Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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 :)

image sensor size and lens resolution

Albert Chen

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Image sensor size and lens resolution

Albert Chen 26[SUP]th[/SUP] April 2012

First, congratulations to RED for their 6K dragon sensor. However with the advent of the 6K Dragon sensor measuring 15.8 X 30mm, it renders all Super 35mm lenses unusable for this sensor size. The required image circle of 33.906mm (diameter) cannot be met by S35 lenses which covers only 31.1mm image circle.
Even with the possibility of downsizing (image crop) in the menu to 4K, it is now at the approx resolution limit of the presently available S35mm lenses the likes of Carl Zeiss UP and MP lenses, Cooke’s 5i’s and Zoom lenses from Angenieux, Fujinon’s Aluras and the new Canon CN-E lenses to name a few.

Clearly the 6k sensor with a pixel size of 5 microns requires at least 200L/P resolution which means these lenses must be maintained at their highest quality. However, not all lenses are made the same. Some are incapable of 200L/P and some may be able to but due to high production costs, are measured, calibrated and tested to 100L/P.

It is no secret that there’s a race to increase sensor resolution. However, one wonders how many pixels can be packed into a small package like the S35 sensor size- 24 X 18mm approx 648 sq.mm. or approx 31.1mm diagonally which lenses must provide in their image circle which is another important issue. All S35mm lenses are not similar in their provision of image circle size – even the new ones. Case in point- the 2 new Canon CN-E lenses provide image circle of 27.5mm that would cover a sensor size of 24 X 13.5mm (1.78:1) 35 Academy.

Confused? Well, what’s the point here? It seems there’s a misunderstanding about camera and lens resolution and camera manufacturers have much to bear for this misconception. While there are lower resolution lenses made from yesteryears’ technology, which in their heyday was heralded as “best in the world” resolving 2K very well, these lenses are not really usable in a 4K camera selected to 2K. reason is that the sensor still maintains 4K resolution. How is that so? Well, normally one would expect the camera manufacturer to select alternate pixels (2K spread over the whole 4K sensor) when switched to 2K in a 4K camera, which has another very important issue, that of sensor coverage maintaining the 31.1mm image circle in the case of S35 full academy giving a true angle of coverage without image crop, it is unfortunately not so. When selected to 2K in a 4K camera, it instead crops the sensor by half loosing the outer image fields. This renders the lens angle narrower than it is. The solution is to put on a wider lens. However, this is where the mistake begins. With 2K selected, some operators would install a 2K resolution lens. What’s wrong with that? Well, the sensor is 4K resolution even when it’s selected to 2K (4K pixel depth) as stated above.

Camera manufacturers should correct this for 3 reasons. 1) When selected to 2K in a 4Kcamera, alternate pixels should be selected maintaining image acquisition size at S35. 2) When alternate pixels are used, then 2K lenses can be used. 3) The life of the pixels are maintained when they are universally used and not only those in the center. Now if the camera is smart enough to alternately select odd then even pixels at 2K then the life of the sensor would be even.

On another note, we have seen 4K as the maximum amount of pixels packed into the S35 full academy size 24.9 x 18.7 (4 perf) which allows the use of S35mm lenses covering 31.14 image circle but at 5K the sensor has gone slightly larger. Why? Well, there are a number of limitations like how small can you make a pixel, how many tracks do you need for each pixel and the cross talk from the close proximity of the pixels, tracks, etc. another subject, I reckon. And so now with the 6K Dragon having grown to 15.8 X 30mm, it is only a matter of time when processors are improved that an 8K sensor possibly at 24 X 36mm (8 perf) will emerge. The data storage will be huge but not as huge as the expenditure owners will have to foot out for new lenses. But wait, last time I’ve heard, there were a huge amount of these full 35mm lenses available but were rendered antiquated when film was phased out. Would Canon, Nikon, Carl Zeiss, Leitz, etc not wish to capitalize this market? Well, expect newly packaged full 35mm lenses to shortly appear in the market with new more sturdy mechanical housing with various mounts to match. As a matter of fact, Carl Zeiss is already on the band wagon ahead of the others with their Compact Primes. Remember? They are the only ones suitable to use on the Canon 5D?

While that is yet to be envisaged, Lens manufacturers are now coming up with a slightly larger image circle catching up with the 5K sensor (Millennium X) like in the RED Epic. Angenieux with their debut of their 2.7X zoom the 45- 120mm now offers a S35+ size covering 31.4mm image circle. Looks like lens manufacturers are playing catch up with camera sensor sizes. Why don’t they all come to the table and discuss what sensor size would be appropriate and building lenses to suite. At 24 X36mm full 35mm, lens manufacturers can produce glass resolving 200L/P at a moderate cost as opposed to staying at S35 Full Academy and trying to squeeze out 400L/P at astronomical costs. Now if camera and lens manufacturers wish to maintain S35 size, then they may have to adopt the 3 CCD chip system with the optical block and lenses manufactured for high resolution but have their chromatic aberration corrected via the optical lock. The CAC technology can also be adopted in this case.

Present owners of S35 lenses should press lens manufacturers to produce replacement relay lenses (rear group) that would enlarge the image circle to cover the new sensor sizes. However, not all lenses can be adapted and the modification may render a lower resolution from the fact that the original build is only for S35 resolution. At least the viability of the lens is extended for a period.
 
More pixels is less noise... not only resolution.

And Jim said something about throwing the ball.. I think when the dragon is available. There will also be quite a lot of FF covering high resolution lenses available, all still glass manufacturers must be seeing where this is all heading and they would with just a little bit of effort be able to convert their lenses to good EOS or PL electronic lenses. I think this will happen even before the dragon is loose... So when the ball lands the dragon is there to catch it :)
 
The required image circle of 33.906mm (diameter) cannot be met by S35 lenses which covers only 31.1mm image circle.

I'm trying to find it again, but Matt Duclos has (had?) an Image Circle Database which outlined the coverage of a number of common, popular S35 lens sets including Zeiss Masters, Ultras and Standards, Red Primes, and many more. Plenty of those lenses had an image circle in excess of 34mm.
 
Albert
Simple calculation shows that all you need to resolve 5 micron sensor is 100 line pairs with 50 distinct lines/spaces.
I'm not sure what you mean with 200...
Also this is easily resolved today as most still cameras have smaller pixels to achieve higher res from smaller (16x24mm APSC, DX etc.)sensors...
 
I find it hard to believe that all S35 lenses will not cover full 6K on the Dragon sensor, although for many that will be true. Often longer lenses have wider fields than projected on S35. There is no rule that says that one must use the whole 6K area, either. It sounds like the Dragon is third generation Red sensor has performance improvement in addition to larger sensor size. More choices. One can upgrade and still use whatever area of the sensor the lenses cover, or use lenses that support full sensor size, or just don't upgrade at all if you like your pictures now. It seems that 6K creates more choices for camera owners and more oportunities for lens makers. I do know that all of my still glass will work well with little or no fall-off wide open at 6K. Sweet. I am in.......... more choices in post.
 
Vance, you are right in that some S35 lenses do have a wider image field. however, lens manufacturers warrant only what they have specified in their user manuals. anything outside is "use at your own risk". you can even use a 2/3" ENG HD lens, attach a PL adapter to the B4 mount and use that with the doubler to cover S35! but what about the quality?
point of starting this post is to get more people to rally and get the camera and lens manufacturers to agree to a fixed sensor size and lenses made to suite. i won't buy a lens or camera spending big bucks only to find in 6 mths time it's superseded. if there's no agreement then where is it going to end up? Arri 765 6X6cm size? well, not really but the Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses could.
 
Albert, your assumption is incorrect. Most medium and long cine lenses, including Master Primes, will cover the Dragon sensor. Only wide angle lenses will not cover it, however, if you are shooting 2.40x1 aspect ratio, they are still likely to cover full 6k.

There is no loss by lenses not covering the full sensor. You can always shoot 5.5k or 5k as we currently do. In my view, there is only a benefit of having a larger sensor.
 
Vance, you are right in that some S35 lenses do have a wider image field. however, lens manufacturers warrant only what they have specified in their user manuals. anything outside is "use at your own risk". you can even use a 2/3" ENG HD lens, attach a PL adapter to the B4 mount and use that with the doubler to cover S35! but what about the quality?.

I have a small set of Master Primes and there is no "manual" or warranty stating the image circle that the lens must cover. You can project the lens and see the falloff yourself. You either like it or not.
 
I think everyone interested knows that the MPs will cover super35 or "big tV" throughout the range- that's a guarantee
That is just under 31mm circle.
As for the rest(larger circle): aberrations, vignetting, field curvature is any one's guess because it was not a concern for the design
 
I have a small set of Master Primes and there is no "manual" or warranty stating the image circle that the lens must cover. You can project the lens and see the falloff yourself. You either like it or not.

Pawel, if your lens projects with fall off, i'll have them checked unless you are talking about outside of the image circle of 31mm. what Jacek wrote is right. anything larger is outside the specs.
when motion picture film cameras were made, there was a standard. 16 or 35mm format. all cameras were made to that standard and lenses were made to suite. buyers bought according to their needs and used them without any concern about the technical issues. they put their whole mind and effort into making the movie knowing that the image is guaranteed. don't we want this freedom again with Digital?
 
there are a wealth of lenses made for the S35 18 x 24 sizes and then there's those made for the FF35 24 x 36. since these are readily available why not limit sensor sizes to suite them? sure, some of the FF35 prime and zooms may require a redesign of the mechanical housing to make them sturdy but at least the optics are usable
and proven. to redesign the housing would raise costs but it will be a lot less than having to built them from the ground up. already Carl Zeiss have released their FF35 Compact Zoom 70-200. it seems they are the only one who have envisaged this and are building their lenses future proof.
 
I don't know if I'd go that far. I mean K35s cover and those are older. Lens design and format size directly effects lens size. And there are certainly reasons to design glass that's smaller and light if its appropriate. I agree we'll see more and more FF35 glass. We'll also see more manufacturera making glass in inter changeable mounts.
 
the Cooke 15-40 and Angenieux 15 -40 are very different in size and both covers the S35 image size. while Angie's is made small and lightweight ideal for steadycam ops, it has some trade offs though. being small means the optics are small, the barrel is small and these contribute to more pronounced vignetting. all lenses suffer from vignetting, it is a matter of degree. some do drop off by as much as 3/4 or 2/3 of a stop from centre to edge. there's also aberrations we have to consider. but with todays' technology where elements can be polished to the desired designed curvature, these issues are minisculed but they are expensive to manufacture.

most aberrations are more obvious toward the edges. just going by this principal, we should acquire lenses with larger image circle like the FF 35 and using that for S35 simply from the fact that we are capturing only the best the lens offers -i.e- the centre.
 
the Cooke 15-40 and Angenieux 15 -40 are very different in size and both covers the S35 image size. while Angie's is made small and lightweight ideal for steadycam ops, it has some trade offs though. being small means the optics are small, the barrel is small and these contribute to more pronounced vignetting. all lenses suffer from vignetting, it is a matter of degree. some do drop off by as much as 3/4 or 2/3 of a stop from centre to edge. there's also aberrations we have to consider. but with todays' technology where elements can be polished to the desired designed curvature, these issues are minisculed but they are expensive to manufacture.

most aberrations are more obvious toward the edges. just going by this principal, we should acquire lenses with larger image circle like the FF 35 and using that for S35 simply from the fact that we are capturing only the best the lens offers -i.e- the centre.
Lenses designed for still photography must have flat field. To achieve this center performance is sacrificed. So no, not really... sweet spot is not so sweet.
Generally just keep it simple- use lenses designed for the specific format.
In Epic and Dragon case this is APS-H or equivalent.
Also cine lenses were designed different- the center performance is maxed out because that's where usually the viewer's attention is directed.
But it must be added that still lenses and the resolutions they have to achieve-even with the flat field requirements are adequate for motion.
Also the newest high end cine glass seems to perform just as well in corners ans in center but you pay dearly for it. The price tag is staggering...
 
true flat field lenses like Schneiders' comparons and componons are utilised in enlargers. the film is flat and the paper on the easel is flat and the column is perpendicular to eliminate parallax. this is essential for true duplication from film to paper. however in lenses for image acquisition, there's usually some curvature of field but Jacek, like you said, the FF35 are good enough for motion picture. it would be better if they change the rear (relay) group to telecine glass.
 
Agreements between lens and camera manufacturers exist in video world. But since RED are in competition I wonder if other lens manufacturers feel inclined to work closely with the competition.

Sony and Panasonic have agreements with Canon and Fujinon. This was as much to make sure the lens manufacturers had enough stock to satisfy predicted demand of a new format. For instance the introduction of 1/2 inch 3 chip cameras needed support from lens manufacturers to provide 1/2 inch format lenses. They also worked together to reduce prism aberrations.

There is significant work already done with 8k resolution.
I'm confident that if Canon and Fujinon can make a 100x HD lenses they will solve the challenges of 4k and 8k formats.



Mike Brennan
 
You need only look at the amazing dynamic range, high ISO performance, resolution and images from the 36.3 Megapixel Nikon D800 to know that more is more, better is better and Red is moving in exactly the right direction. Lenses will improve with the sensors - it's not like they don't have room. They have designed and built them to match what film and digital sensors are capable of. Better glass in every element, rather than in one or two, better coatings, computer aided design, etc. will continue to bring the glass right along with the sensors. It's kind of like software, which lags about 18 months behind the hardware capable of running the latest and greatest apps. Build it and they will come. Having said that, I was a bit disappointed that the Dragon sensor isn't FF35, but Ill live with it!
 
All Cooke Mini-S4's have a 33.54 INTENDED circle. If Dragon is in fact 33.9... I'm willing to bet the unintended image circle of these lenses can take that extra 0.36mm with very little consequence. We shall see... but lord knows people are taking advantage of unintended image circle areas much more than .36mm and getting away with it.
 
the Cooke 15-40 and Angenieux 15 -40 are very different in size and both covers the S35 image size. while Angie's is made small and lightweight ideal for steadycam ops, it has some trade offs though. being small means the optics are small, the barrel is small and these contribute to more pronounced vignetting. all lenses suffer from vignetting, it is a matter of degree. some do drop off by as much as 3/4 or 2/3 of a stop from centre to edge. there's also aberrations we have to consider. but with todays' technology where elements can be polished to the desired designed curvature, these issues are minisculed but they are expensive to manufacture.

most aberrations are more obvious toward the edges. just going by this principal, we should acquire lenses with larger image circle like the FF 35 and using that for S35 simply from the fact that we are capturing only the best the lens offers -i.e- the centre.

Just because it's the center of the lens doesn't mean it's better than a lens made for S35mm.... plenty of FF photography falls below cine-standards at the center. Hell many wide FF lenses have 1/2 stop or 1 stop of gradual uneven field illumination at APS-C. They even have bad CA, and etc.

The best of a lens is the center, but that does not make it a good lens.
 
A question for experts here.

How many LPPM does an Epic sensor resolve ? or another question how many LPPM does a lens need to resolve to our perform the sensor. Im interested to know if its desirable for a lens to resolve say minimum of twice the sensor resolution to be considered as a minimum specification for normal cinematography use. Also what considerations are needed for the OLFP in all of this.
 
Back
Top