Going WIDE?

[David Mullen ASC]

I believe the sensor in the HV20 is 1/2.7" -- not a lot bigger than 1/3".

It's the Sony XDCAM EX that has 1/2" sensors.

The magnification factor between 2/3" and 35mm cine is 2.5X, so just multiply or divide by that amount to get the lens equivalents in terms of focal length -- i.e. if you like a 15mm in 35mm cine, you'd use a 6mm lens on a 2/3" camera.

I don't see why the depth of field of a 2/3" camera is so bad for cinema use -- it's 2.5 more stops worth of depth of field, so if you shoot at f/2.8 on a 2/3" camera, it's like shooting at f/5.6-8 split on a 35mm camera. That's not unusual for day exterior scenes and some day interior scenes, and some old movies used to light to even higher f-stops to get deeper focus (ala "Citizen Kane" which was shot at f/16 many times.) Kurosawa lit some of his sets to f/22 to get a lot of depth of field. Sergio Leone also wanted his sets lit to a high f-stop when possible.

It's only unusual (the extra depth of field) in the sense that most modern 35mm movies shoot interiors at f/2.8, but that's partly because that's the light level they like to work at, not because they want a super shallow-focus look.

Yes, it's a bit limiting if you like wider-angle lenses with a shallow focus look, but to say that any other look is non-cinematic is ridiculous.

Depth of field adaptors make sense for 1/3" cameras, which have 5-stops more depth of field than 35mm cine cameras. For 2/3" cameras, I think they are a waste of time for the most part unless you have to have a super shallow-focus look. I'd rather use a good T/2.0 lens on a 2/3" camera and get the advantage of the extra speed while having more depth of field to work with -- that seems like a win-win to me.

 

[Alsone]

The Canon XH-A1 starts at 4.5mm (32.5mm to 650mm 35mm equiv. - it has 20x)

The Panasonic HVX 200 at 4.2mm (32.5 to 423mm 35mm equiv. - it has 13x)

The Sony HVR A1 at 5.1mm (33mm to 400mm - it has 12x)

So the Scarlett having a 5mm wouldn't be out of character for similar cameras.

Which kind of brings me back to my original suggestion, why not put similar glass on it to the XH-A1 ie. a high quality 20x - 4.5-90mm lens?

That's wider than the 5mm suggested above and still gives 90mm (650mm 35mm equiv) at the long end so everyone's happy:-

A zoom as wide as any other professional competitor camera, but long enough for any practically any use.

 

[Max Link]

Which kind of brings me back to my original suggestion, why not put similar glass on it to the XH-A1 ie. a high quality 20x - 4.5-90mm lens?

Well, the XH-A1 sensors are what size? 1/3" afaik, not much bigger anyway. To get the same equiv. range (and if you read this post you'll find out that for most people here 32.5mm equiv is nowhere near wide enough) on the 2/3" sensor you'd need a 13-260mm glass in front of scarlet - huge and heavy, not to mention expensive.

 

[Alsone]

The Sony EX-1 is a 2/3 CMOS professional camera that uses a 14 x zoom lens:

f = 5.8 to 81.2 mm (equivalent to 31.4 to 439 mm on 35 mm lens)

Yet it's still very compact so a long zoom doesn't have to be large on a 2/3 sensor:

I would have thought therefore that an 18 or 20x zoom at maybe 5mm was entirely possible giving more to both wide and long ends of the range.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Glazarus, in no way am I saying that it's impossible to shoot a great feature with 2/3" DOF. One of my favorite recent movies was Once, filmed on a totally crappy prosumer video camera. All I'm saying is that it's not "ideal" for most indie cinema shooters. That's why people are turning every prosumer camera known to man (inlcluding the Sony EX1) into these Frankenstein contraptions using 35mm "adapters."

They use those contraptions because they are dealing with the depth of field of 1/3" cameras, which is the equivalent of stopping down by 5-stops on a 35mm camera -- very few 2/3" shows use 35mm adaptors because 2.5 stops more depth of field is not so bad and you can mitigate it somewhat by using faster lenses.

Sorry Tom -- I accidentally edited over your post rather than quoted and replied -- the danger of having moderator status and the edit and quote button being next to each other! This post is by me, David Mullen, ASC -- not Tom. Part of Tom's post is in my quote.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The Sony EX-1 is a 2/3 CMOS professional camera that uses a 14 x zoom lens:

f = 5.8 to 81.2 mm (equivalent to 31.4 to 439 mm on 35 mm lens)

The Sony EX1 has 1/2" sensors, not 2/3" sensors. See the brochure here:
http://www.sony.com.au/objects/PDF/PDWEX1_Brochure.pdf

If a 1/2" sensor is about 6.4mm wide as some websites say, then it's a magnification factor of about 3.4 or 3.5x compared to the 35mm cine frame -- i.e. a zoom on a 1/2" camera that starts at 5.8mm is like a zoom on a 35mm movie camera that starts around 20mm. Which isn't bad -- the 20-100mm Cooke is a classic zoom in 35mm filmmaking. The RED zoom starts at 18mm, etc.

 

[Chris Newman]

I'd rather use a good T/2.0 lens on a 2/3" camera...

I agree that DOF on Scarlet would be plenty shallow for separation if it was T2.0, but I don't think T2.8 will help with separation at all toward the wide end. What do you think?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There are probably physical restrictions in making the Scarlet zoom a T/2.0 at the widest aperture -- it may make the overall zoom too big / too expensive.

 

[Chris Newman]

Nice job seeing through my pointed question. But I am also preparing myself for disappointment, and I was actually interested in your opinion about using DOF for separation.

 

[Jannard]

I agree that DOF on Scarlet would be plenty shallow for separation if it was T2.0, but I don't think T2.8 will help with separation at all toward the wide end. What do you think?

You will not get a lot of focus falloff from a 2/3" sensor shot wide with any lens... no matter what the T-stop. I think there needs to be a voice of reason here.

Jim

 

[Chris Newman]

You will not get a lot of focus falloff from a 2/3" sensor shot wide with any lens... no matter what the T-stop.

I realize that is true all of the way at the wide end, but if I want that effect, I can try to cheat it and zoom in until I get some separation, but on the 1/3" camera I use now, I have to zoom way in. It would be nice to have more options.

 

[Clint Johnson]

Just my attempt at a voice of reason, is a vote for a 7-56mm zoom for a visual equivalent of 17.5-140mm zoom which would cover <90% of the needs of <90% of the Scarlet users.

The folks in the Red R&D labs would know if that is doable inside the physical and price envelope though- not I.

 

[Chris Newman]

7-56mm zoom for a visual equivalent of 17.5-140mm

Jim said in another thread today that the zoom will be 28mm on the wide end (full-frame 35mm still equiv.), so just what you said. Plus they will be making a high quality wide adapter.

I too am grateful for this zoom range.

 

[Davide B.]

I realize that is true all of the way at the wide end, but if I want that effect, I can try to cheat it and zoom in until I get some separation, but on the 1/3" camera I use now, I have to zoom way in. It would be nice to have more options.

Get your subject as close to the camera as possible. The shorter the focus distance the more shallow the DOF is, even on a wideangle lens. I know this doesn't work as well in all circumstances depending on the composition, but I've gotten nice shallow focus on the DVX100 by doing this.

 

[Phillip Hudson]

Jim, any idea as of yet how close we might be able to focus using Scarlet's wonderful fixed lens?

 

[Alsone]

The Sony EX1 has 1/2" sensors, not 2/3" sensors. See the brochure here:
http://www.sony.com.au/objects/PDF/PDWEX1_Brochure.pdf

You're right I googled 2/3" CMOS to see what cameras came up and it took me to a review of the Sony even highlighting 2/3". Further checking shows it is a 1/2" not a 2/3" sensor - thanks google!

The Sony DVW-970P has a 2/3" sensor and a Fujicon 21x zoom lens. The camera is big but the lens itself excluding mounting tube looks a very reasonable size.

I've added the red lines to separate the lens from the mount for viewing:



Admittedly the 970 is a very expensive camera, but that doesn't mean the cost is all in the lens. Nor does it mean that Red couldn't find or commission a reasonably priced solution. Interesting to note on the marketing front though that again we have a broadcast camera with a 21 x zoom from a company that presumably spends tens of millions on market research.

 

[Alsone]

Just my attempt at a voice of reason, is a vote for a 7-56mm zoom for a visual equivalent of 17.5-140mm zoom which would cover <90% of the needs of <90% of the Scarlet users.

The folks in the Red R&D labs would know if that is doable inside the physical and price envelope though- not I.

Clint when you say this you voice the set based indie film makers opinion. I'm sure that for 90% of Indies who shoot purely on set a 140mm would be suitable.

However, given there is a potentially much wider audience for the Scarlett than just set based Indies. it isn't true to say that it would be adequate for 90% of users because most general users, amateurs, high end consumers and semi pros need many more times 140mm on a regular basis.

Shooting films on a set gives you a high level of environmental control but away from a film production, that same level of control simply doesn't exist when shooting in the real world. In the real world, most things happen at distance and thats where a long zoom becomes essential. A good example on the truly professional level is news camera crews.

As I see it, the ideal solution would be a lens which is wide enough at the wide end to satisfy the set based film makers but long enough at the long end to satisfy the other categories of potential users.

Looking for such a lens doesn't go against the voice of reason. Many of the professional cameras I've mentioned previously have excellent quality optics but wide zoom ranges. The very reason companies such as Canon, Sony, Panasonic sell cameras with these lenses on is because they know that much of even the professional market requires a longer zoom range and when you also have aspirations to sell to high end amateurs, prosumers, semi pros etc, then that category grows further. I doubt very much that companies such as Sony, Panasonic, Canon etc spend millions on market research only to put unnecessarily expensive lens on their cameras through putting lenses on with focal lengths that their professional markets simply don't need.

 

[Mark K.]

Argh, my brain! I really, really wish we could standardise the discussion of lens focal length by talking about Angle-of-View (in terms of degrees) instead of "equivalent focal length".

Jumping between 35mm still, 35mm cine, 16mm cine, 2/3", 1/2", 1/3" et al. does my head in. :blink:

I'm hoping Scarlet comes with a FOV on the wide-end of at least 74° (that's 28mm in 35mm still terms; 18.5mm in 35mm cine terms; and other painful conversions too) 84° would be even better (that's 24mm in 35mm still terms). But I can work with 74°, anything much less than that and you really need wide-angle adapters.

 

[Erik Bien]

Alsone,

Have you ever heard the old news photographer's adage, "if your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough?"

IMHO, the achilles heel of small camcorders is the wide end, and not just for "indie filmmakers" ... if you shoot docs/weddings/events you probably don't have the luxury of removing a wall that prevents you from backing the camera up, so you're stuck with a wide-angle adapter (most of which add disproportionate amounts of weight, artifacting and expense to your rig for the relatively minor 0.5x-0.7x increase in FOV).

I'd much rather be wide enough with a 'naked' Scarlet and stick on a tele-extender for the few times I really need it (although, considering how far you could crop into a 3K image for an HD or SD deliverable, I can't imagine I'd use it very often).

Think about the uses of small form-factor cameras: strapped to your palm all that mondo-telephoto will be useless. Crash-cam? Wide, please. Reality TV "stick up" surveillance cam? Ditto. Steadicam? Motorcycle mount? Yup.

If I want to fill the frame with a desert moonrise, I'll need a decent tripod and some sandbags for a start, so at that point a screw-on tele-extender hardly adds to the hassle.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

the achilles heel of small camcorders is the wide end

I'm absolutely with you on that. Since I bought my mini35 adapter, I've actually used it more for wide lenses then tele (for the sake of DOF).
Reason why people use a mini35 is for the DOF but for me it's always been the wide quality.


Wasn't Jim saying in the other thread that the lens is equivalent of 18 - 144mm on S35? So if I use a 17 - 40mm Canon 4.0L lens with my mini35 adapter, then Scarlets lens is starting 1mm above that wide end?
Is that correct?

If that's the case then I'm very friggin happy about the wide range!