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 :)

Shoot 2K with standard 16mm lenses

PaulClements

PaulClements

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
1,995
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
47
Website
www.pclements.co.uk
For those looking at lens options I hope this is something you might be interested in. It occured to me to investigate whether standard 16mm would cover the 2K area of the sensor. Reason being that there are some very affordable options for 16mm because it is a less used format and the lenses require expensive modifications to make them Super 16mm.

Anyway I have written an article about it on my personal website which I believe to be correct. I'd be interested in hearing other's points of view on my findings and figures especially. I would have posted it all here but I have created an interactive and scale flash illustration that I'm not sure I can post on Reduser.

Finally I have a Cooke 9-50mm standard 16mm zoom that I will be testing during December and will give feedback to the community along with some 2K footage.

The article can be found here: http://www.paulmclements.com/2007/11/29/shooting_red_one_2k_16mm_or_s16mm/

Cheers

Paul
 
I'll be interested to see the tests, I have an Arri S with a 10-100 Zeiss which I will try to pair up with the Red, just out of interest, when I take delivery.
 
PaulClements said:
For those looking at lens options I hope this is something you might be interested in. It occured to me to investigate whether standard 16mm would cover the 2K area of the sensor. Reason being that there are some very affordable options for 16mm because it is a less used format and the lenses require expensive modifications to make them Super 16mm.

Anyway I have written an article about it on my personal website which I believe to be correct. I'd be interested in hearing other's points of view on my findings and figures especially. I would have posted it all here but I have created an interactive and scale flash illustration that I'm not sure I can post on Reduser.

Finally I have a Cooke 9-50mm standard 16mm zoom that I will be testing during December and will give feedback to the community along with some 2K footage.

The article can be found here: http://www.paulmclements.com/2007/11/29/shooting_red_one_2k_16mm_or_s16mm/

Cheers

Paul
Click to expand...

Hi Paul,

On your coverage chart you show regular and super 16mm overlaid on each other with the center of the two frames in the same place. I believe S16 is optically offset from regular 16.
 
chuck colburn said:
Hi Paul,

On your coverage chart you show regular and super 16mm overlaid on each other with the center of the two frames in the same place. I believe S16 is optically offset from regular 16.
Click to expand...

I really included the S16mm circle of coverage and the S16mm size to illustrate the difference between Red 2K's size, since red call 2K "S16" but there is a considerable size difference.

Which raises another point though. Is the 2K area in the centre of the sensor, and does that mean that using S16 lenses would be optically offset when viewed back, i.e one side would be more central to the lens than the other. Or is the 2K area offset to be centralised for s16 given that it's smaller. Or am I getting something wrong here... it is late here afterall and my brain hurts! I will amend the chart at some point Chuck, thanks for pointing it out.

Paul
 
Paul,

REDs version of S16 must be down the bore or else they would have to offset the lens mount. Which ain't happening.
It's quite late there. Stop thinking and quaff a pint. lol
 
Ahhh, to quaff.

Anyway, just made this quick version Chuck, take a look at it and if that's correct then doesn't it mean that S16mm is actually a bad fit for 2K, given one edge of the circle of coverage doesn't quite cover the corners of the 2K frame whereas the other side is quite far out? (If you right click you can zoom in on the movie).

Of course the likelihood is most s16 lenses will still cover the small corners missing and then some but as I mentioned before won't the offset S16 lenses actually have problems, especially those which drop off at the edges slightly. The picture could be lop sided no?

If this diagram is better then I will change the one in the article.

Cheers
Paul "Off to Quaff" Clements
 
Any "centering" with Super 16 is done on the camera side, not with the lens itself. So yes, on the 16mm film stock itself, the center of a Super 16 frame is offset in comparison to a 16mm frame. There is no "centering" done on the lens side; if there was, you would only be able to mount the lens in one orientation, and no Super 16 lenses are like that. The reason for the shift in center from 16 to Super 16 is because Super 16 takes advantage of film that only has sprocket holes on one side of the film; the other side is used for image area.

On the Red One, the 2K or "Super 16" frame would be in the center of the sensor; there are no missing sprocket holes on the side requiring an offset!!

Super 16 lenses will be perfectly usable on any 16mm camera and on Red; regular 16 lenses will be usable except that they will probably vignette on wider focal lengths. Depends on the lens.
 
When you convert a Bolex to S16, they re-center the lens mount. Most S16 conversions (except cheap conversions like filing out the gate on your K3) would involve re-centering the lens.

An S16 lens is designed to cover the S16 frame assuming that the lens mount is optically centered on the frame.
 
Thanks Paul,

you did an awesome job.

Both diagrams are good.

It's about to get an idea.

How it is in the reality I have to see and check when RED is in my hands.

arriflex-10-100.jpg

Arriflex Zeiss 10-100mm T* Vario Sonar 16mm Zoom with PL adapter.
 
Super 16 lenses will be perfectly usable on any 16mm camera and on Red; regular 16 lenses will be usable except that they will probably vignette on wider focal lengths. Depends on the lens.[/QUOTE]

I tried on even the old 10-150 angenieux and it covered the 2k chip as well, apart from focusing to 1 meter. than it started to vignette at close focal ranges, especially zoom lenses who are R16 and breathe a lot will have this
 
I recently picked up some ARRI super 16 primes (9.5mm, 12mm, 16mm, and 25mm) as well as a 12mm to 120mm zoom. These work great on RED #72, and are a good option if you are shooting in 2k.
 
Speaking of older Angenieux zooms... The 15-150 is knowned to cover S16 without problems.

And if I remember right the little 9.5-57 also. Though you might want to confirm that one.
 
chuck colburn said:
Speaking of older Angenieux zooms... The 15-150 is knowned to cover S16 without problems.

And if I remember right the little 9.5-57 also. Though you might want to confirm that one.
Click to expand...

And talking of those older Angenieux zooms I just picked up this beauty:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Super-16mm-Ange...oryZ4691QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

If anyone is interested I think they still have one left?

I'm hoping to use this for my next doc. e.g Interviews - medium range shots - I haven't quite figured out how yet; but a new, high quality zoom for under 400 GBP looks like a bargain to me? (I don't want to shoot all the interviews in 4K, hell no!)

Any thoughts/comments on the above lens much appreciated. I haven't been a complete plonker have I? I mean it will work with the RED OK won't it?

Thanks, Phil
 
Phil!

Oh no, don't tell me you bought that from Derek Whitehouse. You poor bastard.
OK I'm only kidding Derek is a top notch guy. He use to be the service manager at Cinema Products. His lens man (can't recall his name is also well respected so I'm sure that the lens is fine
 
Here's a lens on ebay at the moment: Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 2,8/10-100. You'll need to pick up a mount adapter (I advise Les Bosher's[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Arri PL - Arri Standard with Spring loaded levers)[/FONT] but the lens itself looks in good nick - $1000, £500. The seller's based in Germany but I've seen them about a fair bit and their feedback seems good.

N.B. This is about the right price for the lens. The f1.8 (T2) version of the lens which usually looks a bit older is often about 3x more expensive, due to the speed increase.

Paul
 
chuck colburn said:
Phil!

Oh no, don't tell me you bought that from Derek Whitehouse. You poor bastard.
OK I'm only kidding Derek is a top notch guy. He use to be the service manager at Cinema Products. His lens man (can't recall his name is also well respected so I'm sure that the lens is fine
Click to expand...

Thanks, Chuck! Well - 'poor' is spot on and as for 'bastard' - I've been called worse - even by the trouble & strife.

Any thoughts on Angenieux in general? What sort of reputation do they have?

I know I'm a real lens klutz. I proved this last night - I did some calculations for DOF and came up with a hyperfocal point of 33 meters at the near end of the lens. Call me old fashioned, but isn't that a bit high? Or am I missing something somewhere?

Cheers, Phil
 
PaulClements said:
Here's a lens on ebay at the moment: Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 2,8/10-100. You'll need to pick up a mount adapter (I advise Les Bosher's[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Arri PL - Arri Standard with Spring loaded levers)[/FONT] but the lens itself looks in good nick - $1000, £500. The seller's based in Germany but I've seen them about a fair bit and their feedback seems good.

N.B. This is about the right price for the lens. The f1.8 (T2) version of the lens which usually looks a bit older is often about 3x more expensive, due to the speed increase.

Paul
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul, I know you are looking out for me in my hour of need and it is deeply appreciated. It's just that I can't bring myself to part with 500 quid on an item that mentions the word BOLEX so many times - they're surely taking the piss?

Bolex SBM sounds like some hideous sexual preference; the like of which should not be mentioned in front of minors, and "Bolex bajonett adapter" only confirms the suspicion we'd be dealing with a real pervert. Bolex EL presumably means Extra Large Bolex, which again paints a very poor picture of the seller.

Thanks for the steer though - I've blown my considerable wad on the Angenieux - arf arf!

All the best, Phil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top