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

Hey Wes, there is an awesome Canon FD 14mm 2.8 lens that will cover 6K. With an FD mount on the camera, that setup would be very light and compact. It's a fine piece of glass. Good luck!
 
Christopher Barrett said:
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
Click to expand...

Christopher, 4X5 and 8X10 glass has little to do with 35mm. Large (even medium) format glass tended to not be adaptable to smaller format 35mm. I've said this a hundred times: try cutting out a 35mm portion of your best 8x10 neg and enlarge it as you would a 35mm frame = awful. And that has little to do with the age or vintage of the glass. It has everything to do with intended format and enlargement ratios. I am using old Nikon AI-s manual focus lenses on my D800 and D800E 36MP cameras: (7,360 X 4,912 pixels) and I can assure you that they are performing extremely well. I don't expect anyone to show up on the set of a Ridley Scott production with these lenses, but if you are interested in making images that will compete with anything out there at a fraction of the price of cine primes: some of the older FF stills glass should not be so readily discounted.
 
Bill Anderson said:
Christopher, 4X5 and 8X10 glass has little to do with 35mm. Large (even medium) format glass tended to not be adaptable to smaller format 35mm. I've said this a hundred times: try cutting out a 35mm portion of your best 8x10 neg and enlarge it as you would a 35mm frame = awful. And that has little to do with the age or vintage of the glass. It has everything to do with intended format and enlargement ratios. I am using old Nikon AI-s manual focus lenses on my D800 and D800E 36MP cameras: (7,360 X 4,9012 pixels) and I can assure you that they are performing extremely well. I don't expect anyone to show up on the set of a Ridley Scott production with these lenses, but if you are interested in making images that will compete with anything out there at a fraction of the price of cine primes: some of the older FF stills glass should not be so readily discounted.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Some of my Contax Zeiss lenses are so sharp it hurts.
 
For sure Nick.

Given the various pixel count/sensor size ratios, this might not be an exact analogy but it is worth considering: the pinnacle of quality in the stills world was a contact print from a large format neg. Next best was an enlargement from a large format neg. And yet most 8X10 format lenses were grey compared to 35mm lenses. What gives? The enlargement ratios were the equalizer and worked in favour of the large format. And don't forget, both formats used the same film stocks and same processing. In fact large format was further disadvantaged: film substrate was thicker than 35mm, long exposures, mechanics and bellows that would vibrate at the drop of a hat, muddy ground glass focussing under a dark cloth. So, as sensor/pixel counts get larger, there are a couple of ways to look at this:1 Newer optics will be justified, designed with pixels in mind, and put to good use. 2: Good existing optics will fair far better on these larger pixel counts than they have done on smaller ones, because of the enlargement factor benefit, not to mention pixel counts that are more in keeping with the kind performance these lenses were designed for. Small sensors (pixel counts) are unforgiving, not, as is commonly expressed, the other way around. The lenses that I used for years on an 11MP camera (for tiling many images) have just been given a completely new task and a new lease on life now that they are being used on a 36MP FF camera. Not surprisingly, the quality difference is astonishing. After all, these lenses were designed for the best of FF 35mm emulsions. Dragon will blow some serious life into many lenses out there.
 
Bill Anderson said:
For sure Nick.

Given the various pixel count/sensor size ratios, this might not be an exact analogy but it is worth considering: the pinnacle of quality in the stills world was a contact print from a large format neg. Next best was an enlargement from a large format neg. And yet most 8X10 format lenses were grey compared to 35mm lenses. What gives? The enlargement ratios were the equalizer and worked in favour of the large format. And don't forget, both formats used the same film stocks and same processing. In fact large format was further disadvantaged: film substrate was thicker than 35mm, long exposures, mechanics and bellows that would vibrate at the drop of a hat, muddy ground glass focussing under a dark cloth. So, as sensor/pixel counts get larger, there are a couple of ways to look at this:1 Newer optics will be justified, designed with pixels in mind, and put to good use. 2: Good existing optics will fair far better on these larger pixel counts than they have done on smaller ones, because of the enlargement factor benefit, not to mention pixel counts that are more in keeping with the kind performance these lenses were designed for. Small sensors (pixel counts) are unforgiving, not, as is commonly expressed, the other way around. The lenses that I used for years on an 11MP camera (for tiling many images) have just been given a completely new task and a new lease on life now that they are being used on a 36MP FF camera. Not surprisingly, the quality difference is astonishing. After all, these lenses were designed for the best of FF 35mm emulsions. Dragon will blow some serious life into many lenses out there.
Click to expand...

The DSLR crowd has been on top of these lenses for several years now. The threads over at the other forum I moderate for are practically obsessional. Contax Zeiss is always a winner, but Minolta produced some great things and Olympus as well. Olympus based many of it's designs around competing with Leica (especially in terms of their small size) and the 21mm f2 is easily as good as anything Leica or Zeiss produced at the same focal length for instance. Faster too. Then over course there are the Pentax Takumar's....
 
When it comes to lens coverage, It would help if we were to talk about physical sensor sizes and not K's. Pixel counts tell us little about a sensor's physical size and, consequently, which lenses will cover the format.
 
Clayton Burkhart said:
Then over course there are the Pentax Takumar's....
Click to expand...

Haha, the elephant in the room is that none us are talking about M42 lenses. It's like we all want to keep them a secret. FD's and Minoltas we talk about...but that's about as far as we go....
 
Is there a lens database on the Red forums at the moment?
It is good to know about the primes, but what about some of the zooms at 5k & 6k?
Like the Aluras, Optimos, Zeiss compacts, old cooke zooms etc.

Does the Arri Alura 18-80mm cover the sensor at 5k-6k?
 
You can add the new Schneider Xenon lenses to the list.
As well as Sony's offerings for next year.
 
Who do I have to screw around here to get sensor dimensions?!

I've got tons of pixel information. I just need actual sensor size, not resolution. :/
 
Jarred says:

Jarred Land said:
Dragon Specs....

[TABLE="class: t1"]

[TR]
[TD="class: td4"]Sensor Size ( Active )[/TD]
[TD="class: td5"]30.7mm (h) x 15.8 mm (v) x 34.5 mm (d)[/TD]
[TD="class: td6"][/TD]
[/TR]

[/TABLE]
Click to expand...
 
Thanks!
 
Will Keir said:
RPP's cover 5K, except the 18mm.
Click to expand...

Hi,

checking in if the information is correct on the 18mm RPP... the Image Diagonal advertised by Red is 32mm and should be enough to cover Epic X with 27.70mm x 14.60mm shooting 5K @ 5120px x 2700px, which has a diameter of ~ 31.32mm, so theoretically the 18mm should cover...

spoke to somebody at Red in Irvine last week and they confirmed it covers 5K Epic...

have you guys found in your real world tests that the 18mm does not cover 5K Epic ?

Thanks.

- M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top