super 16 pl lenses

As you can guess by the title, will Super 16 Pl mount lenses have a wide enough coverage for the sensor (with adapter of course)

As you can guess by the title, will Super 16 Pl mount lenses have a wide enough coverage for the sensor (with adapter of course)

Generally no, they wonb't.

There will be some that might *accidentally* have a wide enough image circle. But you'll have to take your chances. Probably anything above 50mm will probably work.

jb

One of the first things I am planning to do with my BMC is take it down to my local rental shop with an ef to pl adapter and start testing all the 16mm glass that sits on a shelf. I'm hoping that we may get lucky with the 16mm ultraprimes.

If you croped the 2.5K sensor area to a fullHD area, then this would be exactly the size of super16.
If there would be a firmware allowing to do so (Nikon D800 also allows sensorcrops), then super16mm lenses would be usable.

I really hope they will include this feature, as for me 1080x1920 will do most of the time, and especially working in cinemaDNG it would decrease the filesize notably.

Otherways this could always be done in post (daVinci has a crop to HD function already in its setupmenu, at least daVinci8 had), but why carry arround a lot of image information you don't really need?

I would really apreciate this feature.

can someone get a list of super 16 PL lenses that ' happen to work' going, as well as confirmed 'not a chance in hell'

also, has anyone used the canon 14.5-60 lens yet, would it be about ideal for the crop factor of the BMCC?

can someone get a list of super 16 PL lenses that ' happen to work' going, as well as confirmed 'not a chance in hell'

also, has anyone used the canon 14.5-60 lens yet, would it be about ideal for the crop factor of the BMCC?

Yeah that canon is a good lens. I've tried it on, but not shot with it.

I think the only super 16 wide lenses that might work will be the Ultra 16s.....

jb

If you croped the 2.5K sensor area to a fullHD area, then this would be exactly the size of super16.
If there would be a firmware allowing to do so (Nikon D800 also allows sensorcrops), then super16mm lenses would be usable.

I really hope they will include this feature, as for me 1080x1920 will do most of the time, and especially working in cinemaDNG it would decrease the filesize notably.

Otherways this could always be done in post (daVinci has a crop to HD function already in its setupmenu, at least daVinci8 had), but why carry arround a lot of image information you don't really need?

I would really apreciate this feature.

The problem is that the 2.5K sensor gives a really nice HD sized image because of the scaling.

When you have a HD sized sensor crop, you'll find the resolution drops away a lot.

I find when shooting 2K on EPIC / RED for example, it feels like there's a lot "less" than 2k worth of image. Cropped bayer sensors are always very disappointing.

jb

I find when shooting 2K on EPIC / RED for example, it feels like there's a lot "less" than 2k worth of image. Cropped bayer sensors are always very disappointing.

I shot a feature in LA with an Epic. Best part of the experience was using the Zeiss CP.2's, but I wasn't particularly impressed with the RED. Actually, I only shout about 1/3 of the movie...I walked off the set, but anyway...

I find when shooting 2K on EPIC / RED for example, it feels like there's a lot "less" than 2k worth of image. Cropped bayer sensors are always very disappointing.

I shot a feature in LA with an Epic. Best part of the experience was using the Zeiss CP.2's, but I wasn't particularly impressed with the RED. Actually, I only shout about 1/3 of the movie...I walked off the set, but anyway...

My point though was that logically, a 2K cropped image from a RED should be more than HD worth of image. But it's not.

Like a 5D will shoot a 1920 HD quicktime that has a lot less than HD resolution.

I don't know that cropping the sensor to simply use some Super 16 lenses will be worth the trouble and hit in image quality.

jb

Yep, I'm hoping that a 2.35 extraction will help with coverage issues at full sensor width.

I think the only super 16 wide lenses that might work will be the Ultra 16s.....

Here's what you would get with a 14mm Ultra 16.

You could slightly crop for 16:9, or not at all for 2.4:1.

Cheers.

I don't know that cropping the sensor to simply use some Super 16 lenses will be worth the trouble and hit in image quality.

John, do you think that the image quality you might gain by using good lenses as for example Arri Ultra16´s would be worth the loss of resolution when cropping the image?

I don't know that cropping the sensor to simply use some Super 16 lenses will be worth the trouble and hit in image quality.

Right. It seems daft.

I think it would be really interesting to see comparative tests between 2k and 4k setups.
I´m about to shoot a feature film next month that has a quiet low budget and about 80% of the movie will be shot on location at night with no big lighting fixtures available.
in this particular case i have the option between Red Scarlet @ 4K with six CP.2´s or the same camera with nine Arri Ultra16 @ 2k.
I tend towards the 2K / Ultra16 option because I think they outperform the CP´s not only by aperture. I shot a quick test and they´ve a nicer contrast and sharpness too.

Watch this trailer. I shot nearly all the night stuff at 800asa between 2.8 and 5.6 with six 500w halogen shop lights. I would have LOVED to have a RED with CP.2's. I don't think it's worth the risk going with the super 16's as not all of them will work, I don't think. And the ones that do will have the problems described in other, better posts in this thread.

This is a 5DmkII and the lens of choice was my EF 17-40 f/4L with the occasional 50mm 1.8 for portrait stuff. I may have used my 70-200 2.8L once, but the aperture was generally between the stops mentioned above.

It's got foul language, so it's probably NSFW, but this is what you can do for a lot less than what you got. Those halogen lights? $25 at any home improvement store. I also used a 6x6 1/4 silk and a Rosco gelly roll packed with diffusion, CTB, CTO, etc. I made gel holders by clipping gels to grip clips with the rubber removed while attached directly to the fixture. I remember specifically the shot of the guy outside the threshold of the house: his key was the house's practical outside light, a 75w incandescent, with some 216 clipped to it. The only thing is you need a genny for the forest stuff cuz 3000w is a lot.

Anyway, enjoy, you lucky person. Go with the CP.2's and go 4K!

Jason,

nice stuff, looks like fun!

Regarding the discussion: your example doesn´t seem really comparable to what I´m planning to do on this feature film.

In first instance the producers asked me what I think about shooting on a 5D Mark II. I don´t have anything against HDSLR but in this particular case (almost 100% handheld, to be shown in cinemas, image to be manipulated quiet a lot in post, need for solid monitoring options etc.) I don´t find them suitable.

I opted for the Scarlet because it´s relatively small and lightweight and I would be able to record raw files, use "real cinema lenses" (I´m referring to practical questions as long focus barrels, not their look!) and have a decent monitoring solutions with SDI.

In fact back in "the good ol´ days" when we were shooting film, this feature would have been the typical Super16 project: loads of handheld, rock & roll for the focus puller, longer running times on the mags needed etc.

I´m trying to evaluate what is the best solution in general terms for this movie and if the loss of resolution by shooting 2K is somehow compensated if I use really good S16 lenses.

Anyway, I really don´t believe in the simple equation "more K=better". And that´s why I´m really interested in the BMCC. More flexibility at a low price. Too bad that the sensor size is somewhere in between MFT and S16...

Oh, ok. I wasn't saying use DSLR's...especially if you're already going RED! I was saying look at what can be done on the cheap with the crappy Home Depot lights and some 216. Right on about Super 16, too, and if I could, I would, but the BMCC looks pretty good.

And you're right, more K does not = better. 2K is peachy for cinema. It's all about resolution. If you start big, the small will look fine. But you can't blow up small and have it hold together the same way. I know you know that, but I'm saying that was my reasoning.

If you have some fast super 16 lenses, they work with the Scarlet without too much fuss (vignetting, chromatic aberration, need for an extra crop further negating the intention of shooting 2K, etc) then go for it. I wish I would have had that setup for Death Slate. And, thanks! It was a great set!

in fact there´s no vignetting, chromatic aberration, need for an extra crop shooting 2k with those lenses. it´s ultra primes but designed for S16. i think they hit the market 2006 together with the arri 416. so they´re quiet recent design.

Really? I've never seen these before. The Ultra 16's?

http://www.arri.com/camera/lenses/16_fo ... enses.html

exactly

Oh, wow. Can I be you for a day? Those are going to be very sharp. Even after the resolution loss after cropping, I'm sure they'd be worth using. I'd love to see some tests, myself, now!

Also, Tebbe, I hate you!

The ikonoskop has 1966 x 1092 pixel sensor and with davinci I have also croped it to 1920x1080 and I'm really happy with image quality.
Ikonoskop has a CCD but still with Bayer Pattern as the Blackmagic.
Of course 2.5k should give sharper images than HD, and a higher resolution sensor should give a sharper image when downsampled than a sensor running at the top of its capacities.

I still think the sensor crop would make sense, and if it is not much of an effort for BlackMagicDesign to implement that feature into the camera firmware, why not?
The real gain in the BMC is the wider color range I get with the raw data (and the fact that in a direct sensor readout noone messes around with sharpness enhancement ecc.), I'm not so much concerned about HD not having enough resolution.

I'm talking beyond the mere numbers.

Whilst 2k sounds like its more than enough for HD, I really think 2k on a CMOS doesn't cut it with HD delivery, irrespective of lens quality.

2.5k scaled to HD is good. 2k Cropped i think is softer than the numbers would have you believe.

You need the oversampling of the sensor to get the sharpness up.

Ive found the same with RED @ 2k. It just doesn't seem good enough a lot of the time.

Also, the Ultra 16's are great lenses, but fairly rare. I don't think many will be able to easily get hold of them and they aint cheap.

jb

2.5k scaled to HD is good. 2k Cropped i think is softer than the numbers would have you believe.

The BMC sensor total is 2432x1366 RAW photosites.

When you de-bayer a RAW sensor, you manufacture imaginary pixels. The actual photosites are:

Green photosites = 1216x1366 = 1.7K
Red photosites = 1216x683 = .8K
Blue photosites = 1216x683 = .8K

So the 2.5K BMC sensor is really close in resolution to a three chip (RGB) 720P sensor.

The same is true of 4K bayer sensors, whose actual resolution lies closer to 3K.

Clearly, the BMC images are superior to most 720P cameras due to many factors, including applying the de-bayer algorithm at a 12 bit depth. But that is why the image quickly falls apart when it is cropped.

Cheers.

Clearly, the BMC images are superior to most 720P cameras due to many factors, including applying the de-bayer algorithm at a 12 bit depth. But that is why the image quickly falls apart when it is cropped.

Cheers.

Exactly.

Numbers are a devil. I know that when I look with my eyes, RED cropped to 2K doesn't looks so good. I guess the crop isn't so bad with the BMCC, but it' not going to help any.

jb

i love my ultra 16s but have to sell one or two of them (sharpest i ever seen)... so take your chance and take a look at: http://www.ebay.de/itm/330820994641

i havn t tested them on the BMC. but if they fit with the right PL adaptor, i will definitely order a BMC. (btw: how long does it take to get the MFT version?)

cheers,
alex

hey,

i´ve done some extensive testing of a full set of 9 arri ultra16 primes on a red scarlet this week.
i agree with john that 2K on a red doesn´t look so well in case you compare it directly to 4K.

in the particular case of the featur film we´re shooting 4k data wouldn´t be handleable because we´re a very small team, shooting on dificult locations and backup of the footage has to be done at night after each shooting day.

i still have to see the results of the tests projected in 2K but from what i see on our monitors 2k looks good. (th ultra16´s are really nice and sharp!). of course the overall image is not as sharp as at 4K capture but it holds u well.

concerning the BMCC with S16 PL lenses: I captured some frames with every lens of the set @4K to see if it would be possible to figure out if these lenses would cover the entire sensor of the BMCC.
I´ll post these frames here once I get them back from the post house.