C mount & standard glass on a budget

[Dan Hudgins]

Nikkors

Nikkors

Dan, Why don't you try some of the micro-nikkors, like the 55mm, for your film recorder?

Thanks for the tip. I think that JK used Nikkor enlarger lenses for their Super8 printers.

Kodak no longer makes 7360 16mm film, 16mm is on the way out it seems.

I am working on a 35mm film recorder now, doing some test expsoures tonight.

It seems a little harder to expose positive film off an LCD monitor than negative films since the gamma is up-side-down. Making three exposures is giving better results with a gamma shift for each exposure, it also helps over come the 8 bit limits on the video board.

I was thinking that mounting surplus enlarger lenses, Nikkor, Schneider and Rodenstock GmbH in PL mounts would be a good way to get good optics on the REDONE, when shooting at f/5.6 they could give crisper results than using super-speed type lenses, maybe, and cost much less.

For Scarlet enlarger lenses would be too long since most are 35mm or longer, for Scarlet you need more like 5mm since it is wide screen and not a very tall sensor area...

For the FF35 sensors enlarger lenses should work well, some 75mm are quite good.

 

[Paul Watt]

I had the Bolex bible sitting on the table next to me when I read this thread ( not sure why now? ). In it, it says that the 10mm Switar doesn't cover the Super 16mm frame and could result in some visible vignetting, so could this have the same affect on the Scarlet? Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge than me could answer that..

Adrian

I regularly shoot S16 with the Switar 10mm with no vignetting. It has some falloff in the corners though. Since it is an RX lens, it compensates for the bolex prism, and might have problems on it's open end because of it.

 

[Liam Hall]

Can you send me a sample of your 16mm film to scan so I can see what you are talking about?

I haven't got the one that we scanned to 2k, that's back at Kodak. You can see a low rez version of it here though:

http://www.liamhall.net/KodakSRShort.mov

I should add, the film was shot with Arri Ultra Primes on Vision3 stock. Pretty damn sharp in SD, pretty damn sharp in 1080p on a 50 inch screen and pretty acceptable in 2k transfered to film and viewed on the big screen. Of course, there was noticeable grain at 2k, but it looks great and ultimately that's all that matters.

I might have some Super16mm Vision2 lying around if you need some to test. Send me a PM if you do and I'll have a look so as not to take this thread too far OT.

 

[Adrian Frearson]

I regularly shoot S16 with the Switar 10mm with no vignetting. It has some falloff in the corners though. Since it is an RX lens, it compensates for the bolex prism, and might have problems on it's open end because of it.

Thanks for your confirmation. I had an H16 EBM a few years back which I was having converted to S16. At the time a few people warned me away from this camera / lens combo, interesting that it's possible and that you're using it regularly.

I'm interested to see how some of the older c-mount 16mm lenses work in the real world once the Scarlet is released, seems like the general consensus is, don't expect too much from them.

Adrian

 

[David Rasberry]

I haven't got the one that we scanned to 2k, that's back at Kodak. You can see a low rez version of it here though:

http://www.liamhall.net/KodakSRShort.mov

I should add, the film was shot with Arri Ultra Primes on Vision3 stock. Pretty damn sharp in SD, pretty damn sharp in 1080p on a 50 inch screen and pretty acceptable in 2k transfered to film and viewed on the big screen. Of course, there was noticeable grain at 2k, but it looks great and ultimately that's all that matters.

I might have some Super16mm Vision2 lying around if you need some to test. Send me a PM if you do and I'll have a look so as not to take this thread too far OT.

That is some very pretty footage.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

What is good enough?

What is good enough?

I'm interested to see how some of the older c-mount 16mm lenses work in the real world once the Scarlet is released, seems like the general consensus is, don't expect too much from them.

I think that might be too strong of a negative view on the subject of C-mount 16mm lenses.

The quality of C-mount lenses made from the 1930's to today varies over a wide range.

How the images will look depend on several factors:

1) At what size and distance the image will be viewed.

2) What the final resolution of the output format used is.

3) What f/ stop was used to shoot with, stops at both ends, i.e. f/1.2 or f/22 will give less "resolution" than stops in the center i.e. f/4.5 to f/6.3.

4) If the lens is RX or not, RX lenses are not corrected for AIR.

5) Is the backfocus right, a good lens with the backfocus off, and very much for zoom lenses, cannot have high resolution, to get high resolution the focus must be exact.

6) The use of an un-sharp mask and sharpen in the de-Bayer process.

7) The impact of the OLPF and the stop used as well as the focal length, some wide angle lenses may go softer in the corners because of their angle to the OLPF and micro-lens array.

==

The whole subject of what you are getting from a 3K camera and how that will compair to Super16 Vision3 and good modern lenses depends on understanding that the 2/3" sensor is NOT Super16 sized so you are using the center of what the lens gives like an optical zoom. Some older lenses are sharp in their center, but more modern lenses may trade center sharpness for more even sharpness.

It was stated in another thread that "Knowing" was done with a 2K DI and 2K filmout, and "CHE" was output on a Cinevator so it seems that it was 2K as well.

If people are using a so called "4K" camera but projecting only 2K downres then what does the 3K part of Scarlet give you if you are going to use lenses that only resolve half or less of what the sensor can?

If you are going to SD then maybe half of 3K is still more than you need? Is HD really HD, can it resolve a single pixel checker-board in any color combo in motion?

16mm lenses were not sharper in ratio to the image size being smaller than 35mm, in other words if a 35mm movie lens resolves 80lp/mm then a 16mm lens should resolve about 240lp/mm (since projection aperture is about 1/3) but it will not, it will only be about 1.5x maybe rather than 3x, so when blown up to 35mm print the footage shot 35mm will always be sharper than anything shot 16mm. This is do to the mechanical problems of making a lens, larger lenses have higher tolerances in ratio to the image height (0.0001mm is less in ratio for a large image than a small image). Not to say that some C-mount lenses are very good, just that the ones that are took more time to make and then if they have been opened to be worked on may not be as good as they were when new since it is hard to put a lens back the way it was after taking it apart the tolerances are very small, very very small.

You will have to decide what looks good enough.

 

[ROCKMORE]

Zeiss Distagon / Sonnar

Zeiss Distagon / Sonnar

Any comment on my 16mm Zeiss Distagon and 135mm Sonnar in terms of resolution factors? I use both on my Arri 2C with good results over the past 10 years. I also have the standard Schneider 25mm, 50mm, 75mm Cine Xenon.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

35mm vs. 16mm lenses for Scarlet

35mm vs. 16mm lenses for Scarlet

Any comment on my 16mm Zeiss Distagon and 135mm Sonnar in terms of resolution factors? I use both on my Arri 2C with good results over the past 10 years. I also have the standard Schneider 25mm, 50mm, 75mm Cine Xenon.

Later Schneider 16mm lenses for the ARRI are good, but is seems you have the 35mm series, so they may be a little softer than the 16mm series.

Cooke also made 35mm lenses for the ARRI 2C and in the same ARRI mount very different lenses for the 16mm ARRI cameras, like a 9mm rather than the 18mm.

When you reduce the area the lens needs to cover you can reduce the size of the circle of confusion. 2/3" lenses cover less than regular 16 or Super16 so they can be sharper all other things being equal, just like video lenses for 1" format would probably be less sharp than a video lens for the 1/3" format, its just that the 1/3" lens makes a very small image, in ratio to the height of the image the 1" lens is probably "sharper" even though the lp/mm is lower. It has to do with both the image size and the lens lp/mm taken together.

If you want to use 35mm move lenses you might get the camera with a larger sensor and crop the image to the maximum area each lens covers well.

Are you sure the Schneider you used on an ARRI 2C is 25mm and not 28mm? Can you post a photo of the front, side, and back views of that lens here?

 

[ROCKMORE]

Cine Xenon

Cine Xenon

Yes it is a 28mm /
I will post some pictures, but not sure how to load them. When I click insert image it asks for URL. I'm still new on this site, been here less than a week.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

28mm

28mm

Yes it is a 28mm /
I will post some pictures, but not sure how to load them. When I click insert image it asks for URL. I'm still new on this site, been here less than a week.

If it is a 28mm then I do not need photos, the 28mm were 35mm movie camera lenses, the 25mm was for 16mm cameras, both in ARRI standard mount.

I had not seen a 25mm for ARRI 2C so I was wondering what you had, maybe a prototype or something. They made a So-So 20mm and a good 28mm for 35mm movie use.

The only 25mm I have seen in non-retrofocus was an old Astro made for the ARRI 1 or 1A 35mm combat camera it seems, would almost tuch the spinning mirror, if I remember right part of the metal near the rear element was filed off to clear the mirror or something like that. Cooke made a retrofocus lens I think in 25mm for 35mm ARRI 2C.

At any rate if you have 35mm lenses they would work best on a 35mm size sensor model Scarlet, probably.

==

To attach photos you use the attach box that pops up, that puts the photo on REDUSER, or you can host the photo and enter the URL, but I think you were trying to find the upload box? Look under "Attach Files" in "Manage Attachments" button under the edit box titled "Additional Options".

 

[ROCKMORE]

Test photo attachment

Test photo attachment

Test photo attachment

 

[ROCKMORE]

If it is a 28mm then I do not need photos, the 28mm were 35mm movie camera lenses, the 25mm was for 16mm cameras, both in ARRI standard mount.

I had not seen a 25mm for ARRI 2C so I was wondering what you had, maybe a prototype or something. They made a So-So 20mm and a good 28mm for 35mm movie use.

The only 25mm I have seen in non-retrofocus was an old Astro made for the ARRI 1 or 1A 35mm combat camera it seems, would almost tuch the spinning mirror, if I remember right part of the metal near the rear element was filed off to clear the mirror or something like that. Cooke made a retrofocus lens I think in 25mm for 35mm ARRI 2C.

At any rate if you have 35mm lenses they would work best on a 35mm size sensor model Scarlet, probably.

==

To attach photos you use the attach box that pops up, that puts the photo on REDUSER, or you can host the photo and enter the URL, but I think you were trying to find the upload box? Look under "Attach Files" in "Manage Attachments" button under the edit box titled "Additional Options".

Thanks for the tip on loading pictures.
I also have an Angenieux 10mm retrofocus in my collection. I never used it after I got the 10mm Switar, but with the possible trouble I may face with the RX lenses it may come back for a test.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Does it focus?

Does it focus?

I also have an Angenieux 10mm retrofocus in my collection.

Does it focus?

At 3K almost any lens will need to be carefully focused. I think some of the 16mm Angenieux lenses shorter than 15mm were mounted without focus adjustments. Even a 5mm or 3.5mm needs to focus for 3K resolution.

DOF tables for 16mm are based on very low resolution of viewing a small projected image from a great distance. If you are going to show your 3K movie 35mm filmout on a short through multiplex screen, you had better forget about DOF tables and get the focus right on the subject's eyes for every shot.

I shot some 35mm fine grain film with a 28mm f/1.2 several months back, and the DOF as far as I was concerned was about +/- 1 inch maybe at 6 feet, any more than that and you can seem to see that it starts to go soft looking at the near 4K scan.

The focus tables in the camera man's handbook are from the days when lenses and film were not as sharp and screens were much smaller than today, when you make the screen larger the DOF gets shallower. For good lenses, DOF is a limit of the viewer's eyes seeing the projection from a given distance, not a limit of the camera lens.

So using good 16mm lenses on a 3K sensor should be concidered not to be the same as shooting 16mm film, figure the DOF at least two stops more open on the tables.

 

[ROCKMORE]

film Output

film Output

I agree. The Angenieux 10mm has no focus. I haven't used it since Bolex days and it will probably never see the light of day again, except on Ebay.
This 2/3 Scarlet version I'm considering will be used for documentary film projects, targeted for western (US, Canada, Europe) television and not for film output.
I do have reservations in buying a 2/3 sensor unit.
After your discussions I realize what I already suspected, that no matter how high the resolution of the "3K" sensor, it is still bound by all the disadvantages in the small 16mm gate. Even though the resolution will probably look great, it would be very much like going back to 16mm.
The FF Epic is probably a better choice in the long run. There is a lot of usable glass out there at a good price for my daily doc work, and high grade rental lenses are available for commercial client shoots or film output.
The RED 35S model is somewhere in the middle, but I don't know where it fits in field wise. If I'm not wrong the sensor size it too big for some 35mm cine PL lenses? And too small to take advantage of the widest views of FF SLR lenses?
The 2/3 Scarlet version may be an option to start with because of it's very low cost, and I do have lenses to use at the outset.
What modular elements on the RED 2/3 will be adaptable to the FF EPIC? Memory/ control/ power etc. if I started with the 2/3 and upgraded later?
Thanks Dan for all your attention.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

guerilla vs. studio vs. fashion

guerilla vs. studio vs. fashion

This 2/3 Scarlet version I'm considering will be used for documentary film projects, targeted for western (US, Canada, Europe) television and not for film output.

For television use the 2/3" unit has the advantage of using smaller and lighter weight lenses, you can also use a small rubber sunshade rather than a large matte box, this can attract less attention to you while filming. Also Tele lenses are shorter and lighter weight for nature shots and things in the distance. That's why they used the 2/3" SI-2K mini on Slumdog...

The FF35 sensor model can work with good cheep SLR lenses that cover the VistaVision size sensor, StarWars movies were made with Nikon SLR lenses on their VistaVision cameras.

So if you get both sensor heads you have the best of both worlds, a compact light weight setup for field use, and a large format camera for studio and film-like shooting.

The 35mm movie lens size is best for using movie lenses, but those may cost more than SLR lenses, the mechanics of movie lenses with the gears and all are better for real heavy duty filmmaking, but they are maybe heaver and cost more so you have to think how much you will use a follow-focus and such...

 

[Scott Watts]

Anyone know where I could find a c-mount or PL mount adapter for an Angenieux 12-120?

 

[David Rasberry]

Anyone know where I could find a c-mount or PL mount adapter for an Angenieux 12-120?

What kind of mount does it have now?. Arri standard and bayonet and some other mounts can be converted to PL mount pretty easily by an optical shop. If the lens is not C mount to start with, it probably can't be converted to C mount. You can buy PL adapters off ebay starting at about $250. A shop can do the conversion and collimate the lens for about $500 with better quality.

 

[Scott Watts]

What kind of mount does it have now?. Arri standard and bayonet and some other mounts can be converted to PL mount pretty easily by an optical shop. If the lens is not C mount to start with, it probably can't be converted to C mount. You can buy PL adapters off ebay starting at about $250. A shop can do the conversion and collimate the lens for about $500 with better quality.

It's a cameflex mount.

 

[David Rasberry]

It's a cameflex mount.

I'm pretty sure cameflex can be converted to PL mount. You might want to PM Matt Duclos and ask him what it would cost.

 

[Scott Watts]

I'm pretty sure cameflex can be converted to PL mount. You might want to PM Matt Duclos and ask him what it would cost.

Well I've been hearing that there will be a c-mount for the Scarlet, and I that would be better since my lens wouldn't need any permanent modification. So now I'm hoping to find a c-mount adapter.