Super Fast Lenses (<T1.0) for S35 (or larger) Sensors

[Christopher Mills]

please note many of the ultra speed lenses lack irises, focusing mechanisms, are extremely large, have VERY shot rear element vertex to focal plane distances..
or are otherwise not that useful to the type of production most of us do on this forum..
Or are actually more expensive than lighting your scene....
was going to make other suggestions, but that would be even further of topic

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Yes there are many lenses faster than T1. As in more light reaches the sensor than the eye. There are several ways to do that. Please don't confuse things with made up "relational T stop" terms. It just creates more confusion to an already confusing subject :yesnod:

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

That would be terrific if Dragon 6k wasn't all that much larger from our current Epic 5k.

6K itself will be larger than the current 5K, but not a whole lot larger. 5K on Dragon will be smaller and should be comparable to the sensor coverage area that we have now with 4K~4.5K... That's really all we know, other than the other teases about higher ISO, lower noise floor, better DR, etc... I quit trying to guess because Jarred keeps responding to my guesses saying I'm wrong. haha.

Might be the best quote I've read today. Totally agree. Even if finishing at 2k or 1080, I find shooting 4k (or 5k) and scaling down almost has infinite advantages than shooting at 2k. That said, I have some wonderful Cooke and Angie 16mm zooms that I've been fighting hard to rationalize using... and I've thought about the same thing.

wrestled with the same thing myself a time or two. Best use we've found for S16 glass has been on the RED One, when we need to shoot 2K/3K for overcranking purposes. The S16 glass can often be a bit sharper than some of the 35mm offerings. Although, they're no sharper than RPP's, Ultras, Masters, etc.. Depends what you're comparing.

Again, great points. A perpendicular glass-to-air surface reflection is 5% light loss, greater at severe incoming angles. With special lens coatings, like the ones Cooke uses on their cinema lenses, that is reduced to .1%. But if a lens has 12 elements, that is still 2.4% light loss at technology's best.

On a real T scale, that front coating automatically changes the T value fro 1.0 to 1.01... But with T values being relational on most current lenses, the T1.5 on a Cooke S5/i, as an example, gives the equivalent light transmission to 100% at F1.5. The actual F number of the lens at that T value will vary from one lens to another across the entire line. I believe the S5/i 50mm at T1.5 has an F value of 1.2.

One would have to custom make and design lenses that were for larger formats and had focal reducers/condenser lenses to increase light. It's really not easy, as these optical devices eat up light themselves and must be inserted within the typical lens assembly. That is from my experiments using them, and I've murdered many nikon primes in the pursuit of that knowledge.

T numbers are relative to the amount of light coming in. Even if you were to put a magnifying glass on the rear element and shrink down the light emission from a 32mm coverage circle to a 16mm coverage circle, doubling the light concentration, the T value remains the same. But some lenses do this to some degree. Depending on the format and other intent. We see this sort of optical manipulation more so with telescopes and lenses for industrial and scientific use. For cameras, we don't -- there's too many established parameters and notions of how it should all work.

 

[Ryan De Franco]

Though the OP is asking for S35mm choices, in a few months S16 might become a real option on Red.

S16 lenses should yield 3K or at least 2.7K+ Definitely ample resolution to sample to 1080p/2K. For short-lived productions or timely documentary work this is a solution. Although in the past 5 years of shooting RED, moving to a lower resolution to increase space or recording time has never proven to be a valid decision for myself or anyone I've worked with. Too many compromises and wishing after the fact that it had not been done.

I have had the same experience shooting 2K on MX, which is why I'm so hopeful for 3K on Dragon. New sensor = new ballgame.

We heard from Jim that ISO 2000 is cleaner than ISO 800 on MX, and of course photosites are even smaller, yielding finer random noise ("grain") and of course more usable resolution. All the benefits of downscaling from 4K to 1080 aside, this should make 3K far more usable on Dragon that 2K is on MX. Also, to be honest, I was trying to play to the crowd with the whole lower res = more recording time argument. I just really want a camera for 16mm glass. Jeff, aside from noise and sharpness issues, what other regrets have you encountered with windowing the sensor? I am sure there is stuff I don't know about.

Red, please have "S35 __K" and "S16 __K" options built right into the firmware. Just like shooting film: same stock, half the size; more grain and less resolution; cheap old lens magic.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Never mind me. I'm going to kill off a lot of my ramblings above as it's just serving to over-complicate and confuse people. As far as the cinema industry goes, I'm talking out of my ass because, like Simon says (hehe) the "relational" definition of T-Stop is the only definition people around here are going to know or care about.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

...I just really want a camera for 16mm glass...

Red, please have "S35 __K" and "S16 __K" options built right into the firmware. Just like shooting film: same stock, half the size; more grain and less resolution; cheap old lens magic.

Excellent point.

+1 for sure.

For all the benefits of S35+ (My personal label; you can't really call Dragon 'S35' any more when so much glass won't cover the full 6K) 4K/5K/6K, there are times when I *want* to make that choice; to shoot S16 style with S16 glass. I don't want to buy a BMCC/Ikonoscop/Digital Bolex (though all are interesting alternatives); I will be very happy if I can shoot 3K Red Raw windowed on Dragon.

Mike

 

[Nick Morrison]

I have to agree with everyone that Dragon could be a whole new ballgame for shooting S16 and 16mm glass. Jeff, love your note about S16 glass often being VERY SHARP.

Being able to shoot with small, fast lenses and/or small zooms with vast zoom ranges is very exciting to me. Especially at 3K RAW for incredibly long record times.

Dragon will be exciting for A LOT of reasons....

 

[Timur Civan]

The 16mm PL mount is the same as 35mm PL mount correct?

 

[Christopher Mills]

Correct

 

[Will Keir]

This is a good point most people don't tend to think about. We want faster and faster glass. Will it be the case in the future that the faster the glass gets, the shallower the DOF will become? Or will technology advance to modify this?

All things considered. Things are pretty good right now.

The practical limitations of DOF come into play as well. Trying to follow focus on any kind of a real shot like you would do in a movie with camera and talent moving at anything wider than an f2 gets damn tricky. It's damn near impossible in a CU at an f1.3, being in noctilux world most ACs would stab you with a fork.

Nick

 

[Will Keir]

A "variable" sensor? That would be fancy.

Funny, since the "technology advance to modify" the too-shallow DOF of superfast lenses already exists, yet is seen as a step backwards by many here - smaller sensors.

 

[Nick Morrison]

A "variable" sensor? That would be fancy.

Actually, not really. That's kind of what RED is. Think about it. At 4K you get S35mm. At 3K you get M43. And at 2K you get S16mm.

I'm looking forward to Dragon, when 16mm can be captured at 3K! And pulling focus at 1.2 will be MUCH EASIER!

 

[Ryan De Franco]

I hope the new sensor will give us 3K on 16mm lenses, but for now it's mystery math. Either way it will make them more usable. Can't wait to test.

There is a great article floating around written by the tech who modified the Nasa lenses for Kubrick... Since we've derailed this thread with our 16mm pipe dreams, here are two f/.7 lenses for you... they exist somewhere

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

 

[Nick Morrison]

I hope the new sensor will give us 3K on 16mm lenses, but for now it's mystery math. Either way it will make them more usable. Can't wait to test.

There is a great article floating around written by the tech who modified the Nasa lenses for Kubrick... Since we've derailed this thread with our 16mm pipe dreams, here are two f/.7 lenses for you... they exist somewhere

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

Awesome article Ryan, just took a look. They even go into the 20:1 zoom!

 

[Will Keir]

True, but shooting 5k 24fps or 2k 24fps the is a noticeable quality drop.

Actually, not really. That's kind of what RED is. Think about it. At 4K you get S35mm. At 3K you get M43. And at 2K you get S16mm.

I'm looking forward to Dragon, when 16mm can be captured at 3K! And pulling focus at 1.2 will be MUCH EASIER!

 

[Will Keir]

It would be interesting to see if the Dragon sensor could "revive" the S16mm glass. There are some dirt cheep options for Super 16 Glass right now.

I hope the new sensor will give us 3K on 16mm lenses, but for now it's mystery math. Either way it will make them more usable. Can't wait to test.

 

[Juhan Malmstein]

http://www.fdtimes.com/2012/11/25/vantage-one-t1-spherical-primes/

Your lucky day.

 

[Will Keir]

People will start to call these "nighthawks"

Any reviews out?

http://www.fdtimes.com/2012/11/25/vantage-one-t1-spherical-primes/

Your lucky day.

 

[Sam Taylor]

It will be very interesting to see how they render. They are quoted as having similar bokeh to the Noctilux F1.0

"Vantage One lenses open up a new world of extremely shallow depth of field, with a beautiful, subtle, silky creaminess, great for skin tones. The bokehs have an interesting kind of donut or bubble effect. Maybe a good way to describe the look is to remember the original Leica Noctilux 50 mm T1 still lens circa 1976."

 

[paul ross jones]

heres a sweet set of t1.0 lenses-