Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

2/3 and S35 lenses

David Mullen ASC said:
What do you mean by a 35mm lens versus a 2/3" lens? A lens made to cover the 2/3" area wouldn't necessarily fill a 35mm area, while a 35mm lens may fill a 2/3" area. So what exactly are you asking? How a PL-mount 35mm lens will look on the 2/3" Scarlet versus a Mini-Red lens that only covers the 2/3" area? Just depends on the particular lens; there isn't anything intrinsic to a 2/3" lens that makes it behave differently than a larger 35mm lens.

Unless you are talking about lenses made specifically for 2/3" 3-CCD prism block cameras versus lenses made for 2/3" single-sensor cameras. The issue there is that the lens made for a 3-CCD camera is designed to focus red, green, and blue wavelengths on three different sensors, so some sort of adaptor is usually needed to use them on a single-sensor 2/3" camera (like the SI-2K, which until the 2/3" Scarlet comes out, is the significant 2/3" single-sensor camera.)
Click to expand...

I think he might be talking about how the 35mm lenses (i.e. S4's etc) have certain looks to them, and overall are there 16mm lenses that have looks of their own. or are s35 lenses sharper than 2/3" lenses (on an overall scale as i know there are many different kinds of both so this is a generalization) yada yada yada.
 
what i meant to ask was how would the scarlet 2/3 camera with a 2/3 lens compare to scarlet s35 with a s35 lens. would the image be significantly different?

sorry i'm not to knowledgeable about lens, so forgive me if this sounds like a silly question.
 
Brandon Ripley said:
what i meant to ask was how would the scarlet 2/3 camera with a 2/3 lens compare to scarlet s35 with a s35 lens. would the image be significantly different?

sorry i'm not to knowledgeable about lens, so forgive me if this sounds like a silly question.
Click to expand...
It really depends in what aspect... an S35 scarlet is obviously going to have shallower depth of field than a 2/3'' and that is where the majority of the difference is going to lay. Also the resolution isn't going to be as high... but those things do and don't have to do with the lens. But once again it all varies depending on the circumstances in which you are shooting.. For instance a 25mm on an s35 shot at an f8 would actually have a greater depth of field then a 50mm stuck on a 2/3" shot at a 2.8.. but then again it can go the other way to... but that's all getting confusing as I write it.. so I'll try and answer more simply.
If you had a new high quality sharp cine 35lens at 50mm, and you had a new high quality cine lens for the 2/3" at 25mm (the 2/3" equivalent of the 50mm for the 35) both shot at the same f stop. the 35 will have shallower depth of field and resolve a higher resolution. the sharpness and "quarks" of the image just depend on the lens maker.
haha wow that got much more jumbled than I had hoped to make it... hope that helps somewhat...
 
Brandon Ripley said:
what i meant to ask was how would the scarlet 2/3 camera with a 2/3 lens compare to scarlet s35 with a s35 lens. would the image be significantly different?
Click to expand...

"Significant" is a bit of a subjective call -- what looks like a significant difference to one person may be hardly noticeable to someone else.

You can think of it this way -- assuming there was no difference in graininess (the main visual clue), how much "better" does 35mm photography look over Super-16 photography?

Specs would tell you to expect more resolution and less depth of field with the S35 Scarlet over the 2/3" Scarlet, but whether it looks "significant" is going to depend on the particular performances of these cameras, how they are shot, and how sensitive your eye is to these differences -- and it will also depend on the degree of image enlargement, how large a screen / display you are talking about.

Also remember that if you shoot a movie in one format, then the viewer gets used to that because they have no basis of comparison. So even if the S35 Scarlet image is "better", an entire project shot on the 2/3" Scarlet may look excellent... and without any way to compare the image to a "better" format, the viewer is probably not going to complain or notice something is different.

The only way you're going to be able to answer this more objectively is to see a test of both the S35 and 2/3" Scarlet shooting the same subject, presented on a large screen. Until someone does that, or you do it, and see the results yourself, it's a little like someone else describing a meal that they've had in a restaurant.
 
Russ Blaise said:
I heard, 20k for a set of 5. It was mentioned on a web video... If it's 2.5k for the set, why would anybody buy the 2/3" fixed.
Click to expand...

That's 1K more than the current red primes set of 5. I admit that may be a more realistic price than 2.5k.
 
Chris Kennedy said:
That's 1K more than the current red primes set of 5. I admit that may be a more realistic price than 2.5k.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Ideally they would have 2.5 times the resolution of the S35 lenses to compensate for the smaller sensor. 1K premium would be cheap if they did.

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

Ideally they would have 2.5 times the resolution of the S35 lenses to compensate for the smaller sensor. 1K premium would be cheap if they did.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Yes. And worse still, it would have to provide that resolution at a wider f-number in order to avoid worse diffraction.
 
Daniel Browning said:
Yes. And worse still, it would have to provide that resolution at a wider f-number in order to avoid worse diffraction.
Click to expand...

Which is one of the reasons why the digi-primes cost $30,000 each!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top