5 ms·

For comparison, the Nikon D4 (a digital SLR) can shoot video at ISO 204,800, and it can resolve details in the dark beyond the ability of the eye, and I suspect

For comparison, the Nikon D4 (a digital SLR) can shoot video at ISO 204,800, and it can resolve details in the dark beyond the ability of the eye, and I suspect this new sensor is more sensitive — or, at least, far more noise free — than that. EDIT: Judging by some photos I've taken of the night sky, with an f/2.8 lens and with a shutter speed of 1/50s, you need an ISO of around 300,000 to get enough brightness. If only Stanley Kubrick had this to play with. Instead, he used a f/0.7 lens to shoot some scenes in Barry Lyndon by candlelight, way back in 1975.

eksith 14y ago
Didn't he use the same lenses used by NASA on the cameras for the Apollo missions? I think the larger aperture gave better low-light exposure during the candlelit scene (and may have inadvertantly fuelled conspiracy nuts that think the moon landings were a hoax because they think the sunlight reflected off the regolith was a secondary light source).
- davidjohnstone 14y ago
  Yes, an f/0.7 aperture is a ridiculously wide aperture (thus, it lets in a lot of light[1]), two stops brighter than f/1.4 (a "stop" means a doubling of the amount of light; f/1.2 lenses are the fastest lenses commonly available, and they'll cost around $2k), or four stops faster than f/2.8 (which is what the fastest commonly available zoom lenses are, and they're expensive too). Leica make a very rare f/0.95 lens that would set you back $11k, and it's appropriately called Noctilux. As for conspiracy theories, what makes it even better is that Stanley Kubrick also made 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968, which includes some scenes set on the moon, and I've heard of conspiracy theories about how these were used for the "real" moon landing too… (And yes, according to Wikipedia, Kubrick bought three of the ten copies of this lens made, with NASA buying six and Carl Zeiss keeping the other.) 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
  - Gravityloss 14y ago
    For smaller image circles (smaller sensor), you can get 0.95 lenses for under a thousand euros.
  - eksith 14y ago
    Holy cow! I just visited arethuza's Wikipedia link below... I read the NASA trivia about the movie on a forum a few years back and it just popped into my memory. I had no idea these were incredibly rare. Yes, the irony him shooting 2001 wasn't lost on me. Without reflections, space is pretty dark (excluding starlight) so I imagine the new Canon lense will see a lot of space use. Provided it can be made sufficienty RAD-hard.
    - coldtea 14y ago
      >Without reflections, space is pretty dark (excluding starlight) Lots of infrared too, though.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        Distant from stars like our sun, the temperature of space is just 2.73 Kelvins. It's pretty easy to work out the temperature for any given location in space -- just add up the effect of any nearby stars, whose radiation decreases as the square of distance, and add the background temperature of space itself, caused by the Big Bang afterglow. What this means is that, unless you're close to a star, it is very, very cold. Even at Pluto's relatively nearby location, the average temperature is only 33 Kelvins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_rad...
  - wiredfool 14y ago
    Voigtlander is making an 0.95 25mm m4/3 lens, and it's only $1100 or so.
    - taligent 14y ago
      I have one of these and they are quite popular amongst amateur videographers. They definitely give a cinematic quality to captured video.
- arethuza 14y ago
  Looks like that is true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7
  - yread 14y ago
    The whole main reference for the article is worth reading http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm and plenty of other fast lenses http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar_en.html http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar_en.html and here is a good summary of the developments that went into it (how hard would it be to find this page if not for a link on wiki?!) http://web.archive.org/web/20090309005033/http://ogiroux.blogspot.com/2008/06/worlds-fastest-lens-zeiss-50mm-f07.html http://web.archive.org/web/20090309005033/http://ogiroux.blo...
ominous_prime 14y ago
The lens in the photo looks like a 50mm f/1.2 (I can't quite make it out in the vid), and I'd be very surprised if they weren't shooting wide open for this demo.
IvyMike 14y ago
If you are in Los Angeles, you can go to the Stanley Kubrick exhibit at LACMA and see the f/0.7 lens in person, right now. For that matter the entire exhibit is awesome.
- majormajor 14y ago
  Seconded
mayank 14y ago
Fascinating. Looks like there were only 10 of those f/0.7 lenses made, 6 of which went to NASA to photograph the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7
rorrr 14y ago
Why don't you post a D4 video at ISO 204,800, so we can all laugh at it.

eksith 14y ago

Didn't he use the same lenses used by NASA on the cameras for the Apollo missions? I think the larger aperture gave better low-light exposure during the candlelit scene (and may have inadvertantly fuelled conspiracy nuts that think the moon landings were a hoax because they think the sunlight reflected off the regolith was a secondary light source).

davidjohnstone 14y ago
Yes, an f/0.7 aperture is a ridiculously wide aperture (thus, it lets in a lot of light[1]), two stops brighter than f/1.4 (a "stop" means a doubling of the amount of light; f/1.2 lenses are the fastest lenses commonly available, and they'll cost around $2k), or four stops faster than f/2.8 (which is what the fastest commonly available zoom lenses are, and they're expensive too). Leica make a very rare f/0.95 lens that would set you back $11k, and it's appropriately called Noctilux. As for conspiracy theories, what makes it even better is that Stanley Kubrick also made 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968, which includes some scenes set on the moon, and I've heard of conspiracy theories about how these were used for the "real" moon landing too… (And yes, according to Wikipedia, Kubrick bought three of the ten copies of this lens made, with NASA buying six and Carl Zeiss keeping the other.) 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
- Gravityloss 14y ago
  For smaller image circles (smaller sensor), you can get 0.95 lenses for under a thousand euros.
- eksith 14y ago
  Holy cow! I just visited arethuza's Wikipedia link below... I read the NASA trivia about the movie on a forum a few years back and it just popped into my memory. I had no idea these were incredibly rare. Yes, the irony him shooting 2001 wasn't lost on me. Without reflections, space is pretty dark (excluding starlight) so I imagine the new Canon lense will see a lot of space use. Provided it can be made sufficienty RAD-hard.
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >Without reflections, space is pretty dark (excluding starlight) Lots of infrared too, though.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      Distant from stars like our sun, the temperature of space is just 2.73 Kelvins. It's pretty easy to work out the temperature for any given location in space -- just add up the effect of any nearby stars, whose radiation decreases as the square of distance, and add the background temperature of space itself, caused by the Big Bang afterglow. What this means is that, unless you're close to a star, it is very, very cold. Even at Pluto's relatively nearby location, the average temperature is only 33 Kelvins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_rad...
- wiredfool 14y ago
  Voigtlander is making an 0.95 25mm m4/3 lens, and it's only $1100 or so.
  - taligent 14y ago
    I have one of these and they are quite popular amongst amateur videographers. They definitely give a cinematic quality to captured video.
arethuza 14y ago
Looks like that is true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7
- yread 14y ago
  The whole main reference for the article is worth reading http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm and plenty of other fast lenses http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar_en.html http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar_en.html and here is a good summary of the developments that went into it (how hard would it be to find this page if not for a link on wiki?!) http://web.archive.org/web/20090309005033/http://ogiroux.blogspot.com/2008/06/worlds-fastest-lens-zeiss-50mm-f07.html http://web.archive.org/web/20090309005033/http://ogiroux.blo...

ominous_prime 14y ago

The lens in the photo looks like a 50mm f/1.2 (I can't quite make it out in the vid), and I'd be very surprised if they weren't shooting wide open for this demo.

IvyMike 14y ago

If you are in Los Angeles, you can go to the Stanley Kubrick exhibit at LACMA and see the f/0.7 lens in person, right now. For that matter the entire exhibit is awesome.

majormajor 14y ago
Seconded

mayank 14y ago

Fascinating. Looks like there were only 10 of those f/0.7 lenses made, 6 of which went to NASA to photograph the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7

rorrr 14y ago

Why don't you post a D4 video at ISO 204,800, so we can all laugh at it.