Zakowicz
01-02-2009, 03:34 PM
If it was f/1.2 I'd have no hesitation whatsoever. At f/2.8, it does not give you any advantage in low light shooting (when FF35 is compelling) over a MP14mm on S35.

Another drawback would be short focus throw.

Otherwise, yes, it is a good lens.
Can you explain your statement?
do you really not see the advantage of shooting FF35 sensor with squeeky clean images at ISO 1600/2000 (Nikon/Canon) and the FOV factor of 1.35x for S35 and 1.53x for R1 sensor?
You would have to use 10mm lens on S35 to match the FOV of 14mm lens on FF35 and you would have to use 9mm lens on R1 to match the FOV of 14mm lens on FF35 sensor.
The UP 10mm is T 2.1, isn't it? Only one stop slower than the Nikon and not a zoom. And the Price?!!
14mm MP on S35 is equivalent of 19mm lens on FF35 sensor camera
14mm MP on R1 is equivalent of 21.5mm lens on FF35 sensor camera
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek

Stephen Williams
01-02-2009, 03:36 PM
If it was f/1.2 I'd have no hesitation whatsoever. At f/2.8, it does not give you any advantage in low light shooting (when FF35 is compelling) over a MP14mm on S35.

Another drawback would be short focus throw.

Otherwise, yes, it is a good lens.

Hi,

Many people seem to overlook the 2.5 stops (approx) advantage in this case, if MP's were F2.8 (T3 approx) they would be smaller and very much cheaper.

Stephen

chuck colburn
01-02-2009, 03:42 PM
A 14-24mm zoom with a stop of f1.2 would be impossible (more or less) to make with any quality resoultion. It's just pushing optical design to far.

Pawel Achtel
01-02-2009, 04:03 PM
Can you explain your statement?
do you really not see the advantage of shooting FF35 sensor with squeeky clean images at ISO 1600/2000 (Nikon/Canon) and the FOV factor of 1.35x for S35 and 1.53x for R1 sensor?
14mm MP on S35 is equivalent of 19mm lens on FF35 sensor camera
14mm MP on R1 is equivalent of 21.5mm lens on FF35 sensor camera
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek

Stephen just explained it for me. :biggrin:

I can see advantages of FF35 sensor but, at this stage, there isn't a fast (like f/1.2), sharp, ultra-wide angle (14mm - 24mm on FF35) lens that would make this format attractive. There are some decent slower FF35 lenses, but in good lighting conditions the advantages of FF35 diminish.

Angle of view is less of an issue. 14mm on S35 (or 21mm on FF35) is plenty wide. I wouldn't use wider lens very often as composing the shot would be very tricky.

Daniel Browning
01-02-2009, 04:59 PM
Real estate between the exit pupil and the sensor is beginning to become available as its old tenants (mirrors and optical assemblies) vacate the premises. At the same time, I've read that microlens technology has improved enough that sensor angular response is now as good as film.

I wonder if someone out there is taking notice of all that available space and good angular response. Maybe they're planning to capitalize on it with new lenses that do not have to conform to arbitrary flange focal distances or costly telecentricity requirements. Imagine wide primes that are faster with even higher image quality. (Upcoming RED lenses, perhaps?)

Pawel Achtel
01-02-2009, 05:28 PM
Hmmm, good point, Daniel. A lens like this would probably come from someone like Red or even Zeiss. I can't see Canon or Nikon stepping in. They are bogged down too deep with the mirror legacy.

I do hope Red will produce even f/1.6 FF35 wide cine glass, at which point it would be very tempting choice over UPs, MPs and S4s if sharpness and mechanics were comparable. It would make perfect sense for FF35 Scarlet and Epic...

Tom Lowe
01-03-2009, 09:49 AM
I think f/2.8 will be fast enough on FF35 for most occasions, especially if the sensor's ISO/ASA rating is high. Frankly, with the 5D2, the camera is so damn fast, I find myself trying to slow it down, by stopping down or turning down the ISO. In moonlight, my still astro shots are no longer measured in amounts like 15s or 20s, more like fractions of a second or 3s or 5s. At FF35, f/2.8 should artistically work well. You might not even want to be that wide open most of the time!

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 10:40 AM
I am trying to wrap my head around shooting at real big apertures with FF35 but I do notice that this conversation is focusing on super wide focal lengths... however I have no way of knowing how deep the focus pane remains at something like FF35 f1.6 14mm?

Obviously it isn't just a few inches or Pawel wouldn't be able to keep up with sea creatures.

I see it more like being able to shoot FF35 would give me a 75 degree FOV at f2.0 with a ZF 28mm which costs virtually nothing. And that makes me very happy cause there is a lot that can be done without the need for wider lenses. Add to that a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8f and I am set with only having spend $4,000 out of my budget on glass. Also the FOV of the 50mm goes up to 47 degrees which is not that impossible to operate, right? This lets me shoot my night exteriors at f1.4 which would mean that my tiny eclectic package might be quite awesome considering that everything will also be covered in snow. Of course, we'd still have quite the shaky look with the 50mm, but I purposely wrote only two scenes night ext and made them exactly the type of turning point scenes that benefit from a little shake. Then whenever we need the 11mm it would either be bright enough outside or we'd have plenty of light for the interiors. This leaves only one worry that I can forsee, and that is not being able to break down walls to get enough distance from the subjects so as to avoid the weirdness I feel when I see people too close to ultra wide lenses. So I guess I am going to have to take a close look at my furniture to see if I can help it... I just hope we don't have to shoot though open windows cause I don't have enough budget to keep my crew happy if I am making freeze like that. hehe... j/k about that http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 11:07 AM
I understand that I could rent a set of 5 super speeds for a little under that amount, but that is only if nobody else has them out. And also this is all geared towards the hope that we'll be able to purchase a basic film FF35 Scarlet package which would allow us to shoot some stuff here in LA and reserve the full principal photography schedule for the cold stuff up in Minnesota.

Then we could either sell it back or get ready to use it on the next project, possibly rent it a few times... and the only drawback I know of besides the slower speeds would be the focusing ring feel and I keep hearing wonderful things about it. Most of these lenses have quite the long throws based on what I remember from the ZF thread.

chuck colburn
01-03-2009, 12:04 PM
I understand that I could rent a set of 5 super speeds for a little under that amount, but that is only if nobody else has them out. And also this is all geared towards the hope that we'll be able to purchase a basic film FF35 Scarlet package which would allow us to shoot some stuff here in LA and reserve the full principal photography schedule for the cold stuff up in Minnesota.

Then we could either sell it back or get ready to use it on the next project, possibly rent it a few times... and the only drawback I know of besides the slower speeds would be the focusing ring feel and I keep hearing wonderful things about it. Most of these lenses have quite the long throws based on what I remember from the ZF thread.

By FF35 I take it you mean a 24x36mm format like in a still camera. I don't think Zeiss super speed cine lenses will cover that format.

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 12:10 PM
No? I thought they were supposed to... :waaa:

chuck colburn
01-03-2009, 12:17 PM
No? I thought they were supposed to... :waaa:

I'll see if I can find out. I just can't see any reason fot it. It just makes it harder to design and build the lenses.

Can't find anything that says they will cover larger then S35. If they did I would think they would have shown up on VistaVision plate cameras.

http://www.cinematechnic.com/resources/zeiss_super_speed_f1,2_lenses.html

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 12:28 PM
I guess I assumed that... I also sent them the question to their support page on their website but if you find out sooner pls let me know.

I guess I thought that because of the D700 and D3 being full frame. But it does make it exponentially more expensive I guess, and I never checked to see if the tests were done with FF35 or just looking at the smaller sizes of sensors for DSLRs which are right about S35.

Jacek Zakowicz
01-03-2009, 12:31 PM
Just when I thought this one has been beaten to death.....
There are graphics, charts and images all over this forum-if you only took 2 minutes to do research before posting.... I know-dream on.
Cine lenses cover 31mm circle diameter while FF35 is 43mm circle diameter-
Factor of 1.35x(simply divide 43/31).
Longer lenses above 50mm cover more because it does not make much difference for the designer so they are more generous with coverage to extract the sweet spot.
Any bets how long before someone will post this question again?
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek:tongue:

Andrew Walker
01-03-2009, 12:32 PM
I guess I assumed that... I also sent them the question to their support page on their website but if you find out sooner pls let me know.

I guess I thought that because of the D700 and D3 being full frame. But it does make it exponentially more expensive I guess, and I never checked to see if the tests were done with FF35 or just looking at the smaller sizes of sensors for DSLRs which are right about S35.

Sounds like your talking about the ZF lenses and not the cine. The ZFs cover FF35, the cines don't.

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 01:12 PM
Andrew, are you sure? Thanks for answering. I can't wait to hear definite confirmation cause I really took that for granted. I thought I made it absolutely clear that I was talking about Zeiss ZF lenses and the new 11-16 Tokina, also still.

PS: Pls don't shoot! You can have my money. Here...

Opti, I hope you weren't answering to my post. These take me a long time to write cause I am no DP so I tried hard to be clear and thought I was.

chuck colburn
01-03-2009, 01:22 PM
I just assumed when you said "super speeds" you were speaking of the Zeiss cine lenses.
I hope optitek will forgive my ignorance of photographic optics.

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 01:30 PM
You were right, I did mention Zeiss Super Speeds. I was only bringing them up as the option within the reach of our infinitesimal budget. For $3,600 I could rent a set of 5 super speeds (if they were not rented to someone else) and use them with S35 Scarlet. In that scenario we'd have the 18mm on the S35 as our widest end.

This might just be a big confusion sparked only due to my huge wall of text. I apologize for that... I just feel the need to triple check everything, and to try to run it by you guys (for free :whistling: ) since I am quite ignorant when it comes to photography.

Jacek Zakowicz
01-03-2009, 01:33 PM
I did not mean it personally to anyone, just to be clear.
I was just making a point about doing research before posting to get rid of this horrible noise here. I come here for knowledge. I don't suffer from Alzheimers so reading hundreds of posts about FOV, DOF, CA etc is living the Ground Hog Day every time I come here. Many members spent a lot of time compiling, making charts, graphics etc about it. Fantastic knowledge base.
Seem like very few posters are using it. 2 minutes on Google would answer over 50% of these questions, 5 minutes on Google would answer 90% of them.
Here, here, rant over
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek

chuck colburn
01-03-2009, 01:36 PM
You were right, I did mention Zeiss Super Speeds. I was only bringing them up as the option within the reach of our infinitesimal budget. For $3,600 I could rent a set of 5 super speeds (if they were not rented to someone else) and use them with S35 Scarlet. In that scenario we'd have the 18mm on the S35 as our widest end.

This might just be a big confusion sparked only due to my huge wall of text. I apologize for that... I just feel the need to triple check everything, and to try to run it by you guys (for free :whistling: ) since I am quite ignorant when it comes to photography.

Then what the hell are you doing looking thru that camera eyepiece? Only kidding. One can never be too sure of what one is doing before doing it. It gets really costly if you find out at the shoot something is not going to work.
Information is everything. Your operator and 1st asst. should be able to handle all such questions.

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 01:37 PM
Then what the hell are you doing looking thru that camera eyepiece? Only kidding. One can never be too sure of what one is doing before doing it. It gets really costly if you find out at the shoot something is not going to work.
Information is everything. Your operator and 1st asst. should be able to handle all such questions.

Yea, but I am putting this project together all alone and those guys will get very little compensation for the shooting days... if I told you what I am trying to achieve and told how how much money you might burst out laughing. :calm:

OptiTek, would you be ablt to tell me if the testing performed on the ZF's was done for FF35? Let me get the link.

Jacek Zakowicz
01-03-2009, 01:45 PM
Here, glad I could help
http://www.andidietrich.com/zf18mm/comp/index.html
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 01:48 PM
well maybe you are just better at searching for this stuff too... I literally have been searching for the old thread this whole time... glad I looked back in here, therefor I feel the 2 minute mark to be bias and unfair :tongue:

seriously though I am not considering the 18mm, too slow, I am looking at these:

Tokina f2.8 11-16mm
ZF f2.0 28mm
ZF f2.0 35mm
ZF f1.4 50mm
ZF f1.4 85mm

not the same one but great to have more to read

chuck colburn
01-03-2009, 01:54 PM
The "new" 21mm f2.8 has been delayed in release but if it's as good or better then the model made for the Contax camera it will be a monster.

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 01:58 PM
AHA! found it... but now I still have to find the link within the thread... make that about 15 minutes and going for people like me :tongue:

Thread: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13760

EDIT Ok, so this wasn't even the right thread but it did have these links

Tokina: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm
ZF: http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/ZeissTest/REW-ZeissLensTest-Results.pdf
ZF (other test, purchase): http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/ZeissZFLenses/index.html

Ok.. I am burnt out for today... I'll find it later. :nerd:

chuck colburn
01-03-2009, 02:57 PM
This review cost money but it sounds like it might be a good one.

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/ZeissZFLenses/index.html

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 03:36 PM
Yea. I remember several users here said it was well worth the money.

There was an other one though, I think... one with the little grid for distortion and all... can't find it though...

also, apparently the Tokina vignetes like crazy with full frame sensors till you set it to 16mm... however 16mm with FF is 180 degrees FOV, right? That sound like plenty wide to me!

I don't understand how it could be so wide and remain rectilinear, but there is a ton I don't know about optics so I'll leave it at that I guess.

So the set of ZF's and the Tokina would work with FF35 as 16, 28, 35, 50, 85... and then if you needed it you could also set the camera to windowed S35 and make that 85mm work as a much longer lens too... assuming the window mode is in fact included in Scarlets as I think it was confirmed by someone in the Red team as some point in time... (if I remember correctly)

Pawel Achtel
01-03-2009, 03:57 PM
There is a good article on related matter of focusing here:

http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm

No point having sharp glass if it can't be focused correctly and repeatably.

I think still lens manufacturers have to face the fact that auto focusing - a feature that nearly all lenses rely on, is inadequate for high resolution DSLRs. What I would like to see are lenses with focusing scales and throw of an UP, MP or Cooke.

chuck colburn
01-03-2009, 04:07 PM
There is a good article on related matter of focusing here:

http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm

No point having sharp glass if it can't be focused correctly and repeatably.

I think still lens manufacturers have to face the fact that auto focusing - a feature that nearly all lenses rely on, is inadequate for high resolution DSLRs. What I would like to see are lenses with focusing scales and throw of an UP, MP or Cooke.
Interesting article. Seems as though the quality of the image in the electronic viewfinder on still cameras is not sensitive enough for critical manual focus. It just doesn't have that snap of a ground glass image. This probally won't be as bad on the RED camera with its high rez viewfinder.

Pawel Achtel
01-03-2009, 04:13 PM
This probally won't be as bad on the RED camera with its high rez viewfinder.

Correct. For focusing, I actually prefer the RED LCD screen from the VF, just personal preference. But after playing with Master Primes fully opened on Red One, I can certainly conclude one thing: WE NEED LOOOOOONG FOCUS THROW.

And, this is what most still glass is lacking.

chuck colburn
01-03-2009, 04:16 PM
Not ever having looked thru the V/F on a RED camera, how does it compare to oh lets say an Arri 435 or even a 235 for focus snap?

thanks,

Tom Lowe
01-03-2009, 04:30 PM
As I mentioned in this thread (below), a 10x zoom is absolutely vital to the DSMC program, IMHO.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23736

9 out of 10 times, when I think I have achieved focus on the 5D2, I will punch in 5x or 10x on the focus-assist zoom and learn that I was WAAAAY off. It's such an incredibly useful tool that it would be impossible to overstate its value.

Obviously, with moving subjects, it becomes less useful, but it's useful for shots that are more locked off in nature, and at least guarantees that your shot starts out in focus. :)

chuck colburn
01-03-2009, 04:44 PM
As I mentioned in this thread (below), a 10x zoom is absolutely vital to the DSMC program, IMHO.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23736

9 out of 10 times, when I think I have achieved focus on the 5D2, I will punch in 5x or 10x on the focus-assist zoom and learn that I was WAAAAY off. It's such an incredibly useful tool that it would be impossible to overstate its value.

Obviously, with moving subjects, it becomes less useful, but it's useful for shots that are more locked off in nature, and at least guarantees that your shot starts out in focus. :)

This brings to mind the fact that most still camera footage scales are mass produced to a given standard. Since the ZF lenses are intended for a still camera this scale does not have to take in individual variances of one lens to another. If I were to go the still camera lens route I would one, make sure the flange focale depth of the camera is spot on and two make sure every lens agrees with that standard. Then I would check the footage marks of each lens to see if they agree with a tape measured subject distance. This is standard practice when preping a film camera package. If the marks on the lens barrel don't agree with the measured distance then you make your own footage scale with lens tape and ink pen.

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 05:37 PM
Unless using cine lenses I don't even want to look at the markings at all... I would hope the ZF's are accurate but I am not expecting them to. What I am concerned with is how long the focus throw is and how much longer my FF makes it... then if it is long enough.

I am hoping that RED will make little 1080 LCDs since the bomb EVF is supposed to be 1080, though it was never pointed out if it was native 1080 or simply takes a 1080 signal... though I would expect it to be native, even if it sounds quite hard to cram so many pixels in such a small screen. Just cause it is Red we are talking about.

An 8 or 9 inch 1920x1080 LCD would be sweetnes incarnated since 1080 is all I am hoping to put out in the end. However the price would be insanity incarnated so I really have no clue what the solution will be.

We shot a short with a Carrion (9" Panasonic equivalent) and Nikon lenses... focus was dictating my shot selection in the editing bay... I cursed so many times, even when I was expecting it. It wasn't so much the monitor as the focus throw... often we had to deal with less than an 1/8th of an inch on the focus ring, back and forth, tons of movement... ZF's have significant longer throw, especially when you get the macros (where the heck is that thread!). So I swore I'd rent super speeds... just for focus. But if we could own for $500 more then I am forced to look into it. Perhaps we can shoot a few pages before the return policy is a gonner... is there a return policy? lol

chuck colburn
01-03-2009, 05:49 PM
But you focus puller needs footage marks he can count on. Mayby not for your current project, but if in the future if you have a full camera crew you will. Macro focus will always have a shallow depth of field (in front of the lens) but a deep depth of focus (behind the lens) resulting in more lens travel.

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 06:37 PM
I am not sure if I understand, all I noticed was that the macro ZF's had longer throws. ?

I will have an excellent focus puller and I am sure he will do exactly what you said about making sure the marks are accurate or making his own with tape.

I wish you had used the ZFs so you could tell me what your personal opinion was... hehe... for free! :)

Jacek Zakowicz
01-03-2009, 08:32 PM
Let me clarify something here:
Macro lenses in the cine world have longer focus travel because they focus much closer. Normal focusing marks(those above 9x the EFL) are actually closer together than non-macro lenses so the lens can achieve closer focus for a given rotation. Macro lenses are intended for, well, macro work so there is much less concern about the normal focusing distances. Aside of normal distance marks being closer together there are fewer of them and they are not as precise.
Just my 2 pennies
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek

chuck colburn
01-03-2009, 08:39 PM
What he said. An since macros tend to be somewhat longer focale lengths to give you some working room between the lens and the subject and to make it opticaly easier to achieve a flat field the lens has to extend (travel) further the longer the focale length.

Roberto Lequeux
01-03-2009, 09:41 PM
ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly... a macro lens throw will be the same as it's non macro counterpart aside for the added rotation for closer focus, meaning the throw is identical only it keeps going a little bit more?

Jacek Zakowicz
01-03-2009, 09:49 PM
ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly... a macro lens throw will be the same as it's non macro counterpart aside for the added rotation for closer focus, meaning the throw is identical only it keeps going a little bit more?

Not exactly,
Macro lenses have much longer focus throw than normal but, to simplify things, most of it is designated for macro distances which, unless your main work is miniatures and such, is useless to you. Macro feature also makes the mechanics more complicated and, consequently, usually more expensive.
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek

chuck colburn
01-03-2009, 10:18 PM
What he said.

Roberto Lequeux
01-04-2009, 08:45 AM
hmmm... well that is certainly great to know now, in case we did get the opportunity to go that way it would blow if I later found out I had spent tons of cash on multiple macros thinking I was getting more throw for normal shooting

Ok, so here are two questions so I can continue bugging the crap out of u guys and beat this dead horse a few more times (I am telling you, he is not dead, he is just napping):

1. Is there any other still glass that you guys know of that has above average focus ring action which should be considered for motion?

2. Is there a particular FF that has taller gear than the rest?

chuck colburn
01-04-2009, 09:11 AM
The mechanics on the Leitz (Leica) lenses are very percise. The Zeiss lenses made for the Contax cameras were very good and most focused cinewise eliminating the need for a reversable follow focus unit. I believe this holds true for the Leitz optics also.

This store has some nice examples of the Contax/Zeiss lenses. Not the cheapest but nice ones. Including the amazing 21mm f2.8, 55mm f1.2, 85mm f1.2 the wonderful 200mm f2 and the 60 and 100mm macros. While not shown here there was also a 28mm f2 that is quite nice.

http://stores.ebay.com/digifancn_CONTAX_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ5230734QQf tidZ2QQtZkm

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270321357388&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RSCC_Pr4_PcY_BIN_Stores_IT&refitem=250342831718&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=active_view_item&usedrule1=StoreCatToStoreCat&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget&_trksid=p284.m184&_trkparms=algo%3DDR%26its%3DS%252BI%252BSS%26itu%3 DISS%252BUCI%252BSI%26otn%3D4

And of course they cover FF35 (24x36mm) if you decide to go that route.

Sanjin Jukic
01-04-2009, 10:00 AM
Nice.

I knew for this shop in HH longer.

Dave Blackham
01-04-2009, 10:10 AM
The mechanics on the Leitz ( ) lenses are very percise. The Zeiss lenses made for the Contax cameras were very good and most focused cinewise eliminating the need for a reversable follow focus unit. I believe this holds true for the Leitz optics also.

This store has some nice examples of the Contax/Zeiss lenses. Not the cheapest but nice ones. Including the amazing 21mm f2.8, 55mm f1.2, 85mm f1.2 the wonderful 200mm f2 and the 60 and 100mm macros. While not shown here there was also a 28mm f2 that is quite nice.

http://stores.ebay.com/digifancn_CONTAX_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ5230734QQf tidZ2QQtZkm

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270321357388&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RSCC_Pr4_PcY_BIN_Stores_IT&refitem=250342831718&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=active_view_item&usedrule1=StoreCatToStoreCat&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget&_trksid=p284.m184&_trkparms=algo%3DDR%26its%3DS%252BI%252BSS%26itu%3 DISS%252BUCI%252BSI%26otn%3D4

And of course they cover FF35 (24x36mm) if you decide to go that route.

This is correct. The Contax/Zeiss 60mm and 100mm macros are both 1:1 and can be converted to PL mount or rehoused, they are great macro lenses. In their stills form the front of the lens extends which you may of may not be able to live with and using an FF unit tricky. The Leitz lenses are not 1:1. The 60mm can use and extension tube to get 1:1 and I've seen one extension tube modded to PL so the lens it self does not require modification and retains its R mount. The Leitz 100mm 2.8 uses an additional lens for 1:1 so I don't think an extension tube can be used in the same way to mount to PL. An expert will need to comment on this if possible.

The Leitz 60mm is usually 30% less than the Contax/Zeiss 60mm price but the 100mm Leitz is about 20% more than the Zeiss macro. The 100mm lenses being more expensive. The Leitz 100mm is said to be the bench mark macro. Ffordes photographic in the UK have all lenses used at reasnoble price, ( I have no connection to them but have purchased from them before and found them to be very reputable). If you search hard you will find the Contax/Zeiss lenses for £200 to £400 each in near new condition. Les Bosher can convert them to PL for you or you can use a convertor to Canon EF if you have a Canon mount on your camera.

Dave

chuck colburn
01-04-2009, 10:30 AM
What Dave says is true. I would not worry to much about racking focus with the macros you don't need to do that to often and it can either be done by hand or a long gear can be made to fit you follow focus unit. The way it was done before internal focusing came about on lenses (think Angenieux 25-250mm zoom etc.) I just pointed out those exotic lenses as an example of what can be had in the Zeiss/Contax line. As Dave said you can get a nice 50 or 85mm f1.4 version $400-$600. And yes the macros are nice.

Roberto Lequeux
01-04-2009, 10:36 AM
There is no way I could make sense of all this at this point. :blink:

Jacek Zakowicz
01-04-2009, 10:39 AM
There is no way I could make sense of all this at this point. :blink:

Don't worry, me neither(so typical here):bleh:
Jacek Zakowicz, Optitek

chuck colburn
01-04-2009, 10:43 AM
I don't think what Dave or I said can be put much simpler. Don't try to wear to many hats and let your cameraman guide you along.

Roberto Lequeux
01-04-2009, 11:05 AM
^ yup... the problem is that I am line producing this project, and that's the only way I am going to get to direct my first feature :weight_lift:

(BTW, just to clarify, once we start production I am getting a UPM to do that work)

Pawel Achtel
01-07-2009, 03:26 AM
OK, Guys. I decided the other way around :usd:

A brand spanking new Canon 50D and a PL mount have been acquired and are on their way to an experienced "surgeon" to create the first DSMC operation :w00t:

The surgeon will carefully remove the disfunctional EF organ from the patient and make a PL implant in its place.

Can't wait to see some night time lapse at 14mm wide, f/1.2, 4.8k and almost noisless ISO 3200.

Dave Blackham
01-07-2009, 03:53 AM
OK, Guys. I decided the other way around :usd:

A brand spanking new Canon 50D and a PL mount have been acquired and are on their way to an experienced "surgeon" to create the first DSMC operation :w00t:

The surgeon will carefully remove the disfunctional EF organ from the patient and make a PL implant in its place.

Can't wait to see some night time lapse at 14mm wide, f/1.2, 4.8k and almost noisless ISO 3200.

Very interesting, please can you let us know how the engineering goes.....

Stephen Williams
01-07-2009, 06:14 AM
Take care as many lenses will be hit when the mirror moves (unless you cut some of the mirror away, the Leica rangefinder camera can be modified for PL glass more easily.


OK, Guys. I decided the other way around :usd:

A brand spanking new Canon 50D and a PL mount have been acquired and are on their way to an experienced "surgeon" to create the first DSMC operation :w00t:

The surgeon will carefully remove the disfunctional EF organ from the patient and make a PL implant in its place.

Can't wait to see some night time lapse at 14mm wide, f/1.2, 4.8k and almost noisless ISO 3200.

A. Järvinen
01-07-2009, 06:14 AM
Since PL mount's flange-focal-depth is larger than canon EF-mount's woudn't a simple adapter work? Changing mounts sounds more diffucult that making an adapter and you could still use EF-lenses. Or would it be difficult to build an adaptor sturdy enough for heavier PL-lenses?


OK, Guys. I decided the other way around :usd:

A brand spanking new Canon 50D and a PL mount have been acquired and are on their way to an experienced "surgeon" to create the first DSMC operation :w00t:

The surgeon will carefully remove the disfunctional EF organ from the patient and make a PL implant in its place.

Can't wait to see some night time lapse at 14mm wide, f/1.2, 4.8k and almost noisless ISO 3200.

Dave Blackham
01-07-2009, 06:34 AM
Since PL mount's flange-focal-depth is larger than canon EF-mount's woudn't a simple adapter work? Changing mounts sounds more diffucult that making an adapter and you could still use EF-lenses. Or would it be difficult to build an adaptor sturdy enough for heavier PL-lenses?

I think the problem is both the EF and PL diameter is the same, 54mm, so you cant make a PL to EF adapter work. I tried to find someone who could make this happen but didn't find any one.

Please could a lens tech provide some advice here ?

If it is possible count me in to buy one. This was raised in another thread and it god a lot of interest.

Dave

Michael Lindsay
01-07-2009, 07:12 AM
I tried to find somebody willing to hep me transform a modern DSLR into a snap taking PL viewfinder... I failed!!!:pinch:

Best of luck!

Count me as a potential purchaser.. If the conversion and camera cost are less than $3k I think it would be a very popular!

regards

Michael L

Roberto Lequeux
01-07-2009, 04:29 PM
Just got the answer from Zeiss about their lenses' coverage, and indeed all of them are good to go:

"Dear Mr. Lequeux,

Thanks for your request and your interest in our products.
Yes, all of our current SLR lenses (ZF, ZE, ZK, ZS) cover the full 24x36mm image format (film or sensor).

Best Regards

Bertram Hönlinger"

Harry Clark
01-07-2009, 05:06 PM
Pawel,
Very impressive, bold (and expensive) experiment! Keep us posted.
Cheers,
Harry

Sanjin Jukic
01-08-2009, 12:28 AM
PL Mount 35mm Motion picture SLR Camera

http://www.mtfservices.com/images/stories/mtf_products/sml_olympus-pl.jpg
Olympus Pen F camera with PL mount

MORE>>> (http://www.mtfservices.com/mtf-products-list/mtfolympus-pl-mounted-slr.html)

Stephen Williams
01-08-2009, 02:57 AM
Hi,

Thats a half frame film camera, I thought film was dead since DSLR's came along.

Stephen

PL Mount 35mm Motion picture SLR Camera

http://www.mtfservices.com/images/stories/mtf_products/sml_olympus-pl.jpg
Olympus Pen F camera with PL mount

MORE>>> (http://www.mtfservices.com/mtf-products-list/mtfolympus-pl-mounted-slr.html)

Poi Boy
01-08-2009, 01:48 PM
Hi,

Thats a half frame film camera, I thought film was dead since DSLR's came along.

Stephen

You are correct Stephen, it is dead.
Aloha
-A

Tom Lowe
01-08-2009, 04:53 PM
Pawel, I eagerly await the outcome of the surgery. I am pacing in the waiting room. :)

mikeburton
01-28-2009, 01:49 PM
How would Hasselblad Lenses fair on the FF35? I know they are usually quite slow T4 and up range but if you were say willing to live with the slow lens do you think there would be an advantage to this glass over say a Nikon or Canon still lenses? ie longer throw, etc.

I would assume that Hasselblad Lenses are meant to resolve with High 25MP sensors and up correct? If true, can they be converted and or is there an adapter to Nikon or Canon Mount that would make these lenses a viable solution for Cine use on the FF35 Monstro Epic when released? Or am I just spinning my own wheels here?

Alex Dobbie
01-28-2009, 06:00 PM
Novoflex do various adaptors, Hasselblad lenses are pretty stiff though so they might move around in the adaptors when used with a follow focus. Personally I think the the Leica S lenses with an electronic follow focus might be an option.

Häakon
01-30-2009, 11:46 AM
I think the market will respond -- if more and more people are shooting movies in FF35, someone will start making cine lenses for that market. In the meanwhile, expect a lot of people adapting still lenses for that work just as is done for large-format movie work.

If FF35 moviemaking doesn't catch on, then there will be little incentive for lens makers to cater to that specific market.
There's quite an obvious problem here, however; with no good quality and supply of lenses, how is FF35 moviemaking going to catch on? It's a total chicken and the egg scenario... and frankly I think it's up to the lens manufacturers to make it work. Whether or not they feel it's good business, however, remains to be seen.

It reminds me of this whole Blu-ray thing that's going on... Apple doesn't include it because they want to wait to see if it goes anywhere, and yet it's not going to pick up and become more mainstream unless it becomes more ubiquitous and accessible. If every new Mac came with a Blu-ray player installed, for example, clearly more people would be checking it out.

I do think that FF35 is the next logical step, and I do think it will become the mainstream method of shooting motion picture as digital technology continues to erode the film-based market. The reason is as simple as David pointed out earlier - if it affords the filmmaker a higher level of quality, it will be desired by those who make films. Haven't we been through this "digital can't match the quality of film" argument long enough? Just like the Blu-ray example, however, how long it takes before FF35 catches on is entirely dependent upon how ubiquitous and accessible it is. With no (proper) lenses around to make it work, very few are going to bother with it. I just hope there is a lens manufacturer out there with the sensibility of RED (or perhaps RED themselves, if their own glass shows promise) to get it going sooner than later.

Jeff Kieffer
03-22-2009, 01:10 PM
OK, Guys. I decided the other way around :usd:

A brand spanking new Canon 50D and a PL mount have been acquired and are on their way to an experienced "surgeon" to create the first DSMC operation :w00t:

The surgeon will carefully remove the disfunctional EF organ from the patient and make a PL implant in its place.

Can't wait to see some night time lapse at 14mm wide, f/1.2, 4.8k and almost noisless ISO 3200.

Hi,

Are there any news if the patient is alive and working? I'ld be interested to see pictures of the mount itself, and how it is fixed!

Thanks

Jeff