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 :)

Do sensors out-resolve lenses? (Link)

Very Interesting

Very Interesting

The concluding comments certainly should be read by those trumpeting stills lenses as "good enough" for 4K and up sensors.
"Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats."

Thats why low volume Cine lenses are so expensive and why your only as good as the best lens you can afford not the camera.
 
Nova Invicta said:
The concluding comments certainly should be read by those trumpeting stills lenses as "good enough" for 4K and up sensors.
"Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats."

Thats why low volume Cine lenses are so expensive and why your only as good as the best lens you can afford not the camera.
Click to expand...

I think you might be mistaken in the conclusion in that the "larger formats" means 35mm SLR 24x36 or medium format rather than the APS-C size that corresponds to the RED mysterium sensor.

Also, if I am not mistaken, the MTF and other performance of such lenses as the Zeiss ZF or Contax/Yashica AND lenses like the Canon L series and equivalent Nikkors are very similar to that of cine lenses. In addition, most of the recently designed SLR lenses have been designed with digital sensors in mind - which require designing the lens to keep the light rays hitting more to the perpendicular as digital sensors sensitivity falls off much more on angle than film does (the thickness of the chemical layer makes film kind of a 3d sensor). This design emphasis for digital is less likely to be the case even for later model cine lenses. So there may be further advantages of modern SLR lenses that bring the overall performance close to high end cine lenses.

There is no question that mechanically cine lenses are superior for feature type work, but with the introduction of the Birger mount, which will obviate some of the limitations of short focus throw and rotation of the lens on the mount when manually focusing slr lenses, it will be very interesting to see what the overall performance characteristics of SLR vs. cine lenses will be. I suspect many people will be surprised but the proof will be in the pudding as we start to get results over the next few months.
 
Yes, by "larger formats" he means "larger than 35mm (24x36)", so Red is a "smaller format".
 
I think this quote sums the article up for me:
"You cannot compare the limits of two different photographic systems looking at a print because the variables that determine the subjective perception come into play. "

The day I can see an obvious difference is the day I'm interested. SLR lenses on RED's current sensor perform very well.
 
Having recently performed a number of resolution tests using a newly developed zone plate system, I can relate some experiences that specifically applies to using SLR glass (Canon FD) on the RED ONE. A 4k zone plate shot by a RED ONE shows a luminance resolution limit of near 3k2. Taking the exact same lens and mounting it on a roll film camera and shooting the exact same zone plate with a ISO 400 negative film, the analysis of the negative (carefully sized to exactly match a S35 image area) shows that the lens easily resolves the final concentric ring of the zone plate.

I have not yet determined the upper limit for this glass. The next test will be a 6k zone plate which I will be fabricating shortly. I expect that this will be approaching the upper limit for this lens/film combination based upon the performance with the 4k zone plate, but it could be a bit higher.

I can't speak to the resolution limits of other SLR lenses, these measurements were conducted with Canon FDs.

Kevin Halverson
 
Lens resolution for dummies

Lens resolution for dummies

Kevin:

Just to be clear, is your analysis saying that these lenses easily resolve the resolution of the RED (and beyond)? I have suspected this all along but want to be sure of what you are saying before I repeat it to others.

I appreciate your doing these tests and sharing results. I know they are for FD lenses but one would presume that current L series (and presumably the higher end ef-s) lenses would be as good or better.
 
Yes, in the case of the specific FDs that I tested, they resolve well beyond 4k.

What I am not making is the claim that cine glass isn't often better in a number of other areas (longer focus throw, less breathing in some cases, internal focus, etc) but in the area of resolution, the FDs are up to the task.

I can't speak for the EFs as I haven't tested them on this new zone plate system, but they may be up to the task too. I would be surprised if the EF zooms (or any zoom for that matter) resolve as well as primes, but they may be good enough for this application.

Kevin Halverson
 
Current series II L series feels better to me than old L.
They should easily out perform old FD glass in digital applications.
Not that FD glass is that bad....
I'd hate to use them in a dynamic cine environment though.
I hope the Birger lives up to the hype.
I love to test that set up.
my 0.02$

Funny though, RED is 1.5 meg/per frame...kinda pedestrian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top