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 :)

Angenieux Optimo rouge - basic informations.

Michael Lindsay said:
I tested a range of lenses on a SI-2k the other day. The OLPF causes problems. When using a Zoom that is very retrofocal (to the point that the light out the back is very telecentric) you get very good results.

If using a wide prime lens I saw CA and sizable backfocus problems. The back focus pproblems are solvable on the SI-2k by using per lens PL mounts. The CA?

I believe the above may to a lesser extent be applicable to Red.

reagrds

Michael
Click to expand...


What do you men per lens PL mounts?

Adjust BF per each lens?
 
Andrew said:
It could be something to do with the refraction (don’t mix with deffraction) slight bending of the light by OLPF that is high above the Mysterium?
I don’t know how high it is but normally should be just a millimetre or two above the sensor surface.
Click to expand...
I will try to avoid speculating - however other wide lenses didnt show the CA the Arri MPs had, on the other hand the MP were he "sharpest" of the cinelenses, but still slightly below 4K.

Andrew said:
Also 18 mm has some CA two pixels wide or so.
As to your picture above, is this crop of the corner or what part of picture it is? How many 4k pixels across?
Click to expand...
The CA on the MP was ~1.5-2 pixels. The image is the upper left corner, 400% enlarged. The center of the image had less CA, the other corners had the same CA, direction toward the center.

However, if the master is a 35mm out, i suppose that the CA of the MP will not be visible, it will disappear in the lower resolution of the projection.
 
Andrew said:
What do you men per lens PL mounts?

Adjust BF per each lens?
Click to expand...

The PS system allows you to have a different (shimed different) PL mount for every single lens. You do this before a shoot for any problem lenses.

This solves the backfocus problems

regards

Michael Lindsay
 
Michael Lindsay said:
The PS system allows you to have a different (shimed different) PL mount for every single lens. You do this before a shoot for any problem lenses.

This solves the backfocus problems

regards

Michael Lindsay
Click to expand...

Hi Michael,

Why not correctly collimate each lens as has been standard practice for about 100 years?

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi Michael,

Why not correctly collimate each lens as has been standard practice for about 100 years?

Stephen
Click to expand...

Because it will not work!

thick or otherwise OLPF havn't been around for 100years:biggrin:

You can collimate your lenses to work but this will take them out of wack for s16 film work..

regards

Michael
 
Anybody correct me if I'm wrong, but If you put a properly collimated lens on the Red, and set Back focus with the amazing Twist-A-Mount, then you have taken into account the OLPF, and all properly collimated lenses will come up correct.

I don't see a problem here.

Nick
 
laguun said:
hrrhrr, yeah, the 25-250 was (and often still is) the "zoom" for decades now...


No, i mean Master Primes.

The Master Primes have chromatic aberration in 4K. We tested them at once as soon we got the first reds, back in oct. 2007.

look at the uploaded sample: Thats an enlarged close of a MP-shot in 4K. In the lower right, you will see violet/purple ca, look at the upper left, you will see yellow ca.

results have been doublechecked with other master primes, shot was T4.
the resolution power of the MP is good however.

The zeiss had better CA performance, however, these were becoming slightly soft to the borders.
Click to expand...

Laguun,

Did you test Ultra Primes as well? How did they resolve the sensor? I'm having a hard time imagining that they wouldn't be among, if not the sharpest, highest resolution glass out there for the Red.

What about CA? How did they compare?

Also wondering if some of the issues you saw were related to the earlier OLPF filter. It's my understanding that Red moved its position and modified it when the re-designed the PL mount.

Has anyone tested UPs and MPs on current shipping cameras? 2007 is ancient history Red land ;)


M
 
Michael Lindsay said:
Because it will not work!

thick or otherwise OLPF havn't been around for 100years:biggrin:

You can collimate your lenses to work but this will take them out of wack for s16 film work..

regards

Michael
Click to expand...

Hi,

If the FFD is correctly set on the camera (taking into account the OLPF) then any correctly collimated lens will work.

YMMV

Stephen
 
Mark Pedersen said:
Laguun,

Did you test Ultra Primes as well?
Click to expand...
No, MP and Zeiss.

Mark Pedersen said:
Also wondering if some of the issues you saw were related to the earlier OLPF filter. It's my understanding that Red moved its position and modified it when the re-designed the PL mount.
Click to expand...
i suppose that the OLPF has no effect on the chromatic aberration of the MP.

Especially as other lenses didnt show the issue. And keep in mind, we are talking about issues which only are negative on -really- very high standrads.

Mark Pedersen said:
Has anyone tested UPs and MPs on current shipping cameras? 2007 is ancient history Red land ;)
M
Click to expand...
Soon we will start testing much more lenses, and i am also considering the idea of equipping one of the reds with one of the universal mounts from ps.

Also - if ///anyone/// here has 3D beamsplitter lenses here - we have many upcoming 3D projects and would be highly interested to test them in comparision to our 3D-lenses and if good, to rent them for several months in 2008.
 
laguun said:
Also - if ///anyone/// here has 3D beamsplitter lenses here - we have many upcoming 3D projects and would be highly interested to test them in comparision to our 3D-lenses and if good, to rent them for several months in 2008.
Click to expand...

Hi

What is a 3d-lens? (I know what a beam splitter is and understand its use in a 3d rig)

Thanks

Michael Lindsay
 
MP & Cromatic Abberations

MP & Cromatic Abberations

Firstly the MPs were designed for film not for CMOS sensors which are totally different. Most modern lenses deal with CA very well but in dealing with Primary & Lateral CA, Secondary CA in the green spectrum can create problems especially in the corners of frames and is well known to Canon etc when manufacturing lenses for TV cameras. The most common modern day CA is Secondary and is not easily solvable.
Next you must also consider the CMOS chip itself as it is coated in micro lenses made of resin and they also have an effect especially on larger areas as seen on 35mm sized sensors so unlike film the subject becomes more complicated.
The frequency responce of film lenses is also different digital requiring a higher frequency to give a different contrast ratio. The lens manufacturers with the exception of Olympus have been predominately using film based designs for digital which for the most part has not been a problem, however as 4K becomes a standard and beyond those lens designs will need to change but keep in mind every lens is a compromise and the price determines how big a compromise.
 
Nova Invicta said:
Firstly the MPs were designed for film not for CMOS sensors which are totally different. Most modern lenses deal with CA very well but in dealing with Primary & Lateral CA, Secondary CA in the green spectrum can create problems especially in the corners of frames and is well known to Canon etc when manufacturing lenses for TV cameras. The most common modern day CA is Secondary and is not easily solvable.
Next you must also consider the CMOS chip itself as it is coated in micro lenses made of resin and they also have an effect especially on larger areas as seen on 35mm sized sensors so unlike film the subject becomes more complicated.
The frequency responce of film lenses is also different digital requiring a higher frequency to give a different contrast ratio. The lens manufacturers with the exception of Olympus have been predominately using film based designs for digital which for the most part has not been a problem, however as 4K becomes a standard and beyond those lens designs will need to change but keep in mind every lens is a compromise and the price determines how big a compromise.
Click to expand...

I agree. The bizarre thing is that the Zeiss and Angenieux didnt show the CA as the MP, the MP however where the sharpest ones. With a little bit more time at hands, i will certainly test them once more, the camera was a <50 serial number in october with totally early firmware, so this also could play a role.
 
laguun said:
The camera was a <50 serial number in october with totally early firmware, so this also could play a role.
Click to expand...

Doubtful, I've tested the Master Primes against Ultras, S4s, Superspeeds and Standard speeds. All on #199 which is an "X" camera. I had the same results. The Master & Ultra primes are pretty well matched for sharpness on the Red but the Ultras definitely have better CA control. The Standards do surprisingly well too although not as crispy.
 
neither master primes or zeiss resolve 4K w/o issues
Click to expand...

They are supposed to be among the best of the best, aren't they? So, are they adequate for film?
what has the best MTF? is this graduatory correct?

1) Red camera (since it's 4k and cleaner than film with comparable detail, and film scanned at 4k looks dirtier then 4k video, even with 3ccd against bayer)?
2) zeiss optics (since they don't resolve 4k without issues)?
2) film (since zeiss are supposed to be adequate - that is better - for film)?

oh, never mind. Sorry, forget it. By the time i finished my question, I lost interest in answers. I'm just happy with some good lenses, as long as, together with a Red One, they make good images. Only this is important to me. Old zeiss + Red One already make excellent pictures, and that's enough for me.
 
Amen!... I'm reminded of economics course in college...the law of diminishing returns...yikes...is 10% (or 20% etc..)..improvement worth 10 times the cost (or something like that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top