Marshall Harrington wrote:I'm thinking about a set of primes but cannot predict what format the cameras will be going forward. It's a target that's moving pretty fast. Hence the term "future proof". Unlike John, I see value in both FF and S35 formats.
Since I'm not Martin Scorsese with basically an unlimited budget, I'm curious what the differences would be between similar FF or S35 glass in terms of character I guess.
I asked the question about using FF glass on an S35 sensor to "future-proof" my lens collection on this forum, and got an education on it.
If a company were to come out with a 16K full frame camera that has a similar pixel density to the Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro 12K, a lens that resolves (16,384/(36x2)) 227 line-pairs/millimeter would be needed to keep up with it. Such a lens does not exist, and a Canon 16-35 L f/2.8 III that can resolve around 45 line-pairs/millimeter is not a good temporary solution for future proofing.
Tom Roper wrote:
"The problem is fundamental, inherent to the sensor size. To resolve the full pixels of the sensor, you take the horizontal pixels divided by twice the horizontal millimeters to get line-pairs/millimeter needed from the lens.
The lens for 12K footage on an (Blackmagic) Ursa needs to resolve 227 ln-pr/mm.
For 8K from the Ursa the lens needs to resolve 152 ln-pr/mm.
For 8K from the A1, the lens only needs to resolve 114 ln-pr/mm.
Because the sensor out-resolves the lens by more with smaller sensors than large ones, the same lens on the larger sensor will give the higher overall system resolution, which is what counts."
Robert Niessner wrote:
"...There are 4 different 16-35 L lenses from Canon. But regardless of the version, all of them are sharpest at f/5.6 In the center at f/5.6 the 16-35 L f/2.8 II and III can resolve around 45 line pairs per mm (MTF50)."
Re: 12k Ursa Not Sharp When Punched Inviewtopic.php?f=2&t=145731&p=780841&hilit=+take+the+horizontal+pixels+divided+by+twice+the+horizontal+#p780841John Brawley wrote:
"...And if anything, using a LARGER image circle on a smaller sensor size CAN lead to unexpected flares and a loss of contrast because that extra large circle of light is now bouncing off other surfaces in-between the back of the lens and the sensor.
...Also interesting
"If you’re shooting Super35, why would you go back to a Super35 lens instead of a new future-proof Full Frame lens?
Part of the Cooke Look is the focus fall-off at the edges. Our lenses are not “flat” meaning that we do not try to make the corners and the center equally sharp.
If you draw a vertical line through the center axis and you spin that around and make a circle, that’s what we call the picture height area. Obviously, that’s a larger circle in Full Frame than it is in Super35. This area on a Cooke lens, the sweet spot, is where we pay a lot of attention. Outside that circle, we let the image fall off to the corners. The center is as sharp as can be, and as we move to the edges of frame, it gets slightly softer. We do that because most of the time you are filming people or things where the area of interest is towards the center, and the edge fall-off adds a pleasing dimensionality to the image and brings the viewer’s attention toward the center.
Now, if you think about a Full Frame lens, keep in mind that the picture height circle is bigger. It is usually 24mm high instead of 18mm. So, if you put a Full Frame lens on a Super35 camera, the image is going to be cleaner because all that pleasing fall-off area is outside of frame."
From Les Zellan, legendary chairman of Cooke Optics
101-FDTimes-4.07-300-Cooke-Tour-2020.pdfhttps://www.fdtimes.com/2020/04/07/cooke-tour-2020/Re: The Blackmagic LF Camera - Is Full Frame ever coming?viewtopic.php?f=2&t=135602&p=828097&hilit=+more+resolving+power+than+an+8K+#p828097r/Filmmakers How to "future proof" my lens and gear purchaseshttps://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/com ... purchases/