I call Hot Rod Cameras Bluff with a $10,000 Bet (for Sharpest PL RF for Komodo)

[GrahamClark]

A somewhat controversial thought, but there will be a time way down the line when a great deal of this just "works as expected out of the box". The industry (camera and lens manufacturers) very badly wants to get to that point and there has been rather active moment/discussion on this for the last 5-6 years. Things will get a bit tighter likely from decent lens and camera manufacturers. It will still be chaos for a while though, and until that time shim up as needed.

In my opinion, if accessory makers of PL RF mounts had made them as accurate as the PL DSMC2 by RED the discussion of "critically sharp PL Komodo results" wouldn't exist.

I didn't know the performance of Vocas until after we had made our PL RF for Komodo. On the Komodo Vocas pretty much nailed it.

 

[GrahamClark]

I'm all for people wanting to build a better mouse trap, but the photo of this adapter does not bring up any confidence in defeating simple things like stress from mounting a lens.

side-by-side sharpness results out of the box show a striking difference in sharpness.

if you're not into sharpness, it's a non-issue.

otherwise accuracy does matter.

and by the way, RED nailed the Komodo with regards to flange depth. Canon is all over the place, but RED is not. not from the orange, to the white, to one of the first black units, to one of the most recent black units (8744).

don't know where this idea of the Komodo being inconsistent came from.

if a mount is out of spec thermal expansion will only serve to push it further, so what's the downside of attempting to make something critically sharp?

 

[GrahamClark]

What graham does not understand is that a slight offset in backfocus

take a human hair, divide it in half, that's a 002" shim.

huge difference in results.

a shim effectively adjusts backfocus.

what's there not to get, except that sharpness is dependent upon lens, mount and camera equaling the correct FFD?

 

[GrahamClark]

What's going on here Graham? This has me confused now.

...

What exactly do you believe is causing the one image to be less sharp?

these were side-by-side shots Tim.

I sent him one of the first PL RF Komodo mounts and asked "can you do a side-by-side against any PL RF mounts you use?

left Breakthrough, right Vocas

visually there's a discernible sharpness increase on ours, which was made specifically for the Komodo.

the other made by Vocas, is compatible with Canon R, R5, C70 and Komodo, all of which have slightly difference flange depths.

when I had a chance to test a Vocas mount I found it to be slightly off spec for Komodo, but they outperformed the other units I had by a huge margin.

it's about as close as you could probably get for a mount made for many models of cameras, and I'm not sure if it's shimmable.

 

[GrahamClark]

Interferometers have many uses. Measuring surface flatness (or more commonly, distance) is just one use.

This is off topic, but let's not jump down any rabbit holes when it comes to this:

Spectrophotometer aka spectrometer is the correct instrument.

Before going down this rabbit hole on the wrong instrument just read what Hitachi has to say about the ABC's of measuring light transmission (T%) and as a result color neutrality.

https://www.hitachi-hightech.com/global/products/science/tech/ana/uv/basic/index.html

Or call Edmunds Optics (USA company) at 1-800-363-1992 and a knowledgeable optical engineer will answer the phone, ask them the question since they sell both.

 

[GrahamClark]

Your comments on here immediately make me never want to buy anything from you. It's how you handle situations like this that set you apart, and you've done poorly on this public forum.

that's totally understandable.

on the other hand if i didn't address false claims who would that affect?

 

[GrahamClark]

The mount doesn't make the lens any sharper than what it would be if if they are correctly shimmed.

Even if the camera or lens wasn't sharp out of the box, who cares ? They are literally designed to be shimmed many times in their operating life because as we all know, the FFD changes over time and with circumstance.

the mount determines if the 52.00mm that the lens and camera expects is actually 52.00mm.

yes the lens is 52mm if collimated as such, and the DSMC2 PL is exactly dead zero spec.

no, PL mounts for Komodo are not even close to dead spec, this affects sharpness.

maybe it's because the PL RF mounts are made for lots of cameras with various flange depths?

who knows the reason, that's the situation.

 

[GrahamClark]

Yes, the PL Mount is nominally 52.00mm and lenses should be collimated that way, but the camera mounts may vary slightly from 52.00mm to account for this, no? the mounts are checked optically with something like a Denz FFD tool. As long as all of the properly collimated lenses continue to tape out and zooms remain parfocal, I think it’s all good? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Even on my film cameras, my Arriflex 3C is set to 51.98mm and my Moviecam to 51.99mm, so there was a bit of variation from camera to camera without any OLPF, just due to the different design.

yes you are 100% correct.

by nailing the mount spec to the camera, 3 variable become 1, the PL lens.

as is the case with the DSMC2 PL mount - 1 variable, not 3.

1 variable is simple. 3 is confusing.

 

[GrahamClark]

The spec distance for pl flange distance is 52mm optically speaking.

yes I agree, as a result of 52.00mm being the target, and as a result of PL RF being a wild west (except Vocas on Komodo), the manufacturers of the PL RF mounts need to make their stuff exactly to spec.

and by exactly i mean close to the thinnest shim

not more than the biggest shim.

 

[Robert Hofmeyr]

What's going on here Graham? This has me confused now.

Is this the same lens and camera, just different mounts?
Is this a crop from the edge? If so, was the centre sharper on both?
Did you focus both lenses on the tree, or are they both at infinity?

As you know, you can still get sharp images if the back focus is out. Hell, you can even get sharp images when using an extension tube (as long as the subject is close), effectively putting the back focus waaaay out.

What exactly do you believe is causing the one image to be less sharp?

these were side-by-side shots Tim.

I sent him one of the first PL RF Komodo mounts and asked "can you do a side-by-side against any PL RF mounts you use?

left Breakthrough, right Vocas

visually there's a discernible sharpness increase on ours, which was made specifically for the Komodo.

the other made by Vocas, is compatible with Canon R, R5, C70 and Komodo, all of which have slightly difference flange depths.

when I had a chance to test a Vocas mount I found it to be slightly off spec for Komodo, but they outperformed the other units I had by a huge margin.

it's about as close as you could probably get for a mount made for many models of cameras, and I'm not sure if it's shimmable.

Thanks for the response Graham, but that does not answer my questions. Perhaps Tim can respond regarding how he did the side-by-side.

The part I am not understanding is why one image is softer? In my understanding, even if a mount is not calibrated perfectly, you should still be able to get sharp images (though perhaps not at infinity). Am I wrong about this?

 

[Björn Benckert]

Thanks for the confirmation, John and Bjorn! This was my understanding as well.

Someone that knows more about light transmision trough glas please chim in here and correct me if I’m wrong. I assume that the flat filter glas behind lens work as a factor to the flange distance. If so that means that two different brand / makes of cameras that both has perfect backfocus on thier rf mount does not get the same results when using the exact same PL adapter. In other words the adapter could be perfect on one of the two cameras but be off on the other as they got different offset factors due to thier differences / amount of glas in front of their sensors. One can not simply add the difference in flange distance between rf and pl as the distance is scrambled trough the array of flat glas infront of the sensor that vary with the make of the camera...

If my assumption above is correct then its even more important to be able to chim the mount adapter in a wide range both + and -. No?

 

[Robert Hofmeyr]

Bjorn, I'm no expert so happy to be corrected, but I would assume manufacturers take this into account and measure the flange depth optically, not physically.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Bjorn, I'm no expert so happy to be corrected, but I would assume manufacturers take this into account and measure the flange depth optically, not physically.

Yes but if the glas inside of a specific csmera takes the distance between the flange and that glas and multiply it with a factor then that would mean that every lens adapter has to be colimated not to be the perfect distance between rf and pl. It needs to be colimated to the specific camera. As all brands have different arrays of glas infront of their sensor. If thats how it works then rf to pl adapters need to be more ”adaptable” / able to adjust the flange quite widly to work with cameras of different makes. Then yes ofcourse also cameras of the same make comes with variations.

 

[J. Orlandi]

side-by-side sharpness results out of the box show a striking difference in sharpness.

if you're not into sharpness, it's a non-issue.

otherwise accuracy does matter.

and by the way, RED nailed the Komodo with regards to flange depth. Canon is all over the place, but RED is not. not from the orange, to the white, to one of the first black units, to one of the most recent black units (8744).

don't know where this idea of the Komodo being inconsistent came from.

if a mount is out of spec thermal expansion will only serve to push it further, so what's the downside of attempting to make something critically sharp?

But how do you KNOW they aren't all over the place.... RED has made thousands of these Komodos now, and from batch to batch you'd have to have a sample from each one for an accurate data set... So how on earth can YOU get a batch by batch sample when most people on earth are still scrambling to get their hands on one, and backorders are 4+ months deep? My point was, sure you can measure a hand-full, and maybe you got lucky in your measurements, but you absolutely do not have a full data set to prove they are consistent. Measuring a early black model, and then a late black model is great, but there are gaps that can prove to defeat your accuracy without complete data.

Furthermore you completely skipped over my point of mechanical stresses, which completely remove any / all of your accuracy chasing. A nicely built cinema prime lens weighs a decent amount. Master primes, Tokina Vistas, Red Pro Primes, Zeiss supreme primes, and lots of anamorphic primes weigh A LOT. Most of the time on red cameras, this isn't an issue because of how good their proprietary mounts are, including their Ti PL mounts. Those lenses have no problem keeping accurate distances because of big chucks of titanium holding from 4 different points, keep the mount solid and flush.

Your adapter does not have this, nor does the komodo. So without a mechanical attachment that ensures there aren't any stresses caused by the weight of the lens, none of your accurate numbers are worth a damn. Period.

It takes mass and strength to ensure these materials aren't warping and bending under load. As I see your komodo mount, it seems to only have a bottom support. This makes all of your efforts null when it comes to temperature and physical stresses from lens weight and movement. The bottom mounting, although better than nothing, needs shims, needs a solid mounting system....

I've been down the road of accuracy tests, I have patents in devices that have sold all over the world successfully. I've dabbled in camera and lens housing designs.... I've been down the rabbit hole of chasing tolerances, and it comes down to materials and strength. Mechanical coupling and mass is the only way to ensure numbers stay true.

So without improvement of your mechanical connection to the built in komodo mount, none of your micron chasing will matter, that's just physics. The Vocas PL mount connection is excellent in it's design, and thats where you'll get the most accurate and consistent mounting with the least stress off axis.

 

[John Brawley]

And re interferometer Vs Spectrometer.

One is for transmission and one is for flatness.

I would have thought you WANT BOTH to be right. Especially if you’re making a filter that goes behind the lens. I know both these metrics are important in an OLPF / sensor stack.

JB

 

[J. Orlandi]

My last note on all this is, I've been around for a long time... Especially on cinematography / gear forums. It NEVER ends well for the companies / guys who come on the forms arguing with their potential customers / peers.

Instead of making a public battle out of what essentially is vaperware (your product isn't on the market, nor can any of us test it) you should just go about quietly refining your product until you're ready to showcase. This battle wont end well for you, especially calling out publicly for a competition. It's a PR stunt, and one that cannot end in anything but more arguments. Scientific proof of things like this are very hard to prove from one to the next because of so many variables outside of a full blown double blind lab test.

Being a new kid on the block is fun to stir up some excitement, but hearing your reply's about canceling customers orders and having people not get their orders for months isn't a good thing to have on your record AND starting a public $10K war with another company....

I'd tread lightly in this area, people on forms are hot to argue, and all I can see from this PR stunt is harm to the image of your company and more arguing. That's my two bits.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

@GrahamClark - would you be able to give us all a timeline update with delivery for the EOS-RF mounts, as well as the drop-in filters? I'm not sure if you're on the RED Komodo Users FB group, but there are a lot of us wondering what's been going on since the October pre-orders we all placed.

 

[Lars Wikstrom]

@GrahamClark - would you be able to give us all a timeline update with delivery for the EOS-RF mounts, as well as the drop-in filters? I'm not sure if you're on the RED Komodo Users FB group, but there are a lot of us wondering what's been going on since the October pre-orders we all placed.

I feel your pain. I canceled my order months ago because it was taking to long. They still haven't released their PL to RF with Drop in adapter, still says coming soon 6 months later. This 10K bet is probably better spent on getting their current line of coming soon products to shipping now status, instead of more coming soon products.

 

[Vance Colvig]

I find it difficult to imagine what drives a person to inject one's self into a field they are somewhat unfamiliar with (the world of cinematography) with such bravado after having pissed off a bunch of potential customers and customers by not delivering product as promised. Quite a poor business stratagy to say the least.

 

[William Long]

... maybe things have been difficult lately... ?