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 :)

Scarlet Conversions

Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

You are incorrect, a 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens. However a 50mm lens will have a smaller angle of view on a smaller sensor. A smaller sensor is the same as a physical crop, nothing more.

Your biggest problem of an interchangeable lens on Scarlet is finding high quality wide lenses, there are not many 6mm photo lenses!

Stephen
Click to expand...

Alright, now I'm confused. Not that that's difficult to do. So Stephen, you're saying using 35mm lenses attached to a PL mount on the Scarlet would have a negligible impact with the smaller sensor size taken into consideration?

If that were true, why would Jim not opt to give people what they seem to truly want? I don't get that. There must be a technical constraint, otherwise I think it'd be there. It's obvious Jim is driven by something other than financial gain, and I think he's aiming to please all the would-be filmmakers seeking 35mm DOF with no money, so there must be a reason why this won't work from a physical limitation standpoint.
 
Film Ylem said:
Alright, now I'm confused. Not that that's difficult to do. So Stephen, you're saying using 35mm lenses attached to a PL mount on the Scarlet would have a negligible impact with the smaller sensor size taken into consideration?.
Click to expand...

What Stephen is saying is that the focal length of a lens is what it is, ie 50mm is always 50mm, 25mm is always 25mm. As the sensor size changes, the apparent magnification of a particular lens changes. Thus, a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR is the "standard" focal lenghth, but on a 16mm frame that image is magnified more, so it has the appearance of what a 100mm lens would on a 35mm camera.

Another way of looking at it is that the image projected remains constant, but as the sensor (or film) size gets smaller, that projected image gets "cropped", giving a magnified appearance.

The crop factor going from a 35mm size sensor to 2/3" sensor is approximately 2x, so it's not impossible to find larger format lenses that would work. And Scarlet is cheap enough, I could imagine there are people who could hack one and put some sort of lens mount on it (I do recall seeing a site where someone replaced the lens on a VX1000 with a Nikon mount, so I guess it's doable).

That said, I'd look for 16mm lenses, which would closely match the image area of a 2/3" sensor.

And THAT said, I'd personally just stick with the stock lens that comes with the camera and focus on making the most of that.
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

You are incorrect, a 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens. However a 50mm lens will have a smaller angle of view on a smaller sensor. A smaller sensor is the same as a physical crop, nothing more.

Your biggest problem of an interchangeable lens on Scarlet is finding high quality wide lenses, there are not many 6mm photo lenses!

Stephen
Click to expand...

Right - potatoes / potatos - same thing. Of course I was not implying that by some magic the lens changes physical construction. I've said excatly the same thing as You above using different (and more commonly used) words and phrases...

What the casual reader here cares about is the fact that they would get the same image as if they have used 300mm on the still camera. That point is however not so clear in Your explanation and certainly doesn't justify saying that I am incorrect - I was 100% correct - we just used different terminology...
 
Peter Majtan said:
Right - potatoes / potatos - same thing. Of course I was not implying that by some magic the lens changes physical construction. I've said excatly the same thing as You above using different (and more commonly used) words and phrases...

What the casual reader here cares about is the fact that they would get the same image as if they have used 300mm on the still camera. That point is however not so clear in Your explanation and certainly doesn't justify saying that I am incorrect - I was 100% correct - we just used different terminology...
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what confused me...basically the same thing was being said, but in a slightly different way. Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
 
Mark A. Beal said:
And THAT said, I'd personally just stick with the stock lens that comes with the camera and focus on making the most of that.
Click to expand...

I agree, I'd probably stick with the camera as-is, but the reason the thread was started was simply as speculation. Just something to ponder on.
 
It's easy to understand, hard to put into words that make sense. With digital stills, you'll frequently run across the term "35mm equivalent," which might be useful to apply to our needs.
 
Film Ylem said:
I agree, I'd probably stick with the camera as-is, but the reason the thread was started was simply as speculation. Just something to ponder on.
Click to expand...

You may wanna check out this thread:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12235

I have explained the "missing" camera between Scarlet & Red One, why most likely RED is playing around with such an idea, and how it is doable with minimum investment... You should read it whole as many people made valid points there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top