Thread: Cook Anamorphic Lenses & Red S8K Helium Camera

Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 17 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 168
  1. #1 Cook Anamorphic Lenses & Red S8K Helium Camera 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    798
    I was thinking about the New Cook Anamorphic Lenses that are now just about to be completed, they have an Image Circle of ø: 33.50 mm. My suggestion is for the Red S8K Helium Camera, as Red contemplate the new camera information that would eventually would be promulgated to the world, I would suggest Two Different Sensor Sizes for the S-8K, let the customer decide which one they want. Whatever the Number of K above or below 8K at a Sensor Size of 28.17 mm x 18.13 mm; the Image Circle of ø: 33.50 mm or 1.318 Aspect Ratio so the Cook Lenses will fit into an anamorphic structure with a very good lens that has the Cooke /i Technology build in. The silent Cine Aperture is 4:3 is 24 mm X 18 mm, just as a reference.

    Many rental houses around the World already have the Cook Anamorphic Lenses, and many people that only like to buy would be able to do so. They are the only Brand that you can “buy or rent”, they have a means of tracking information for VFX houses, they are a true 2X anamorphic lens, and with the new S 8K they would make the anamorphic lens fit right in with existing customers that are right now going to Arri at almost 4K, to me is a no-brainer. I was just thinking, and that’s my suggestion!

    Humberto Rivera
    Attached Images
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    798
    Here is part of the dialogue between various camera rental companies as it relates to Cooke and Red VV;

    "JON FAUER: May I just jump in with an observation about that? I think RED introduced this larger sensor not so much for higher resolution, but to accommodate more formats. Their Dragon sensor is 15mm high by 30 mm wide, so it crops 18 × 22 anamorphic on top. Everybody in this room probably has at least one set of Cooke anamorphic lenses, and many have, dare I say, ARRI/ZEISS Master Anamorphic, Vantage Hawks, Kowas, and others. These are all optimized for 18 millimeter high. So if you’re RED and want to introduce the next camera, do you design it with an 18 x 24 mm sensor? No, you jump to the next larger size, the next multiple of 15×30, which is 20×40. You put a PL mount on it and everyone in this anamorphic room is happy. The 18 × 22 mm windowed area is more than 4K, inside of this 20×40 mm 8K sensor. Equally happy are all the fashion photographer/cinematographers who shoot both stills and video on RED cameras. So the big deal is compatibility with the 35mm cine 4:3 18 × 24 Silent Aperture, which up to now, only ARRI Alexa provided.

    ALAN ALBERT: I agree with you. When we’re talking about anamorphic it makes all the sense in the world. For Vista Vision spherical, that’s where I have my doubts.

    JON FAUER: Alan, tell us a little bit about your market ratio of commercials to features and what jobs have been interesting?

    ALAN ALBERT: Like Keslow Camera, our market is pretty much the same as far as episodic television, theatrical, commercials, and high-end music videos. Clearly, our major market is the episodic television work, with commercials being second, and I think with features being a close third. We’re actually doing more anamorphic work for commercials at the moment. In our Canadian offices anamorphic have been very popular, Cookes in particular, but we’re probably doing more anamorphic work with commercials than we are with features at the moment.

    JON FAUER: Which is what Denny predicted last year because he said it was an optimum place to put the subtitles, like “Professional drivers on a closed course, do not attempt.”

    ALAN ALBERT: Also with the unique depth of field of the anamorphic lenses compared to spherical lenses. Directors and directors of photography are looking for a signature in their work and I think anamorphic helps them to create that unique signature."

    Humberto Rivera
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Brad Grimm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    174
    I have been thinking the same things.. ordered a couple Cooke Anas this past week.. Those + 8K FF will be a beautiful thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    798
    "Brad Grimm I have been thinking the same things.. ordered a couple Cooke Anas this past week.. Those + 8K FF will be a beautiful thing."

    Yes Brad I would definitely agree with you, I would say that an S-35 Sensor Helium Camera with an Alternative Aspect Ratio Sensor of 4:3 (or anything slightly close) would definitely be a good thing for Red, many filmmakers, and the rental housing currently owning the Cooke Lenses. The current crop of Cooke Anamorphic /i Technology Prime Lenses are; T2.3/25 mm - T2.3/32 mm - T2.3/40 mm - T2.3/50 mm - T2.6/65 mm MACRO - T2.3/75 mm - T2.3/100 mm - T2.3/135 mm - T2.8/180 mm - T3.5/300 mm. Plus all the other lenses that already work with a ø: 33.50 Image Circle.

    Humberto Rivera
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    798
    Many things have been written about the “Cooke Look” but here is one from FD Times 2013, written by Jon Maxwell that caught my eye, he is a lens designer for Cooke and that would be extremely helpful for the new Red S-8K Helium Camera (if Red chooses to create-it) with the New Cook Anamorphic /i Technology Lenses; Ideally the Sensor Size would be of 28.17 mm x 18.13 mm; the Image Circle of ø: 33.50 mm, or whatever Red determines appropriate, the thing is to have something close to 4:3 or 24 mm X 18 mm, remember we’re talking about 8K here not 4K (Arri), it would be like night and day, quadruple the resolution of the picture, in addition to the 2X Anamorphic Extension. Below is the article; The Cooke Look Defined 2/2013 - By Jon Maxwell.

    “The Academy will honor Cooke Optics with a Sci-Tech Oscar statuette in February 2013 “for advanced camera lenses that have helped define the look of motion pictures over the last century…producing what is commonly referred to as the Cooke Look…” Jonathan Maxwell, lens designer, said, "The design procedures and adjustment techniques developed by the company have led to an enviable cinematographic reputation for what has become known as the Cooke Look.

    This revered ‘look’ is a sympathetic color depth in the images, combined with an adjusted coincidence between the sharpest image and the optimum chromatic focus.” Jonathan took me on a tour of the Cooke factory in Leicester a couple of years ago. He has worked with Cooke and Taylor Hobson, taught courses for SPIE, and published two books on optical design.

    I fired off an email to him: "Please explain optimum chromatic focus and the Cooke Look.” For a long time, many of us cinematographers have been fumbling with words to try to describe that look, and it sounded more like wine-tasting than optical aptitude.

    We had epithets like roundness, gentle fall-off, smooth and gentle, cosmetic silky skin tones, and so on. Here is Jon’s illuminating reply. You asked, “When discussing the Cooke Look, please explain what you mean by optimum chromatic focus?” At Cooke we take particular precautions, and a pride, in how we correct and adjust the aberrations in our lenses, and I’ll talk technically about that in a moment. But, before I do, I have to share a secret with you: the fact is that cinematographers, who obviously appreciate the Cooke Look, wax eloquent about it, but very often the language is of an artistic nature, and, frankly, we humble technicians have difficulty in really understanding that language.

    Having said this, our chests of course swell with pride when we read of or hear creative people in our industry talk about how they love the “look” we manage to achieve, but we think to ourselves “all we have done” to achieve that look is to follow our scientifically determined standard procedures.

    So what are these procedures? A large part of it is about balancing the focusing of the three different wavelengths, red, green and blue, which don’t normally fall on the same focal plane simultaneously. Appreciating the details of this situation and how we design and adjust lenses in the face of it is necessary if one is to understand where the Cooke Look comes from.

    Firstly, all modern lenses are what we call “achromatic” (without colour) and occasionally “apochromatic” (completely without colour), that is, they are corrected for chromatic aberration. Nearly all lenses that the cinematographer comes across are achromatic, rather than completely apochromatic (in spite of some being called “apo-something”), and this means that there is a residual difference in focus between the red, green and blue focal planes.

    Except in very unusual circumstances, the distribution of these chromatic focal planes, working from the lens side of the focal region to beyond the focal region, are as follows: green focuses first, and then red and blue focus together (making magenta) a little further away from the lens. Under normal circumstances, unless special precautions are taken (as they are at Cooke), the longitudinal distance between the green focus and the red + blue focus will be approximately one thousandth of the focal length of the lens.

    This separation between the The Cooke Look Defined 2/2013 green and the red + blue (magenta) focus is called the longitudinal secondary spectrum. The reason that longitudinal secondary spectrum wants to be approximately one thousandth of the focal length is mainly associated with the types of optical glass that are available, but it is also influenced by the optical construction of the lens.

    So, secondary spectrum wants to vary with focal length? Yes! And this should immediately ring alarm bells for you, because we design and make ranges of prime lenses that have focal lengths that, for 35mm detectors, vary, for example, from 12 mm to 300 mm. The secondary spectrum will (unless special precautions are taken) vary from 0.012 mm to 0.300 mm, and so the images at various focal lengths will look chromatically different.

    This is unacceptable, and the lens designer’s job is to devise suitable constructions for each focal length of lens and to use appropriate types of optical glass in those constructions to hold the secondary spectrum more or less constant for all focal lengths. In the case of a zoom lens this issue is particularly problematic because, although the lens construction does vary with focal length change (in order to zoom the lens), the types of glass in the zoom lens do not change, so the secondary spectrum will vary from one end of the focal length range to the other. This is one of the fundamental limitations of zoom lenses for cinematography.

    Next, we have to understand that for any achromatic lens, as we go through focus, there will be a subtle change in the colour fringing around the fine detail in the image. When the focus of the lens is adjusted so that the green image plane is at the detector, then the red + blue (magenta) image will be slightly out of focus, and there will be a subtle magenta fringe around the fine detail in the image. (You can see this when you go through focus on a lens projector–you see green and then magenta color fringing.) Similarly, when the lens is adjusted so that the magenta image is at the detector, there will be a subtle green fringe around the fine detail of the image.

    Roughly halfway between the green focus and the magenta focus there is an image plane where the two coloured fringings (green and magenta) mix to make a colourless black and white image. This plane is known as the achromatic image plane, and it is this plane that cinematographers choose when they focus the lens. So far in this discussion, nothing that is particularly remarkable has been described. I have just been reviewing what every lens designer knows about the necessary achromatic correction of any lens, albeit with some special emphasis on particular points.

    But here comes the more specific aspect of this subject that explains the Cooke Look. If the lens is suffering from spherical aberration, the sharpest image plane, that is, the focal plane where the most fine detail of the image is resolved, will not lie at the achromatic focal plane. This is the question of adjusting the design and, particularly, the final assembly of the lens, to align the best resolution focal plane with the achromatic focal plane. That is what creates the Cooke Look. There is another stage in this procedure, which is about applying these criteria to the off-axis correction of each lens. In this case, rather than adjusting the spherical aberration to get alignment between the achromatic plane and the best resolution plane, we adjust astigmatism.”

    Humberto Rivera
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    798
    The Aesthetic Role of Depth of Field in Anamorphic Cinematography is a topic that’s hard to explain, but then again here is an explanation provide by Jon Maxwell from Cooke. To maximize that effect with the Cooke Anaphoric, and their expanding line of anamorphic lenses, here is the article.

    The Aesthetic Role of Depth of Field in Anamorphic Cinematography by Jon Maxwell; “An important feature of anamorphic cinematography is the look of the images compared with normal spherical lenses, whether it be distortion, or colored streaks, or bokeh. But distortion, streaks and bokeh are not the only contributors to the difference between the look of a spherical lens and an anamorphic lens; depth of field also plays an interestingly subtle part in this difference of look.

    In this article, I am referring to the new set of Cooke anamorphic lenses, which have cylindrical elements at the front of the lens.

    For any point in the picture, the depth of field for vertical image structure is different from the depth of field for the horizontal image structure, and the lens will generate vertical elliptical bokeh.

    Consider a scene shot on a ranch: the cross-bars on the gates are mostly horizontal, and the posts of the fences are mostly vertical. The depth of field for the gates will be less than the depth of field for the fences. You can guess that this must be the case when you look at the interesting and attractive elliptical bokeh that an anamorphic lens creates: The bokeh of front anamorphic lenses are elliptical because of the placement of the cylindrical elements. Furthermore, the focal length of the anamorphic lens is different in the horizontal plane compared with the vertical plane, and, the circle of confusion used to calculate the depth of field is also elliptical.

    For example, a 100 mm anamorphic 2x squeeze lens has a focal length of a 100 mm in the vertical plane and a focal length of 50 mm in the horizontal plane. So, the ratio of the two focal lengths is 2x (100/50 = 2). However, the difference of the two depth of fields is 4x. Why is that?

    Pull out your ASC Manual or the lens manufacturer’s depth of field charts—or dust off your Guild Kelly or Samcine calculator or click on your pCam or Toland app.

    You will see that for spherical lenses having a 2x difference in focal length, like our 100 mm Anamorphic lens, with its 50 mm focal length in the horizontal plane (both set at the same T/stop and focus distance), you will see approximately a 4x difference in depth of field. In other words, if the depth of field for the 100 mm is 2 inches, it will be 8 inches for the 50mm lens.

    If you don’t have depth of field charts for your anamorphic lenses, you will be safe to look up published depth of field data for the vertical focal length “component” of your anamorphic lens (that is 100 mm in our example), and similarly for the horizontal focal length (50 mm).

    But If you are in a real rush, and you are concerned to have “at least enough” depth of field you can just depend on the 100 mm focal length value, which is the lesser of the two depths of field.

    However, as we were going to some lengths to explain, this slightly mysterious dual nature of the depth of field is an important part of the anamorphic look. I mean, when the cowboy hero rides into the ranch yard, nobody is going to calculate the exact effects, but the anamorphic depth of field look is going to be there telling the story.

    A more mathematical way to think of this is to compare the beam diameter in object space for a 100 mm spherical lens compared to a 50 mm spherical lens at the same T-stop. You’ll find there is a 2x difference in beam diameters, but a 4x difference in beam area (area of a circle is πr²). Earlier, I mentioned the out of focus highlights (bokeh).

    In addition to those, the overall anamorphic look of the picture is created not only by the in-focus highlights but also by any objects in the picture.

    The large 4x difference in depth of field actually contributes substantially towards the overall look of the image, whether there is actual bokeh in any particular shot. This is something that cannot be reproduced with spherical optics shooting Super 35 flat or, for that matter, with the post-processing of captured images. Jon Maxwell is an optical designer, professor of optics, Cooke Designer Emeritus, current Cooke consultant, author, reliable resource, and optical pundit to Film and Digital Times. “

    Below: Framegrab from “Seeing.” Cooke Anamorphic 40mm at T2.3 on ARRI Alexa. Directed by Francis Luta. Cinematography by Jeremy Benning, CSC and Adam Marsden, CSC. Concerning depth of field and focal lengths—which relate to the shape and the area of the bokeh.”

    Humberto Rivera
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Patrick Tresch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Switzerland, Lausanne
    Posts
    4,418
    Great read. If Mr. Jon Maxwell from Cooke makes a masterclass about optics please sign me in!

    Pat

    +1 for 4/3 s35mm Helium (it seems a no brainer for a professional camera maker).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    There is a 4-stop difference between a 100mm spherical and a 50mm spherical if the 50mm spherical is set to half the distance in order to keep the same image size -- but only when you are talking about both images being shot on the same format and thus using the same circle of confusion figure, i.e. the degree of image enlargement is the same.

    The problem is most people are comparing depth of field of anamorphic to spherical if both are used for a 2.40 project, which means that the image area of the sensor used are not the same and thus the degree of image enlargement is not the same, and thus the circle of confusion figure used to calculate depth of field is not the same. And that's not dealing with the fact that an anamorphic lens has a different depth of field horizontally versus vertically.

    An example of what I'm talking about is when comparing the depth of field of 35mm to Super-16 -- just to round things off, you'd use a 25mm lens in Super-16 to match the field of view of a 50mm lens in 35mm. According to the charts, a 25mm lens has 4X the depth of field of a 50mm lens, but since you'd have to enlarge the Super-16 by 2X to match the image size of the 35mm frame, you have to use a circle of confusion figure that is twice as critical, so that 25mm lens that had a 4X increase in depth of field over a 50mm only has a 2X increase now.

    This is one reason why the crude method of comparing depth of field characteristics is to say that the crop factor is the same as the depth of field difference -- so if there is a 2X crop factor between 35mm and Super-16, there is a 2-stop depth of field difference.
    David Mullen, ASC
    Los Angeles
    http://www.davidmullenasc.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    798
    Thank you David Muller for your helpful insight in the Super 16 mm size. “An example of what I'm talking about is when comparing the depth of field of 35mm to Super-16 -- just to round things off, you'd use a 25mm lens in Super-16 to match the field of view of a 50mm lens in 35mm. According to the charts, a 25mm lens has 4X the depth of field of a 50mm lens, but since you'd have to enlarge the Super-16 by 2X to match the image size of the 35mm frame, you have to use a circle of confusion figure that is twice as critical, so that 25mm lens that had a 4X increase in depth of field over a 50mm only has a 2X increase now.” David Muller

    Here we’re talking about the silent 35 mm Cine Aperture which is 4:3 Aspect Ratio at 24 mm X 18 mm, that would just about fit within the ø 33.50 mm Image Circle of the Cooke Anamorphic /i Technology Lens, as explained by Jon Maxwell. The Cooke Anamorphic and the S-35 Helium Camera would definitely create a great option for the Red Digital Cinema Company, filmmakers everywhere, and Rental Companies that owned the Cooke Anamorphic /i Technology Lens, it would amplified their rentals, and introduce more S-35 Helium Cameras in the Universe. So we all pray that Red hears to what many people are asking for!

    The “Four Elements” in the paintings created in the year 1569 on oil canvas by Joachim Beuckelaer are illustrate herein. Look at the foreground and look at the background, then look at the entire panting, that’s part of the “Cooke Look”; Water, Earth, Air, and Fire as defines by a person living in the 1500’s.

    Water; A Fish Market with the Miraculous Draught of Fishes in the Background. Earth; Earth. A Fruit and Vegetable Market with the Flight into Egypt in the Background. Air; A Poultry Market with the Prodigal Son in the Background. Fire; A Kitchen Scene with Christ in the House of Martha and Mary in the Background. Now imagine all this with an S-35 Helium Camera shot at 8K, with the additional 2x extension from the Anamorphic Lenses in a 4:3 Aspect Ratio. First part of a conversation at Cooke Optics in the UK.

    Is there a “Cooke Look” in your computer program?

    “IAIN NEIL: The Cooke Look is in the computer. It’s absolutely clicked in like an equation. Can we go around the room and have each one of you designers explain to me how you interpret the “Cooke Look”. We cinematographers talk about it like fine wine. Oh, it’s rounded or it’s smooth or thin...

    STEPHEN POPE: As scientists and engineers we are usually accustomed to nice specifications that are clear. Whereas here, it’s great, we can say we want an MTF of this much here, and certain colors, and we get the challenge to think artistically as well.

    LES ZELLAN: We at Cooke spent a lot of time in the early days (15 years ago) of really understanding what the Cooke Look is. We had all talked about it and we knew it when we saw it. But we hadn’t necessarily codified it in engineering terms. Mark Gerchman, Jon Maxwell and Mike Salter spent a lot of time understanding it at a fairly deep level. We now have a very deep understanding of what it is and why it works so well. But we’re not going to tell you. It’s like you’re asking Coca-Cola for their recipe.

    GRAHAM CASSELY: But you can see what it looks like.

    LES ZELLAN: Exactly. And that’s what you cinematographers do. If I were to describe the Cooke Look I would say it’s smooth face tones, with a gentle fall-off in depth of field. You see sharp eyelashes and yet you have silky facial tones. The background falls off gently. It’s slightly warm. That’s how I would describe your ineffable Cooke look.

    IAIN NEIL: I can think of two aspects. It takes away the harshness of an image and gives it a certain texture—for example, a person’s face. The second thing is it makes skin tones look better, in that they have a slightly warm appearance. They have a pleasing look.

    LES ZELLAN: It’s not the same as using a filter. Other companies may go for contrast over resolution. But we clamp down a bit on the contrast. In return, we get resolution and more detail in the shadow areas where cinematographers love to have stuff hiding. It doesn’t make one of us wrong or right. It’s just gives you as the cinematographer a different brush to use. When you designed the Cooke Anamorphics, did you have in mind the S4 and your other Cooke lenses in terms of matching and characteristics?

    GRAHAM CASSELY: Yes, we wanted to get the Cooke Look in there. I think they are pretty good matches. In the Paris test there’s a shot with an S4 and another one with the anamorphic, and I would say in terms of the look there are similarities, other than the bokehs and anamorphic qualities, what Les would call anamorphic funkiness.

    PHILIP WATSON: There’s something more about color balancing. It’s like lighting. When you say warm, what kind of warm? When you say bright, how bright? And what kind of white are we talking about? So color balancing is very important to the look.

    IAIN NEIL: We can measure it. We see it as numbers or graphs.

    GRAHAM CASSELY: I’ll say we’ve been doing it for a long time. We have quite a good understanding of what’s going to work and what doesn’t. In terms of the design, it’s not like taking a 100 mm S4 and a 50 mm S4 and simply combining those two? It’s a totally new science, right?

    IAIN NEIL: Really, it acts in a completely different way.

    LEO CHEN: I think designing a lens is not a leap of faith. We actually get numbers from the software or the computer, and then we see if it’s going to be okay. The software predicts our figures. Much of what has been built in the past is considered. We have the belief in our particular sets of figures.

    We match the design with the specifications and we actually reproduce what has been discussed about the Cooke Look. It’s all related. Using this “stethoscope” approach will save a lot of time as well. We actualize with the prototypes and compare projection, distance, and, of course, we all worry about uncertainties regarding how the cinematographers will feel about our work.

    That’s actually what makes the whole design more challenging. We talk a lot about “look.” But one person might like it, and another person may not like it. I actually saw 4 paintings in the National Gallery.

    The title is “The Four Elements,” and it is a series of four paintings, “Earth,” “Wind,” “Fire” and “Water” by Joachim Beuckelaer. The painter actually had to point out the names in the titles, because each viewer might call it something else. Our discussion today of out-of-focus bokehs and the design processes reminded me of these four paintings. Even objects far away or close up, sometimes out-of-focus, can be used to tell a story. I think the artist, Joachim Beuckelaer, intended that we focus on the physical (the four elements) while aspects of the spiritual world are seen in the background, far away and out of focus, and by their very uncertain nature, are hard to grasp. For example, each painting has a subtitle, in case you, the viewer, missed it. “Earth” has the subtitle “A Fruit and Vegetable Market with the Flight into Egypt in the Background.” It’s a similar thing in lens design. We can try to correct the aberrations or leave them in. It’s like the “Four Elements.” If you look inside, there are more things to consider than just the background and out of focus areas. Just as we can see references to biblical parables in Beuckelaer’s paintings, there is much embedded information in the backgrounds of anamorphic lenses that actually makes the filming more interesting.

    Hamlet to Horatio: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

    LEO CHEN: That is what makes the design process very rewarding and very interesting to carry through. Sometimes we have a debate. Should we be testing this way? It is a learning process so we can understand a bit more. At what point do you then say, okay, now I am safe to order the barrels and cams and the mechanical stuff?

    STEPHEN POPE: When we get to the point where we say that we are we happy with the optical design coming from the team, we like to call it a “freeze.” But I think a better phrase than “freeze” would be “chill.” So when we’re good to go, essentially we’re getting a prescription which says use this radius, this thickness, this glass type, and this distance behind it. And we have to take that and work out the mounting techniques to hold all those elements in there. In addition, we have to maintain an external diameter and a length that constrains us. And then we’ll have a chat with the mechanical guys.

    LES ZELLAN: I have to say that over 16 years that I’ve been here, the confidence in our computer tools has grown exponentially. We can move much more rapidly into pre-production. Because of the experience we have with the tools, when we see these numbers and translate them, we know we’re getting what we expect and what we want to see on screen. That’s the point. We have engineers translating specifications and numbers into what gives that look.”

    Humberto Rivera

    PS; I included a few more painting by the 1569 painter Joachim Beuckelaer.
    Attached Images
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    You can already use Cooke and other 2X anamorphic lenses on current Dragon cameras and on the Helium cameras, it's just that with a sensor that is 1.9 : 1, not 1.2 : 1, you have to crop the sides of the sensor and thus compensate by using a shorter focal length and losing some of the shallower depth of field effect.

    Keep in mind that just increasing the height of the Helium sensor to make it 1.20 : 1 in shape may not be possible because that's an increase in resolution -- if the Helium sensor is 1.9 : 1 and is 8K across, that's 33MP -- but increase the height to make it a 1.20 : 1 sensor, then that's 53MP. The camera's processor may not be able to handle that, or not be able to do high speed work at least.

    Anyway, Red hasn't shown interest in the past for squarer sensors so I'm not sure why they'd change their minds now. But I could be wrong.
    David Mullen, ASC
    Los Angeles
    http://www.davidmullenasc.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts