RED Monstro 645 Speed Booster Experiment

[Mike P.]

I think focal reducers are amazing. I tested a Sigma Art 20mm f1.4 with a speed booster - a combo which cost ~$1200 and resulted in a 14mm f1.0 equivalent FOV - and it was damn near flawless for something that doesn't exist otherwise (and if it did it would cost 10x). And with all this full-frame/interchangable mount cine glass hitting the market, I think it's only a matter of time before they're implemented more often (Angenieux latest zooms being one example). Actually, when done properly, I don't see any real downside.

Mark kinda mentioned another advantage; 8k is great, but it'd be much easier to work with 6k s35@FF35/VV/70mm via a focal reducer... Plus you get an extra stop... plus get higher perceived sharpness... plus get otherwise unheard of wide-glass FOV... all for a fraction of the price.

So, yeah, Phil is this something that'll work on other RED models (any RED with interchangeable mount)? And/or is it only for MF glass (since the FD of those mounts is so much longer than anything else)?

 

[Björn Benckert]

So basically it´s a bit of confusion here that a focal reducer could mimic a larger sensor size, which they can not really. All they can do is make a lens wider and faster. No matter how wide of a lens you put on a certain size sensor and no matter what speed it has it will not really mimic a larger sensor.

I think the above is Probst and Jacek point, no?


So simply to take a slow Mid format lens and speed it to fit the image circle on a 35mm VV sensor or any other smaller sensor, is not giving you a larger sensor it only gives you a wider faster lens with smaller projection than the original lens. Simply thats how a lot of lenses of different focal lengths are made.

So Having a fast 10mm focal length 16mm lens does not make your 16mm camera into a 35mm camera even though that lens was created using a 20mm lens and a X2 speed booster.

And I guess Jacek is saying that using a lens built by professional for the given backplane dimension is usually a better option than taking a lens with a larger image circle and reduce it to the given sensor size. But sure if there is no good lenses available for the sensor size at hand then possibly a booster will create the best possible option for you.

 

[Curtis boggs]

I'm VERY, VERY interested in this!!

Be nice to have something to bring full use of my FF35 glass, .. but the thought of possibly using some
of my old favorite Hasselblad glass truly excites me.

Curtis

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

So basically it´s a bit of confusion here that a focal reducer could mimic a larger sensor size, which they can not really. All they can do is make a lens wider and faster. No matter how wide of a lens you put on a certain size sensor and no matter what speed it has it will not really mimic a larger sensor.

I think the above is Probst and Jacek point, no?

No. Focal reducer mimics a larger format.


Hats off, Phil.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

No. Focal reducer mimics a larger format.


Hats off, Phil.

Are you saying that if you took a .53 speed booster and used it on BMPCC camera it would look the same as shooting on a FF sensor camera like canon 5d for example? Interesting...Even Metabones doesn't dare marketing it that way....

 

[Aaron Lochert]

Are you saying that if you took a .53 speed booster and used it on BMPCC camera it would look the same as shooting on a FF sensor camera like canon 5d for example? Interesting...Even Metabones doesn't dare marketing it that way....

No, you'd need a 0.35 speed booster for that.

12.48mm / 36mm = 0.346

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

No, you'd need a 0.35 speed booster for that.

12.48mm / 36mm = 0.346

OK BMPC then ;-) it should be close enough.
BTW I hope you understand that it was not the point...
The point is that nobody markets speedboosters as "sensor enlaging devices" because they are not...

 

[Aaron Lochert]

OK BMPC then ;-)

Well you can't speed-boost an EF mount to an EF mount.

But everyone's already been doing this with the FS7.

The point is that nobody markets speedboosters as "sensor enlaging devices" because they are not...

I think what everyone else is saying is that the sensor size is really not that important. There's no point marketing it as a sensor enlarging device because that's a misguided end goal.

The only benefit of larger sensors is wider FoV (which can theoretically be tackled with wider lenses), and shallower depth of field (which can be tackled with faster glass). The only other thing is that for the same resolution, the larger format will have larger photosites. Or instead, it will have many more photosites. But this also comes down to sensor design/technology, so as we march into the future these benefits will start to diminish.

But if we're talking about some sort of theoretical "look" that a large format imparts on an image, as far as perspective/compression goes, I don't think it exists. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Well you can't speed-boost an EF mount to an EF mount.

But everyone's already been doing this with the FS7.

Again- not the point ;-)

 

[Björn Benckert]

No. Focal reducer mimics a larger format.


Hats off, Phil.

In some ways possibly, but no it does not. Speed boosters mimics a wider faste lens with more narrow projection. It does not mimic a larger sensor.


So a 50mm lens 2x speed boosted infront of X sensor looks like a 25mm lens infront of the same sensor. Which does not look like a 50mm lens infront of a sensor 2x the size of the X sensor.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

No. Focal reducer mimics a larger format.


Hats off, Phil.

So why bother with a speed booster:
Shoot 24mm f1.4 on Helium and just say:
I shot it with a 35mm f2 on VV.
Hey I've just figured out how to get the Dragon VV ;-)
Cheeeeeap...

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

Phil would you guys be interested in exploring some sort of custom low con flare prone version like James Miller is experimenting with?

OR, how about getting Kipper tie in on it to include the carbon2 OLPF.

OR BOTH!

I assume these will eventually be for sale or?

 

[Aaron Lochert]

So why bother with a speed booster:
Shoot 24mm f1.4 on Helium and just say:
I shot it with a 35mm f2 on VV.
Hey I've just figured out how to get the Dragon VV ;-)
Cheeeeeap...

That's actually exactly right.

Hence why the whole "crop factor" argument has been silly since the DSLR guys showed up.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

That was a joke It actually isn't true. Otherwise movies would be shot on 1/3" camcorders...

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

So why bother with a speed booster:
Shoot 24mm f1.4 on Helium and just say:
I shot it with a 35mm f2 on VV.
Hey I've just figured out how to get the Dragon VV ;-)
Cheeeeeap...

Because 80mm normal and human proportions.
(VV > MF)

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Because 80mm normal and human proportions.
(VV > MF)

How does that relate to the speed booster?

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

How does that relate to the speed booster?

Directly, consequently and inevitably.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I rest my case haha ;-)

 

[Aaron Lochert]

That was a joke It actually isn't true. Otherwise movies would be shot on 1/3" camcorders...

You absolutely could. But in that example you'd need a 3.5mm, 4.6mm, 6.7mm, 9.6mm, 16.4mm all at f/0.54 to mimic a typical 18-85 S35 set at f/2.8. And you'd need a damn good 1/3" sensor to boot.

The point is that larger formats give sensor designers more room for light gathering, either with more photosites or larger ones. It's a shortcut to a cleaner image, since there's only so much we can do as far as technology is concened at a certain point in time. Same thing with film. More area = less grain to muddy up your image. Easier to do this than try and develop a superior film stock. So in this regard, a larger format will always be superior to a smaller one because we can always throw more/larger photosites at the problem.

It also means that lens designers don't have to struggle by designing super fast, super wide lenses. They're letting the format handle those things. Again, it's a shortcut to solving the problem instead of pushing the limits of lens design.

But again, as far as perspective compression or anything like that, there isn't an inherent "look" to any sensor size. So yes, your 24 f/1.4 on Helium example to 35 f/2 VV is spot on. The difference between the two images will come down to sensor design, not because one sensor is bigger than the other.

A 50mm on FF @ f/5.6
A 35mm on APS-C @ f/4
A 25mm on m4/3 @ f/2.8
A 17mm on S16 @ f/1.8

All will look the same as far as field of view, perspective distortion and depth of field is concerned. So what is the large format "look"?

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

So a 50mm lens 2x speed boosted infront of X sensor looks like a 25mm lens infront of the same sensor.

Nope.

It would only have the same FOV with differing perspective relations (object distance/size).

There is no 2x speed booster, it's about one stop with 0.7 FL ratio.