Lenses for 2/3" Scarlet?

[Sven Seynaeve]

It would be great if RED does give us any info regarding if they will release them when scarlet 2/3 comes out, especially regarding their size and possible 3d setups...

 

[Joe Carney]

If the Red B4 mount has the right optics, then one could buy or rent the high end Zeiss Digiprimes/zooms since they resolve higher than 100mmpl. Fujinon also has their cine line of primes and zooms for 2/3" cameras. ( I think G Lucas used the Fujinon 10-100 zoom with a F900 for one of the Star Wars movies).

 

[Michael Hastings]

If the Red B4 mount has the right optics, then one could buy or rent the high end Zeiss Digiprimes/zooms since they resolve higher than 100mmpl. Fujinon also has their cine line of primes and zooms for 2/3" cameras. ( I think G Lucas used the Fujinon 10-100 zoom with a F900 for one of the Star Wars movies).

The RED B4 mount wouldn't require optics for the 2/3" scarlet should it? Seems like just a physical mount with the right Flange focal distance.

The REDONE needed optics to expand and cover the full S16 size of 2K but I don't think that is a problem with 2/3".

 

[Joe Carney]

You could be right. I was thinking they needed optics to compensate for the lack of a prism to 3 chip setup.

 

[Paul Brand]

The RED B4 mount wouldn't require optics for the 2/3" scarlet should it? Seems like just a physical mount with the right Flange focal distance.

The REDONE needed optics to expand and cover the full S16 size of 2K but I don't think that is a problem with 2/3".

I was wondering the same thing. I suppose the lenses that are set up for 3CCD cams with prism splitters could be an optical issue.

paul

 

[Dan Hudgins]

>100lp/mm

>100lp/mm

Film framegrab
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/u16_demo/$File/u16_demo.jpg

Sweet ones, they cost around $80.000, right?
What about Optar Illumina set of 6 for $16.500?
http://www.optarillumina.com/lenses/super16.html

You can get good machine vision C mount lenses for less than $400 each,

See my other posts on this subject,

Goyo Optical makes f/0.95 lenses in 17mm, 25mm, 50mm,

Kowa makes a 5mm that covers 2/3" in Megapixel,

http://www.prosecuritys.com/lm5jcm.html

google under 2/3" Megapixel and you can find many types.

Edit: fixed link....

 

[brainburst]

You can get good machine vision C mount lenses for less than $400 each.

Those lenses are not great. They spec as megapixel only to differentiate themselves from the usual garbage that goes on security cameras. Toshiba has products in that line as well. If you want good glass in a c mount package check out Navitar or Edmund optics. It will be more expensive though!

 

[Joe Carney]

You can get good machine vision C mount lenses for less than $400 each,

See my other posts on this subject,

Goyo Optical makes f/0.95 lenses in 17mm, 25mm, 50mm,

Kowa makes a 5mm that covers 2/3" in Megapixel,

http://www.prosecuritys.com/lm5jcm.html

google under 2/3" Megapixel and you can find many types.

Edit: fixed link....

Most people don't buy Zeiss, they rent them for a project. Everyone I know who has used them sings their praises. Nice to know if you can justify the rental cost, they are the best for 2/3" cameras. But Fujinon and Canon have Cinema rated primes and zooms for under 30K. So, shop around.
Those Optar Illuminas are nice too, though they used to be closer to 12K. Sinking dollar I suppose. I wonder how long the back order on them is?

here is a link to the fujinon Cine-style lens'
http://www.fujinon.com/DigitalCinema/Products.aspx
Check with AbelCine for pricing.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

>100lp/mm?

>100lp/mm?

Those lenses are not great. They spec as megapixel only to differentiate themselves from the usual garbage that goes on security cameras. Toshiba has products in that line as well. If you want good glass in a c mount package check out Navitar or Edmund optics. It will be more expensive though!

They do not seem to publish enough information to tell much, but some claim more than 100lp/mm.

The OLPF in the camera is there to cut the resolution in about half so that single pixels do not get 100% of the light from any given point, so I am not sure that having a lens over 150lp/mm will get you anymore resolution with the OLPF in place, and if it did you would probably notice aliasing.

Another issue with 2/3" format is that you cannot stop down past maybe f/5.6 and get 200lp/mm so if you are going to shoot at f/8 or less better lenses may not show much extra.

The f/0.95 lenses are not going to resolve 100lp/mm wide open, but with the smaller sensor under low light you may want them to reduce the noise even if the images are only SD resolution, movie projectors are out of focus so what is on the screen is just above SD resolution much of the time anyway.

I have some megapixel machine vision lenses and they do seem crisper than the TV lenses, I will make some tests later when I can use a camera with smaller pixels.

Do you have a link to the MTF curves for the Zeiss Cine lenses and lp/mm curves?

 

[Rodrigo Silvestri]

2 things that may be useful.

The Standard 16mm frame size is 10,26mm by 7,49mm.
The 2/3" CCD size is 10,1mm by 5,35mm.
So, standard 16mm lenses should not cause vignetting with this camera.

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

To calculate the equivalent lens for each format, you can use a formula called "DIOF", which is mainly used to calculate camera distances, lenses, etc.
Distance x Image size = Object size x Focal Length
So you can make the formula depending on what value you need to know. Depending on your needs, you can do the formula for the horizontal frame size or the vertical frame size.
In this case, I'll put the values we know (i.e. frame size, focal length) and invent one of the two other variables (distance or object size).

3000mm (3meters, invented value) x 21mm (35mm's width at 1:1,85) = X (object size) x 50mm ("normal" lens in 35mm format).

We change the formula in order to leave the X as a result:
(DxI)/F=O and the result is 1260mm
This would mean that if we have the camera at 3 meters from an object that is 1,26m width, it will cover all the frame's width.

Now we make the formula in order to know which lens we would need to have a Scarlet 2/3" beside the 35mm camera, and have the same image size:
3000mm x 10,1mm (Scarlet's frame width) = 1260 x X (focal length).
(DxI)/O=F Result: 24,04mm.

If we do all the formula again with the vertical value, the focal length result is 24,3mm.

This is also useful if you are used to a specific format and its lenses, and you want to know how those lenses will work with your new frame size.

Hope you like it.
Rodrigo

 

[Iouri Philippe Paillé]

Film framegrab
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/u16_demo/$File/u16_demo.jpg

Sweet ones, they cost around $80.000, right?
What about Optar Illumina set of 6 for $16.500?
http://www.optarillumina.com/lenses/super16.html

A set of 4 used Zeiss super speed MKII (T1.3) goes for around 15000-20000$
A set of 5 new Optar illumina ultra prime (T1.3) sells for 14500$

Any thoughts on how it would be a better investment to buy the zeiss over the optar illumina?

any other super fast lens set that anyone would recommend in same price range (or cheaper).?

 

[brainburst]

Ouch! I'm sorry but that just proves my misgivings about the 2/3" size. The glass has to be so much better (and thus more expensive.)

 

[Aiden Cornwell]

Ouch! I'm sorry but that just proves my misgivings about the 2/3" size. The glass has to be so much better (and thus more expensive.)

Remember that Reds glass came in at $6500 for their lenses that are comparable to 65000.


I am think the red mini primes will come in around the same price as cannon L series lenses. So between $1000-$2000 per lens.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Remember that Reds glass came in at $6500 for their lenses that are comparable to 65000.
.

Hi,

With respect the RED lens costing $6500, has many limitations & are not directly comparable to a lens costing 10 times as much.

Stephen

 

[Stephen Williams]

2 things that may be useful.


So, standard 16mm lenses should not cause vignetting with this camera.

Hi,

That is true but they may well porthole.

Stephen

 

[brainburst]

Remember that Reds glass came in at $6500 for their lenses that are comparable to 65000.

Uhh no. Consider that their zoom lens didn't need to be as high quality for their larger sensor and it still sucked. Why should we have any faith, if they can't make mediocre glass, that they can make great glass?

So, standard 16mm lenses should not cause vignetting with this camera.

That is true but they may well porthole.

The scanning area of the 2/3" camera is basically equivalent to a letter boxed 16. The only problem will be quality...

 

[Aiden Cornwell]

Uhh no. Consider that their zoom lens didn't need to be as high quality for their larger sensor and it still sucked. Why should we have any faith, if they can't make mediocre glass, that they can make great glass?


The scanning area of the 2/3" camera is basically equivalent to a letter boxed 16. The only problem will be quality...

Just to clarify what you consider for sucking and non sucking paramaters where would you rate cannon L-series glass for DSLR's?

This is not an attack on your opinion but rather to clarify where your opinion is coming from.

 

[brainburst]

Just to clarify what you consider for sucking and non sucking paramaters where would you rate cannon L-series glass for DSLR's?

This is not an attack on your opinion but rather to clarify where your opinion is coming from.

I think the L series glass is pretty good. Maybe I overstated my opinion of the RED zoom; it really wasn't great.

The 2/3" glass will need to be great to be adequate.

 

[Aiden Cornwell]

I think the L series glass is pretty good. Maybe I overstated my opinion of the RED zoom; it really wasn't great.

The 2/3" glass will need to be great to be adequate.

Ok thanks that gives me a good idea of where you are coming from. I know very little about glass and welcome input from those who have the expertise.

The part I bolded I am wondering why that is?

 

[brainburst]

The 2/3" glass will need to be great to be adequate.

The smaller the sensor the better the glass has to be. The pixel density is higher so the res per mm is higher on a smaller sensor than on a larger sensor. To resolve 2k on Scarlet's 2/3" (10mm wide) sensor requires glass to pass a min 100 lp/mm. To resolve 2k on the RED ONE (24mm wide) requires glass @ 42 lp/mm. To resolve 2/k on a 4/3 sensor (Approx 17mm wide) would be about 59 lp/mm.All approximations but the ratios would be the same.

So I still think that a 4/3" scarlet would make more sense. 100 lp/mm glass will be way more expensive and hard to get than 59 lp/mm glass. Personally I would prefer to pay more for a 4/3 sensor that could use 4/3 lenses or FF glass with a very simple 2:1 crop factor.
The very expensive 2/3" glass is going to be absolutely useless if you upgrade to the s35 or ff sensors.
Whereas the 4/3 could use any good quality FF glass, which would be perfectly usable if you upgrade your sensor.