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 :)

Weapon Lenses

A great thing about the 8k weapon is it turns my 35mm mp anamorphic into a 26mm based on field of view changing from the 8k's sensor increase to 21.6 mm. Zeis doesnt even make a 25mm mpa right now ... Plus it would cost me around $45k for that lense which I bet will have a 9 month waiting list on it even if announced at next years nab. You can tell I'm totally jacked about the weapon 8k.
 
PatrickFaith said:
A great thing about the 8k weapon is it turns my 35mm mp anamorphic into a 26mm based on field of view changing from the 8k's sensor increase to 21.6 mm. Zeis doesnt even make a 25mm mpa right now ... Plus it would cost me around $45k for that lense which I bet will have a 9 month waiting list on it even if announced at next years nab. You can tell I'm totally jacked about the weapon 8k.
Click to expand...

Vista Vision anamorphic is just going to be INSANE. What's the "actual" resolution of that? Once it's desqueezed? 10K? 12K?
 
A bit over 10K.

But you can of course shoot "weird" and do different things.

Actually I'm curious who will shoot the first 4320X4320 1:1 aspect ratio stuff too :)
 
It seems to me that it's worth an upgrade to Weapon but to stay with the dragon sensor for now until a resolution to having some good primes to choose from that will fully cover the VV 8k sensor. I would rather remain S35 for now just to be able to use master primes. It's still an incredable image that was unimaginable a few years ago.
 
Phil Holland said:
Heh. I personally feel right now the Schneider Xenon-FF Primes have sudo-vintage look aleady. It's like part modern and part classic. But I agree, without coatings that could get real fun.

Zeiss's more recent CP.2s have been beasts and wonderful. Nothing touches that 15mm for FF35.
Click to expand...

How does the Zeiss CP 15mm compare to the Canon CN-E 14mm Phil, any inside on that?
 
Nick Morrison said:
WOWZERS!
Click to expand...

It's a 5K frame -- you can double the width to unsqueeze it or halve the height, but doubling the width doesn't mean that it is now a 10K image any more than expanding a 1K image by 10X makes it a 10K image.

Of course a 5K anamorphic image is pretty cool, but let's not start calling it a 10K image.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
It's a 5K frame -- you can double the width to unsqueeze it or halve the height, but doubling the width doesn't mean that it is now a 10K image any more than expanding a 1K image by 10X makes it a 10K image.

Of course a 5K anamorphic image is pretty cool, but let's not start calling it a 10K image.
Click to expand...

I've had a lot of conversations with DPs over the years about the various "gains" that can achieved via anamorphic imaging due to the compression of the vertical resolution versus the expansion of the width. Lots of thoughts on it. We did a bunch of resolution tests a long while back and I've found that there is of course what you'd expect when squashing the height, but some preferred the unsqueezed stretch method on the width which is more of the "optical way" anyways. That's where some of the prominent anamorphic film guys say that anamorphic has X amount more resolving power.

Either way you look at it, it's going to be the highest resolution anamorphic image for a little while.

We don't know a damn thing on specs yet, but if it plays out the way I think it will play out 8K 6:5 will be around 5184x4320 which can lead to:

- 5184x2160 unsqueezed image via "squashing"
- 10368x4320 unsquezed image via "stretching"

And the more likely end result for an 8K and 4K anamorphic production:

- 8192x3413 for 8K DCI
- 4096x1707 for 4K DCI


That is if everything goes according to plan with the numbers exactly.
 
I use somewhat simple algorithms on converting the anamorphic rectangle to two squares(using multi rectangular groups), what I've noticed is I don't get any bit improvement if the real images lines are exact vertical or horizontal. But I get nice antialiased squares if the lines are off axis on the pixels I am converting (ie I get an effective 12k image on 45 degree lines, and less then 6k resolution on exactly vertical or horizontal lines). I think this is a lot more obvious on digital anamorphic then film anamorphic. I have also noticed this effect drops off dramatically if my redcode is set above 5. I assume this has something to do with half frequency spatial information. I bet Graeme can explain this effect.

[i guess this is more nice anti aliased lines then real resolution though]
 
Last edited:
Hi
patrick
i am paying huge rental for master anamorphic for the set 35,50,75,100 and may be I am the first one to shoot a feature in the sub continent I am really glad with ure posts gives immense confidence on what I am doing
actually I am using both alexa xt as rental and my own epic dragon

and my rental company came up with a solution for my 24-290 Optimo with hawk v lite rear adapter to convert them into a 2x squeeze
it eats one stop but no oval bokeh
but the image is sharp
in dilemma to go for it or keep it as spherical itself?
any views on it
indian production work needs this Optimos very often
 
Can anyone chime in on what the resolving power of these cheaper full frame lenses will be on an 8K sensor (Canon, FF's, Sony's and CP2's)
 
manoj paramahamsa said:
Hi
patrick
i am paying huge rental for master anamorphic for the set 35,50,75,100 and may be I am the first one to shoot a feature in the sub continent I am really glad with ure posts gives immense confidence on what I am doing
actually I am using both alexa xt as rental and my own epic dragon

and my rental company came up with a solution for my 24-290 Optimo with hawk v lite rear adapter to convert them into a 2x squeeze
it eats one stop but no oval bokeh
but the image is sharp
in dilemma to go for it or keep it as spherical itself?
any views on it
indian production work needs this Optimos very often
Click to expand...

No idea on that question, I've haven't shot with Optimo's nor use hawk v rear adapters. I have noticed some of the zoom's really go deep into the camera and have had adapters that can't handle them, so i'd make sure to test that setup.
 
MichaelJQuill said:
Hey Phil, I'm a bit unclear how that Fotodiox adapter works. Do you need to start with a Leica Red mount?
Click to expand...

That's right. It's an adapter from the Leica camera mount to the FD lens mount. These are available in tons of different combinations. Fotodiox has probably the widest variety however their quality control is absolutely nonexistent so it's totally luck of the draw. I've had ones so tight I could barely get them off my lenses and ones that would barely hold my lenses on. I've had ones that had such severe skew I could see through an OVF that one side of the frame was unsharp. And I've had ones that have been right on.

Metabones and Novoflex are more consistent, but not really enough to justify the price difference.

Leitax is by far the best, but it's a lot more work as it's a mount conversion/replacement rather than just an adapter. I think it's worth it, though. And Leitax conversions are completely reversible/non-destructive. As a lens nut / collector, little makes me cringe worse than seeing these non-reversible (sometimes at least well done, like Duclos, but sometimes hatchet job) cine conversions done to rare lenses like the Nikon 300/2's and some of the Leica R's. Plus, with a reversible conversion, it's easier to sell a lens if you want.
 
I can still use my EF Motion mount for my set of Canon L primes right?
 
Phil Holland said:
Yep. That's the one Eric. That's currently the best 14/15mm rectilinear prime for VV as far as I'm concerned. Canon's isn't bad, but not as good as this. I have an old discontinued 14mm Sigma that are also not bad, but nowhere near the Zeiss in reality.
Click to expand...

No doubt the 15 ZF.2 is the best prime. Love it. I kind of think of it and the 135/2 as unofficial Otus lenses, just released before that branding existed. I'd love to see Zeiss update them with the full Otus (high end mechanical) treatment.

I's worth mentioning for anyone who might be interested in a zoom that the Nikon 14-24 has nearly as much resolution, no more distortion, and of course is in some ways more flexible. Of course the only way to get that with cine mechanics is the spectacularly expensive unofficial "Ruby" rehousing, whereas the CP.2 rehousings are somewhat less unreasonably priced.

Phil Holland said:
I have a sneaky suspicion that 8K HD and 8K WS will have really nice coverage for nearly everything. 8K FF will likely have a few issues on ultra wides, but I'll need to test that out big time.
Click to expand...

I think that's probably about right if we're talking about where the hard vignette limits are. But if we're looking at "yes it covers, but how's the performance," I don't think the picture's quite as good. It's not that rare for FF35 glass (even some moderately high end stuff, especially if we're looking at older manual focus lines) to get unimpressive just by the edges of the 36x24 frame, and even 8K HD and 8K WS push a little beyond that. You're definitely going to need the best of the best, I expect - not that that would be a problem for anyone who can afford Weapon 8K.
 
Lee Saxon said:
I think that's probably about right if we're talking about where the hard vignette limits are. But if we're looking at "yes it covers, but how's the performance," I don't think the picture's quite as good. It's not that rare for FF35 glass (even some moderately high end stuff, especially if we're looking at older manual focus lines) to get unimpressive just by the edges of the 36x24 frame, and even 8K HD and 8K WS push a little beyond that. You're definitely going to need the best of the best, I expect - not that that would be a problem for anyone who can afford Weapon 8K.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I think Weapon 8K Dragon will make a lot of sense for both FF35/VistaVision/135 Still lenses as well as Medium Format glass.

You guys do follow me on instagram right? Posting lots of my weird glass stuff there lately :) Soon here though!
 
I just got the PLx1.4, i think it will make lot of cinema glass work fairly well for VV above T4(especially anamorphic), but will be of a more limited use below T4.

EDIT:

Also btw did a hacky test on arri master prime anamorphics, to test if the AMP will cover v 21.6 with a 2.4 wide aspect ratio without any extenders.
Basically i think AMP will cover clean when set at a 2.4 aspect ratio on 20.0mm v, with a bit of vignetting on 21 v.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top