Emanuel Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 5 hours ago, JimJones said: ***YOU MUST GO TO THE URL's below DIRECTLY - not via a Google search*** Great read here on S16. http://cinematechnic.com/resources/optics_for_super-16/ As Jorge says, Optimum image quality in the S16 format requires PRECISE CALIBRATION of both the cameras flange focal distance and the lens back focus. I have both the Angenieux 11.5 -138MM HR T2.3 Super 16 and the Angenieux 10-120MM T2.0 referenced here ; http://cinematechnic.com/super-16mm/angenieux_115-138hr/ Jorge goes on to say that the 11.5-138mm is a very sharp lens with resolution in the area of 200 lines per milimeter, which he thinks out performs many prime lenses, further noting, especially at the edges of the frame. Thats quite something I think...at least to me and I get it, not to many of you. With all of the above and given I own these lenses, yes getting to shoot them at 6K@120 fps is an enticing concept. How many of those 6K pixels are actually usable remains to be seen, but starting with the best S16 glass ever made is a step in the right direction. Yes this U12K cam is exciting. It's funny to see people worried with resolution about their lenses... Only for broadcast television and manufacturer brochures I've seen such concern. Not even for big screen : ) The world of lenses is a whole different universe. They invariably match as a combo. To resolve more lines can even be more an issue than the opposite. Take a look on this sample for new R5 here where resolution can end to be more useful for certain usage and less for other purposes, so horses for courses is the norm there : -) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 PS: I wonder what the filmmakers who made and got their decisions on this one would think on topic... LOL ; ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveV4D Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 21 minutes ago, Emanuel said: Take a look on this sample for new R5 here where resolution can end to be more useful for certain usage and less for other purposes, so horses for courses is the norm there : -) What is really funny is that clearly those handling Canon marketing have not shot a proper Wedding. I assume these shots were staged. They use Weddings as an example of 8K then add a heating warning at the end that basically tells anyone who does shoot Weddings that 8K isn't a viable option. A lot of Wedding Ceremonys I have filmed have been longer than 30 minutes. I've shot some lasting 90 minutes in length. Sure, I'd like a World where I could shoot 8K, 12K at various frame rates, but its not here yet. Not would I trust 120fps 4K on even a vital confetti shot. As for using 12K video for a Wedding. Maybe, if the couple were paying me 12K, I'd do it. 🤣🤣 This BM 12K camera is a wonderful and powerful Production camera, and the R5 a wonderful Photographic tool with some powerful video specs for short bursts, but if I want to crop for 4K delivery and extract high quality stills for Weddings, I'd still be better off shooting the 6K on either the Pocket or the S1H. 8K or 12K isn't yet a viable option for my Business. Maybe someday.... newfoundmass 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hijodeibn Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 52 minutes ago, Emanuel said: It's funny to see people worried with resolution about their lenses... Only for broadcast television and manufacturer brochures I've seen such concern. Not even for big screen : ) The world of lenses is a whole different universe. They invariably match as a combo. To resolve more lines can even be more an issue than the opposite. Take a look on this sample for new R5 here where resolution can end to be more useful for certain usage and less for other purposes, so horses for courses is the norm there : -) I don't see anybody using right now an R5 or R6 for a wedding, unless it is not a paid job and let's just get the best we can, the overheating issue and the time limit are a killer for weddings, if the overheating and time limit can be avoided with an external recorded then canon could have a possibility here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenEricson Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 On 7/18/2020 at 5:06 PM, Yurolov said: No, I'm sorry; if you have the glass, fine. Otherwise, I don't see why anyone would purchase for this reason. I doubt ONE person will buy s16 glass to use with this camera. A lot of people like that sensor size. Shooting wide open on a zoom lens is much more manageable. I think mainly they would shoot with Super 16 to get away from whatever those example frames were shot on. Everything looks the same these days, people are looking for a different texture and style, vintage glass can help provide that. Zooms are the big one. You can get a pretty nice 16-100 f2 for around a grand. The s35 zooms are huge and 10 times the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenEricson Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 8 hours ago, Emanuel said: Yikes. So much for that nice Canon color and soft highlights. What happened? PannySVHS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimJones Posted July 20, 2020 Author Share Posted July 20, 2020 3 hours ago, BenEricson said: A lot of people like that sensor size. Shooting wide open on a zoom lens is much more manageable. Zooms are the big one. The s35 zooms are huge and 10 times the cost. You get it. I have the Canon 11.5-165mm in S16 which is a 15x multiplier. The same lens in 35mm would be a massive chunk of glass that weighs a ton. S16 is not right every time by any stretch. But those S16 PL cine lenses are nice! BenEricson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimJones Posted July 20, 2020 Author Share Posted July 20, 2020 40 minutes ago, JimJones said: I have the Canon 11.5-165mm in S16 which is a 15x multiplier. The same lens in 35mm would be a massive chunk of glass that weighs a ton. Did I say 11.5-160mm ? Oops meant to say 10.6-180mm Canon S16 in PL. That lens has some serious punch in on the long end. The thought of some wildlife action at 220 fps with this lens gets me going. Let us hope this tech does trickle down to a smaller body - even less weight to hump into the bush. The reality is given we are half way through July and the rains start here end of October / early November there is little chance of having time to get a set up like the U12K going this year. Maybe by next NAB we will see a smaller version of this camera? I certainly agree this tech in a smaller body is desirable, but wonder if its doable given the heat it may generate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.