David Rasberry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,266
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Might be easier and cheaper to just buy a used c-mount 12-120.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
C mount & standard glass on a budget
- Thread starter ROCKMORE
- Start date
Might be easier and cheaper to just buy a used c-mount 12-120.
chuck colburn
Well-known member
The little Ang 10mm was a nice lens. Has a bit of focus shift with aperture change. I use to set up infinity at f4. Very easy to do on this lens just unscrew the three set screws on the lens barrel and rotate the barrel just in front of the screw mount to the desired spot. The Angenieux 5.9mm is also a fixed focus lens and a good one at that. They will jump in price like other lenses have done once people start needing "C" mount lenses for the new RED camera.
Scott Watts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Haha, you're probably right. I have thought about purchasing another one that comes with the c-mount and sell the one I've got.
Scott Watts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Yeah, I doubt anyone is going to make a CA-1 mount for the cameras.
Scott Watts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Did anyone from RED even confirm a c-mount on these cameras or is it purely speculation?
David Rasberry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,266
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
c-mount is listed as one of the options, and does make sense for the 2/3". Lots of choices in new and used glass out there.
Dan Hudgins
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- San Francisco, CA USA
- Website
- www.dancad3d.com
Scarlet vs. Super16mm (1 of 3)
Scarlet vs. Super16mm (1 of 3)
Liam Hall was kind enough to send me some sample trims of ECN 7218 shot with "primo" lenses, that I could scan at about Scarlet pixel size and post here to see how S16 lenses might work for use on the Scarlet, and to see how S16 film relates to the Scarlet sensor size and resolution.
These scans were made using a 105mm printing Nikkor at f/6.3 going from S16 to almost full width of the Canon XTi sensor. The crops at Scarlet sensor size are about 1:1 pixel size for the Scarlet sensor even though the Canon's sensor uses larger pixels, I adjusted the lens ratio to get a close match. I did not have a 90mm printing Nikkor mounted to try, but the 105mm seems to resolve close to the limit of what is on the S16 film, if you look at the edges of some of the dust to see what the Nikkor resolves vs. what the camera lens and film resolve.
Files:
AS16.JPG = Slight crop of the S16 frame because the Oxberry and ARRI SR3 did not mate 100%.
Aoutline.JPG = This shows about the Scarlet sensor area vs. the S16 image area.
Ascarlet.JPG = This is crop showing about how the primo lens would look on the Scarlet 3K sensor area. This is a 1/3 size of scarlet 9 pixels = 1 pixel.
A1to1.jpg = This shows a 1:1 crop of what the primo lens would look like on the Scarlet at 3K sensor with a 1K crop, that is 1 pixel in this image is about 1 pixel on Scarlet.
BS16.JPG = Slight crop of the S16 frame because the Oxberry and ARRI SR3 did not mate 100%.
Boutline.JPG = This shows about the Scarlet sensor area vs. the S16 image area.
Bscarlet.JPG = This is crop showing about how the primo lens would look on the Scarlet 3K sensor area. This is a 1/3 size of scarlet 9 pixels = 1 pixel.
B1to1.jpg = This shows a 1:1 crop of what the primo lens would look like on the Scarlet at 3K sensor with a 1K crop, that is 1 pixel in this image is about 1 pixel on Scarlet.
Image "A" (CU with hair in focus) was, as I make out from Liam's notes, shot with a 50mm primo lens at f/2.0.
Image "B" (ECU of lips) was, as I make out from Liam's notes, shot with a 85mm primo at f/2.5.
See the next post for another example with images. You need to sign in to REDUSER to view the image thumbnails and full size links, click on the thubnails to view the full size images.
Scarlet vs. Super16mm (1 of 3)
Liam Hall was kind enough to send me some sample trims of ECN 7218 shot with "primo" lenses, that I could scan at about Scarlet pixel size and post here to see how S16 lenses might work for use on the Scarlet, and to see how S16 film relates to the Scarlet sensor size and resolution.
These scans were made using a 105mm printing Nikkor at f/6.3 going from S16 to almost full width of the Canon XTi sensor. The crops at Scarlet sensor size are about 1:1 pixel size for the Scarlet sensor even though the Canon's sensor uses larger pixels, I adjusted the lens ratio to get a close match. I did not have a 90mm printing Nikkor mounted to try, but the 105mm seems to resolve close to the limit of what is on the S16 film, if you look at the edges of some of the dust to see what the Nikkor resolves vs. what the camera lens and film resolve.
Files:
AS16.JPG = Slight crop of the S16 frame because the Oxberry and ARRI SR3 did not mate 100%.
Aoutline.JPG = This shows about the Scarlet sensor area vs. the S16 image area.
Ascarlet.JPG = This is crop showing about how the primo lens would look on the Scarlet 3K sensor area. This is a 1/3 size of scarlet 9 pixels = 1 pixel.
A1to1.jpg = This shows a 1:1 crop of what the primo lens would look like on the Scarlet at 3K sensor with a 1K crop, that is 1 pixel in this image is about 1 pixel on Scarlet.
BS16.JPG = Slight crop of the S16 frame because the Oxberry and ARRI SR3 did not mate 100%.
Boutline.JPG = This shows about the Scarlet sensor area vs. the S16 image area.
Bscarlet.JPG = This is crop showing about how the primo lens would look on the Scarlet 3K sensor area. This is a 1/3 size of scarlet 9 pixels = 1 pixel.
B1to1.jpg = This shows a 1:1 crop of what the primo lens would look like on the Scarlet at 3K sensor with a 1K crop, that is 1 pixel in this image is about 1 pixel on Scarlet.
Image "A" (CU with hair in focus) was, as I make out from Liam's notes, shot with a 50mm primo lens at f/2.0.
Image "B" (ECU of lips) was, as I make out from Liam's notes, shot with a 85mm primo at f/2.5.
See the next post for another example with images. You need to sign in to REDUSER to view the image thumbnails and full size links, click on the thubnails to view the full size images.
Last edited:
Dan Hudgins
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- San Francisco, CA USA
- Website
- www.dancad3d.com
Scarlet vs. Super16mm (2 of 3)
Scarlet vs. Super16mm (2 of 3)
Here are some more of the images...
See the next post for another example with images. You need to sign in to REDUSER to view the image thumbnails and full size links, click on the thubnails to view the full size images.
Scarlet vs. Super16mm (2 of 3)
Here are some more of the images...
See the next post for another example with images. You need to sign in to REDUSER to view the image thumbnails and full size links, click on the thubnails to view the full size images.
Dan Hudgins
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- San Francisco, CA USA
- Website
- www.dancad3d.com
Scarlet vs. Super16mm (3 of 3)
Scarlet vs. Super16mm (3 of 3)
Here are the other images, see previous posts also...
These scans were color corrected in DANCAD87.EXE v3.7N (tm) from 9 raw *.CR2 files converted into TIF using third party DCRAW (tm) then my FUSE command was used to fuse the three exposures in each primary (3x red, 3x green, 3x, blue). The resulting NIP 48bpp file was color corrected, cropped, and resized for output as the various BMP files, those were converted into JPG in another graphics program for posting here.
These results are typical of film scans made with a DSLR using color seperation filters in a DIY scanner, and are better than using the Bayer filter just for a single exposure. No noise filtering was used so that all the detail in the image would show up. On a 35mm scan the grain would be lower and the overall sharpness higher.
It seems that the primo lenses do result in better than SD resolution at the Scarlet image size, but its hard to tell off the film if you would get enough on Scarlet to measure above 2K at the f/ stops used, probably not at 80% MTF.
In general I would expect Scarlet to resolve more than the 7218 did in these samples based on the sample Scarlet images that have been posted so far.
The scans were at 3906x2602 full size making the Scarlet size images close to 3K with the crop from Super16 size, Scarlet is 10.1mmx5.35mm, the image size on the Super16 film measured about 12.34mm by 7.493mm, but Super16 is not 16:9 so I cropped the height a little more than the width to get 16:9 sample images. The 1:1 crops are about like a 1:1 crop from Scarlet would be with the same lens used.
In general my impression is that Super16 cannot compete with 2/3" Scarlet as far as noise level, or maybe resolution. Color is another matter, using the Bayer filter to scan from film looks not as pure as using color seperation filters. It might be possable to sync three Scarlet to make a 3-chip camera using color seperation filters, then you might get the best of both worlds, great color and resolution without having to deal with film and film labs?
If you want to build a film scanner using Scarlet, REDONE, or Epic I would recomend that you use color seperation exposures rather than just using the Bayer filter, also if you make 9 exposures and bracket the exposure a 1/3 stop you can add chaos to the redcode to reduce the wavelet artifacts after image fusion.
Back to the subject of lenses, as you can see in these examples the DOF is a bigger factor in the image resolution than the resolution of the lenses in the focal plane, so when working at high resolutions if you want to get more bang for your buck and shoot 3K you should think about using more light and stopping down a bit?
If anyone else has some Super16 on "Vision 3" film stock I can try to scan a short sample of that to see if it has less grain and more resolution?
These sample images are for viewing on a monitor adjusted to be between gamma 2.2 and 2.4 i.e. video gamma like a TV set.
You need to sign in to REDUSER to view the image thumbnails and full size links, click on the thubnails to view the full size images.
Scarlet vs. Super16mm (3 of 3)
Here are the other images, see previous posts also...
These scans were color corrected in DANCAD87.EXE v3.7N (tm) from 9 raw *.CR2 files converted into TIF using third party DCRAW (tm) then my FUSE command was used to fuse the three exposures in each primary (3x red, 3x green, 3x, blue). The resulting NIP 48bpp file was color corrected, cropped, and resized for output as the various BMP files, those were converted into JPG in another graphics program for posting here.
These results are typical of film scans made with a DSLR using color seperation filters in a DIY scanner, and are better than using the Bayer filter just for a single exposure. No noise filtering was used so that all the detail in the image would show up. On a 35mm scan the grain would be lower and the overall sharpness higher.
It seems that the primo lenses do result in better than SD resolution at the Scarlet image size, but its hard to tell off the film if you would get enough on Scarlet to measure above 2K at the f/ stops used, probably not at 80% MTF.
In general I would expect Scarlet to resolve more than the 7218 did in these samples based on the sample Scarlet images that have been posted so far.
The scans were at 3906x2602 full size making the Scarlet size images close to 3K with the crop from Super16 size, Scarlet is 10.1mmx5.35mm, the image size on the Super16 film measured about 12.34mm by 7.493mm, but Super16 is not 16:9 so I cropped the height a little more than the width to get 16:9 sample images. The 1:1 crops are about like a 1:1 crop from Scarlet would be with the same lens used.
In general my impression is that Super16 cannot compete with 2/3" Scarlet as far as noise level, or maybe resolution. Color is another matter, using the Bayer filter to scan from film looks not as pure as using color seperation filters. It might be possable to sync three Scarlet to make a 3-chip camera using color seperation filters, then you might get the best of both worlds, great color and resolution without having to deal with film and film labs?
If you want to build a film scanner using Scarlet, REDONE, or Epic I would recomend that you use color seperation exposures rather than just using the Bayer filter, also if you make 9 exposures and bracket the exposure a 1/3 stop you can add chaos to the redcode to reduce the wavelet artifacts after image fusion.
Back to the subject of lenses, as you can see in these examples the DOF is a bigger factor in the image resolution than the resolution of the lenses in the focal plane, so when working at high resolutions if you want to get more bang for your buck and shoot 3K you should think about using more light and stopping down a bit?
If anyone else has some Super16 on "Vision 3" film stock I can try to scan a short sample of that to see if it has less grain and more resolution?
These sample images are for viewing on a monitor adjusted to be between gamma 2.2 and 2.4 i.e. video gamma like a TV set.
You need to sign in to REDUSER to view the image thumbnails and full size links, click on the thubnails to view the full size images.