Image Circle Database

[Matthew Duclos]

I feel bad for taking over the other thread that this was being discussed on.
So I figure I would drop it in a new thread for all to see.
I update the list as lenses pass through the shop here.
If there are any specifics you would like, just let me know and maybe I can throw one up to test.

Click Here!

 

[Yousuf Abbasi]

Any information on image circle diameters for Zeiss T1.3 SuperSpeeds ?

Thanks for the awesome resource.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Matthew, your Data Base is coming along GREAT keep up the good work, it isn’t everyday that something new is created, somehow it seems that the question of the image circle or diameter has been kept from all of us.

I do think that the Arri/Zeiss Master Prime and the Red Pro Prime are surprising similar with the Master Prime having the edged. That’s one of the reason that they deserved to be posted just below the Master Prime.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Matthew Duclos]

Any information on image circle diameters for Zeiss T1.3 SuperSpeeds ?

Thanks for the awesome resource.

Super Speeds coming soon.
I've had several sets through the shop, but they were rush jobs..
Not enough time to take a good reading.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Yousuf correct me if I’m wrong. But the Arri/Zeiss Ultra Prime are listed on the Lens Image Circle Database. The 10mm is a T2, the 12mm is T2, the 14mm is T1.9 and all the rest are T1.9. The only T1.3 are the Arri/Zeiss Master Primes. The RPP are T1.8.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Yousuf, I stand corrected! There is a set of Arri/Zeiss Ultra 16mm Lenses made for the Super 16 format, that are on par with the 35mm Arri/Zeiss Master Primes. My apologies.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Steven Hilder]

Thanks Matthew! It's great that someone with access to all these lenses (not to mention the test equipment) is willing to share this kind of information.

Just a word of warning to anyone buying lenses for use on Scarlet and/or Epic - until RED release the final specifications of the production sensors, you shouldn't base lens purchases entirely on these figures. For example, it's unlikely that any recording mode on the S35 cameras will require an image circle of more than 31mm. The measurement of 33.54mm that Matt lists on his website refers to the size of the full sensor area (including lookaround).

 

[Matthew Duclos]

Just a word of warning to anyone buying lenses for use on Scarlet and/or Epic - until RED release the final specifications of the production sensors, you shouldn't base lens purchases entirely on these figures. For example, it's unlikely that any recording mode on the S35 cameras will require an image circle of more than 31mm. The measurement of 33.54mm that Matt lists on his website refers to the size of the full sensor area (including lookaround).

Very true!

The numbers I have for the future RED cameras are just numbers that I've seen published by RED. I don't know what their real numbers are or will be.
I chose to use the largest possible sensor size for the RED S35 frame just as a worst case scenario. That way if it's smaller, no problem.

 

[Evin Grant]

If you use the R1s total, active and useable image areas as reference you can approximate pretty accurately the maximum recordable image circle for the three primary S35 Epic formats. (These do not include look around)

2:1- 28.5mm
2.40:1- 27.5mm
16:9- 26mm

 

[Steven Hilder]

Evin, I think those approximations are a little low - by my calculations it'll be more like:

2:1- 30.91 (approx 31)
2.40:1- 29.95 (approx 30)
16:9- 29.94 (approx 30)

Full details in the full chart from an old thread.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Steven, I went back to your chart, and if I understand it correctly, one can get a 1.85:1 from the almost full Active Pixel Array of an S35 sensor with a resolution of 13+ Megapixels. The diameter of the lens would be slightly less than 31.26mm.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Evin Grant]

I'm pretty sure they're correct. The R1 sensor is 24.4 x 13.7mm full area is 4900(h) x 2580(v) but max record area is 4096(h)x2305(v). That's a diagonal difference of 5538 Vs. 4700 or about 15% 33.5mm-15%= 28.5mm.

 

[Steven Hilder]

Steven, I went back to your chart, and if I understand it correctly, one can get a 1.85:1 from the almost full Active Pixel Array of an S35 sensor with a resolution of 13+ Megapixels. The diameter of the lens would be slightly less than 31.26mm.

Humberto Rivera

Yes, I believe so. If my assumptions are correct, you'll be able to get a 4996x2700 frame (13.5 megapixels) with a diagonal of 30.67mm.

I'm pretty sure they're correct. The R1 sensor is 24.4 x 13.7mm full area is 4900(h) x 2580(v) but max record area is 4096(h)x2305(v). That's a diagonal difference of 5538 Vs. 4700 or about 15% 33.5mm-15%= 28.5mm.

Sorry Evin, what I meant was that comparing the ratio between full area and usable area of the RED ONE's sensor to the S35 would give an inaccurate estimate. The predictions in my chart are based on three key pieces of information that RED have disclosed; the pixel pitch (5.4 microns), the physical size (30x15mm) and active pixel area (5120x2700). With those three values in place, the rest pretty much falls in line.

 

[david farland]

Matt,
Do you know if the Zeiss compact primes use aspherics on their wides to get the 43+ coverage or can they get away with spherical design because of the relatively smaller aperatures (T2.9/3.6)?

 

[Derek Wan HKSC]

Hi Matthew,

Thank you the great database. As we are shopping for lenses this chart is so invaluable to us.

It seems like no cine zoom actually covers the RED Epic's 33mm frame diameter at this point. Is that correct? What about those that are not on the list yet, like RED Pro zoom, Angenieux HP and HR, Cooke 10:1 Mark III, Cooke 18-100mm, 20-100mm and even Technovision lenses? Any luck at all?

Can you also include more classical frame sizes such as Full Gate 35mm, Academy, 16mm, Super 16, etc. for our reference?

By the way, is your RED FF35's graphic a little out of proportion? You might want to fix it to make it perfect since you have already done such an excellent job for the community.

Thanks again.

 

[Evin Grant]

Steven, the difference comes from the actual capture area, which once look around and non active area are subtracted is about 15% smaller than the physical size of the sensor.
At least on the R1.

 

[Matthew Duclos]

Hi Matthew,

Thank you the great database. As we are shopping for lenses this chart is so invaluable to us.

It seems like no cine zoom actually covers the RED Epic's 33mm frame diameter at this point. Is that correct? What about those that are not on the list yet, like RED Pro zoom, Angenieux HP and HR, Cooke 10:1 Mark III, Cooke 18-100mm, 20-100mm and even Technovision lenses? Any luck at all?

Can you also include more classical frame sizes such as Full Gate 35mm, Academy, 16mm, Super 16, etc. for our reference?

By the way, is your RED FF35's graphic a little out of proportion? You might want to fix it to make it perfect since you have already done such an excellent job for the community.

Thanks again.

I do have several of the zooms you mentioned, in the shop right now. I'll be adding them soon.
I have a feeling that this list will be a perpetual task.
Ill add a few more sizes to the sensor/film graphics.
I don't think their proportions are too critical. They are just there to give an idea of different sizes. The critical part is the diameter of the image circle produced by the lenses.

 

[Steven Hilder]

At least on the R1.

That's my point, there's no reason to suggest that Mysterium and Mysterium-X will share the same ratio between full sensor size and capture area. In fact, from the data we've already seen, it pretty much confirms that they won't.

As sensor size increases, that doesn't mean that lookaround increases at the same rate - obviously the 28K Mysterium Monstro won't have 15% of its area dedicated to lookaround, it'd be too wasteful.

 

[Matt Uhry]

Thanks Matthew - That's a great list - very useful !

Not many 10-1 Zooms are going to cut the mustard in this "Jumbo 35" jumble that we are headed into. The Optimo will squeak by but many Cooke 10-1, HR's and HP's are going to get shelved.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Evin Grant]

As sensor size increases, that doesn't mean that lookaround increases at the same rate - obviously the 28K Mysterium Monstro won't have 15% of its area dedicated to lookaround, it'd be too wasteful.

Well then it'll be much less useful. There may very well be some difference in the unused area (+/- 2-3%) but without at least a 10% lookaround it's not going to do you any good because you won't be able to see mics or other elements entering your frame. After all that's the whole point of it.