Lens Mounts and the future. Where do we go from here?

[Ron Michael]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that Arri PL mount was limited to a 32 mm diameter image circle. I know some of the FF35 cameras with other mounts have dealt with 43 mm images. As movies continue into the all digital world from production to projection and with the new sensors moving to higher pixel densities and larger sizes, what do you know about the future of glass lenses and their mounts for this new digital frontier?

 

[Jason Comparetto]

I'm curious about this as well

 

[Dave Blackham]

There is also Arri Max PL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that Arri PL mount was limited to a 32 mm diameter image circle. I know some of the FF35 cameras with other mounts have dealt with 43 mm images. As movies continue into the all digital world from production to projection and with the new sensors moving to higher pixel densities and larger sizes, what do you know about the future of glass lenses and their mounts for this new digital frontier?

I'm correcting you per your request:wink5:
PL mount is not limited to any coverage- it's the optical design that's the limiting factor and it has very little to do with the mechanical mounting of the lens to the camera...

 

[Ron Michael]

I'm correcting you per your request:wink5:
PL mount is not limited to any coverage- it's the optical design that's the limiting factor and it has very little to do with the mechanical mounting of the lens to the camera...

Agreed but my point is that we are not limited by film size and even Arri had to deal with larger formats and change their PL to a maxi PL.
So, it seems like one should consider what limitation you want to live with. With the updates to larger digital formats and cameras losing value, it may be that the glass and their mounts will be more in the same boat. 35mm film may not be a sacred format for much longer, gone like 8 and 16.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

My guess would be that the reason Arri came up with Maxi PL (or whatever it's called) was that it was easier than trying to fit PL mounts on hasselblat lenses. All about convenience- not much about limitations.
I'm not intimately familiar with this matter but that's what I would do- call it informed speculation

 

[Dave Blackham]

My guess would be that the reason Arri came up with Maxi PL (or whatever it's called) was that it was easier than trying to fit PL mounts on hasselblat lenses. All about convenience- not much about limitations.
I'm not intimately familiar with this matter but that's what I would do- call it informed speculation

Are there any limitations for larger formats for the flange to sensor distance of 52mm ? Im no expert in this but I think the throat size of PL is more of an issue for mounting odd ball glass via adaptors and such.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I seriously doubt it. The throat is 54mm so over 2 inches- plenty for any format...

 

[Nick Morrison]

I actually find this thread pretty interesting too. I think what you are hinting at, beyond the evolution of physical mounts, is where are optical designs going? In 5-10 years, will all new lenses be required to cover a 5D FULL FRAME sensor, or even an IMAX sized sensor?

Or will sensors stay in the 5K 1.3 crop range where we are now on the Epic/Scarlet? With only light sensitivity and DR improving? Which is certainly plausible. The 5D is popular for its shallow depth of field, but has also posed follow focus challenges.

I certainly don't know the answers, but I am curious what you all think.

For me, I want to know how this topic has implications for the lenses we acquire now. For future proofing, are people already keeping in mind lenses that can cover a 5D full frame? Or are people still confident in S35?

thx

 

[Ron Michael]

I actually find this thread pretty interesting too. I think what you are hinting at, beyond the evolution of physical mounts, is where are optical designs going? In 5-10 years, will all new lenses be required to cover a 5D FULL FRAME sensor, or even an IMAX sized sensor?

Or will sensors stay in the 5K 1.3 crop range where we are now on the Epic/Scarlet? With only light sensitivity and DR improving? Which is certainly plausible. The 5D is popular for its shallow depth of field, but has also posed follow focus challenges.

I certainly don't know the answers, but I am curious what you all think.

For me, I want to know how this topic has implications for the lenses we acquire now. For future proofing, are people already keeping in mind lenses that can cover a 5D full frame? Or are people still confident in S35?

thx

I think one should be aware that since 2011 is coming to a close, and I read that Panavision, Arri, Aaton are stopping production on 35mm film cameras, I think the film format will eventually not be the centerpiece that all the technology hinges on. It very well may be the projector and all the upstream digital productions. So I would say at the very least you should make sure your lens are capable for FF35 for 6k frames etc as many 35mm PL mounted lens were developed for the S35 and 32 mm diameter images without severe vignetting.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Someone tell me what is wrong with S35mm?

I don't want the Full Frame Photography FoV for most applications. The FoV will be a major factor in lens length selection, and larger sensors inherently will have shallower depth of field, since you'll need longer lenses. I'm already not liking the shallow DoF T/2 and below is giving for most applications, when it's not appropriate to the story... why do I want to go photography FF format?

I'm happy with 5k at slightly bigger than S35mm.

I can see the occasional use for 70mm or larger sensors if say, I was shooting an IMAX film for IMAX distribution (99.999999% of us are not) and for very complicated visual effects work... for films that will be projected at 4k. (also people who are taking photos with the Epic, might like FF)


Nor have we reached the technological end of what we can do within a S35mm sized sensor. Surely the sensors will get even better with sensitivity and even resolution. That is a certainty.

So for now and the foreseeable future, I don't see a reason to get away from S35mm. 5K at workable 1000iso is enough for me at the moment. I can't blame my images for anything but myself, really. Full frame, for me, would potentially give more resolution and a cleaner signal... but I already have more resolution than I need and the image is wonderfully clean at 800-1000 iso. The full frame photography format would also limit my lens choices to photography lenses or CP.2's. No thanks. I'll also skip on having to shoot at a T/8 in order to get the same DoF I wanted on s35mm.

I'm all for a world where we can choose what format we want, thus I don't think s35mm is going anywhere soon. We will see some digital alternatives to 70mm film formats, but I don't think we'll see the cinema standard shift for some time. If it does, I might still shoot Epic or Alexa, because in today's world, I like it better and it still over qualifies the technological requirements needed. We are still an HD world, with 2k and 4k projection.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Im no expert either but it seems to me a mount similar to A mount or IMS might be helpful, and then use a mount convertor to mount the lens of choice. Needs an electronic interface too. Sensor size is important, it seems to be if the flange to sensor distance is too short and the angle of incidence too great if the pixel is down a small well then the corners may suffer. Also whats the effect of dark silicone in all of this ?

 

[Zeb B]

emm . . . cough cough . . . EF mount . . .

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Im no expert either but it seems to me a mount similar to A mount or IMS might be helpful, and then use a mount convertor to mount the lens of choice. Needs an electronic interface too. Sensor size is important, it seems to be if the flange to sensor distance is too short and the angle of incidence too great if the pixel is down a small well then the corners may suffer. Also whats the effect of dark silicone in all of this ?

What's wrong with what we are doing now, with interchangeable lens mounts? It's more sturdy and usually much more accurate than stacking adapters. Why does it feel like these threads are from DVXuser's 5D forum? ugh.

I'm out.

 

[Vance Colvig]

The inside port diameter of the PL mount is quite large, so it will accommodate big rear element glass, sort of what Jasek said, just in another way. The future? Few PL lenses have electronic features, and those that do such as the Cooke i lenses only provide data info, not control such as internal focus and iris motors as found with Canon still lenses. I think Red will probably pioneer and therefore by defacto standardize the contact location and pin assignments for the rest of the "soon and later to come" PL's. Red has a large stake in this for their own lenses to be used with Epic/Scarlet. Companies such as Arriflex just may be pressured by lens manufacturers and the industry in general to adopt another company's electronic lens/camera with their beloved "PL" mount if they don't come out with it first. Just my thoughts.

Off topic. Your avitar looks like a Bell J Model. Keep that left wrist well lubricated and the ears finely tuned. Fun stuff.

 

[Jason Comparetto]

I have the feeling that 35mm glass will be highly valued for as long as we'll all likely be in business. Even if there are larger sensors to come... there may be an optimal range in there. Sort of like the way that we shoot 24fps even though these days we could just as easily shoot 48p or higher. 24fps just seems to an optimal for most work. (and yes, I know there are people that shoot 72fps and dump the extra frames)

And of course glass that will cover 6k, 8k and 65k monstro sensors will be even more expensive!! And at that point the "mount" will be least of our worries.

 

[Jason Comparetto]

I like the idea of internal focus motors in PL mount glass. Is Red shipping that mid-January?

 

[Dave Blackham]

What's wrong with what we are doing now, with interchangeable lens mounts? It's more sturdy and usually much more accurate than stacking adapters. Why does it feel like these threads are from DVXuser's 5D forum? ugh.

I'm out.

Im not sure we are doing anything wrong at the moment. Its the best camera/mount we have had so far. But we do want to shoot S16 size sensor for 3D and some times want to use the camera for FF35mm for say timelapse and stills, granted it would make sense to shoot on another camera at times, but the more systems that are interchangeable then so much the better.

Our only issue is if we do want to use lenses that have anything other than PL a lens mount change is needed. We regularly use PL, Nikon and Lecia so use an A mount system. We cant use Canon EF with A mount with out changing the base mount which is one issue, the other is no support for lens electronics via the intermedia mount. Other than that we are good to go.

The other question which is what I thought we may be discussing is if PL will cope with larger sensors and if so how big and what lenses might be needed and if PL could support them.

Nope, never visited DVX user......

 

[Ron Michael]

I find it very interesting currently companies like Zeiss who makes MP and UPs built on the S35 format in PL mount which is limited to a 32mm diameter image circle and would have vignetting problems for the FF35 sensors RED is proposing that they would recommend to use CP.2 where at least the SLR lens optics does support FF35 in both EF and PL mounts. When you talk even larger format sensors like RED 645 or 617 the crowd of glass thins down greatly. Interesting indeed....

 

[Matt Uhry]

I find it very interesting currently companies like Zeiss who makes MP and UPs built on the S35 format in PL mount which is limited to a 32mm diameter image circle and would have vignetting problems for the FF35 sensors RED is proposing that they would recommend to use CP.2 where at least the SLR lens optics does support FF35 in both EF and PL mounts. When you talk even larger format sensors like RED 645 or 617 the crowd of glass thins down greatly. Interesting indeed....

I'm not sure there's going to be a super compelling reason to shoot motion picture 645 or 617 for most uses. I don't think you should base your optics purchasing decisions on things that far in the future... any larger than FF ( 24mm x 36mm ) at least, unless you already shoot 65mm 5, 8 or 15 perf, MF or LF on a regular basis, in that case you know who you, have some kind of a business model and client base and can should totally ignore this post and get back to reloading that 15-65.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com