4 ms·

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 candlel

by 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.
- scottoller 14y ago
  There's also a discontinued Canon f/1.0 that some rental places still have. I shot some stuff with it, and it's pretty amazing to play around with. Even with that though, we had to expose for at least 4 seconds at ISO 1600 to get legit star exposures. I've always fantasized about being able to shoot handheld video of the Milky Way, I'm happy to see that the technology now exists!
- pixelcloud 14y ago
  Any f-stop below 1.0 is pretty incredible. Kubrick filmed that scnee with JUST candle light.
- minikomi 14y ago
  As a 70s canon rangefinder nut, I feel it is my duty to point out that Zeiss was not the only one responsible for a 0.95 lens http://japancamerahunter.com/2012/01/the-incredible-canon-50mm-f0-95/ http://japancamerahunter.com/2012/01/the-incredible-canon-50...
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...

by eksith 14y ago

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.
scottoller 14y ago
There's also a discontinued Canon f/1.0 that some rental places still have. I shot some stuff with it, and it's pretty amazing to play around with. Even with that though, we had to expose for at least 4 seconds at ISO 1600 to get legit star exposures. I've always fantasized about being able to shoot handheld video of the Milky Way, I'm happy to see that the technology now exists!
pixelcloud 14y ago
Any f-stop below 1.0 is pretty incredible. Kubrick filmed that scnee with JUST candle light.
minikomi 14y ago
As a 70s canon rangefinder nut, I feel it is my duty to point out that Zeiss was not the only one responsible for a 0.95 lens http://japancamerahunter.com/2012/01/the-incredible-canon-50mm-f0-95/ http://japancamerahunter.com/2012/01/the-incredible-canon-50...

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...