Joshua Cadmium

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.

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.

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.

It might also be for a Century Optics universal mount, which I believe was different than the Cooke/Angenieux universal mount.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .)

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 .

Look up Schneideritis. It can get way worse and still not have much of an optical effect.

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.

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.

Now that I think about it, the older Vocas 320 and 350 matte boxes used a 4.5x4.5 tray for rotating polarizers on wide angles and they took a square 4.5x4.5 pola. Every other 4.5 filter out there is round, but I don't know if that tray can use round filters. I tend to like Vocas matte boxes better (the 350 has integrated eye brows and takes 4 filters at a time normally or 3 at a time with this lens). However for future compatibility Chrosziel might be better.

If you found a replacement hood, you would need a 127mm polarizing filter in the hood. Either there will be a way to rotate the filter ring in the hood or the filter itself will have rotation built in. A clip on matte box is probably going to be easier to use, easier/cheaper to find a used replacement, and more resale value - but it's going to be bulkier than just the hood. Used Chrosziel or Vocas matteboxes are cheap and designed to work with that lens. You'll just need the proper 95mm clamp (or rubber bellows, if you want to use rods). On that Chrosziel PDF it says it needs a 5x5 filter for rotation, so you'll probably need to get something that size or bigger. You can find used 5x5 polas for cheap since it's not an often used format (you just need an appropriate tray to hold it.) You could also get a 138mm pola and put it a rear bellows or get a 138mm filter in a rotating tray that fits in most 4x5.65 matte boxes.

Here's a better reference: https://www.fujifilm.co.th/globalassets/products/optical_devices/pdf/tv/accessory/tv_converter.pdf

If you wanted to go the super manual (and potentially easier) route, you could also try a Chrosziel Fluid Zoom Drive. They can be very smooth and cranked down so much that they barely move.

According to this, it's a 95mm front diameter: https://www.adcom.it/public/images/pdf/chrosziel.pdf

Here's another article I forgot to include that is extremely helpful in visualizing the difference in sizes in different wavelengths of light: https://www.edmundoptics.com/knowledge-center/application-notes/imaging/from-lens-to-sensor-limitations-on-collecting-information/ . Here are some figures from the article:

If you want some more info this page is very helpful: https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-out-resolve-lenses/ . Table 1 and onward goes into things a little more in depth with charts. (Also, I found the lp/mm numbers in that Table 1 chart to be off by a few percentage points from my numbers. I think it might just be rounding errors. I kept everything unrounded on the spreadsheet I have.) This is a short article about the diffraction limit and has MTF(0) numbers for 520nm light at various f-stops at the end of it: https://www.edmundoptics.com/knowledge-center/application-notes/imaging/diffraction-limit . (The video is a waste of time, though). If you want to understand the math for MTF, this helped me: https://spie.org/publications/tt52_151_diffraction_mtf . It has the math for both a square and a round aperture.

Oops! Had an error that I just realized when I went back to check the math. That 2.475 ratio is actually the ratio of lp/mm of MTF(50) over lp/mm of MTF(0) . The actual MTF(50) ratio is 1.971. So you could think of it as multiplying the pixel pitch by that or multiplying the Airy Disk ratio by that, but the 1.971 is just another ratio that would be multiplied by everything. So, f-stop of MTF(50) = 1.971 * pixel size / Airy Disk / wavelength in nm For the Blackmagic 12K sensor at green 550nm, that puts MTF(50) at f3.2 and for the Alexa sensors that puts it at f12.1. At red 700nm light, the Blackmagic 12K would hit MTF(50) at f2.5 Alexa would at f9.5 At violet 400nm light, the Blackmagic 12K would hit MTF(50) at f4.4 and the Alexa would at f16.7 These numbers are theoretical, though, which just means that you would need a perfect lens to hit MTF(50) at these numbers. You are almost certainly going to maximize resolution somewhere between having the f-stop create an Airy Disk the size of a single pixel and having the f-stop at MTF(50), which creates an Airy Disk the size of about two pixels. Again, though, higher temperature light (colder, more bluer) is physically smaller - the Airy Disks have a smaller diameter - so you can capture more of it before the Airy Disks start to overlap too much and lower the resolution by blurring together.

When light passes through an aperture it forms an Airy Disk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk. The Airy Disk is the point of light that we are trying to capture. As you stop down an aperture, the size of the Airy Disk gets bigger. At some point, the size of the Airy Disk can be larger than the size of a pixel. As well, the point where Airy Disks overlap is where diffraction starts. How do you determine the size of an Airy Disk? An Airy Disk does not have a sharp cutoff, but there is a bright central region, similar to a Gaussian distribution, with additional rings around it. The bright central region is measured at about a 2.44 ratio (2.4393 to 5 significant figures.) In order to determine the actual width you also need the f-stop and the nanometer of light. The math is actually really simple - just multiply everything together: 2.44 x f-stop x wavelength in nm. The interesting thing about this is that 2.44 and the f-stop are ratios, or dimensionless numbers, so the only dimension we are left with is the nanometer of light. For instance, the Airy Disk size of far red 700nm light at f2.0 is about 3416nm in diameter or about 3.42um (micrometers). [The math is simply 2.44*2.0*700.] That is smaller than the 8.25um pixels on the Arri Alexas, but much bigger than the 2.20um pixels on the Blackmagic 12K. On the opposite end, the Airy Disk size of violet 400nm light at f2.0 is about 1952nm or 1.95um. That now fits within one pixel of the 2.20um on the Blackmagic 12K. The more light is shifted to the violet or blue end of the spectrum - which we can do by increasing the temperature of the light overall - the smaller the points of light get overall and thus the better they will fit within a pixel. Another way to say this is that you reach diffraction quicker at warmer color temperatures. ----- Going way further, resolution is often calculated using green light, since it falls between red and violet. For instance, green 550nm at f2.0 is about 2684nm in diameter or 2.68um. You'll notice that that is still larger than the 2.2um pixels of the Blackmagic 12K. That means that if you want to get an average of all Airy Disks (an average of the full spectrum of light) to fit within a 2.2um pixel, you'll need to decrease the f-stop. What f-stop would I need to get a 2.2um (2200nm) Airy Disks size at 550nm? To figure that out, you can do the math in reverse: f-stop = pixel size / Airy Disk / wavelength in nm. In this case, f-stop = 2200nm / 2.44 / 550nm = f1.64 That seems like way too low of an f-stop, until you try the math with a bigger pixel. With an Alexa pixel: f-stop = 8250 / 2.44 / 550nm = f6.15 If that still seems too low, that is because the Airy Disks can overlap a bit and still not cause too much of a hit to resolution. This is where MTF plays a role. MTF is actually very simple - it is really just looking at the overlap of Airy Disks. It is measured by imaging black and white lines and looking at the amount of grey that is produced as the lines overlap (which they do from being funneled through glass, an aperture, and the pixel structure.) MTF(100) would be a solid black line next to a solid white line. MTF(0) is where everything is a complete wash of grey. Making the Airy Disk the same size as the pixel puts the MTF at just about MTF(74), but resolution is typically calculated at MTF(50), which is where there is a 50% difference between white and black lines (dingy white next to greyish black). Since MTF deals with line pairs, we need to figure out the line pairs per millimeter of a sensor. To do that, we just take 1mm (which is 1000um) / the pixel pitch / 2 (in order to measure in pairs). The Blackmagic 12K would be 227.27 lp/mm and the Alexa would be 60.61 lp/mm. The actual math for MTF is a little complicated. I'm using the equation found in the middle of the page here (you can relatively easily run it in a spreadsheet): https://www.edmundoptics.com/knowledge-center/application-notes/optics/introduction-to-modulation-transfer-function/ There is a shortcut for the MTF(50) math, though. It is the lp/mm of the sensor divided by 2.475 OR the pixel pitch times 2.475. (If you do the math, it just ends up that way [and at eight significant figures it would be 2.4751447.]) For the Blackmagic 12K sensor, that puts MTF(50) at f4.1 and for the Alexa sensors that puts it at f15.2. Those figures are using 550nm green light, though. If we instead used 700nm light, the numbers would be different. The Alexa would hit MTF(50) at f12 and the Blackmagic 12K would hit that at f3.2 At 400nm, the Alexa would hit MTF(50) at f20.9 and the Blackmagic 12K would hit that at f5.6. So, regardless of the MTF values, it does make sense to shift color temperatures cooler in order to maximize resolution, especially when the pixel size is smaller, unless you want to deal with an f-stop that limits the depth of field you can operate within.

Yes, the Fairchild sensor in the OG Pocket has a ton of dynamic range, which I think helps contribute to its specialness. There are so many options for lenses on the BMPCC, including every single S16 lens ever made. In terms of primes, the Zeiss S16 primes and the Optar / Illumina primes look great. The Cinema Products (made by Kowa) 16mm primes should also look good. There are also the Meike MFT primes that should be just as good as the Veydra's but at a fraction of the price. I have the 35mm T2.2 and I am super pleased with it In terms of zooms, I thought the Angenieux 7-81mm looked fantastic. A second to me was the Zeiss 10-100mm MKII (MK I should look good as well.) While it doesn't natively cover S16, I added a MFT Olympus 1.4x teleconverter on the end of my PL mount to create a 14-140mm T2.8 that looked awesome, albeit a touch vintage. I was able to shim the PL mount to make the whole setup parfocal as well. For B4 mount, there is the Abakus 132 B4 to PL, the Century B4 to PL, and IB/E Optics 1.4x to PL. I have a cheap late model Fujinon A15x8 which looks nice and a HAE Fujinon 5-15mm which is super sharp. There's a whole bunch of C mount lenses as well. There's just a ton of options with that sensor.