Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

LIST of Lens Sets that cover 6k

I'm not sure if this has been covered before, but another big consideration with smaller photo sites coming on the Dragon sensor is the actual resolving power of lens sets. On the stills side, when I switched over from 4x5 film to 645 digital, my old View Camera Lenses couldn't resolve to the resolution of the sensor. I ended up replacing all my glass with new "digital" lenses.

While all of the old 35mm stills glass will easily cover Dragon, I seriously doubt they'll take full advantage of the resolution available. I actually doubt that anything but the Leica Cine glass will match the resolution of 6k. But then... I'm not sure you'd even want all the sharpness that Dragon will yield. Hell, I'm generally throwing ProMist even on my Panchos nowadays so the imagery maintains an organic esthetic... but just be aware... the target is always on the move.

CB
 
The RPP has no problems covering 5k widescreen, as I have shot many tests with the lens lately.

Generally what I am hearing is if the lens can cover 5k it will probably be okay with 6k and the smaller "photosites?" Would love any corrects from those more knowledgeable here. Are the pixels actually going to be smaller? A pixel is a pixel, no?


tobyheslop said:
Will the RPP 300mm cover the new 6K sensor?
Click to expand...
 
There are actually no pixels on sensors. A pixel is sort of a non-tangible unit of measure. And you can have an infinite variety of pixels per inch. Think about it this way. An epic is what 14 Mega Pixels? There are also 4/3 chips that are 14 Mega Pixels. Or look at it this way... Epic and Alexa have about the same sized sensors but NOT the same resolution. The Epic has a 5.4micron pixel pitch... the size of it's "pixels" Dragon was initially stated to have a 5 micron pixel pitch which requires a greater line pair resolution from the lens to project adequate detail onto the sensor.



A smaller pixel pitch means the sensor may now actually out-resolve the lenses... I honestly do not know if this will be the case but food for thought.
 
Last edited:
I've noticed on some cinema glass, that the coverage depends a lot on if i shoot at 5k full sensor vs 5k wide screen(WS). Basically 5k WS rarely has any problems while 5k full sensor does(this has to do with the "box" being cut on the edges where the coverage issues are). So would be nice to know what cinema lenses have no problems at AR 2.35/5k WS. For example RPP 18mm does great at 5K ws, but has issues at full 5k (i love my 18mm RPP, it's a way under rated lens ... and awesome if you shooting WS).
 
I don't even know what that means... but it sounds good.

Christopher Barrett said:
A smaller pixel pitch means the sensor may now actually out-resolve the lenses... I honestly do not know if this will be the case but food for thought.
Click to expand...
 
Jeez guys, seriously?
Sony NX7 has 24 mpix and S35 sensor smaller than Dragon.
Sony stock emount lenses work fine with it. Still lenses have outresolved motion cameras for a while now...
 
Humm... uhm...


....?

OptiTek said:
Jeez guys, seriously?
Sony NX7 has 24 mpix and S35 sensor smaller than Dragon.
Sony stock emount lenses work fine with it. Still lenses have outresolved motion cameras for a while now...
Click to expand...
 
I can't imagine the Dragon sensor out resolving still glass...perhaps at some point Cinema glass since they don't change quite as often as still glass but still glass definitely goes through more iterations then cinema glass, at least that's what I've seen, Leica glass for sure will always be ahead of the sensors that they are placed with, especially the 50mm APO but that's just Leica as an example, I would expect the same from Canon and the rest -
When EPIC hits MF it'll be a real test I'm sure on glass in general but who knows, maybe by then even the Leica Summilux-Cs might be two steps ahead and already be 24K ready!

Though agree with Jacek, still lenses will always be ahead of the sensor...be crazy to put out a sensor that out resolves your own line of glass I would think

But hey, what do i know :)
 
Could someone help explain to me what you guys mean when you talk about a lens covering a certain amount of resolution? And what's the difference between a "medium format" and "Full frame" lens? I've been meaning to figure this out...
 
A sphereical (round) lens creates a round image circle. A FF (full frame 35mm still camera) lens can fit a 24 x 36mm frame within that circle, without cutting off the edges. The edges might be dim or "less sharp", but it still fits.
Medium format refers to a 6cm square film format (now digital also) that uses 120 or 220 film. A lens can resolve up to its max resolution (ie 50 line pairs per mm), but that does not define its coverage as far as frame size.
Ken Robings
digitaloptik.net
 
James_Mills said:
Thanks, Ken. So a lens can be full frame but not cover 6k? How does the resolution come into play? Still very much confused, unfortunately...
Click to expand...

k's are independent of sensor size. You can fit as many k's as possible into s35 for example (theoretically). FF sensors (like the 5D, is a stills frame size) is larger than s35 which is the cinema standard. So if the Dragon sensor is larger the s35, but not quite FF, then your FF lenses will cover regardless of the resolution (k size). Epic could have 28K but if the sensor is smaller than FF, your FF lenses will cover (although they couldn't handle the resolution of 28k).

5K FF on the Epic just means it is reading the full sensor, not that it is actually Full Frame sensor size...

So FF lenses will cover Dragon and any and every s35 camera.

This is a good read for you:
http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/sensor-size-vs-sensor-resolution/
 
Christopher Barrett said:
Jacek knows glass so there ya go... :)
Click to expand...
Thank you Chris.
I must add that aside of the tech specs there are a few very important factors in picking lenses by the DP. In some cases these factors outweight the tech specs.
Let me just mention three that come to mind- there are probably more. Christopher (BTW I loved the " best if used by" at the screening-it should win IMO :) would be one of these DPs the may forgo the specs ...
1. DPs sometimes pick optics based on their previous experience and their comfort level. The brand they pick provides predictable results and their reputation (something they live and die by) is not jeopardized if they use brand and type they know and trust. They know what results they'll get and, unless these results contradict the directors vision, it's a wise choice for the DP.
2. the vision- the director communicates the look and the atmosphere of the final work to the DP and the DP wants to match that look as closely as possible in acquisition. If it's a specialty work that requires certain diffusion, or color they pick optics that create such an image. That, of course, could be done in post but it's the DPs responsibility so they generally don't like to leave it up to the colorist or VFX person and take chances. They need to maintain the control over their share of the job- the visuals.
3. And there is a practical/business aspect. DPs are more and more owners/operators and supplement their income with self rentals. In that case the lenses they own would be an obvious choice..
 
Matt Ryan said:
k's are independent of sensor size. You can fit as many k's as possible into s35 for example (theoretically). FF sensors (like the 5D, is a stills frame size) is larger than s35 which is the cinema standard. So if the Dragon sensor is larger the s35, but not quite FF, then your FF lenses will cover regardless of the resolution (k size). Epic could have 28K but if the sensor is smaller than FF, your FF lenses will cover (although they couldn't handle the resolution of 28k).

5K FF on the Epic just means it is reading the full sensor, not that it is actually Full Frame sensor size...

So FF lenses will cover Dragon and any and every s35 camera.

This is a good read for you:
http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/sensor-size-vs-sensor-resolution/
Click to expand...

Very enlightening as always, thanks so much, Matt.
 
I just read that article but am still confused about one thing from earlier in the thread: why are some people saying lenses can't really cover the full 5k of an epic in that it gets blurry on the corners? Are they referring to just poor lenses in general or that they're specifically not meant for such a big sensor?
 
James_Mills said:
I just read that article but am still confused about one thing from earlier in the thread: why are some people saying lenses can't really cover the full 5k of an epic in that it gets blurry on the corners? Are they referring to just poor lenses in general or that they're specifically not meant for such a big sensor?
Click to expand...

The Epics sensor in 5K FF is slightly larger than s35, which are what cinema lenses are designed to cover. When you put a lens on a larger sensor, it can't cover it so it vignettes or portholes as some will call it. It's just because the lens does not have a large enough image circle to cover the sensor completely. When you window into a s35 frame size on the Epic in 5K (5K 2:1, 5K WS, & 5KHD), the lenses cover fine because the sensor is only capturing from the s35 area of the sensor. Does that make sense? If they were using stills full frame lenses they wouldn't have an issue because true FF is larger than the Epic in 5K FF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top