RED lenses coverage: S35 vs. 35 mm (pros & cons)
- Thread starter Emanuel
- Start date
- Status
Muttondraw
Well-known member
Hi Emanuel
I have to admit I always feel slightly uncomfortable when people talk about equivalent focal lengths, just because it seems to be the source of so much confusion. Of course we should be talking field of view all along, but we tend to use focal length as a shorthand for FOV and that doesn't quite work across formats.
Martin
I have to admit I always feel slightly uncomfortable when people talk about equivalent focal lengths, just because it seems to be the source of so much confusion. Of course we should be talking field of view all along, but we tend to use focal length as a shorthand for FOV and that doesn't quite work across formats.
Martin
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Hi Martin,
As matter of fact, there is a reason for that as it was posted before:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=81686&page=10
With such conversions I can find:
[converted for the N35 format]
the Nikkor 17-35mm that I'm thinking to use won't be much wider than 28mm (instead 25mm @S35) -- it's a completely different lens range (so, I should buy the 14mm and spend $1,500 for a 22mm wider range).
They are details, nevertheless quite helpful in order to conclude how much the recent changes from the S35 sensor format to the N35 size will hurt @my_pocket.
Emanuel
As matter of fact, there is a reason for that as it was posted before:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=81686&page=10
Emanuel said:For example, I thought to have a swiss-knife-zoom like the Nikkor 17-35mm lens is and now -- if the things will go like it was announced today, I'll also buy the Nikkor 14mm wide angle (@35mm 22mm instead 28mm). That's $1,500 plus.And I'll need my money for all the range of devices in order to accessorize my RED ONE. RED branded too. So, I'd say, aside the RED company's interest in order to satisfy their customers tomorrow (now reservation holders), it is also their own interest 'cause our money isn't elastic.
Well, I have all my confidence in the Jim's knowledge on his own business. He knows we need our money available for our future RED ONE units and respective accessories. Our outcome is theirselves too.
With such conversions I can find:
[converted for the N35 format]
the Nikkor 17-35mm that I'm thinking to use won't be much wider than 28mm (instead 25mm @S35) -- it's a completely different lens range (so, I should buy the 14mm and spend $1,500 for a 22mm wider range).
They are details, nevertheless quite helpful in order to conclude how much the recent changes from the S35 sensor format to the N35 size will hurt @my_pocket.
Emanuel
Muttondraw
Well-known member
I appreciate where you are coming from and I do understand that if you are familiar with the effect of a certain focal length used for a particular format it can be helpful to translate the effect eg a 14mm lens used for 4K on the RedOne will give the equivalent FOV of a 22mm lens used on a 35mm stills camera. It is just that as that text gets shortened to "14mm wideangle(@35mm 22mm)" the potential for confusion grows enormously.
Please don't think I am trying to have a go at you though. The only reason I am commenting about this is because there seem to be a lot of posts where people seem very confused, talking about one focal length becoming another when the imaging format changes. There are no easy ways of getting around this, but it is probably better to talk about magnification of FOV. I think this reduces the possibility of confusion.
Anyway. I am with you on the 14mm, I have been thinking the same. It is a great shame we can't use the DX lenses which go a lot wider a lot cheaper. Everything would be different if there was some way of economically using the full sensor, that would be a much greater FOV. It's not going to happen though so 14mm it is.
Martin
Please don't think I am trying to have a go at you though. The only reason I am commenting about this is because there seem to be a lot of posts where people seem very confused, talking about one focal length becoming another when the imaging format changes. There are no easy ways of getting around this, but it is probably better to talk about magnification of FOV. I think this reduces the possibility of confusion.
Anyway. I am with you on the 14mm, I have been thinking the same. It is a great shame we can't use the DX lenses which go a lot wider a lot cheaper. Everything would be different if there was some way of economically using the full sensor, that would be a much greater FOV. It's not going to happen though so 14mm it is.
Martin
Stephen Williams
Well-known member
Muttondraw said:
Hi Martin,
I totally agree with you.
When shooting stills with a Hassleblad, or RB67 I never think what lens I would use on a motion picture camera, wouldn't help in the slightest as there are so few lengths are available!
Stephen
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
Oh boy....
Dont laugh at me...but i dont even know about the difference between 35 and s35...
same aspect ratio ?
or just a difference in size ?
Dont laugh at me...but i dont even know about the difference between 35 and s35...
same aspect ratio ?
or just a difference in size ?
Barry_Green
Moderator
A very minor difference in size.
Actually there are all sorts of 35mm frame sizes, and then you have to factor in that none of them are anywhere near the size of a 35mm still frame. Still frames are 36x24mm. In the largest size, a 35mm movie frame is only half that, at 24 x 18mm. That would be "full aperture". And yes, film is a 4:3 aspect ratio; that's where the 4:3 shape of the TV screen came from!
So film is 4x3, but since TV came out, 35mm has used simple cropping (or, "letterboxing") to get the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, so RED is using 24.4 x 13.7 as its "Super35" frame size (which is actually a 16:9 aspect ratio).
But, movies haven't used the full width of the frame since the introduction of sound, since the optical soundtrack occupies a bit of the space between the sprockets. Which is why Red is showing their "regular" 35mm frame of 22.2 x 12.6; that 22.2 instead of 24.4 is the difference where the optical soundtrack would go. That would be called "Academy Aperture".
(almost; I mean, the full aperture is still 1.33:1, so to get the 16:9 you're looking at a matted academy aperture there).
The difference in field of view is going to be quite minor, you're only talking about 10% less width and 10% less height.
If you want your footage to look like a movie, with movie-style depth of field, you're going to want to shoot in the regular 35mm format, which should exactly match the field of view and depth of field of 35mm movie film. If you go with the Super35 frame size you're going to be pushing your DOF shallower than it would normally look; Super35 isn't normally shot for 1.85:1 projection as it complicates matters when making an optical print. When shooting 1.85:1, you typically shoot with the academy aperture and matte for 1.85.
Super35 is normally used when going for the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. You use that extra width to get a wider image on the film, and the fact that the soundtrack is covered up really isn't that much of a problem because when shooting Super35 you have to go through an optical squeezing process to make the film print anyway. Widescreen film prints are printed at a 1.2:1 aspect ratio, using the full frame size (less a couple of millimeters for the soundtrack) and are projected unsqueezed using a 2:1 anamorphic lens.
Actually there are all sorts of 35mm frame sizes, and then you have to factor in that none of them are anywhere near the size of a 35mm still frame. Still frames are 36x24mm. In the largest size, a 35mm movie frame is only half that, at 24 x 18mm. That would be "full aperture". And yes, film is a 4:3 aspect ratio; that's where the 4:3 shape of the TV screen came from!
So film is 4x3, but since TV came out, 35mm has used simple cropping (or, "letterboxing") to get the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, so RED is using 24.4 x 13.7 as its "Super35" frame size (which is actually a 16:9 aspect ratio).
But, movies haven't used the full width of the frame since the introduction of sound, since the optical soundtrack occupies a bit of the space between the sprockets. Which is why Red is showing their "regular" 35mm frame of 22.2 x 12.6; that 22.2 instead of 24.4 is the difference where the optical soundtrack would go. That would be called "Academy Aperture".
(almost; I mean, the full aperture is still 1.33:1, so to get the 16:9 you're looking at a matted academy aperture there).
The difference in field of view is going to be quite minor, you're only talking about 10% less width and 10% less height.
If you want your footage to look like a movie, with movie-style depth of field, you're going to want to shoot in the regular 35mm format, which should exactly match the field of view and depth of field of 35mm movie film. If you go with the Super35 frame size you're going to be pushing your DOF shallower than it would normally look; Super35 isn't normally shot for 1.85:1 projection as it complicates matters when making an optical print. When shooting 1.85:1, you typically shoot with the academy aperture and matte for 1.85.
Super35 is normally used when going for the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. You use that extra width to get a wider image on the film, and the fact that the soundtrack is covered up really isn't that much of a problem because when shooting Super35 you have to go through an optical squeezing process to make the film print anyway. Widescreen film prints are printed at a 1.2:1 aspect ratio, using the full frame size (less a couple of millimeters for the soundtrack) and are projected unsqueezed using a 2:1 anamorphic lens.
Last edited:
Muttondraw
Well-known member
Hi Antoine
Well. as it pertains to RedOne, have a look at this thread which has a good format comparison diagram: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=64685 Hopefully that will make things a bit clearer.
Martin
Well. as it pertains to RedOne, have a look at this thread which has a good format comparison diagram: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=64685 Hopefully that will make things a bit clearer.
Martin
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
thanks Barry and Muttondraw.
Very good info.
Very good info.
Stephen Williams
Well-known member
Barry_Green said:
Hi Barry,
Many people shoot 3 perf for 1:1.85, this will almost always be S35 as will almost any production that will use a DI.
Stephen
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, DI work has changed the whole dynamics, that's true. If it's gonna be scanned in, it might as well be scanned in from the largest surface area.
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
Barry,
So if i understand correctly, i can use a 35mm still lense for RED 35 almost full ( 4K ) CMOS area ( 4.5K ).
Just keep in mind the 1.6 factor for the narrower field of view compared to a 35mm still frame.
hmmm....do i understand correctly ?
So if i understand correctly, i can use a 35mm still lense for RED 35 almost full ( 4K ) CMOS area ( 4.5K ).
Just keep in mind the 1.6 factor for the narrower field of view compared to a 35mm still frame.
hmmm....do i understand correctly ?
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
A 35mm still lens will have more than enough coverage for a 35mm movie frame, regardless of whether you're talking about S35 or regular 35.
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
thanks Barry,
what would be the two most usefull still lenses for wide angle and normal telephoto.
I dont need to see a full screen moskito from 10 miles away.
what would be the two most usefull still lenses for wide angle and normal telephoto.
I dont need to see a full screen moskito from 10 miles away.
Muttondraw
Well-known member
Antoine_Fabi said:
As Barry says 35mm stills is a much larger format than 35mm cine. Taking the 35mm still camera format as your reference divide the FOV by just under 1.5 to give you the Red S35mm cine format FOV, or divide by just over 1.6 to get the 35mm cine format FOV
Martin
Last edited:
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
Martin,
I sold my still lenses 10 yers ago for peanuts...he hee...
...should be able to find good used Nikon still lenses though.
I sold my still lenses 10 yers ago for peanuts...he hee...
...should be able to find good used Nikon still lenses though.
Gibby
Red Savant
Antoine,
The link that Muttondraw posted a few pages ago has some excellent graphs made by Proteus that compare frame sizes. The graphs will help answer the questions you've been asking about relative size. Check it out: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=64685
Come to think of it, what ever happend to Proteus? He's been AWOL for awhile...
The link that Muttondraw posted a few pages ago has some excellent graphs made by Proteus that compare frame sizes. The graphs will help answer the questions you've been asking about relative size. Check it out: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=64685
Come to think of it, what ever happend to Proteus? He's been AWOL for awhile...
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Look at the lens sets offered for rent like the Cookes or the Zeiss. A typical set would be from maybe 18mm to 85mm.Antoine_Fabi said:
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
Is there a big difference in true resolving sharpness between the Cookes, the Zeiss, and ...say a top quality 35mm still Nikon lense ?
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Antoine_Fabi said:
The difference will be more with ease of focusing and severity of breathing. 35mm still lenses have excellent resolving power, but weren't made for rack focusing during a moving shot, so they will breathe more.
- Status