KOMODO....

[Björn Benckert]

Breathing is very much a thing, easiest to spot when comparing still lenses to cine versions of them when lens manufacturers transform them into cine lenses. Such as with the CN-E and Sigmas. Lens breathing on them are reduced and it's very much a difference.

On the auto-focus bit, sure, gearheads might be too slow, but I seem to recall a tech video showing exactly this type of auto-focus system with cine-lenses. The thing is that sure it's not faster than internal, but it's still accurate and that's the hard part when working with T1.5 and a moving actor for a regular focus puller. But I agree that internal motors are preferable if it's within a cine-lens housing. That's maybe a job for Global Dynamics to do, a whole series of cine-lens versions with internal motors.

You are wrong Christoffer.

You can not keep the lens build and simply add "no breathing" you need a completely redesign of the lens to do that. Your CN-s and the sigmas got exact the same breathing as their still counter parts. Test it if you want, Same focal lens and pull from infinite to close limit... They will do identical in terms of breathing and most other things. Sure the still lenses can rattle a little while the cine lenses are more firmly built and have longer throw to do the same focus pull but thats just the gearing of the housing.

What ever the Zeiss sales people told you it was just that, simple bullshit sales talk. If you don´t believe me go rent a Milvus and a Zeiss supreme prime of the same focal length... guess what, they are very much identical lenses only housed differently and comes with something like a 20k USD price difference per lens. No joke.

So no cine lenses does not breath less than still glass, lenses breath differently depending on the design, focal length etc. But if its a cine lens does not determine if it will breath a lot or a little.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

External motors wouldn’t take more power than what does a human with a remote follow focus.
I would love to see a RTmotion taking that camera data and sending it to the motor.
With an active follow focus wheel like what they do with automatic audio faders.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

You are wrong Christoffer.

Are you talking about declicked lenses or the complete rehousing and change in mechanics that companies do to their cine lineup of their still counterparts?

 

[Rakesh Malik]

Are you talking about declicked lenses or the complete rehousing and change in mechanics that companies do to their cine lineup of their still counterparts?

Some of Sigma's newer cine lenses are designed to correct for breathing, but its first iteration of cine lenses were Sigma ART lenses in cine housings, not redesigned to correct for breathing.

So the cine version of the ART 50-100 still breathes quite a bit, though eventually Sigma might replace it with a version designed not to.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Some of Sigma's newer cine lenses are designed to correct for breathing, but its first iteration of cine lenses were Sigma ART lenses in cine housings, not redesigned to correct for breathing.

So the cine version of the ART 50-100 still breathes quite a bit, though eventually Sigma might replace it with a version designed not to.

There is no such a thing as "reduced breathing " in cine versions of still lenses. Breathing is an optical property- not mechanical. The only way to do that is a lot more complicated design with a dedicated "zooming group" in the prime lens design that counters the FL change due to the glass movement. Angenieux does that in their zooms, Zeiss did it in their MPs. Sigmas and Canon CNs "reduced breathing" claims are nothing more than marketing talk i.e. lies. Anybody that has some understanding of optics should know that.

 

[Rakesh Malik]

There is no such a thing as "reduced breathing " in cine versions of still lenses.

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I said...

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I also don't think there are any "newer" sigmas that are dedicated designs for minimized breathing. These newer lenses are just cosmetic and probably mechanical tweaks to improve the mechanics. The breathing reduction would take a lot of effort that's simply not practical for a "piggy backing" run of extremely low volume cine lens versions...

 

[Phil Holland]

If you don´t believe me go rent a Milvus and a Zeiss supreme prime of the same focal length... guess what, they are very much identical lenses only housed differently and comes with something like a 20k USD price difference per lens. No joke.

This is 100% incorrect FYI. And it's clearer when you see the lenses cracked open. The actually information is the Milvus line and CP.3 line very much are "the same", that is where that lineup synergy can been seen. This is fairly obvious when looking at their focal lengths, T-Stops versus F/Stops, and general optics.

The Supremes are their own thing. A different design and even different type of glass. They all feature a floating element, except the 50mm, to tackle a compact design with fairly minimal breathing design (they do breathe a bit) that lends to mostly a consistent feel when focusing. Optically, if anything, they share more DNA with the Otus line more than anything, but are a completely different glass type and focus movement designed from the ground up. You can actually take the Milvus, CP.3, and Supremes and pull them side by side to really see what's going on and you'll see the Supremes don't have much to do with Milvus or CP.3 primes. Zeiss did go the route of compact lens design with the Supremes over a more telecentric one to keep things lighter weight overall.

If you're looking for lenses that have even less breathing (what I would call extremely minimal breathing, near zero breathing in some cases), you're looking for lenses that are more telecentric, which are usually longer and occasionally bigger for reasons Jacek is alluding to. The leaders in telecentricity and extremely minimal breathing out there are the Tokina Cinema Vistas, Arri Signature Series, and S35 Scheider Cine-Xenar III Primes. Also S35, Master Primes and Leica Summilux-C do pretty well in this regard. Notably these were all purpose designed for cinema and also designed for a fairly consistent focus feel.

It is true that many still lenses are designed mainly to be compact first with not much care as to a consistent focus pull feel across focal lengths. Generally the mechanics don't really change when rehoused in a cinema housing. What it does solve is what Dan mentioned, image shift, which nobody wants when they pull focus, but usually is a sign of a still lens being used in a cinema capacity. A few other things too like focus consistency on marks, like racking focus to close and infinity and trying to land on the exact same mark on the scales, yet it's sometimes off. Generally most decent cinema optics do this well for focus repeat-ability, but some of the very entry level cinema glass struggles with this despite what appears to be a decent housing, though it alludes to spotty mechanics. But that's the price you pay down there in the very entry level stuff.

 

[Rakesh Malik]

I also don't think there are any "newer" sigmas that are dedicated designs for minimized breathing. These newer lenses are just cosmetic and probably mechanical tweaks to improve the mechanics. The breathing reduction would take a lot of effort that's simply not practical for a "piggy backing" run of extremely low volume cine lens versions...

I think that the popularity of Sigma's cine lenses has lead it to start designing cine lenses, rather than just continue re-housing photo lenses, but I'm not sure. I do know that Sigma got a lot of understandable complaints about how much its lenses breathed, since they breathe a lot -- especially the longer ones. I did however play around with a camera that had a Sigma cine lens on it at the last NAB and noticed that its breathing was MUCH better, so I suspect that it is a new design that's cine oriented.

But I'm not sure... it probably depends on how successful Sigma's cine lenses are. I certainly expect them to have higher prices as a result. The Tokina cine lenses introduced at more or less the same time as the Sigma ART cine lenses didn't breathe at all -- Tokina made a big deal about that. And they were quite a bit more expensive than the Sigma ART version.

 

[Mestizo Devon]

You can control Komodo wirelessly from any phone ( in fact that was actually the only way to control the first komodo prototypes) , but you can not wirelessly monitor ( i.e. watch a video feed ) from your hydrogen or any other phone. I know thats been a thing that was miss-communicated with the Hydrogen many times.... but it was never a real thing .

Jarred, will the Hydrogen ever work in any capacity as a monitor for DSMC2 cameras, can we put that to bed one way or the other. It’s been going back and forth for so long.....

Thanks

Oh, I asked for you to send me a Komodo first, ya know before it was fashionable��

 

[Rakesh Malik]

Jarred, will the Hydrogen ever work in any capacity as a monitor for DSMC2 cameras, can we put that to bed one way or the other. It’s been going back and forth for so long.....

That's been put to bed several times.

 

[Mestizo Devon]

That's been put to bed several times.

Has it though? I mean officially? The wireless implementation, I understand was a no go, but the wired option to fulfill Hydrogen purchases...

 

[Timothy Jones]

I have read somewhere that the new canon RF still lenses have been designed with video shooting in mind.
They have been designed with mechanics to control breathing . Why I think it's such a stroke of genius that Komodo has an RF mount.
I was also hoping that Red and worked some kind of deal with canon to use their auto focus system, but I guess not.
Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net

 

[Björn Benckert]

I have read somewhere that the new canon RF still lenses have been designed with video shooting in mind.
They have been designed with mechanics to control breathing . Why I think it's such a stroke of genius that Komodo has an RF mount.
I was also hoping that Red and worked some kind of deal with canon to use their auto focus system, but I guess not.
Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net

The closer to the sensor you can get with a lens the easier it is to make it well. EF lenses are built with the whole EF mirror reflex thing in mind and needed a bigger distance to the sensor = more difficult to make with little breathing.

 

[Rakesh Malik]

Has it though? I mean officially? The wireless implementation, I understand was a no go, but the wired option to fulfill Hydrogen purchases...

Yes, it has. Jarred explained that the Hydrogen will integrate with Komodo via the port on it. That ought to be pretty sweet though... nice and compact, doesn't require an external power source that lasts for only 28 minutes like an Atomos does

 

[Björn Benckert]

This is 100% incorrect FYI. And it's clearer when you see the lenses cracked open. The actually information is the Milvus line and CP.3 line very much are "the same", that is where that lineup synergy can been seen. This is fairly obvious when looking at their focal lengths, T-Stops versus F/Stops, and general optics.

The Supremes are their own thing. A different design and even different type of glass. They all feature a floating element, except the 50mm, to tackle a compact design with fairly minimal breathing design (they do breathe a bit) that lends to mostly a consistent feel when focusing. Optically, if anything, they share more DNA with the Otus line more than anything, but are a completely different glass type and focus movement designed from the ground up. You can actually take the Milvus, CP.3, and Supremes and pull them side by side to really see what's going on and you'll see the Supremes don't have much to do with Milvus or CP.3 primes. Zeiss did go the route of compact lens design with the Supremes over a more telecentric one to keep things lighter weight overall.

If you're looking for lenses that have even less breathing (what I would call extremely minimal breathing, near zero breathing in some cases), you're looking for lenses that are more telecentric, which are usually longer and occasionally bigger for reasons Jacek is alluding to. The leaders in telecentricity and extremely minimal breathing out there are the Tokina Cinema Vistas, Arri Signature Series, and S35 Scheider Cine-Xenar III Primes. Also S35, Master Primes and Leica Summilux-C do pretty well in this regard. Notably these were all purpose designed for cinema and also designed for a fairly consistent focus feel.

It is true that many still lenses are designed mainly to be compact first with not much care as to a consistent focus pull feel across focal lengths. Generally the mechanics don't really change when rehoused in a cinema housing. What it does solve is what Dan mentioned, image shift, which nobody wants when they pull focus, but usually is a sign of a still lens being used in a cinema capacity. A few other things too like focus consistency on marks, like racking focus to close and infinity and trying to land on the exact same mark on the scales, yet it's sometimes off. Generally most decent cinema optics do this well for focus repeat-ability, but some of the very entry level cinema glass struggles with this despite what appears to be a decent housing, though it alludes to spotty mechanics. But that's the price you pay down there in the very entry level stuff.

Ok,
So then what I seen was a special milvus or supreme as when mounted on the same camera they deliver exact same picture, down to the pixel at all focus marks and iris settings, flares and the whole enchilada. But yes possibly they are very different builds. Or Zeiss just done their sales talk, built from the ground up etc. If you have both a milvus and same focal length supreme, would be great if you could show the difference in between them.

 

[Björn Benckert]

There is no such a thing as "reduced breathing " in cine versions of still lenses. Breathing is an optical property- not mechanical. The only way to do that is a lot more complicated design with a dedicated "zooming group" in the prime lens design that counters the FL change due to the glass movement. Angenieux does that in their zooms, Zeiss did it in their MPs. Sigmas and Canon CNs "reduced breathing" claims are nothing more than marketing talk i.e. lies. Anybody that has some understanding of optics should know that.

This is according to my findings aswell.

Are you talking about declicked lenses or the complete rehousing and change in mechanics that companies do to their cine lineup of their still counterparts?

No simply you can not really "remove" breathing without totally loosing focus without pretty much completely remake the lens. Its nothing in the lens that can really be altered to counter steer the breathing without changing the whole design.

 

[Mestizo Devon]

Yes, it has. Jarred explained that the Hydrogen will integrate with Komodo via the port on it. That ought to be pretty sweet though... nice and compact, doesn't require an external power source that lasts for only 28 minutes like an Atomos does

I’m thinking more along the lines of DSMC2 Weapon, Helium,Gemini, Dragon... Will those ports on the hydrogen and DSMC2 line up and play nice?

 

[Rakesh Malik]

I’m thinking more along the lines of DSMC2 Weapon, Helium,Gemini, Dragon... Will those ports on the hydrogen and DSMC2 line up and play nice?

Not as far as I know.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Yes, it has. Jarred explained that the Hydrogen will integrate with Komodo via the port on it. That ought to be pretty sweet though... nice and compact, doesn't require an external power source that lasts for only 28 minutes like an Atomos does

Considering the weak nits of the hydrogen... I think it would be more vice to make a mount for an Iphone instead. Sad but true.