FF35 Cine Glass: Get Ready

[Tom Lowe]

I was thinking about this the other day. For all the hooplah and speculation regarding DSMC and its various cameras and components, the one piece of the puzzle that remains most interesting to me is: FF35mm cine glass.

Why is this so important? Because sensor techonolgy begins to hit a wall in terms of how many photosites can be crammed into a given piece of real estate on a CMOS chip. The Canon 50D has been scorned for trying to pack too many pixels into a relatively small sensor.

The only direction to go, just as with high-end DSLRs, is larger "full frame" sensors. Jim had the vision to see this trend coming, pivot his entire company on a dime, and devote large resources and energy to moving FF35 technology into the digital cinema realm.

Others are guaranteed to follow.

The smart guys out there, right now, are going to start looking into producing, rehousing, retrofitting, and by all methods available creating high-end FF35 cine glass with 25MP+ resolving power. That's where the action is going to be, my friends. :gun:

 

[Rick Darge]

Yes, but who will step up to the plate first? :w00t:

 

[Kyle Presley]

I was thinking about this the other day. For all the hooplah and speculation regarding DSMC and its various cameras and components, the one piece of the puzzle that remains most interesting to me is: FF35mm cine glass.

Why is this so important? Because sensor techonolgy begins to hit a wall in terms of how many photosites can be crammed into a given piece of real estate on a CMOS chip. The Canon 50D has been scorned for trying to pack too many pixels into a relatively small sensor.

The only direction to go, just as with high-end DSLRs, is larger "full frame" sensors. Jim had the vision to see this trend coming, pivot his entire company on a dime, and devote large resources and energy to moving FF35 technology into the digital cinema realm.

Others are guaranteed to follow.

The smart guys out there, right now, are going to start looking into producing, rehousing, retrofitting, and by all methods available creating high-end FF35 cine glass with 25MP+ resolving power. That's where the action is going to be, my friends. :gun:

Great post, Tom. I'm glad RED chose this route rather than 4/3

 

[Dave Blackham]

Leica R stills glass is already used in rehoused Lenses by Van Diemen, its reportedly very good. Some say on other threads on this board these lenses are only bettered by master primes.

Id be interested to know opinions, if Leica lens Mechanics, which are very good for stills work, are up to the task as they are with external ear rings fitted.

Dave

 

[Stephen Williams]

Leica R stills glass is already used in rehoused Lenses by Van Diemen, its reportedly very good. Some say on other threads on this board these lenses are only bettered by master primes.

Id be interested to know opinions, if Leica lens Mechanics, which are very good for stills work, are up to the task as they are with external ear rings fitted.

Dave

Hi,

They cost as much as cine lenses but generally are not as fast, it's possible just expensive.

Stephen

 

[Tom Lowe]

Stephen, are you ready to jump on the FF35 train?

 

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen, are you ready to jump on the FF35 train?

Hi Tom,

No, but I have shot vista vision efx plates, I am happy with 35mm image size.

Stephen

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Tom, I think I will respectfully disagree

Short of landscapes and a few specialised applications, the S35 format seems to fit the need perfectly. The DOF is "right", there is no "problem" with resolution, the accessories and workflow are well established.

FF35 creates all sorts of challenges and problems:

1. Decreased DOF and difficulty in pulling focus
2. Large, even more expensive, lenses to match those S4s, UPs and MPs and, they don't exist.
3. Unmanageable data rates, time consuming post work-flows, etc...

The question is why fix a problem when it is not there? I think further advances will be to actually make that 4k-6k usable, easier to focus, easier to manage and improve overall aspects of workflows and ergonomics rather than jumping on pixel-counter train.

I think we won't see FF35 cine lenses exceeding (and this would need to be by sufficient margin) good S35mm glass. I can't see how this could be done cheaper than producing Ultra Primes or Master Primes. I don't think the market is there for such lenses.

I can see formats other than S35 as specialised, but certainly not mainstream. Sure, I will use FF35 for a couple of shots in my film, but the bread and butter is going to be S35 regardless of how many pixels can be creamed onto larger sensors.

It is like cars: they are not becoming any faster any more, but safer, more economical, more ergonomic, more reliable, more functional, cheaper.

I think the same factors will drive further progress in digital cinematography: reliability, ergonomics, functionality and price. Maybe frame rates will change, DR will improve, but S35 and 4k post workflow are going to stay for many more decades.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

I'm fine irate: because almost 90% of my glass (still) is FF35 ready.

But I'm a pirate irate: here with my IMS for RED1.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the market will respond -- if more and more people are shooting movies in FF35, someone will start making cine lenses for that market. In the meanwhile, expect a lot of people adapting still lenses for that work just as is done for large-format movie work.

If FF35 moviemaking doesn't catch on, then there will be little incentive for lens makers to cater to that specific market.

 

[Joel Kaye]

If FF35 moviemaking doesn't catch on, then there will be little incentive for lens makers to cater to that specific market.

Do you think it'll catch on? Do you see a need currently not being fulfilled?

I'm just not sure what the benefit is really. Seems S35 with more dynamic range would be more appreciated than larger formats. I have enough trouble managing RED data as it is right now. Do I really need to double or quadruple my render times from here only to see the output shrunk for delivery anyhow?

Am I missing something obvious?

 

[Thomas Dobbie]

Leica R stills glass is already used in rehoused Lenses by Van Diemen, its reportedly very good. Some say on other threads on this board these lenses are only bettered by master primes.

Id be interested to know opinions, if Leica lens Mechanics, which are very good for stills work, are up to the task as they are with external ear rings fitted.

Dave

Hi Dave,
the Van Deimen leica conversions only use the glass elements.To the best of my knowledge none of the leica mechanics are used. Van Deiemn used a patented focusing mechanism using variable pitch wireform,one of the reasons they are so unique. They are unfortunately no longer made.
The quality of the sets varied a little,all extremely high quality,but the VFG sets are generally regarded as being the finest,with matched glass sourced directly from Leitz.
I believe only six of these sets were made,I have one,I'm not sure where the others are.
Mr Tony Covell who posts on these boards was the man responsible for originally commissioning these VFG lenses.
These lenses would be extremely expensive if they were made again today,they are certainly not what you expect from converted stills glass.
I'm quite happy with S35 for my current needs.
Tom.

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

The Cine glass for the FF35 already exist, it's called Anamorphic Lenses.

Emmanuel

 

[Tom Lowe]

Do you think it'll catch on? Do you see a need currently not being fulfilled?

I'm just not sure what the benefit is really. Seems S35 with more dynamic range would be more appreciated than larger formats. I have enough trouble managing RED data as it is right now. Do I really need to double or quadruple my render times from here only to see the output shrunk for delivery anyhow?

Am I missing something obvious?

To achieve a beautiful and pristine holy grail "True 4K," an FF35 6K sensor is the ticket, IMO. That's the way it works with stills, so why not for video?

Perhaps down the road an S35 Monstro at 6K could be built, but for now Jim has said it is not possible. FF35 Monstro 6K is possible in the near future, and that camera will soon represent the gold standard in digital cinema, IMHO.

People who are concerned about shallow DOF can just stop down the lens and bump up the ISO. Again, DSLR trends show us that ISO/ASA ratings are going into the stratosphere.

As far as data, perhaps Red will consider a 1/2 resolution sRAW-style option that scales RAW in camera down from the full-frame sensor, or some other similar option. They are offering 1080p downsampled off the full sensor already in the specs. But yeah, I agree with you that data is an issue. Keep in mind that the S35 Epic is already 4- or 5K (depending on the S35 lens?), so going up to 6K isn't all that much of a leap to worry that the data could wipe you out. The new high-data-rate 5K is already enough to wipe you out.

The good news is that computing power and storage continue to double every 11 months or so. :gun: :gun:

 

[Jonas Rejman]

The Cine glass for the FF35 already exist, it's called Anamorphic Lenses.

Emmanuel

To my knowledge, anamorphic 2:1 lenses cover 4:3 standard 35mm frame. They are not even suitable for use in s35mm, because that would mean a shift of the optical axis.

The new 1.3x anamorphic lenses, made by Vantage Films cover s35mm size frame.

What anamorphic lenses are you referring to, that would cover a FF35mm frame?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure you can use anamorphic lenses in S35, it's just that anamorphic lenses are normally used on 35mm cameras where the mount is centered for the sound aperture, not the silent (Full / Super-35) aperture. But if you stuck an anamorphic lens on a Super-35 camera it would work just fine, it's just that now the image is centered for Super-35, so making a contact print and sticking an optical soundtrack on the left would not work. Super-35 photography always ends up being repositioned / resized to fit within the smaller sound aperture area of a 4-perf 35mm print if you are planning on making release prints with sound (composite prints.)

The other reason to not use an anamorphic lens on 4-perf Super-35 is that you don't need to -- a 2X anamorphic lens on a 1.33 : 1 negative format gives you a 2.66 : 1 image, wider than you need. You only need a 1.20 : 1 negative area when using 2X anamorphics. And on a 16x9 (1.78 : 1) format, a 2X squeeze gets you a 3.56 : 1 image when unsqueezed.

The reason for the Vantage 1.33X anamorphics is not to cover S35, but that if you are going to shoot with a 3-perf 35mm camera or a 16x9 35mm sensor, you don't need a 2X squeeze to fit 2.40 onto 1.20, you need a 1.33 squeeze to fit 2.40 onto 1.78 (actually you need a 1.345X squeeze, but 1.33 is close enough...)

Truth is that 3-perf Super-35 and the 16x9 RED sensor is smaller than 4-perf Super-35 and shorter than the 4-perf 35mm anamorphic aperture. And standard 2X anamorphic lenses would cover those areas just fine, it's just that a 2X squeeze is too much for a 16x9 shaped sensor. But there is no problem with lens coverage.

Anamorphic cine lenses are designed to cover the 4-perf 35mm anamorphic aperture (21mm x 17.5mm). Though most would also cover the 4-perf Super-35 aperture (24mm x 18mm), and definitely would cover the RED ONE sensor (about 22mm x 12.5mm used in 4K mode) they do not necessarily cover the much bigger FF35 aperture (36mm x 24mm) anymore than a spherical cine lens would.

The off-centered optical axis for lens mounts in 35mm sound aperture photography only exists so you can make contact prints off of the negative with room left on the side for an optical soundtrack. It has no bearing on digital photography, or film photography that does not need to be contacted printed to make prints with soundtracks. Digital photography and Super-35 photography (going through a D.I. process) end up being recorded out to a 35mm sound aperture format so sound prints can then be struck off of the negative created.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Do you think it'll catch on? Do you see a need currently not being fulfilled?

I'm just not sure what the benefit is really. Seems S35 with more dynamic range would be more appreciated than larger formats. I have enough trouble managing RED data as it is right now. Do I really need to double or quadruple my render times from here only to see the output shrunk for delivery anyhow?

Am I missing something obvious?

I don't think most filmmakers are dying to use larger sensors with the attendant depth of field challenges, it's just that if making the sensor larger than S35 gets you more resolution, more dynamic range, less noise, and more sensitivity, I think a lot of filmmakers would live with the problems of a larger sensor just to get that extra quality. Otherwise, I think most would rather the sensor stayed S35 in size and somehow we managed to get that extra quality. It just may not be possible to improve things dramatically without resorting to physically larger sensors.

 

[SF Geek]

David, would you shoot 2x Anamorphic on a red S35 chip (Cropped for a 2.40 finish)?

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Anamorphic vs Croped

Anamorphic vs Croped

Here is a little diagram to lay down some of the maths that has been discussed around here.
Please double check it and feel free to comment.

Thanks to Pawel Achtel for the Master Primes image circle dimension.

Emmanuel

 

[Tom Lowe]

Hi Tom,

No, but I have shot vista vision efx plates, I am happy with 35mm image size.

Stephen

Just in case, we will leave a seat open for you on the Digital FF35 Express. :wink: