Scarlet 2/3" and Nikon Still Lenses...

[Daniel Gourley]

Hey guys,

Looking at possibilities and I think budget will allow for a 2/3" non-fixed package and I have an arsenal of Nikon still lenses from my Redrock Micro setup...

So what will the crop factor be like? Will my normally 24mm look close to a 50mm on a 2/3" sensor? What are the drawbacks I will experience besides needing a Nikon 12-24mm badly...

Thanks in advance!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Hey guys,

Looking at possibilities and I think budget will allow for a 2/3" non-fixed package and I have an arsenal of Nikon still lenses from my Redrock Micro setup...

So what will the crop factor be like? Will my normally 24mm look close to a 50mm on a 2/3" sensor? What are the drawbacks I will experience besides needing a Nikon 12-24mm badly...

Thanks in advance!

A 24mm lens on a 2/3" camera would look like a 90mm on a FF35 still camera and it would look like a 60mm on a S35/APS-C camera.

The difference between 2/3" and Super-35 cine is 2.5X and between 2/3" and Full-Frame 35mm is around 3.7X-ish.

In other words, if you like the wide-angle look of a 24mm lens on a FF35 still camera, you'd use a 6.5mm lens on a 2/3" camera.

 

[Daniel Gourley]

Ouch! So in other words I should go for a S35 sensor to get roughly the same experience I have with my 35mm adapter setup I currently use.

David, are you going to purchase a Scarlet for personal use as I know you are a "renter" in your production work?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know, I believe some 35mm adaptors have S35 cine-sized groundglasses and others have FF35 groundglasses.

Haven't decided if I want to own a camera yet.

 

[Zul Y]

David,

would using a ff35 lens on a 2/3" sensor cause any image degradation like loss of resolution or contrast?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know -- there are some theories that all the unused area of the glass of a lens meant for a larger sensor will lower the contrast, but the truth is that some of the still lenses are just naturally less contrasty than some cine lenses by design. A bigger issue is just that a good lens designed specifically for a 2/3" sensor has to have a higher MTF, whereas a lens designed for a large sensor doesn't necessarily have to have resolve as many lines per millimeter when you have more overall millimeters to capture the subject with. But that's only in theory, in reality, a still camera lens may or may not be as sharp as a 2/3" lens depending on a number of factors.

 

[Daniel Gourley]

My biggest concern is the focal length in a sense being doubled or tripled. I really don't want to give up my wide lenses and cannot yet justify the cost for an indy company like us to bump up to the 35 Scarlet brain.

I have a large amount of Nikon Primes and a few zooms but they will limit me to a very telephoto film experience which is DEFINITELY not ideal to how we shoot.

I was hoping the scarlet would free me from the large amount of light-loss that we experience in adapter hell that I currently am in but not at the expense of what I can show the audience.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You just need to augment your still lenses with the short focal lengths made for 2/3" or 16mm cameras, basically in the 6mm to 16mm focal length range, more or less. Your still lenses become your telephoto primes & zooms.

There really isn't any way around needing really short focal lengths when using smaller sensor cameras, unless you want to be stuck not being able to shoot wide-angle shots.

 

[Daniel Gourley]

True, but I am just thinking that the mount swap from Nikon to a pl mount would be a huge NO-NO for a busy production set unless it is an easy swap without the need for fine-tuned collimation...

 

[brian hanson]

i am in the same boat daniel, i have a nice collection of nikon primes. i have a 15mm rectilinear fisheye that i really enjoy shooting with on my hvx200+redrock m2 rig but it's just not gonna work with the scarlet. realistically i don't want to be swapping lens mounts when i'm out shooting anyways so i think the nikon glass is going on ebay sooner than later and the red minis are gonna be a better solution. at least the nikon glass keeps its value . . .

 

[Justin O'Neill]

True, but I am just thinking that the mount swap from Nikon to a pl mount would be a huge NO-NO for a busy production set unless it is an easy swap without the need for fine-tuned collimation...

Yeah I think this will end up being a huge interest for filmmakers on a budget trying to use some of the cheap FF35 glass on the 2/3" Cinema Scarlet. If we could get away with just buying a Nikon or Canon mount and then putting adapter rings on a couple wide miniRED primes that would make things really easy. Until someone gets the mounts in their hands though it won't be possible to know if this will work for sure.

 

[Brad Webb]

True, but I am just thinking that the mount swap from Nikon to a pl mount would be a huge NO-NO for a busy production set unless it is an easy swap without the need for fine-tuned collimation...

This is why I have decided to get the fixed scarlet at first. I will build up my kit using the fixed lens, then when the time comes to move up, I'll buy the S35 or FF35 Scarlet brain.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

My biggest concern is the focal length in a sense being doubled or tripled. I really don't want to give up my wide lenses and cannot yet justify the cost for an indy company like us to bump up to the 35 Scarlet brain.

Well, the difference between the 2/3" interchangeable brain ($2500) and the S35 brain ($7000) is $4500. If you can swing that, you'll end up being able to use all your Nikon lenses, from telephoto to wide, and gain an incredible amount of resolution and dynamic range, plus the depth of field and field of view of Hollywood films. If you absolutely can't afford the additional $4500, then you have three choices:

a) Use your Nikon lenses with a 35mm DoF adapter on the 2/3" (and live with light loss and other issues)
b) Use your Nikon lenses on the 2/3" (and live without any wide angle shots)
c) Buy separate 16mm lenses for your wide angle shots (and live with spending more $$$ on extra lenses)

If I were you, I'd figure out a way to raise $4500 to get the S35 Scarlet. You already have all the lenses, now get the camera that can use them.

 

[Daniel Gourley]

i am in the same boat daniel, i have a nice collection of nikon primes. i have a 15mm rectilinear fisheye that i really enjoy shooting with on my hvx200+redrock m2 rig but it's just not gonna work with the scarlet. realistically i don't want to be swapping lens mounts when i'm out shooting anyways so i think the nikon glass is going on ebay sooner than later and the red minis are gonna be a better solution. at least the nikon glass keeps its value . . .

Wanna buy an M2 rig for $4500???

 

[Paul Whittington]

Interesting. Will the crop factor also affect the mini-primes, or will they be designed to compensate?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Interesting. Will the crop factor also affect the mini-primes, or will they be designed to compensate?

I think you are a bit confused.

The focal length is the focal length, no matter what camera it goes on. There is no "compensation" for a crop factor. The size of the sensor affects the angle of view that focal length gives you. The crop factor just lets you know that the same focal length has a narrower view when projected onto a smaller sensor. You can't compensate for that (well, you could if you projected the lens image onto an intermediate screen like with a 35mm adaptor that DV cameras use, but then the groundglass screen becomes the defacto "sensor" area.)

The only difference between a 50mm lens, let's say, made for a small sensor camera versus a large sensor camera is the circle of coverage -- the lens made for the small sensor does not need to produce as large an image circle to fill the sensor but would vignette when put onto a larger sensor camera.

The Mini-Primes are, well, "mini" because they only have to cover a 2/3" sensor. Other than that, if you put a 50mm Zeiss Master Prime on the 2/3" Scarlet, you'd get the same field of view as the 50mm Mini-Prime on the same camera. Which is a rather telephoto image. In other words, the 50mm Mini-Prime does not "compensate" somehow and give you an image like a 50mm lens on a regular 35mm camera.

You still need the short focal lengths for the 2/3" camera if you want wide-angle shots.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

This is why I have decided to get the fixed scarlet at first. I will build up my kit using the fixed lens, then when the time comes to move up, I'll buy the S35 or FF35 Scarlet brain.

This is what I plan to do too, and I think its the best idea for someone with 35mm glass. I'll keep using mine for my still camera until I can buy the S35 body.

 

[Paul Whittington]

I think you are a bit confused.

The focal length is the focal length, no matter what camera it goes on. There is no "compensation" for a crop factor. The size of the sensor affects the angle of view that focal length gives you. The crop factor just lets you know that the same focal length has a narrower view when projected onto a smaller sensor. You can't compensate for that (well, you could if you projected the lens image onto an intermediate screen like with a 35mm adaptor that DV cameras use, but then the groundglass screen becomes the defacto "sensor" area.)

The only difference between a 50mm lens, let's say, made for a small sensor camera versus a large sensor camera is the circle of coverage -- the lens made for the small sensor does not need to produce as large an image circle to fill the sensor but would vignette when put onto a larger sensor camera.

The Mini-Primes are, well, "mini" because they only have to cover a 2/3" sensor. Other than that, if you put a 50mm Zeiss Master Prime on the 2/3" Scarlet, you'd get the same field of view as the 50mm Mini-Prime on the same camera. Which is a rather telephoto image. In other words, the 50mm Mini-Prime does not "compensate" somehow and give you an image like a 50mm lens on a regular 35mm camera.

You still need the short focal lengths for the 2/3" camera if you want wide-angle shots.

Hmmm, it seems as though my use of the word "compensate" has somehow been confusing as well. I simply wanted to know if there would be any cropping with the mini-primes. But I take it by your response, that the answer is no because they are designed smaller to fit the 2/3 sensor.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Hmmm, it seems as though my use of the word "compensate" has somehow been confusing as well. I simply wanted to know if there would be any cropping with the mini-primes. But I take it by your response, that the answer is no because they are designed smaller to fit the 2/3 sensor.

The lenses don't crop the image, the sensor or the film aperture/gate does.

A lens projects a circular image, so obviously all cameras crop that image to a rectangle.

 

[Paul Whittington]

The lenses don't crop the image, the sensor or the film aperture/gate does.

A lens projects a circular image, so obviously all cameras crop that image to a rectangle.

The sensor crops the circular image of the lens to the rectangle shaped frame we see when watching a film... as if I didn't know that. Obviously I did not mean that type of cropping: from circle to rectangle. But rather the type of cropping as mentioned in the first post of this tread.

You obviously have no clue what I'm asking so just never mind.