Underwater Bubble Blowin' Users Group

[Ken Corben]

Mike you ROCK!

Where do I send my deposit?

Sharky

 

[Michael Hastings]

Re:

Re:

The address is on the website.


Seriously, in the next few days I will try to put some RED-like ball park pricing together.

Mike you ROCK!

Where do I send my deposit?

Sharky

 

[Mark Thorpe]

Hey Mike,
Are you related to Evin Grant at all?? Fantastic post there and something that cleared a lot of things up for me. How are the designs for the housing coming along?

Cheers,
Mark.

 

[Michael Hastings]

RE: Evin RE: Housing design and ballpark prices.

RE: Evin RE: Housing design and ballpark prices.

No relation, but I really appreciate all of the knowledge and thought that has been assembled here on REDUSER. By the way, no relation to BirgerEngineer either, in fact I haven't even spoken to them yet, all communications have been through REDUSER. I just like the fact that they had already created something that I wanted (they have apparently been making their mount for several years for the scientific and industrial markets) Since they have done the hard part already - the electronics and the actual bayonet mount - adapting it to the RED camera should be fairly straight forward.

As far as designs, they are pretty much in my head until I get my hands on an actual camera. A lot of the physical questions will be answered for me when I see it at NAB. As I said before, I think it will lend itself very well to the normal cylindrical style that we do everyday, with physical size specs about like those for the Sony FX7/V1. Maybe a little longer depending on how REDDrive gets mounted. (I prefer to go longer rather than larger diameter if it is possible)

About $3800 will get you housing setup for RED with 10-22mm Canon EF-S with iris and focus controls for Birger Canon EF mount and 6" acrylic dome, zoom (depending on gearing required may be a a couple hundred extra more for geared zoom, but we would at least give you a simple, "not so slick but works" friction control to change zoom). Clear backplate with view of RED LCD inside housing. 3 or 4 Miscellaneous camera controls (I don't even know what is available on the camera.) Standard Depth rating 175-200ft.

Add $1000 - $1500 for external housing for RED LCD.

Add $499 for 8" Acrylic dome.
Add $600-1K for 6" glass dome.
Add $1300 to $2K for 8" glass dome.

Add $250 - $900 for deeper rated front plate (depending on thicker Acrylic or aluminum)

Add $1800 for Aluminum Cylinder body instead of PVC. This is more for the 250 ft+ crowd - PVC is probably fine for greater depths but if you know you are going to push it, the added peace of mind of Aluminum for those guys is probably worth it.

More Rectangular shaped aluminum housing can be done but will add $3K to $10K depending on configuration and demand - and I am not sure you will gain much.

Note: domes are not normally full domes. They are slices, but the diameter is given as if full dome so you can calculate virtual image focus distances. Infinity is at 3 times the Radius of the dome so for 6" dome infinity is at 9" in front of dome and for 8" dome infinity is 12" in front. (The virtual image for closer subjects is progressively closer - i.e. 3 ft real equals virtual image at 7 inches in front of a 6" dome). This has to be handled either through 1) close focus lenses (most of the modern consumer and prosumer video cameras can do this automatically because they can combine movement of the zoom elements with the focus elements to achieve macro focus throughout a portion of the zoom range) or 2) through use of a closeup lens, so you will want a +3 or +4 closeup filter or better an achromat diopter (which is a closeup lens that is corrected for a flatter focus field). A dome is just a negative diopter so it takes a corresponding positive diopter to compensate. Six inch dome is about a negative 4 diopter. 3) There is a possibility that focus could be corrected via a shim behind the lens mount (this is what was often done in the days of c-mount 16mm underwater systems) but I have to talk to some of the lens gurus about the feasibility of that.

Note: it may make more sense to have a custom battery pack for the camera so that it fits in the housing better (i.e. a long thin pack), but they would likely be on the order of $200 each. If budget is tight I am sure it wouldn't be hard to make them work as your main RED battery - won't be quite as slick as a V-mount but it would work.

Hey Mike,
Are you related to Evin Grant at all?? Fantastic post there and something that cleared a lot of things up for me. How are the designs for the housing coming along?

Cheers,
Mark.

 

[Mark Thorpe]

Thanks Mike,
PM'd you this morning.

Mark.

 

[Mark Thorpe]

What about heat dissipation?

What about heat dissipation?

I guess one of the biggest concerns with the heat emissions from HDD's and the Camera is that of heat build up leading to condensation on the inside surface of dome / flat ports etc.

Did we ever get any indication of the amount of heat emission to be expected from RED and accessories? How did RED counteract that issue?

Cheers,
Mark.

 

[David Nardini]

RED ONE housing

RED ONE housing

Hello all,

After some discussion with a variety of folk, for domes, the conclusion seems that the Aquatica 8" dome is the target to beat (in terms of folk wanting to get 100 to 110 degree FOV). It's a cast dome, so the surfaces will be the most concentric. Then marry it up with a +2.5 diopter plano-convex lens (ensure it's very well coated).

On the Ivanoff trail, I'm told that getting a FOV greater than 90 degree is going to be challenging (the ports get to be BIG). So maybe I was chasing the wrong thread on this one ...

It's really good news that the Canon EF-S 10-22 is attracting so much attention, from the u/w community. I suspect that if you have a good sample (their quality control seems better than other similar vendor lenses in this category) I doubt you will notice any significant differences for u/w work when compared to the mega $-priced Zeiss optics (this is ignoring how fast the lens is). The port optics will be the critical factor.

Finally, I made contact with Stephen Greenaway a few weeks back, he makes an interesting housing (http://www.greenawaymarine.com/1C.HTM).
For folks based in the UK, it may prove worth having a chat with him. I'll certainly be popping down to see him soon and look at one of his 'OPTOLITE PORTS', which has many of the properties I'm looking for. What are the FOV limitations (keeping edge quality in mind) ?

I wonder how hot the RED ONE will run ? I was not planning on an aluminum housing, but I guess it would be better for heat dissipation ?

Finally, who is likely to be the first UK RED ONE which is being planned to be housed (anybody in the first 100) ? Would they be interested to meet up somewhere in the UK to share first impressions of the RED ONE ?

 

[David Nardini]

Minimum focus

Minimum focus

... via a shim behind the lens mount ...

yep ... for just u/w work, I find this works better than using +diopter lenses ... minimizes the amount of 'glass' involved in the dome optics, potential reflections, etc.

Negative : it wont focus above the water interface (also if you use a +ve diopter lens).

PS : Some early manual focus lenses could be adapted to focus closer (remove minimum focus stop) but that is hard to do nowdays :sad:

 

[Mike the beginner]

Hello all,

After some discussion with a variety of folk, for domes, the conclusion seems that the Aquatica 8" dome is the target to beat (in terms of folk wanting to get 100 to 110 degree FOV). It's a cast dome, so the surfaces will be the most concentric. Then marry it up with a +2.5 diopter plano-convex lens (ensure it's very well coated).

On the Ivanoff trail, I'm told that getting a FOV greater than 90 degree is going to be challenging (the ports get to be BIG). So maybe I was chasing the wrong thread on this one ...

It's really good news that the Canon EF-S 10-22 is attracting so much attention, from the u/w community. I suspect that if you have a good sample (their quality control seems better than other similar vendor lenses in this category) I doubt you will notice any significant differences for u/w work when compared to the mega $-priced Zeiss optics (this is ignoring how fast the lens is). The port optics will be the critical factor.

Finally, I made contact with Stephen Greenaway a few weeks back, he makes an interesting housing (http://www.greenawaymarine.com/1C.HTM).
For folks based in the UK, it may prove worth having a chat with him. I'll certainly be popping down to see him soon and look at one of his 'OPTOLITE PORTS', which has many of the properties I'm looking for. What are the FOV limitations (keeping edge quality in mind) ?

I wonder how hot the RED ONE will run ? I was not planning on an aluminum housing, but I guess it would be better for heat dissipation ?

Finally, who is likely to be the first UK RED ONE which is being planned to be housed (anybody in the first 100) ? Would they be interested to meet up somewhere in the UK to share first impressions of the RED ONE ?

This is like XMAS with all that news. Where do i begin?

Giant thank you for the brilliant feedback from Mike (AquaVideo) and also sharkguy.

Let me just say that i am always appreciative of any help i get and like to make a point of repaying those who help in some form or another.

Firstly to Mike regarding the use of the canon. I intend to do salmon and sea trout fishing videos as well as wildlife and nature stuff. The canon lens at 3.5 to 4.5 is not very fast. I take it that the availaible light compared to say a lens with a 2.8 f stop is going to make a difference, but how big a difference?

The other point: Both canon lenses i,e, the 10mm -22mm and the 28mm-300mm vary their aperture when you focus with them right? That would preclude the use of a matt box if using it for normal filming out of water.

I am thinking that i need a matt box and filters since i am going to be working in and around water a lot. So i would love a lens that suits both above and below water. What do you guys think? I may have this wrong since i am just new to all this (all theory).


Mike right now you have me totally convinced to go the canon route. But are you certain or more importantly is Eric at birger engineering 100% certain that we will have focusing and image stabilisation with those two lenses mentioned. That would be trully awesome, i am in:biggrin:

Finally to H2opixels. I am number 312 on red so i would be happy to meet up with you and others to go over the red camera. I have too much to learn:help:


Mike the beginner

 

[Michael Hastings]

re: domes and optolite

re: domes and optolite

I took a quick look at the greenaway site - a couple of points:

isn't the optolite just an Ivanoff or modified Ivanoff type corrector?

In discussing aluminum construction he states that at 80 meters the housing is subjected to tons of pressure per square inch - in fact at 80M the pressure is about 115 psi and well within the capabilities of either PVC or aluminum.

As far as heat - it is hard to predict since RED hasn't published the power specs as far as I can tell. We have some customers that run the HVX200 (which runs pretty hot by itself) with the Firestore drive. Initially we had it right underneath the hottest part of the HVX200 and it did overheat after about 40 minutes, so we made sure there was more separation. About 2 weeks ago one of my customers spent a week shooting in the Keys (with the pvc housing) and actually had a thermometer in the housing and on dives of 30 minutes to an hour the temperature wasn't going over 100. I've been told the drives typically shut down at 160. The firestore runs a bit hotter than plain drives because of the display and built in computer functions, but the REDDRIVE may be close since it is two drives.

By the way, how did you come up with 2.5 diopter? by my calculations it should be closer to +3 which is probably easier to find.

Hello all,

After some discussion with a variety of folk, for domes, the conclusion seems that the Aquatica 8" dome is the target to beat (in terms of folk wanting to get 100 to 110 degree FOV). It's a cast dome, so the surfaces will be the most concentric. Then marry it up with a +2.5 diopter plano-convex lens (ensure it's very well coated).

On the Ivanoff trail, I'm told that getting a FOV greater than 90 degree is going to be challenging (the ports get to be BIG). So maybe I was chasing the wrong thread on this one ...

Finally, I made contact with Stephen Greenaway a few weeks back, he makes an interesting housing (http://www.greenawaymarine.com/1C.HTM).

For folks based in the UK, it may prove worth having a chat with him. I'll certainly be popping down to see him soon and look at one of his 'OPTOLITE PORTS', which has many of the properties I'm looking for. What are the FOV limitations (keeping edge quality in mind) ?

I wonder how hot the RED ONE will run ? I was not planning on an aluminum housing, but I guess it would be better for heat dissipation ?

 

[David Nardini]

...
isn't the optolite just an Ivanoff or modified Ivanoff type corrector?
...
By the way, how did you come up with 2.5 diopter? by my calculations it should be closer to +3 which is probably easier to find.

I agree, the Optolite looks very much like an Ivanoff to me too ;-)
The good news (I guess) is that they do machine them, so there is a supply -> once we can test one to ensure it performs in the +90 degree FOV zone.

+2.5 is what Peter Scoones uses (with 8inch domes); if he's happy with the performance I was going to try with that as a starting point (the +2.5 are made to order). No harm in testing a +3 as well and comparing results.

 

[Erik Widding]

The other point: Both canon lenses i,e, the 10mm -22mm and the 28mm-300mm vary their aperture when you focus with them right? That would preclude the use of a matt box if using it for normal filming out of water.

Aperture varies with zoom, not focus. At any given focal length the aperture is constant.

Mike right now you have me totally convinced to go the canon route. But are you certain or more importantly is [Erik] at birger engineering 100% certain that we will have focusing and image stabilisation with those two lenses mentioned. That would be trully awesome, i am in:biggrin:

Yes and yes. Product shipping for many years. But, don't buy lenses until we do a little more testing, and offer a quality rating. Some may be better suited than others.

The 28-300 might be a bad choice. It is a push pull zoom (not rotary) and it varies in length a great deal. Longer at a longer focal length, which is going to be an issue with a dome. The 70-200's are a much better choice, available in f/2.8 with and without image stabilization, and in an f/4. Focusing and zoom are both internal, which means the lens does not change length.

This obviously leaves a hole in coverage. Unfortunately you are going to need a third lens.

We will have done more testing by NAB... Which is when a (big) announcement will be made... Don't mean to be elusive. We want to do some more testing and evaluation before we announce whether we have a great product or a really great product; and at least be able to offer an initial indication as to which lenses we will be recomending, and possibly more importantly, recomending against.

 

[Mike the beginner]

Aperture varies with zoom, not focus. At any given focal length the aperture is constant.Quote

Yes and yes. Product shipping for many years. But, don't buy lenses until we do a little more testing, and offer a quality rating. Some may be better suited than others.Quote

The 28-300 might be a bad choice. It is a push pull zoom (not rotary) and it varies in length a great deal. Longer at a longer focal length, which is going to be an issue with a dome. The 70-200's are a much better choice, available in f/2.8 with and without image stabilization, and in an f/4. Focusing and zoom are both internal, which means the lens does not change length.Quote



This obviously leaves a hole in coverage. Unfortunately you are going to need a third lens.

We will have done more testing by NAB... Which is when a (big) announcement will be made... Don't mean to be elusive. We want to do some more testing and evaluation before we announce whether we have a great product or a really great product; and at least be able to offer an initial indication as to which lenses we will be recomending, and possibly more importantly, recomending against.

Not sure how to reply in multi quotes but:

I was meaning the outer part of the lens changes, therefore might effect the use of a matt box on those type of lenses when zooming.

Even better since i have the 300mm prime ordered anyway, the 70-200mm f2.8 would be fine with image stabilization wow. But i cant seem to figure how the focusing works, since the lens is a photo lens rather than a cine lens, are you saying your iris focusing would make the zoom track focus?

I understand about the lenses so will hold off till NAB



All looking really good then, exciting stuff.

Mike the begionner

 

[Andrew M.]

I will not agree that Canon will be probable better glass then RED zoom or prime.
I have noticed that Canon EF lenses did drop in price lately.
Also I see, not only from my experience, that the glass is too soft for more than 1-1.5MPixels (RGB) presentation. I have a feeling that Canaon is preparing completely new lenses with new glass in it for its 8MP and up sensors.
RED has all options open right now for experimenting with glass and the design of the lenses. I agree that there is a difference between distinguishable and noticeable, for some time though. Since we are witnessing a revolution going on in the digital cinema, very fast, the consumers (not the cinematographers) will get used to the better quality of material and will demand it.
So if we want to sell our material two maybe even 4 years from now we better watch the quality, it has to be at minimum full 2MP (RGB) and lenses have to support it.
IMO, 2MP (RGB) resolution I will rate at 6 to 8 MP of single CMOS sensor.

 

[Michael Hastings]

RE: lenses

RE: lenses

Push pull zoom would be bad for the housing too.

Focus works normally - rotate the ring and it focuses - the advantage of the AF lenses is that the Birger unit can control focus using the built-in AF motors - unlike any of the older lenses or cine lenses which would require external gears, motors, etc.

When they talk about F stop changing they mean as you zoom the F stop increases since the front element where the light comes in is the same size - the iris doesn't change but the F stop does because you are using less of the light coming through the front element as you increase magnification. To keep the F stop the same the front element would have to grow when you zoomed in.

As far as iris, since the iris is internal with motors, again the Birger unit lets you easily control iris remotely. The downside of the newer EF type lenses is there is no manual iris ring so if you were shooting handheld you would still have to have the control box to change iris rather than just grabbing the iris ring on the lens.

The newer Nikons also have only internal iris - the problem with the NIkons though is that instead of internal motors, they use a little pin which fits into the camera and gets moved by a motor in the camera body. Developing a smooth little motor setup to do that isn't that big of a problem if you are spreading it out over hundreds of thousands of cameras like Nikon does - but making it work on a short run unit may be more difficult than it is worth.

As far as the outer part of the lens changing, I think most of the newer lenses have internal focus, meaning the elements move internally but the outside doesn't actually rotate. I am sure that info is on the Canon website.

In short, the 10-22mm will be an essential lens. The others you should wait on until Erik gives us more info. Generally you won't want the zooms that require a push pull action to zoom. As far as low light there are a bunch of primes that are very fast.

If you are going to use the Birger mount you might also look at the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM which at $3800 also has Image stabilization and a focus preset function, and you wouldn't have to bounce back and forth between Canon and PL. If you can live with F4 the same basic lens is $1100. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM at $1699 could be pretty awesome too and would cover most of the rest of the range until the RED zoom arrives. Throw in the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM for $1100 and you would have the entire range covered, and if/when better options become available it will be easy to get most of your money back on resale as these are some of the most popular lenses out there. Grab a REBEL XTi for $800 or a 30D and you'd have a hell of a still setup as well. (Set it aside on a tripod and get some time lapse shots as well.)

I think if I were looking at a PL mount RED lens I would hold out for the 18-85 zoom. It seems to me it is the best bang for the buck and suits both the traditional cine style shooting and more ENG/EFP/documentary style as well. I think they will sell a lot of them, so all of the accessory and support options will be there.

Not sure how to reply in multi quotes but:

I was meaning the outer part of the lens changes, therefore might effect the use of a matt box on those type of lenses when zooming.

Even better since i have the 300mm prime ordered anyway, the 70-200mm f2.8 would be fine with image stabilization wow. But i cant seem to figure how the focusing works, since the lens is a photo lens rather than a cine lens, are you saying your iris focusing would make the zoom track focus?

I understand about the lenses so will hold off till NAB



All looking really good then, exciting stuff.

Mike the begionner

 

[Michael Hastings]

Not saying Canon lenses better - but

Not saying Canon lenses better - but

I'm certainly not saying they are better, I am suggesting that they are at least very close. Again, I am primarily talking about the L-series lenses which are the pro line for full frame film shooting, which is 2.5 times the size of the RED imager. Not only are these lenses designed for pro use with similar resolution requirements (is anyone suggesting that the 12MP Mysterium is sharper than the best 35mm films from Fuji and Kodak?) - but we will be shooting with the (usually better) center portion of the lens image only.

We aren't going to know any of this for sure until we get our hands on actual samples. However, I think we can reasonably speculate about what ballpark we are in, and given the lenses and resale value that I spoke of in the previous post - I think the downside of using the Canons is very small.

I will not agree that Canon will be probable better glass then RED zoom or prime.
I have noticed that Canon EF lenses drop in price lately.
Also I see, not only from my experience, that the glass is too soft for more than 1-1.5MPixels (RGB) presentation. I have a feeling that Canaon is preparing completely new lenses with new glass in it for its 8MP and up sensors.
RED has all options open right now for experimenting with glass and the design of the lenses. I agree that there is a difference between distinguishable and noticeable, for some time though. Since we are witnessing a revolution going on in the digital cinema, very fast, the consumers (not the cinematographers) will get used to the better quality of material and will demand it.
So if we want to sell our material two maybe even 4 years from now we better watch the quality, it has to be at minimum full 2MP (RGB) and lenses have to support it.
IMO, 2MP (RGB) resolution I will rate at 6 to 8 MP of single CMOS sensor.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Nice work guys...this thread is producing some interesting answers! Very cool...

Aluminum: In the first "Splash your RED" thread, in mid-January I mentioned that my custom surface sports housings have almost always been made of aluminum. It is strong, lightweight, and dissipates heat very well. IMO, for the same reasons, aluminum may be the way to go for dive housings also. Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=370&highlight=aluminum+housing

Mike: I will be one of the first people to receive a RED One camera (#8). I've been networking with Sharkguy for a few months now - awesome guy with unique talents and concepts. I mentioned to him that I'd be very happy to have RED #8 be measured for housings. No firm date on when I'll receive #8, but I would guess it would be somewhere in April, either before or after NAB. Ken (Sharkguy) can coordinate with you guys on when/where we can hook up to measure the camera. Being a surface water sports producer/shooter, I'm happy to help out my subsurface shooter relatives in any way I can!

Evin or Brook: IMO water shooting, whether it be surface water sports, or subsurface adventure/nature shooting belongs in the family of genres that is non-hardlined EFP, and occasionally hardlined EFP. It is usually in the sports, adventure travel, or documentary genres. Perhaps this thread should be moved to the "EFP/ENG for RED" forum?

 

[Michael Hastings]

Thanks, Gibby and more explanation of Aluminum construction

Thanks, Gibby and more explanation of Aluminum construction

Gibby: Thanks for you comments and willingness to help us get going on the underwater setup.

Re: Aluminum. I'm not knocking aluminum - I got my start because I worked at Vincent Brass and Aluminum while going to college and bought a cutoff cheap to make my 1st housing (circa 1980). By itself aluminum isn't even that much more expensive - the aluminum for the housing is only about $50 more. It is the fact that PVC does the job well in a lot of cases and is much easier/quicker to work with - partly because all of the processes are in our control. Just sending them out to be hardcoated or powder coated can add a week or two to the process. Everything is more difficult and time consuming - machining, drilling, tapping, welding, etc. and in short run manufacturing you are paying for time not materials. Also, we have already confirmed that Sharkguy's housing will be aluminum, mainly because he is one of those "deathwish" guys that goes extremely deep on occasion - and aluminum isn't that much more.

We will determine that pretty quickly whether heat is a big problem in the PVC unit once we get the camera. I agree that heat buildup is the biggest potential issue for the RED.

However, with other cameras in general - the heat issue can go both ways because it is more accurate to say that aluminum transfers heat more quickly so for instance for surface shooting in the sun you better make sure your aluminum housing is light colored or it will get pretty hot inside pretty quickly. Basically, the HVX200 with the Firestore is the first camera where the heat issue was a serious consideration for the PVC housing, and even there it seems to work out okay. Given the heavy on board processing with the RED, we will have to keep an eye on it. If it is an issue, just going to an aluminum frontplate would solve it, and I have thought of that for other reasons having to do with greater flexibility with interchangeable ports or the possibility of a Nikonos mount that was discussed a long time ago.

If you look at my ball park prices, (in post #144) I listed $250 - 900 for a deeper frontplate option. The lower price is just for a thicker acrylic plate, the higher is for an aluminum frontplate. The aluminum front does have greater depth capability - since the front is a fairly broad flat surface it is usually the first limiting factor in terms of depth rating - but the aluminum also makes it easier to start bolting different port mounts on it. You can do it on acrylic, but at some point all that millin', drillin', and tappin' on a piece of acrylic gets a little scary for deep water work.

Nice work guys...this thread is producing some interesting answers! Very cool...

Aluminum: In the first "Splash your RED" thread, in mid-January I mentioned that my custom surface sports housings have almost always been made of aluminum. It is strong, lightweight, and dissipates heat very well. IMO, for the same reasons, aluminum may be the way to go for dive housings also. Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=370&highlight=aluminum+housing

Ken (Sharkguy) can coordinate with you guys on when/where we can hook up to measure the camera. Being a surface water sports producer/shooter, I'm happy to help out my subsurface shooter relatives in any way I can!

Evin or Brook: IMO water shooting, whether it be surface water sports, or subsurface adventure/nature shooting belongs in the family of genres that is non-hardlined EFP, and occasionally hardlined EFP. It is usually in the sports, adventure travel, or documentary genres. Perhaps this thread should be moved to the "EFP/ENG for RED" forum?

 

[Steve Gibby]

Mike,

Thanks for that insight on materials. Since the deeper you dive, the cooler the water gets (unless there is a thermocline situation), it seems that if RED has done their work on effective cooling of their camera, that the transfer of heat through the skin of a housing should become less of an issue the colder the water is - in essence, if the camera cools well to begin with, and a housing throughputs heat effectively, and the outside water is cool, then there shouldn't be problems.

You're right...all of my surface sports water housings have been light in color to reflect heat. This is especially critical when we shoot in the tropics, where the air temperature is maybe 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the water is about the same. In temperate latitudes, where the water/air are cooler, heat inside the housings has rarely been an issue.

 

[Andrew M.]

I'm certainly not saying they are better, I am suggesting that they are at least very close. Again, I am primarily talking about the L-series lenses which are the pro line for full frame film shooting, which is 2.5 times the size of the RED imager. Not only are these lenses designed for pro use with similar resolution requirements (is anyone suggesting that the 12MP Mysterium is sharper than the best 35mm films from Fuji and Kodak?) - but we will be shooting with the (usually better) center portion of the lens image only.

We aren't going to know any of this for sure until we get our hands on actual samples. However, I think we can reasonably speculate about what ballpark we are in, and given the lenses and resale value that I spoke of in the previous post - I think the downside of using the Canons is very small.

Mike, I just noticed the L (Cannon) after I did post my answer.
I do not have any experience with L and just by reading about it, it looks like much better lenses, though the newer EF-S should be much “more modern” manufactured by new standards and using new materials. Who knows what to think about it?
Don’t forget though that 135 format is two times the surface of S35 and the pictures taken on the 135 format film, usually are to be shown in very small picture formats, journal size in the most. Posters and large displays are heavily post processed and if not, then are shot on the 120 format film (56X118mm – 2.1 to 1 ratio)
So I will argue that Misterium has much better resolution then 135, even if you take the whole surface of 135 frame film versus S35 Misterium.
First the film is not completely flat, less particles in 135 frame then pixels in S35 frame.
Second Misteriumm in most cases will be stretched to 40 to 60 inches picture size to watch if not cinema size screen. The film is stretched to the newspaper size. (we are talking still lenses here, remember)
So when you design still lenses you have more slag then the movie lenses.