Thread: Speedbooster for the UMpro: Full frame to to S35

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    USA N. CA
    Posts
    2,243
    A Speed Booster is a focal expander, the opposite of a tele converter. Yes, it expands the AOV by reducing the projected image circle of the lens, reducing the sensor crop. So a 0.71X Speed Booster would expand the AOV of a 135mm to get about the same coverage (AOV) on a S35mm sensor like the UM 4.6, as you would get on a 135mm camera (frame width, 16:9 aspect ratio, not diagonal) frame. This could be appealing with wider angle lenses, where you want to include the edges of the projected image circle, or just get a wider AOV out of a given focal length to get a desired image perspective.

    The issue with doing this on a Ursa Mini Pro, unlike a Tele-converter which can be put between a native mount and lens (EF to Ef), a Speed Booster has to not add any Flange Focus Distsnce (FFD) between the lens and camera mount, the Speed Booster and camera lens Turret FFD, must equal the lens being used FFD (i.e. EF is 44mm, so the lens mount to sensor distance must remain 44mm). Looking at the photos of the Mini Pro EF mount, it is not more than 6-8mm thick at best. This would make the lens Turret distance to the sensor about 34-38mm, then you have a ND filter setup in that space, loosing another 8-10mm, which leaves you with 24-26mm. You need enough room in the front of the mount for the rear of the lens to setback, another 4-6mm (depending on the lens) lost. Now you only have a total of 20-24mm, if the EF mount is 8mm, you only have 2-4mm in the rear of it to place the speed booster optical block, which needs to only project 10mm into the camera lens Turret. A very tight fit, considering the optical block on my MFT (0.71X) Speed Booster is 24mm in depth, with only 2-4mm protuding out the back.

    So, even if the demand is high enough (which at this point it is not) you are going to be hard pressed to get a Speed Booster to fit in the UM4.6 EF lens mount, maybe the Nikon F mount, but not the EFmount.
    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Timothy Cook View Post
    So who is going to be the first guy to use (disassemble) their "Conon to Sony E-mount"n Metabones SB to work with the UMpro? AS I see it, you can figure out the dimensions to cast up in a 3D printer and allow room for a modified MB Booster, which I previously mentioned, to rest inside of the mount a newly designed removable mounting system for the UMpro.
    You may have to epoxy it in or something, I'll let you smarty pants figure that one out.

    But I do know the casing for the Metabones boosters will come apart with the internal Len elements still intact, making it easier to mount into another adapter.


    From the Metabones site:
    Full-frame lens required. EF-S/DX/DC/Di II lenses are NOT supported.
    Speed Booster ULTRA is designed to cover an "APS-C/Super 35mm" image circle which is not big enough to cover a full-size 36mm x 24mm sensor. On a full frame camera body (A7 series, NEX-VG900) the camera needs to have "APS-C/Super 35mm" set to either "Auto" or "On

    http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-E-BT2

    Goodluck, and I'm curious to see future models of similar type of products.


    Or better yet use the stock EF removable mount that comes stock with the UMpro and try to modify it to a new 3D printed mount that includes the SB internals.So you'll have electronics included. Just throwing ideas out there.
    The built in nd might get in the way of that
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    USA N. CA
    Posts
    2,243
    There is no might about it, it will not fit! If you see the last part of my post above, It does not look like there is enough room to put a Speed Booster optical setup in the Pro's EF mount, it is too small. This setup barely fits the Sony E mount (18mm FFD) to EF mount (44mm) adapter, which leaves the required 26mm for the SB optical block (24mm long) and lens mount flanges.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Smith View Post
    A Speed Booster combined with a 135mm lens is going to give a different look than a lens of the equivalent focal length designed for the sensor/ format you are shooting. I took my Zeiss 28mm and put it on a MFT/Nikon SB on the Micro Cinema camera (28x.58=16.24), then shot the same scene with a 16mm Veydra MFT lens, and a 16mm (S16)'Illumina Super Speed. All three shots were different, even though the focal length was the same or equivalent. Adapting larger format lenses to a smaller format/sensor size, changes the lens' overall characteristics and resulting IQ. Adding a speed booster with all of its glass also changes how the lens will look. A lens IQ and its results is more than just focal length, it is more to do with how a lens interacts, if yiu only use the center of the lens' projected image cicely, you will get a different look, than if you used the entire image circle. This is especially true with wide angle lenses, whose edge distortion is part of their charm.

    So for me, I would rather use S35 designed lenses (like the SLR Magic APOs)' on a Ursa Mini/Pro 4.6, than any Canon or Nikon 135mm lens.
    Trying to adapt a speed booster to,the Ursa Mini Pro mount (which appears to be around 40mm FFD anyway) is a non starter, when you have a better selection of affordable S 35mm lens to use, buy, or rent.
    That's my two cents worth on this.

    Denny, I am a stills photographer that has been shooting alongside TVC's for over the last couple of decades (I counted up over 50 TVC's now). The TVC's quite often are very big productions with the best gear available. I have been tied to my full frame stills gear, mainly canon (although I had a set of nikon gear for a while), so I am quite aware of the differences of the lenses compared with the cine lenses they shoot with. The look you can get with the lens I use (mainly the ef 50mm f1.0 and the 85mm f1.2) is prettier or the difference is un-noticable (I know this is subjective, but it is my opinion) than most of the cine lenses I shoot alongside of with exception to a couple of set of lenses-
    - The cooke superspeeds. They have a lovely blurred BG and the way they blur things in front of the subject is like cotton wool. they also flare nicely. This effect works best on their longer lengths, but less with their wides. The only lens that comes close to this look as a stills lens is the canon ef 85mm f1.2. I have shot the same subject matter side by side and the look is similar- although the strength of the blur is stronger with the canon (this is due to the "full frame". But the cooke superspeeds are 20K plus each I think, and not really a rental item for a URSA mini?? I would guess if you hire these lenses you will also hire an arri alexa as you have a great budget.
    - The new cooke anamorphic's- these lenses are great, such a lovely BG blur and heaps of flare. You can also shoot in corners and get a long look with very little distance from the subject. These cannot be replicated with stills, although I did do some tests with the cooke anamorphic's on my sony a7rII and they covered full frame almost. But these are $2500 per day to rent as a set (thats NZD, so about 2k usd). I haven't shot alongside any other anamorphics like the Russian ones. But the cheap anamorphics and adaptors I see tests on vimeo with don't look anything like the cookes, and the effect is subtle and a bit sterile looking. I have been looking as I would love the anamorphic look for stills (as well as video), but the cookes at 28k per lens, so I cant go there.


    This is all my observations and experience. I can say though, the look and feel of cheap cine lenses isn't anything special. I never test things like "breathing" - just the total look. I have run many tests in the past, for example I compared the zeiss superspeeds against the cn-e canon lenses to see if there was any special "zeiss" look, and I couldn't really see any. The canon 85mm still was the prettiest lens. I even tested my canon lenses against my set of contax 645 lenses (35, 45, 80/f2, 140, and hasselblad 110 f2- with an adaptor), and there wasnt a lot in it. The canon 50mm f1.2 (i didnt test the canon f1.0 version as i didnt have it then) and the 85mm f1.2 was still a better look. I have since sold my phase one p65 digital back as i could justify the look with the cost. I have a canon 5dsr now, so megapixels are no longer an issue.

    The point I am trying to make is, there is a lot of bullshit on the net about "looks" of lenses. Yes, there are better lenses, but I don't think cheap "cine" lenses are going to capture anything different. I have looked at all the lens tests of these cheaper lenses (as I would like a set of great looking cine lenses too) but they don't look any better than any stills lenses, and many lack character. Also, there are many tests that point a lens at a model, all static, with a colour board and call that a test of the lens "look", but this hardly indicates anything but sharpness and the colour shift in the lens. I couldnt find the tests, so i went out and did my own, or carefully watched the screens, while I was shooting beside these lenses.

    Back to my original point, I want more options with lenses, and the "fullframe look" is unique and usefull. Yes, anyone with any lens can blur the subjetc when you do a head shot, but try doing this when the subject is filling the whole frame. the effect of blur is very weak. anything to help this is very useful, and fullframe format is far better to do this than a cropped format. If you dont want this look when using a speedbooster, then just stop down, its than easy. the look isn't baked in. You also have an extra stop of light to do this. I would have loved an extra stop of light when i was shooting inside a car handheld at dusk with my UM4.6 - i had to open my shutter complete and shoot at f1.0, but I still had to use 1600iso. The shots ended up being unusable, terrible grain . I didnt have time to pull out my sony to shoot this. One more stop, and I would have had some extra shots.

    paul
    Last edited by paulrossjones; 03-08-2017 at 02:48 PM.
    Paul Ross Jones


    -------------------------
    www.paulrossjones.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    USA N. CA
    Posts
    2,243
    Paul, you make some very good points. A Speed Booster to allow the use of the full AOV on a 135 lens could be very useful.
    Perhaps Metabones will figure out a way to do it. I feel about the same way with my Zeiss 28mm f/2 as you about your EF 85mm lens.
    The Panasonic Leica 42.5 Noct. also is a "magical" lens creating the creamy Leica/Cooke look, with nice Bokeh.
    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Has anyone on this thread from March heard about actual development of a speedbooster for the Ursa Mini and UM Pro?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by leonardo0112 View Post
    Has anyone on this thread from March heard about actual development of a speedbooster for the Ursa Mini and UM Pro?

    I measured up the URSA mini pro and the element cant get close enough to the sensor due to the nd filter setup. It misses by about 3mm (i need to find my notes). I have no idea whether this positioning will make the speed booster no work or not- But it cant replicate the exact position that the metabones has. This is a pity as you can buy a EF mount with this camera, modify it anyway you like and you aren't permanently changing the camera.

    This is problem one with the idea- element getting close to the sensor. Problem two is the ef lens needs to be mount just over 4mm closer to the sensor than the standard mount, other wise it will act like a close up extension tube.

    But the ursa 4.6k standard allows the speedbooster element to get close enough as the IR filter is a lot closer to the sensor. The problem with this camera is that its not so easy to modify the EF lens mount to get closer to the sensor by 4mm as it isn't "user" removable like the pro. Ive sold my standard usra 4.6k mini, so I cant pull it part to find out.

    So if anyone doesnt mind unscrewing the EF mount on a standard Ursa mini 4.6k, taking some pics and measuring if there is anyway of moving that back approx 4mm towards the sensor as a mod, then we will know if this will work. If it works, I would be more than happy to buy another UM46 and modify it permanently as a speed booster camera body.

    cheers paul
    Paul Ross Jones


    -------------------------
    www.paulrossjones.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    USA N. CA
    Posts
    2,243
    Mr. Caldwell, who developed the Metabones Speed Booster optical block, has previously stated, it is not possible to make a SB that goes from either MFT to MFT, or EF to EF, as the FFD of these mounts does not allow enough room for the SB optical block. Added to this the UM Oro filter setup, eats up the little available space there is. The standard zuM 4.6 EF mount is fixed, major modification recite fit a SB optical black. The existing SB work, because of the generous room available between MFT to linger FFDs like Canon EF and Nikon, same for Sony E Mount, which also has a short FFD . Secondly, if it were physically possible, it would not probably be economically profitable at the current price of Metabones SB. The Ursa Mini PL camera dumb EF mount died due to a lack of market demand for it.
    Cheets
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    501
    Im pretty sure making a speedbooster for the pro is doable just not with the current speedboosters. They would have to build one custom made for the pro's available focal flange and compensation for the ND / clear filter.
    Dustin Uy-Filmmaker
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Smith View Post
    Mr. Caldwell, who developed the Metabones Speed Booster optical block, has previously stated, it is not possible to make a SB that goes from either MFT to MFT, or EF to EF, as the FFD of these mounts does not allow enough room for the SB optical block. Added to this the UM Oro filter setup, eats up the little available space there is. The standard zuM 4.6 EF mount is fixed, major modification recite fit a SB optical black. The existing SB work, because of the generous room available between MFT to linger FFDs like Canon EF and Nikon, same for Sony E Mount, which also has a short FFD . Secondly, if it were physically possible, it would not probably be economically profitable at the current price of Metabones SB. The Ursa Mini PL camera dumb EF mount died due to a lack of market demand for it.
    Cheets
    Denny, you seem like you really don't want this to be a possibility! I am not sure why you are putting so much effort into trying to convince us this cannot work. I know there wont be a ef to ef adaptor, but I have already put a speed booster into the ursa mini (into the un-screwable lens baffle) and got a satisfactory image- but it focuses too close due to the the lens deck distance. But this isnt an impossible problem. How do you use a FD mount lens on an ef camera? They put a element in to make the lens focus back to normal.

    I honestly don't think this is rocket science, and if it can be achieved the results are very valuable to some people. Its so important to me that I am happy to dedicate a ursa mini body to the speed booster mod, but I also have been looking into reds as well - these can be adapted to speed boosters easily and also into older alexas classics which , like the reds can have the mount changed (although these are dumb mounts).

    the only problem is the distance of the lens mount to the sensor. This distance is not an absolute- it is controlled by the design of the elements. I know this as my cheap chinese speedbooster is a different size than my metabones speedbooster. But this distance could be corrected with a single lens added- like the way the FD- ef adaptor works.

    paul
    Paul Ross Jones


    -------------------------
    www.paulrossjones.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Sigma's new full frame 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art Lens
    By DangerMouse in forum Lens Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-22-2015, 04:56 PM
  2. Replies: 237
    Last Post: 08-19-2014, 12:57 PM
  3. Sigma 24-70mm F2.0 Full-Frame Lens On The Way
    By Simon Shasha in forum Lens Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 04:31 PM
  4. The BMCC 4K 35mm sensor is not full frame?
    By Robert Bentley in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-10-2013, 12:09 AM
  5. “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter
    By Simon Shasha in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-02-2013, 11:34 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •