Jump to content

Joshua Cadmium

Basic Member
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Phoenix

Recent Profile Visitors

2,233 profile views
  1. Maybe the bulb wasn't on long enough to settle, or the bulb was old, or the ballast was dimmed (which can cause a green shift): https://lightbulbrentals.com/hmi-troubleshooting/ . HMIs are also just a little finicky in general and may need to be gelled with plus or minus green in order to hit a neutral white.
  2. Here is my unsolicited advice: find a company / sensor whose quantum efficiency best matches your easy to manufacture (gaussian) LMS filters and go from there. This tech should dazzle right away in order to gain traction. There are currently many hybrid cameras that can shoot photos and videos well, so there is overlap in the low to mid photo/video world. Because of that, it feels like more people are camera/mount agnostic. Back in 2010, the Panasonic GH2 was released and it was huge at the time, because it was one of the first lower cost cameras that could do really good 24 fps. Many people gravitated towards that camera and the m4/3 mount it came with because it had something that no other camera had. If this new CFA is truly evolutionary, then it may not matter what camera it is in, as people would likely gravitate towards that system. The mid level also might be a good target as the high end is likely using more finely tuned bayer CFAs that may be hard to compete with in a first generation CFA / sensor combo. Just my 2 cents, though. Thank you for the D100 explanation.
  3. I read the white paper. This looks to be a dramatic leap in getting more accurate color out of standard sensors. Even if this technology had reduced sensitivity (although it appears to be the opposite) I, and I think many others, would prefer more accurate colors over just about anything else. Arri beat Red at the high end cinematography game basically due to better color over everything else. People (including myself) still use tungsten lights due to better color, despite the many inconveniences. The genius of this technology is that it uses the same univariance that our brain uses to determine color. [For those that haven't heard about the principle of univariance, this video explains it very well: https://video.byui.edu/media/The+Principle+of+Univariance/1_11gv9jhz . ] My criticism is calling this a camera. You don't currently appear to have a camera, you don't currently appear to have a sensor, and you don't currently appear to have the LMS color filter manufacturing figured out. This appears to be a breakthrough, but I think it's going to be a little while before we see it implemented. It looks like you are trying to market your technology in the hope that other companies will license it. (I hope it does get picked up right away, though.) Also, in the white paper, why was a 20 year old Nikon D100 sensor used as the bayer pattern quantum efficiency to compare against? There is no explanation of why that sensor was chosen.
  4. It might also be for a Century Optics universal mount, which I believe was different than the Cooke/Angenieux universal mount.
  5. I previously shot a wedding on an OG Blackmagic Pocket paired with a Zeiss 10-100 T2 (and then further combined with a MFT Olympus 1.4x Teleconverter on the back of the PL adapter to cover the sensor size and then some. An 11-110 would cover the full sensor.) It reminded me of S16, partially because the Zeiss lens itself was/is used on a lot of 16mm filming and inherently has a 16mm feeling. I also had the Pocket around 800-1600, so the noise texture plus the lower color gamut of the sensor added to the 16mm feel. It definitely wasn't film, but it felt kinda similar. However, it seems like the best approach for you would just be to find a quieter 8mm camera and/or make a custom blimp/barney. On top of that, you could just have multiple 8mm cameras. No/less need to reload - plus redundancy.
  6. Well, at the very least, the potential Abakus 132 on the rear should be able to be removed -it's like any other B4 lens adapter - it just twists off. So, that by itself is worth somewhere around $500 - $1,500. However, newer B4 to PL S16 adapters are likely going to be better than this older optical design. The lens conversion is rare - I've never seen one of these before. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's worth that much more. Optex did full rehouses of HD B4 lenses and they aren't worth all that much - mainly because native B4 cine lenses from Canon, Fujinon, and Zeiss are so cheap - relative to what they originally sold for. For instance, Canon HD KLL lenses routinely sell for $1000 or less and these were around $30,000 (plus inflation) when they originally came out. There's a chance that this lens does have some optical wizardry done by Panther, but I doubt it. Pather did rehouse some S16 primes, but it seems like they just took existing Optika Elite or Optar Illumina lenses and made them more physically match S16 Zeiss Super Speeds without altering them optically. (Or just had them custom made by Optika or Optar.) I could be wrong, though.
  7. I'm 99.9% positive this is a converted B4 lens. The rear portion looks exactly like my Abakus 132. The reason why the focus barrel grip matches the Canon 11-165 is that the Canon 11-165 was likely based on a B4 lens in the first place. It seems that every single Canon Super 16 lens is based on a B4 counterpart. (For instance, the Canon 8-64mm is almost certainly based on the Canon J8x6 B4 lens; they even have a similar match to one another in the focus barrel grip.) Angenieux's 7-81mm for S16 was also directly based on a B4 counterpart - their 5.3-61mm lens. Both lenses are the exact same optics up front, with a different rear group in the back. (You could even buy a conversion kit for the 7-81mm.) Also, I have seen where some lenses have had their focal ranges reduced when converted to a different formats. For instance, Angenieux had a similar SD B4 lens with a range of 5.3-64mm, which is a 12x zoom. The 5.3-61mm cine HD B4 lens is a 11.5x zoom. They also released an HD B4 5.3-53mm lens which is a 10x zoom. The quality of a partial rehouse may be nice (accurate marks are not easy to do) but the overall visually quality of this 10-160mm is likely going to be the same you could get with a $200 SD B4 lens combined with an Abakus 132. Not personally worth it, in my opinion.
  8. This is almost certainly an SD era B4 Canon lens that has an Abakus 132 on the back, so it should cover s16. It looks like Panther added measurement accurate shrouds at a 0.8 mod pitch. Maybe they cherry picked the lens, but it is going to be an older design, although some SD lenses were better than others. (I have a late model SD 15x8 Fujinon that looks pretty great.) I can't tell the exact lens, but it would likely be from the SD era, based on the same IF logo on the side of this J16ax8 lens: https://www.ebay.com/itm/133607700251 . That lens doesn't quite match the math (8mm * 1.32 = 10.56mm ) but maybe it measured close enough for Panther to round down.
  9. One thing to keep in mind with the Blackmagic 12k sensor is that it has really tiny 2.2um pixels, so diffraction has a bigger effect at a per pixel level. It looks like the Phase One 151 has a 3.76um pixel size, so the relative difference between the two is 0.585 horizontally and vertically. What does that effectively mean? If you had theoretically perfect T2.8 lens on the Phase One, you would need a theoretically perfect T1.64 lens on the Blackmagic 12k in order to match the horizontal and vertical MTF at a per pixel level. (T2.8 * 0.585 = T1.64). This is because increasing the f stop actually makes the spot size of light (the Airy disk) bigger. So, if you are going to be punching in at a per pixel level, it's not just that you need a higher resolving lens (you do) but also that you need to keep your T stop in a decent range. For instance, on the 12k sensor, with a theoretically perfect lens, you hit the diffraction limit of the sensor at f8. (Meaning that the max frequency of 227.3 lp/mm will go to 0 MTF at f8). None of this really matters if you're using the full sensor, but once you punch in at a per pixel level or close to it, physics itself is going to be contributing to the blurring you see.
  10. I could be wrong, but it looks like that brass helical part was put on over the Arri-S mount. You may be able to remove that helical and get to the original mount. If you compare the lens to a known copy, you should be able to tell. If the lens+adapter needs to be shimmed, you will miss the intended focus range. You might not be able to reach infinity focus, or you might have the opposite issue, where you are able to focus beyond infinity. If the latter, and if there was originally a hard stop for infinity, you won't be able to rely on the hard stop, plus you may not reach as close of focus as possible. However, the lens+adapter might be close enough that it won't be that big of an issue.
  11. I was thinking that the actual price, while high, wouldn't be that bad for high toleranced optical glass, but this filter would actually be $1,176 from Band Pro! That is pretty expensive for a filter. (And it's not just this filter - all of their filters are either $1,176 or $948: https://www.bandpro.com/brands.html/ib_e_optics .)
  12. I have no idea if it's this exact filter, but the images do look a lot like the Rainbow filter from IB/E Optics: https://www.ibe-optics.com/en/products/cine/artistic-tools/organic/rainbow-10585 .
  13. Look up Schneideritis. It can get way worse and still not have much of an optical effect.
  14. There would actually be an increase in the amount of glass in the back of a film lens. That's because in between the PL mount flange and the film is about 52mm of air (plus maybe a rotating mirror). You can use that extra space to add additional optics. On a B4 lens, on top of having each color focused at a different point, the light is also focused through a whopping 46.2mm of glass (prism and filters) before it hits the sensor: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3294.pdf . The flange distance is only 48mm, so there is barely any room for the optics to go further than the flange before it hits the coverglass. Some manufacturers did design their optics with both formats in mind, albeit as two different, but related lenses. I'm pretty sure all the Canon S16 lenses have a similarly built B4 counterpart. Angenieux's 7-81mm for S16 and 5.3-61mm for B4 are the exact same optics up front, with a different rear group in the back. (You could even buy a conversion kit for the 7-81mm). Angenieux also released their 12x Optimo in a 12x9.7 B4 version and there was also Cooke's 18-100mm in a 8-46mm B4 version. I think someone could technically make what you are proposing (supporting 2 formats in one), but it would most likely be an optical compromise for one of the systems and/or significantly harder and more expensive to make, not easier.
  15. I almost certain that that's not a true Canon 8-64mm. It looks like someone converted a Canon J8x6 B4 lens (what the Canon 8-64mm is likely based off of) with a Abakus 132 B4 to PL adapter. In the pictures you linked, if you compare the rear part of the optics to a Abakus 132, it looks exactly the same. There is no simple way to convert a PL mount to Aaton - there is no off the shelf adapter. For this lens, you would have to have someone completely machine new parts for this already franken-lens. It just wouldn't be worth it. The easiest way to convert a lens to Aaton is finding a lens with a Cooke / Angenieux universal sub-mount and then getting an Aaton sub-mount. You can also find Arri Bayonet to Aaton adapters. So, getting your camera converted to PL is the only real option if you have to have this lens, but you may just want to pass on it, unless you use this info to talk the seller down and make it worth your while to convert your camera to PL. This lens might even be better, optically, than a native 8-64mm, or it might be worse, but it's most likely worth less.
×
×
  • Create New...