Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • 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 :)

Lens Coverage for 8K

Phil,

That's a very suggestive "hint... hint" post for you.

Do you know something we should know?

M
 
Mark Pedersen said:
Phil,

That's a very suggestive "hint... hint" post for you.

Do you know something we should know?
Click to expand...

Not yet. But lets see how this week unfolds.
 
can't wait to know for sure... I'm hopeful at 16/9 all the entry level full frame PL covers... figure the wides will be the hard part...
 
I recently talked to a representative of Fujinon and he confirmed that they are currently working on some 8k cine lenses.
 
Darryl Wood said:
We are in the next week. Did any information come to light?
Click to expand...

Soonish. Dotting some Ts, crossing some Is. Although, after testing lenses a lot you really are crossing your eyes.

There's actually more glass coming for this larger format in the next few years. It takes somewhere in the realm of 1-3 years to develop lenses typically, so this isn't exactly fast food convenience. Especially if we are talking quality and unique glass.

That said, you'll be very happy honestly with what's currently out there in terms of coverage if you are using lenses designed for the approximate format size, meaning FF35/135 Still Film/VistaVision glass. A lot has been tested and a lot more needs to be tested however.
 
calling it "cover 8k" is a bit missleading as Sony will have smaller 8k senors than red and more important lenses does not speak pixels. So to me It's much better to talk about sensor dimentions or vista vision or FF etc. for many i think that is confusing enough.
 
Björn Benckert said:
calling it "cover 8k" is a bit missleading as Sony will have smaller 8k senors than red and more important lenses does not speak pixels. So to me It's much better to talk about sensor dimentions or vista vision or FF etc. for many i think that is confusing enough.
Click to expand...

Yep. We went through this with 4K, 5K and 6K, now 8K... Resolution and sensor dimensions need to be kept separate. But it's difficult to train people to make the separation.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Yep. We went through this with 4K, 5K and 6K, now 8K... Resolution and sensor dimensions need to be kept separate. But it's difficult to train people to make the separation.
Click to expand...

to me it´s strange that it´s so difficult to grasp but I could understand the misuse of the terms among people using the same kind of camera and so on. But when camera companies not only missuse this terminology, but also engrave it on their lenses it´s complete facepalm

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/canon-unwraps-4k-lenses-8k-821125

Or they would need to state that the lens out resolves a a 8k sensor but that I think is not so much to brag about or put in print on the actual lens. They should start talk image circle diameter or square hight width coverage or such.
 
There's two "coverages" about 8K, one is for sensor dimensions (field of vision), the other is for sharpness resolution. From what I know, there aren't any lenses that cover 8K sharpness into a pixel mapped detail on an 8K screen. Only medium format lenses might cover it. You could say a lens cover 8K if you're talking about it's sharpness, so I agree that the terminology needs to be correct from the camera companies.

Like... lens covers Vista Vision or FF. Lens covers 8K sharpness. Doesn't have to be harder than that. From what I know, my CN-Es covers more than the presumed 4K resolution in their specs, they're sharper than most other lenses I've compared to, but I don't think they cover 8K sharpness, even if they cover FF.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
There's two "coverages" about 8K, one is for sensor dimensions (field of vision), the other is for sharpness resolution. From what I know, there aren't any lenses that cover 8K sharpness into a pixel mapped detail on an 8K screen. Only medium format lenses might cover it. You could say a lens cover 8K if you're talking about it's sharpness, so I agree that the terminology needs to be correct from the camera companies.

Like... lens covers Vista Vision or FF. Lens covers 8K sharpness. Doesn't have to be harder than that. From what I know, my CN-Es covers more than the presumed 4K resolution in their specs, they're sharper than most other lenses I've compared to, but I don't think they cover 8K sharpness, even if they cover FF.
Click to expand...

Lenses aren't examined and measured by their pixel resolution, though various manufacturers have specs they are aiming for when it comes to resolving power. Resolving power itself is measured via visible line pairs at specific measured distances, essentially resulting into a MTF chart-type measurement. After that you can examine acutance to judge the quality of a line, detail, and edge. In terms of what a camera sees, various resolution charts can be used and measured properly. Back to the lenses, they are designed to cover a specific format within specific tolerances. However, the image is usually highest quality center frame then degrades across the field out to the edges and corners.

In terms of 8K and Weapon. Remember the pixel pitch on Weapon 8K is the same as the Dragon sensor. So we'll have a general idea of what to expect at 100% magnification when it comes to lenses. There are lenses designed within and to exceed the tolerances set forth by FF35 shooting and that's why it's generally good news when it comes to lens converage and general image quality performance when it comes to glass designed for the larger format.

What medium format glass truly does is exhibit less vignetting at maximum aperture as well as rendering a generally consistent resolving image across the Weapon 8K FF frame, which is why I've assembled my set. But honestly, I have sets of various things that I'll be using on 8K Weapon when that time comes. I still haven't tested my vintage glass yet, but it will be interesting to see what exactly it does.

In my previous lens coverage tests you'll notice I'm referencing specific RED formats when a lens does or doesn't cover. It's about the format first when it comes to coverage, then checking to see edge and corner performance, vignetting, field illumination, and then the various properties of the lens itself. For me personally this is best done with charts to maintain a consistency about the process as well as going out and shooting real world images, which reveals so much more about how a lens draws, racks, breathing, flares, glares, and generally performs. It's also important to go through the entire aperture range to assess optimal quality and where diffraction becomes intolerable, however, that is also sensor and pixel pitch specific as some people are now learning due to the newest highest resolution sensors out there.

Pretty much whenever I get a new camera or a set of lenses I go out for 1-5 days and do all my nasty chart tests and then go about shooting some lovely images with them. The always interesting bit for me is lenses are rarely judged purely by their technical merit, but also for their overall character. And that in itself is down to each individuals preferences. I know what I like, but I don't know what everybody likes.
 
Phil Holland said:
Lenses aren't examined and measured by their pixel resolution, though various manufacturers have specs they are aiming for when it comes to resolving power. Resolving power itself is measured via visible line pairs at specific measured distances, essentially resulting into a MTF chart-type measurement. After that you can examine acutance to judge the quality of a line, detail, and edge. In terms of what a camera sees, various resolution charts can be used and measured properly. Back to the lenses, they are designed to cover a specific format within specific tolerances. However, the image is usually highest quality center frame then degrades across the field out to the edges and corners.

In terms of 8K and Weapon. Remember the pixel pitch on Weapon 8K is the same as the Dragon sensor. So we'll have a general idea of what to expect at 100% magnification when it comes to lenses. There are lenses designed within and to exceed the tolerances set forth by FF35 shooting and that's why it's generally good news when it comes to lens converage and general image quality performance when it comes to glass designed for the larger format.

What medium format glass truly does is exhibit less vignetting at maximum aperture as well as rendering a generally consistent resolving image across the Weapon 8K FF frame, which is why I've assembled my set. But honestly, I have sets of various things that I'll be using on 8K Weapon when that time comes. I still haven't tested my vintage glass yet, but it will be interesting to see what exactly it does.

In my previous lens coverage tests you'll notice I'm referencing specific RED formats when a lens does or doesn't cover. It's about the format first when it comes to coverage, then checking to see edge and corner performance, vignetting, field illumination, and then the various properties of the lens itself. For me personally this is best done with charts to maintain a consistency about the process as well as going out and shooting real world images, which reveals so much more about how a lens draws, racks, breathing, flares, glares, and generally performs. It's also important to go through the entire aperture range to assess optimal quality and where diffraction becomes intolerable, however, that is also sensor and pixel pitch specific as some people are now learning due to the newest highest resolution sensors out there.

Pretty much whenever I get a new camera or a set of lenses I go out for 1-5 days and do all my nasty chart tests and then go about shooting some lovely images with them. The always interesting bit for me is lenses are rarely judged purely by their technical merit, but also for their overall character. And that in itself is down to each individuals preferences. I know what I like, but I don't know what everybody likes.
Click to expand...

But you can agree that the engraving on the side of this lens was possibly not that clever:
http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...1441702054764/Cinema+EOS+System+8K+camera.jpg

Imagine 5 or 10 years from now, what does that 8k logo mean, by then most sensor in the FF size range will have far more than 8k resolution... :)

Christoffer Glans said:
There's two "coverages" about 8K, one is for sensor dimensions (field of vision), the other is for sharpness resolution. From what I know, there aren't any lenses that cover 8K sharpness into a pixel mapped detail on an 8K screen. Only medium format lenses might cover it. You could say a lens cover 8K if you're talking about it's sharpness, so I agree that the terminology needs to be correct from the camera companies.

Like... lens covers Vista Vision or FF. Lens covers 8K sharpness. Doesn't have to be harder than that. From what I know, my CN-Es covers more than the presumed 4K resolution in their specs, they're sharper than most other lenses I've compared to, but I don't think they cover 8K sharpness, even if they cover FF.
Click to expand...



But the lens does not really need to be "sharper" then sensor to gain quality. If you think of it, a 8k weapon frame downscaled to 4k is down sampled by 4/1 i.e 4 pixels of original image becomes one in final picture. Where as 6K to 4k only gives a 3/2.

So 8k dragon should have about 3 times better signal to noise ratio than 6k weapon when mastering at 4k. And to me the problems are not the worst when the image is perfectly exposed, crisp and clear, on the contrary it´s in the ill exposed parts that the 8k will do the big difference 3 times the difference compared to 6k using the same sensor and the same compression rate and mastering at 4k.
 
Björn Benckert said:
But you can agree that the engraving on the side of this lens was possibly not that clever:
http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...1441702054764/Cinema+EOS+System+8K+camera.jpg

Imagine 5 or 10 years from now, what does that 8k logo mean, by then most sensor in the FF size range will have far more than 8k resolution... :)

But the lens does not really need to be "sharper" then sensor to gain quality. If you think of it, a 8k weapon frame downscaled to 4k is down sampled by 4/1 i.e 4 pixels of original image becomes one in final picture. Where as 6K to 4k only gives a 3/2.

So 8k dragon should have about 3 times better signal to noise ratio than 6k weapon when mastering at 4k. And to me the problems are not the worst when the image is perfectly exposed, crisp and clear, on the contrary it´s in the ill exposed parts that the 8k will do the big difference 3 times the difference compared to 6k using the same sensor and the same compression rate and mastering at 4k.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's a bad thing to label a lens 8K, especially a prototype used to showcase that Canon is also invested in creating a camera system and lens that will be appropriate for that camera body. It just doesn't tell you anything in terms of image circle and coverage or even truly anything about it's resolving power.

The interesting thing about 8K for me is traditionally we've been downsampling from a 6K-5K image for a 4K finish for a while and we'll certainly be doing that at 8K-5K in the future. However, I think at these resolutions and screen sizes 8K for 8K might be very, very ideal. I do think one day in the distant future we'll have beyond 8K capture, but at the same time it's an insane amount of image information as is. I've seen properly finished 8K material on a large screen (I think 115" if I'm not mistaken?) at closer than I'd recommend viewing distances and it holds up pretty damn well.
 
Hi Phil!

Not to derail, but I recall you were building/modifying a computer solution for 8K files. Could you share/start thread with your particular kit for that?

Thank you very much

Fury
 
Björn Benckert said:
to me it´s strange that it´s so difficult to grasp but I could understand the misuse of the terms among people using the same kind of camera and so on. But when camera companies not only missuse this terminology, but also engrave it on their lenses it´s complete facepalm

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/canon-unwraps-4k-lenses-8k-821125

Or they would need to state that the lens out resolves a a 8k sensor but that I think is not so much to brag about or put in print on the actual lens. They should start talk image circle diameter or square hight width coverage or such.
Click to expand...

Those are broadcast lenses, though, with the 4k lenses designed for a 11mm diagonal sensor. The 8k lens is for NHK's experimental 8k broadcast camera.

This naming convention is consistent with broadcast lenses since the HD turnover. When the new HD cameras came out, Canon/Fujinon/Angenieux put out new lenses with "HD" emblazoned on their sides, so you knew that the lenses could resolve HD, instead of just SD (even though a fair amount of SD lenses had more than enough resolution for SD).

Same thing is going on here: new 4k broadcast cameras and new lenses to go with them.
 
Phil's notes that MF glass performs better corner to corner than (most/all) FF35 lenses when illuminating a larger sensor target is exactly what the physics suggests. After reading his notes, charts and other observations - I've also come to trust his eye as well. While many of us, me included, will likely purchase FF35 stills glass for our personal kits due to the typically lower cost/weight - it does make me seriously consider MF for rentals when appropriate.

So, questions for my fellow RedUsers:

1) can anyone suggest a set of MF primes that I might be able to swing as an owner/op? The Leicas on B&H run $5-10K per lens so a set of 4 would be at least $20K, not a huge variety of focal lengths either.

1A) the Leicas have the Leica "S" bayonet mount, is that something that Duclos can mod to fit the Mg PL mount on the CF Weapon?

2) can anyone steer me to a rental house in LA that has a good selection of MF lenses, and a decent amount of inventory?



Thanks-given.

Cheers - #19
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
Phil's notes that MF glass performs better corner to corner than (most/all) FF35 lenses when illuminating a larger sensor target is exactly what the physics suggests. After reading his notes, charts and other observations - I've also come to trust his eye as well. While many of us, me included, will likely purchase FF35 stills glass for our personal kits due to the typically lower cost/weight - it does make me seriously consider MF for rentals when appropriate.

So, questions for my fellow RedUsers:

1) can anyone suggest a set of MF primes that I might be able to swing as an owner/op? The Leicas on B&H run $5-10K per lens so a set of 4 would be at least $20K, not a huge variety of focal lengths either.

1A) the Leicas have the Leica "S" bayonet mount, is that something that Duclos can mod to fit the Mg PL mount on the CF Weapon?

2) can anyone steer me to a rental house in LA that has a good selection of MF lenses, and a decent amount of inventory?



Thanks-given.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

i believe you want to look at the hasselblad zeiss F or FE models, already come with a declicked iris and over 300 degree focus through, extremely great metal build quality and of course they are zeiss… ceico7 on ebay makes a positive lock to pl adapter now and currently making an EF one im waiting for, most focal lengths are f2.8 as well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top