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 :)

mini Primes Vs. Old 35 film lenses

In theory, a lens designed for a smaller sensor / film frame has to have a higher MTF (to put it bluntly, when you have fewer total millimeters to work with, you want a lens that resolves more lines per millimeter) to match a lens with a lower MTF on a larger sensor / film frame...

...In practice, lenses vary in terms of sharpness, regardless of what format they were designed for. There is no guarantee that a lens made for a smaller format has a higher MTF than a lens made for a larger format. The lens maker may have made the sharpest lens they could at the time, they may have made something less sharp but more affordable, who knows? For example, just because a lens was made for a 16mm camera doesn't mean it is sharper than a lens made for a 35mm camera. The Zeiss Super-Speeds made for 16mm cameras are not necessarily higher in resolution than the Zeiss Super-Speeds made for 35mm cameras.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
In theory, a lens designed for a smaller sensor / film frame has to have a higher MTF (to put it bluntly, when you have fewer total millimeters to work with, you want a lens that resolves more lines per millimeter) to match a lens with a lower MTF on a larger sensor / film frame...

...In practice, lenses vary in terms of sharpness, regardless of what format they were designed for. There is no guarantee that a lens made for a smaller format has a higher MTF than a lens made for a larger format. The lens maker may have made the sharpest lens they could at the time, they may have made something less sharp but more affordable, who knows? For example, just because a lens was made for a 16mm camera doesn't mean it is sharper than a lens made for a 35mm camera. The Zeiss Super-Speeds made for 16mm cameras are not necessarily higher in resolution than the Zeiss Super-Speeds made for 35mm cameras.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, David. I really appreciate your thoughts and your time.

I definitely owe you some macaroni and cheese.
 
Center vs. Edge

Center vs. Edge

Michael Olsen said:
Let's say we have three lenses made for three different sized sensors. A 30mm for a 2/3" sensor, a 30mm for a 1.6 crop (Canon APS-C), and a 30mm for Full-Frame. Lets also assume that the actual optical engineering of these lenses is on par with the high end of average lenses for that size (in terms of grind, etc). Now lets imagine that these all use the amazing Olsenmount technology and are completely interchangeable without adapters of any kind. In terms only of sharpness (as in, lets forget about FOV changes) which lens would be best on the 2/3" sensor?

Based on what I've read, I would say the lens made for the 2/3" sensor, followed by the 1.6 crop followed by the FF. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

If you have the same lens design, with the same perscription, made from the same glass, the image will be more or less sharp in ratio to the focal length, so if you have a 30mm on 2/3" it would be about 75mm on APC and 100mm on Full-Frame. You cannot have the same formula on those formats all optimized for different areas, the focal length changes when you scale the formula (perscription).

If you had three 30mm lenses optimized for those three image areas they would be of different perscription and probably not using the same number of elements, so there would be optical factors other than the image size by holding the focal length constant.

If you make the lens cover a larger area, then using a small sensor on a large area lens is like making a small crop using a larger sensor, the image from the small crop area will be softer than a good resample downsize of the full image area.

Its better to use a large sensor with a large area lens then resample the data down to the smaller size.

It is not possable to scale lenses so that the ratio comes out right, if you take a 100mm lens and reduce it in all ways to 50mm you do not end up with a lens that makes a spot 50% as large because of manufacturing tolerances and diffraction limits. One would hope though that the 50mm lens would ALWAYS be sharper by lp/mm than the 100mm version that is the same in all other ways, how much sharper would depend on many factors, but at mid stops it should be making a spot between 80% and 60% as large.

If you do from 100mm down to 25mm and keep everything the same otherwise then you should end up with a spot size from 40% to 30% as large at lower mid stops, but when you stop down past between f/4 and f/6.3 the advantage is lost because of diffraction.

So when shooting at smaller and smaller formats your f/ stop range becomes more and more limited even with well corrected lenses.

For a sensor half as large as 2/3" (which is 11mm not 2/3" inch) you would need to limit the f/ stop range from maybe f/3.5 to f/4.5 to get the maximum resolution, past f/6.3 it would be possable to see some fall off in resolution, and at f/22 you would be down to sub-SD resolution unless you apply heavy sharpen which would increase noise from the sensor and compression.

In other words, for larger sensor formats the sharpness is in ratio to the image circle, since the image spot is about 1/1000 the size of the image circle. But with smaller formats or sensor areas, the ratio does not hold at all f/ stops because the diffraction acts to even out the resolution in lp/mm, you get a "bell curve" where the resolution is low at the wide AND small stops and peaks in the mid stops. At the ends of the f/ range the ratio is not constant by image circle and at mid stops it is more constant.

With lenses made to "fit" a small sensor the resolution will be higher in the center and lower in the corners. If you use a lens made for a somewhat larger image circle you can get a little less resolution in the center but may get a little more resolution in the corners of the frame since all the area you are using will be inside the astigmatic correction area rather that at its outer most limits.
 
hello to everyone, I've just been registered to this forum because I'm taking some info about the scarlet 2/3" interchangeable as a replacement for the super8 and super16 equipment I'm using. If I've understood well, it's not so clear now what kind of lens mount the scarlet 2/3 will have?
For example I own a Schneider Cine-Xenon 16mm f/1.8 C-mount, coming from a super16 camera, that could be a good normal lens for the scarlet, do you think I could use it?
thanks
 
The interchangeable 2/3" Scarlet will come with a miniPL mount as a standard, but since the lens mount is easily interchangeable(4 hex bolts) RED and third party manufacturers will surely provide mounts for almost all possible lensmounts. (and as c-mount is pretty much standard for 2/3" glass it's a no brainer really)
 
Ok, so the default mount will be miniPL, but no one mini-PL mount lens exists at now for other cine cameras or not? I know B4, PL, C, CS and then nikon, canon etc.. By the way I think third party manufacturers will produce alternative mounts at cheaper prices.
 
New 10MP lenses from Goyo Optical

New 10MP lenses from Goyo Optical

Goyo Optical seems to have a 12mm 10MP lens out, since the image spot will be about the size of the pixels in the Scarlet sensor it should let you get the full 3K resolution, maybe more than older SD resolution 16mm camera lenses,

Quote: [Dan,

Current list price for each of the 10 megapixel lenses is below . They will be available in 2-3 weeks. The supply of evaluation lenses will be few, if any. I will be asking to have some sent over once they become available. [Edit...] Our primary supplier for lenses is Goyo (we are the exclusive supplier in North America).

Thanks,

Scott Hanneman
Midwest Optical Systems
[Edit...] x847x - x359x - x3550x
[edit...] sh [at] midopt [dot] com

GM10HR30518MCN LENS FF MANUAL 5.0mm, F1.8 C 2/3" $ 1695.00
GM10HR31218MCN LENS FF MANUAL 12mm, F1.8 C 2/3" $ 1295.00
GM10HR31618MCN LENS FF MANUAL 16mm, F1.8 C 2/3" $ 1295.00
GM10HR31628MCN LENS FF MANUAL 16mm, F2.8 C 2/3" $ 3750.00
GM10HR32518MCN LENS FF MANUAL 25mm, F1.8 C 2/3" $ 1195.00
GM10HR33520MCN LENS FF MANUAL 35mm, F2.0 C 2/3" $ 1195.00
GM10HR35028MCN LENS FF MANUAL 50mm, F2.8 C 2/3" $ 1195.00
GM10HR38518MCN LENS FF MANUAL 8.5mm, F1.8 C 2/3" $ 1495.00]

Here are links about the new lenses, the one at the Goyo site seems to have typos saying 5MP where it should say 10MP,

http://www.midopt.com/lenses_10mpxl.html

http://www.goyooptical.com/products/industrial/10megapixel.html

These 10MP might help with the results on Acam dII as well. Sparta is just 1920x1080 and seems compressed, so I'm not sure anything over 5MP would make much difference there. C mount Scarlet is 3K so something OVER 5MP should be noticable depending on the de-Bayer sharpness settings in the de-mosaic software.
 
J_Doane said:
Jupiter 3 KMZ sonnar 50mm @ 1.5...

3298360470_4983a895bc_o.jpg
Click to expand...

That cat really does not like that pancake on his head. lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top