image sensor size and lens resolution

[Albert Chen]

there are a wealth of lenses made for the S35 18 x 24 sizes and then there's those made for the FF35 24 x 36. since these are readily available why not limit sensor sizes to suite them? sure, some of the FF35 prime and zooms may require a redesign of the mechanical housing to make them sturdy but at least the optics are usable
and proven. to redesign the housing would raise costs but it will be a lot less than having to built them from the ground up. already Carl Zeiss have released their FF35 Compact Zoom 70-200. it seems they are the only one who have envisaged this and are building their lenses future proof.

[Phil Holland]

I don't know if I'd go that far. I mean K35s cover and those are older. Lens design and format size directly effects lens size. And there are certainly reasons to design glass that's smaller and light if its appropriate. I agree we'll see more and more FF35 glass. We'll also see more manufacturera making glass in inter changeable mounts.

[Albert Chen]

the Cooke 15-40 and Angenieux 15 -40 are very different in size and both covers the S35 image size. while Angie's is made small and lightweight ideal for steadycam ops, it has some trade offs though. being small means the optics are small, the barrel is small and these contribute to more pronounced vignetting. all lenses suffer from vignetting, it is a matter of degree. some do drop off by as much as 3/4 or 2/3 of a stop from centre to edge. there's also aberrations we have to consider. but with todays' technology where elements can be polished to the desired designed curvature, these issues are minisculed but they are expensive to manufacture.

most aberrations are more obvious toward the edges. just going by this principal, we should acquire lenses with larger image circle like the FF 35 and using that for S35 simply from the fact that we are capturing only the best the lens offers -i.e- the centre.

[Jacek Zakowicz]

the Cooke 15-40 and Angenieux 15 -40 are very different in size and both covers the S35 image size. while Angie's is made small and lightweight ideal for steadycam ops, it has some trade offs though. being small means the optics are small, the barrel is small and these contribute to more pronounced vignetting. all lenses suffer from vignetting, it is a matter of degree. some do drop off by as much as 3/4 or 2/3 of a stop from centre to edge. there's also aberrations we have to consider. but with todays' technology where elements can be polished to the desired designed curvature, these issues are minisculed but they are expensive to manufacture.

most aberrations are more obvious toward the edges. just going by this principal, we should acquire lenses with larger image circle like the FF 35 and using that for S35 simply from the fact that we are capturing only the best the lens offers -i.e- the centre.

Lenses designed for still photography must have flat field. To achieve this center performance is sacrificed. So no, not really... sweet spot is not so sweet.
Generally just keep it simple- use lenses designed for the specific format.
In Epic and Dragon case this is APS-H or equivalent.
Also cine lenses were designed different- the center performance is maxed out because that's where usually the viewer's attention is directed.
But it must be added that still lenses and the resolutions they have to achieve-even with the flat field requirements are adequate for motion.
Also the newest high end cine glass seems to perform just as well in corners ans in center but you pay dearly for it. The price tag is staggering...

[Albert Chen]

true flat field lenses like Schneiders' comparons and componons are utilised in enlargers. the film is flat and the paper on the easel is flat and the column is perpendicular to eliminate parallax. this is essential for true duplication from film to paper. however in lenses for image acquisition, there's usually some curvature of field but Jacek, like you said, the FF35 are good enough for motion picture. it would be better if they change the rear (relay) group to telecine glass.

[Michael Brennan]

Agreements between lens and camera manufacturers exist in video world. But since RED are in competition I wonder if other lens manufacturers feel inclined to work closely with the competition.

Sony and Panasonic have agreements with Canon and Fujinon. This was as much to make sure the lens manufacturers had enough stock to satisfy predicted demand of a new format. For instance the introduction of 1/2 inch 3 chip cameras needed support from lens manufacturers to provide 1/2 inch format lenses. They also worked together to reduce prism aberrations.

There is significant work already done with 8k resolution.
I'm confident that if Canon and Fujinon can make a 100x HD lenses they will solve the challenges of 4k and 8k formats.



Mike Brennan

[George Petersen]

You need only look at the amazing dynamic range, high ISO performance, resolution and images from the 36.3 Megapixel Nikon D800 to know that more is more, better is better and Red is moving in exactly the right direction. Lenses will improve with the sensors - it's not like they don't have room. They have designed and built them to match what film and digital sensors are capable of. Better glass in every element, rather than in one or two, better coatings, computer aided design, etc. will continue to bring the glass right along with the sensors. It's kind of like software, which lags about 18 months behind the hardware capable of running the latest and greatest apps. Build it and they will come. Having said that, I was a bit disappointed that the Dragon sensor isn't FF35, but Ill live with it!

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

All Cooke Mini-S4's have a 33.54 INTENDED circle. If Dragon is in fact 33.9... I'm willing to bet the unintended image circle of these lenses can take that extra 0.36mm with very little consequence. We shall see... but lord knows people are taking advantage of unintended image circle areas much more than .36mm and getting away with it.

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

the Cooke 15-40 and Angenieux 15 -40 are very different in size and both covers the S35 image size. while Angie's is made small and lightweight ideal for steadycam ops, it has some trade offs though. being small means the optics are small, the barrel is small and these contribute to more pronounced vignetting. all lenses suffer from vignetting, it is a matter of degree. some do drop off by as much as 3/4 or 2/3 of a stop from centre to edge. there's also aberrations we have to consider. but with todays' technology where elements can be polished to the desired designed curvature, these issues are minisculed but they are expensive to manufacture.

most aberrations are more obvious toward the edges. just going by this principal, we should acquire lenses with larger image circle like the FF 35 and using that for S35 simply from the fact that we are capturing only the best the lens offers -i.e- the centre.

Just because it's the center of the lens doesn't mean it's better than a lens made for S35mm.... plenty of FF photography falls below cine-standards at the center. Hell many wide FF lenses have 1/2 stop or 1 stop of gradual uneven field illumination at APS-C. They even have bad CA, and etc.

The best of a lens is the center, but that does not make it a good lens.