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 :)

C-Mount Lenses?

S

Scott Anderson

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I've been thinking about how the term "pocket" relates to the miniaturization of Red One to Scarlet. To me, the word "pocket" does not conjure images of an HVX-200 or A-minima. It does not even apply to a DVX-100. Even the larger DSLRs do not really make me think pocket. I would think we might just be looking at a radically small form factor.

It seems to me that hanging a big old honkin' 35mm PL mount lens off the front of a "pocket" camera seems, well, a bit lopsided. I believe Jim has also stated something to the effect that he does not consider a fixed lens to be "professional". So I'm thinking interchangable, professional lenses on a radically small form factor.

There is a long history of very, very compact C-Mount lenses for 16mm motion picture cameras, industrial cameras of all stripes and telescopic photography. There was a recent thread that discussed using Standard 16mm lenses, not even Super16 mind you, when shooting 2k with Red One:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6309

I would think that limiting Scarlet to 2K would be perfectly acceptable, if that meant a radically smaller form factor. After all, Super 16 has been considered "professional" enough for many episodics and indie features.

Are there reasons that a threaded C-Mount would be less than ideal? Is it because the lens can spin out of the (non-locking) mount when a follow-focus gearing or similar rotating pressure is applied? Is the flange distance of C-Mount unsuitable for a CMOS sensor, due to the portholing problem mentioned in the earlier thread? I would think that the general resolution, CA, etc. suitable for 16mm would hold up fine for 2K.

The truth be told, I would love to pull out all my old Bolex C-Mount lenses. One of the barriers to entry for Red One is the cost of good PL-mount glass (even Red's fantastic value lenses). However, there's tons of old stock C-Mount that can be had a very, very attractive prices.

Please tell me if I'm just being naive. It's just that I have a 25mm f/0.95 Angenieux (yes, you read that right - 0.95) that has been criminally underused for many, many years.
 
Yeah, I should have mentioned the SI Mini in passing, as it does have a 2K DCI sensor, allows for C-Mount Lenses (by adaptor) and has what could only be described as a radically small form factor. The thing is, it's still tethered to either the SI camera body or a computer for direct to disk recording.

I have a strong sense that Scarlet will be self-contained. Given Jim's penchant for photographic extreme sports, It would make sense that we would see a camera well suited to, say, ride-along mounting in snowboarding or BMX racing or skateboarding...

When I think of a pocket professional camera, I think of a killer image in a form that's a skateboarders dream.
 
I agree, if the Red is the S35mm replacement then you'd think Scarlett would be the equivalent for S16. The sensor size is reduced to half and the processing required would theoretically be less so you'd think there would be no reason the camera couldn't be made smaller.

C-mount... maybe, what about us guys that have PL mount S16 lens? Finding the best/right lens mount could be an issue. Lets just hope Scarlett gets one so it wont be a fixed lens.

If they do make it C mount it should be CS mount so it can take both C and CS lenses.

C mount lenses would make the whole thing smaller I guess, and the SI guys keep talking about some low cost Fujinon set of Primes that are c mount apparently.
 
c mount the smallest

c mount the smallest

my bet is scarlet's lens would be fixed - but if not surely only a C/CS -mount would be small enough for a "pocket" camera?

I imagine any PL-mounted lens would be much bigger than the camera - heck - there are a lot of lenses out there that already make the Red One look tiny....
 
Hopefully they wont limit themselves like the 2 big players (S & P) and make it a fixed lens just because it is a smaller camera.

The Iconix camera is smaller than any of those handycams and it uses a C mount.
 
Iron Possum said:
The Iconix camera is smaller than any of those handycams and it uses a C mount.
Click to expand...

I'm looking how to record 1920 50p with Iconix. If you used it, what did you have as deck? What would be the possibilities? I have an offer of HDCAM (25p) HDCAMSR (50p but overpriced). HDV Jvc (50p) but 720p.

Any used Varicam?

Thanks.

Patrick
 
C mount lenses may be fine for a camera like the iconix with its need to poke into extremely small places. The iconix is a great camera for this work and one expects less of the optics with an "effect" camera. You are not generally pulling focus as it sits in its position usually with a wide lens.

In comparison most C mounts have no effective interface for production accessories. They have a fine thread which is easily cross threaded with day to day production speed. Many of the older lenses aren't that great and certainly those used on the bolexes are specific to a beamsplitter camera where optical design varies from those lenses that would project onto a chip or film without a beamsplitter.

Modern glass has generally left the C mount behind. If you want cheap glass then look at the markets that make good cheap lenses....still photography. These would be the most likely candidates for supply of elements and custom fabrication for RED...most probably the lenses on offer currently with motion picture housings. Remember 2k will buy you half the equivalent angle of view for a given lens. Think about the fact that you are throwing the image at a smaller target and the size of the front element and those following can be smaller....its getting smaller. A magnesium body to balance the package and then we're talking!
 
Canon EOS or 4/3

Canon EOS or 4/3

Canon EOS compatibility would be great for a full 4K chip, but EOS is not an open standard so requires reverse engineering and some possibility of litigation/patent infringement issues for a deep pocket competitor.

Probably the most sensible thing is the 4/3 system which is an open standard that RED could join - the sensor size is a little smaller than S35 but bigger than 2/3 video so 4K is still possible or maybe 3K - maintaining shallower dof than most video cameras - and there are a number of excellent lenses already available: Leica, Sigma, Olympus, etc. IMHO me 2K is not all that attractive as there are so many decent/cheap almost 2K (1080P) compact cameras out there already.



Scott Anderson said:
I've been thinking about how the term "pocket" relates to the miniaturization of Red One to Scarlet. To me, the word "pocket" does not conjure images of an HVX-200 or A-minima. It does not even apply to a DVX-100. Even the larger DSLRs do not really make me think pocket. I would think we might just be looking at a radically small form factor.

It seems to me that hanging a big old honkin' 35mm PL mount lens off the front of a "pocket" camera seems, well, a bit lopsided. I believe Jim has also stated something to the effect that he does not consider a fixed lens to be "professional". So I'm thinking interchangable, professional lenses on a radically small form factor.

There is a long history of very, very compact C-Mount lenses for 16mm motion picture cameras, industrial cameras of all stripes and telescopic photography. There was a recent thread that discussed using Standard 16mm lenses, not even Super16 mind you, when shooting 2k with Red One:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6309

I would think that limiting Scarlet to 2K would be perfectly acceptable, if that meant a radically smaller form factor. After all, Super 16 has been considered "professional" enough for many episodics and indie features.

Are there reasons that a threaded C-Mount would be less than ideal? Is it because the lens can spin out of the (non-locking) mount when a follow-focus gearing or similar rotating pressure is applied? Is the flange distance of C-Mount unsuitable for a CMOS sensor, due to the portholing problem mentioned in the earlier thread? I would think that the general resolution, CA, etc. suitable for 16mm would hold up fine for 2K.

The truth be told, I would love to pull out all my old Bolex C-Mount lenses. One of the barriers to entry for Red One is the cost of good PL-mount glass (even Red's fantastic value lenses). However, there's tons of old stock C-Mount that can be had a very, very attractive prices.

Please tell me if I'm just being naive. It's just that I have a 25mm f/0.95 Angenieux (yes, you read that right - 0.95) that has been criminally underused for many, many years.
Click to expand...
 
Tresch said:
I'm looking how to record 1920 50p with Iconix. If you used it, what did you have as deck? What would be the possibilities? I have an offer of HDCAM (25p) HDCAMSR (50p but overpriced). HDV Jvc (50p) but 720p.

Any used Varicam?

Thanks.

Patrick
Click to expand...

Hi Patrick,

I've only seen the Iconix at a demo, but I'm looking at using it for a show later this year. Have you thought about recording formats other than tape? The Wafian HR-F1 is a 4:2:2 10 bit field recorder that is direct to disk. There are a few other Direct to disk manufacturers out there too. Although to tell you the truth we may end up going to tape too. PM me when you decide on a format.

I wonder how the SI:2k camera fares with its C mount. I believe a few guys have used it in that Config. Geoff Boyle comes to mind with the latest 3D Feature he's been filming. I'm pretty sure he used C mount for that one.

Matt
 
He did but only for the compact design of c mounts. It was the only rig fit for this purpose to get the parralax that close. I'm sure he wuldn't be specifying C mounts for the lion's share of his work. You are much less likely to need to lens change a rig like this. Remember also that this was supplemented with a larger SI mini fixed rig and Red One beamsplitter monster.

Fence
 
Very true Fence, I do agree with you that the C mount is nowhere near as robust as the PL, that's why it was replaced with other mounts (in the film/tv industry).

I was just thinking in terms of ultra compact design, but if you are going to be doing a lot of lens changes with Primes for example then a PL would be better and there's better glass out there too. So what if the port is bigger than the camera.
 
Fence sitter said:
...stuff deleted...

You are not generally pulling focus as it sits in its position usually with a wide lens.
Click to expand...

to me this is non-sequitor, why would you with a wide lens? the DOF flattened/crushed a short distance from the lens.

Fence sitter said:
In comparison most C mounts have no effective interface for production accessories.
Click to expand...

this can be a good actually, do you really need all of that extra gear?

Fence sitter said:
Modern glass has generally left the C mount behind.
Click to expand...

These still make C mounts and some good lenses.
Avenir
Computar
Fujinon
Navitar
Tamron

especially if you were interested in some escoteric shots, say IR at 700 to 1000mm.

Fence sitter said:
If you want cheap glass then look at the markets that make good cheap lenses....still photography. These would be the most likely candidates for supply of elements and custom fabrication for RED...most probably the lenses on offer currently with motion picture housings. Remember 2k will buy you half the equivalent angle of view for a given lens. Think about the fact that you are throwing the image at a smaller target and the size of the front element and those following can be smaller....its getting smaller. A magnesium body to balance the package and then we're talking!
Click to expand...

yes so you have to divide the lens you really want by the square root of 2, if you want 35mm lens, you downgrade to 25mm. some other people have figured this out and the prices for wide good lenses seems to be increasing... IMHO
 
Tenshredd7 said:
Maybe when they say pocket camera, they are only talking about the body of the camera?
Click to expand...

you might be on to something, if the camera itself is pocket size, who is to say the lens system has to be.

the form factor could be radically different, more like a thin DSLR.

then you could have your choice of mounts or maybe an adapter to go from nikon to canon and there is your lens.
 
Okay, if not C-mount, how about the D-mount used by Bolex long ago for it's interchangeable lens 8mm cameras? http://www.bolexcollector.com/lenses/50kern.html
Naw you say, it's just a smaller screw mount. Okay then, how about the bayonet mount used by Pentax on it's 110 SLR? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Auto_110
Kind of an interesting design; the iris is in the camera body (in a digital camera, all the better to protect the sensor from dust - the iris would automatically close as a lens was removed). In the case of the Pentax all the lenses were f2.8, but this wouldn't necessarily have to be the case in a modern version of this mount.
Who knows, maybe Jim has one of these babies in his collection.
 
My god I would love for scarlet to have a c-mount. I have tons of amazing and tiny c-mount lenses.
 
i too would love to see the scarlet with c mount lenses. if you want a shallow depth of field and a follow focus use a red. i'd like this to be a small action camera, i've always loved the idea of a polecam but with out the large processor and tape deck.
 
There are some very sharp C mount lenses out there. Such as the Angenieux 5.9, 10, 15, 25 which even came in a f0.95 version, 35, 50 and 75mm. The thing about C mount is that the flange focale depth is only .690" so one would have to be careful that a protruding rear element does not hit the OLPF. If I remember right none of the lenses listed above protrude pass the C mount threads. The Century 3.5 and 5.7 were 10mm C mount lenses with a negative element added on to the front to reduce the focale length. I ground the front elements for the original models back in the seventies and to tell the truth I was never very impressed by their performance. But mayby the more recent ones are better as they are using a Schneider prime as opposed to the originals which were a Cosmicar video lens. The Angenieux 5.9 is a very nice lens with good rectilinear correction and at f1.8 decent speed for such a wide angle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top