FORUMS: list search recent posts

Managing depth of field for a low end camera

COW Forums : Cinematography

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
anandabrata
Managing depth of field for a low end camera
on Nov 26, 2007 at 10:20:09 am

Hi,

I have a very low end sony mini dv. That does not have adjustable aperture settings. It does have manual focus which gives me two extreme options of potrait and landscape.

So when I want the shallow depth of field of the background i adjust using potrait and when I need shallow foreground dof i use the landscape option.

But there are at times requirements when I want to have only the central objects/subject to be on focus and foreground and background both to be blurred , that is shallow dof.

Is there a way I can achieve the same with this type of a camera setup. How is it done in professional cameras is also something I would like to know?

Regards,
Anand


Return to posts index

Todd at Fantastic Plastic
Re: Managing depth of field for a low end camera
on Nov 26, 2007 at 2:22:21 pm

This has been discussed several times in this and other forums, such as the HDV forum. I'd suggest doing a search using the terms "depth of field" or "DoF."

Unfortunately you are asking more of your camera that it was designed for. The tiny 1/3" chips in a small DV camera just make it fairly impossible to get very shallow depths of field... it just prinicpals of physics and optics.

The DoF will get shallower the more you zoom in, so you may be able to get the effect you want with longer/tighter shots.

Barring that, you would need to use a depth-of-field lens converter. That would do exactly what you want... but be forwarned: you say you have a very "low end" DV camera... that being the case a good DoF converter can cost several several times as much as the camera itself. I'm not sure I would make that kind of investment unless you could get your hands on a higher-end camera.

Good luck!


T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com






Return to posts index

Jeffrey B.
Re: Managing depth of field for a low end camera
on Nov 27, 2007 at 1:37:49 am

Without buying new equipment, your only option is to get far away and zoom in as much as possible.

Larger sensors and lenses with very wide apertures give professional cameras their shallow depth of field. Longer focal lengths (aka zooming in) also gives a shallow depth of field.

Depth of field converters are also used. Like Todd said, they are more expensive than it's worth for your camera. If you spent the money for a DoF converter, you might as buy a new camera.



Return to posts index


Bob Cole
Re: Managing depth of field for a low end camera
on Dec 16, 2007 at 3:30:04 am

[Jeffrey B.] "Without buying new equipment, your only option is to get far away and zoom in as much as possible."

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a common misconception. If you go far away and zoom in to, say, a head-and-shoulders shot, you'll have as much DOF as if you stayed close and zoomed out for the same head-and-shoulders frame.

The solution is to move the subject as far from the background as possible. For interiors, place the camera close to one wall, and bring the subject as close to the camera as you can.

Also, of course, shoot wide open, using a higher shutter speed if necessary. This can be tricky if you use the zoom a lot, as tele settings generally have a higher "wide open" f-stop.

You can also create the impression of shallow DOF by your choice of background (large objects without detail) and the lighting on the background (defocussed pattern lighting).

But the human eye has infinite DOF, so perhaps this is a new esthetic. Well, not so new, Citizen Kane.

Bob C

MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650


Return to posts index

Todd at Fantastic Plastic
Re: Managing depth of field for a low end camera
on Dec 16, 2007 at 5:01:20 am

[Bob Cole] "Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a common misconception. If you go far away and zoom in to, say, a head-and-shoulders shot, you'll have as much DOF as if you stayed close and zoomed out for the same head-and-shoulders frame."

Sadly, no. DoF is a function of a number of things including f-stop, size of image (film frame or chip size) and lens focal length. In the 35mm world, just as an 80mm prime lens has a much shallower depth of field compared to, say, a 28mm lens... by zooming in you are increasing the focal length of the lens and correspondingly decreasing the depth of field.

The other suggestions (shooting wide open, etc.), are legitimate, but unfortunately in practicality don't have too much effect. The little 1/3" sensors are so tiny in small camcorders that even a wide-open iris will have DoF almost as deep as one that is significantly stopped down.

If one desires a truely shallow depth of field with a small camcorder, the only real solution (barring shooting everything with as looooong a lens as possible... i.e., zoomed in) is to use a lens converter.

[Bob Cole] "Well, not so new, Citizen Kane."

Yep, extremely shallow DoFs are a bit of a modernism. DoFs in Welles' day were indeed often very deep (Kane's cinematographer Gregg Toland especially was an advocate and deveoper of "deep focus"). These were aesthetic decisions accomplished by wide angles, stopped down lenses, and even special multi-focal ("cut in half") lenses and attachments that would focus part of the frame for foreground and part of it for background. Also, this was before "superspeed" days and maximum f-stops on lenses of the day weren't as large as presently available.

Times, they are a-changin'...


T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com






Return to posts index

Bob Cole
reply and a new topic: EX? 1/2"?
on Dec 16, 2007 at 6:00:12 am

[Todd at Fantastic Plastic] "[Bob Cole] "Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a common misconception. If you go far away and zoom in to, say, a head-and-shoulders shot, you'll have as much DOF as if you stayed close and zoomed out for the same head-and-shoulders frame."

Sadly, no. DoF is a function of a number of things including f-stop, size of image (film frame or chip size) and lens focal length. In the 35mm world, just as an 80mm prime lens has a much shallower depth of field compared to, say, a 28mm lens... by zooming in you are increasing the focal length of the lens and correspondingly decreasing the depth of field."


Of course, but that's not what we were discussing. The suggestion was to decrease the DOF by moving the camera further away and zooming in. Assuming a constant imager size, and a constant subject size (e.g. a head-and-shoulders in both cases) and subject position relative to the background, that doesn't work. You'll get a narrower slice of the background, but it will be virtually as sharp. I can't find the source where I first saw this, but take a look at
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm or http://www.agilelevin.com/outoffocusessay.htm

I agree with your observation about how difficult it is to make a 1/3" imager have shallow DOF. It's made me much more careful about choosing a background and positioning the subject (I'm talking interviews here).

What I'm wondering about right now (as a Sony Z1 owner), is whether there is enough of a DOF difference to make a difference, between the 1/3" imager and a 1/2" (as in the new Sony EX). I have come to appreciate the light weight of the Z1, and I especially like the ergonomics of the EX. Do you think there will ever be a 2/3" camera in something like the EX form factor? I dislike the weight of the new "cheap" Panasonic 2/3" shoulder-mount cameras -- & I really like being able to carry around an HD-flavor video camera like I used to carry an SLR!

Bob C

MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650


Return to posts index


Todd at Fantastic Plastic
Re: reply and a new topic: EX? 1/2"?
on Dec 16, 2007 at 7:28:31 am

[Bob Cole] "You'll get a narrower slice of the background, but it will be virtually as sharp"

Sorry, Bob... not to be argumentative, but that simply is not true. If you, say, shoot a subject 20 feet away with an 80mm lens, and then shoot the subject from 5 feet away with an 18mm lens (or whatever exact distances it takes to keep the subject the same size), not only will the field of view be different, but the degree of focus on the background (or foreground) elements will be radically different, assuming the same f-stop for both lenses. Yup, RADICALLY. It's just the way it is. The same would apply when using different focal lengths for a zoom lens. This is, of course, assuming you are shooting a shallow DoF format (such as 35mm film, or video with a lens converter)... a little 1/3" camera has such deeeeeep DoF almost everything is going to be in nearly-sharp focus no matter what you do.

I shoot every day (and have for the last 20 years) with camera formats ranging from Super35mm film down to video cameras with little 1/3" sensors, and can attest that this is simply the way it is. If I had the inclination I could probably spend an hour on the phone and easily find dozens of cinematographers to back that up.

You can test this easily yourself... probably NOT with a small video camera since the depth of field is so deep, but if you don't have access to a 35mm motion picture camera you can test it with an SLR with a zoom lens (NOT a digital SLR, it will suffer the same "small chip" deep focus as the video camera... use a real 35mm film SLR). The change in depth of field should be readily evident, just by looking through the viewfinder. You don't even have to take any shots.

If you can't do a test, DoF/f-stop/focal length comparison charts are readily available... I think there is one in the American Cinematographers Manual (I don't have mine handy, it's at the studio and it's after hours now).

[Bob Cole] "What I'm wondering about right now (as a Sony Z1 owner), is whether there is enough of a DOF difference to make a difference, between the 1/3" imager and a 1/2" (as in the new Sony EX)."

Nah, probably not. If you want to compare it to film, your Z1 with its 1/3" chips has roughly the same DoF as Super8 film (very deep). A "full size" camcorder (Cinealta, Varicam, etc.) wit 2/3" sensors will have roughly the same DoF as 16mm film (somewhat shallower than 8mm, but much deeper than 35mm). The EX with its 1/2" chip will fall somewhere between 8mm and 16mm... closer to the 8mm DoF... in other words, still extremely deep. I doubt there will be any noticable DoF difference in the EX compared to 1/3" cameras.

Personally I would love to use te EX with a lens converter and cine primes. However, I really only like to use that setup with cameras with removable lenses.... and unfortunately to take off the EX lens it requires a hacksaw. And I'm betting the results wouldn't be too good!


T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com






Return to posts index

Bob Cole
Re: reply
on Dec 16, 2007 at 4:11:37 pm

re: DOF. Please take a look at the links in the earlier post. Once more: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm Navigate to the section headed "CLARIFICATION: FOCAL LENGTH AND DEPTH OF FIELD"

There's no point in continuing with this he said-she said -- at least for my part, as I'm not an expert in the physics of optics and have nothing to contribute except for those links. I was just trying to keep someone from believing that he could fix a 1/3" camera's shallow DOF by moving the camera back and using the tele.

But at least this discussion has led to another question, which I'm going to post in separate thread.

Thanks!

"Cole-out"

MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650


Return to posts index

Todd at Fantastic Plastic
Re: reply
on Dec 16, 2007 at 7:38:19 pm

Well, I won't continue the "he said / she said" argument past this post either (while wondering who is the "he" and who is the "she")...

But I will observe that I did look at that guy's website. I will say that he does appear (just looking at the gallery) a pretty darn good photographer. But judging from his technical explainations he is also one that has a fairly, um, unusual grasp on some of the technicalities of photography.

The simple fact is that anyone who says that DoF is unaffected by focal length is simply flying in the face of well over a century's worth of proven photographic and optical theory. No two ways around it.

Just keep in mind that in this day and age anyone can throw up a website... but that doesn't mean the information in it is correct. I haven't looked, but I'll bet you ten bucks that within ten minutes of Googling I could find some sites purporting that Elvis is still alive and that professional wrestling is real.

If someone wants to believe that however, well, they can knock themselves out.

I think our UK photographer is partially basing his observations on the fact that he seems primarily to be a digital photographer, where small imagers result in DoFs that seem less affected by focal length change.

[Bob Cole] "I was just trying to keep someone from believing that he could fix a 1/3" camera's shallow DOF by moving the camera back and using the tele"

But that would be trying to keep someone from believing something that is provably true. You can indeed reduce DoF by using longer lenses. You may not get the field of view you want (probably won't) and perspectives may be flattened in an unwanted way... but the DoF will definitely be reduced.



T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com






Return to posts index


boydmcc
Re: reply
on Dec 17, 2007 at 8:10:04 pm

There are really only 4 factors in depth of field for the same camera (film/sensor size) based on specific constants (there are also specific mathematical formulae to describe these various relationships):

1. At any given focal length, DOF increases as the aperture gets smaller.
2. At the same aperture and focal length, DOF increases as the distance to the subject increases.
3. At the same aperture and distance to subject, DOF is greater for a shorter focal length than for a longer one.
4. At the same aperture and image size (the subject framing remaining constant), DOF remains approximately constant for all focal lengths.

In this thread, it appears Bob is talking about situation number 4, whereas Todd is talking about number 3. Both are making valid points.

The situation many people encounter is too much DOF for the framing/composition they want - for example, in an interview. The common advice given is to move the camera back and zoom in. However, when you do this, to achieve the same frame composition, you have to move the camera back to a point where the DOF of the new focal length matches what you previously had. This is demonstrative phenomenon.

However, using a longer focal length can help with the illusion of a shallower DOF by narrowing the field of view and magnifying the background blur of the image (making the background larger in relationship to the foreground).

An excellent article with specific photographic examples and reference material can be found at:

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/dof.html

So yes, focal length does affect DOF. But there are areas where you achieve the same DOF with different focal lengths - same subject framing being one of them.



Return to posts index

Boyd McCollum
Re: reply
on Dec 17, 2007 at 8:11:55 pm

There are really only 4 factors in depth of field for the same camera (film/sensor size) based on specific constants (there are also specific mathematical formulae to describe these various relationships):

1. At any given focal length, DOF increases as the aperture gets smaller.
2. At the same aperture and focal length, DOF increases as the distance to the subject increases.
3. At the same aperture and distance to subject, DOF is greater for a shorter focal length than for a longer one.
4. At the same aperture and image size (the subject framing remaining constant), DOF remains approximately constant for all focal lengths.

In this thread, it appears Bob is talking about situation number 4, whereas Todd is talking about number 3. Both are making valid points.

The situation many people encounter is too much DOF for the framing/composition they want - for example, in an interview. The common advice given is to move the camera back and zoom in. However, when you do this, to achieve the same frame composition, you have to move the camera back to a point where the DOF of the new focal length matches what you previously had. This is demonstrative phenomenon.

However, using a longer focal length can help with the illusion of a shallower DOF by narrowing the field of view and magnifying the background blur of the image (making the background larger in relationship to the foreground).

An excellent article with specific photographic examples and reference material can be found at:

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/dof.html

So yes, focal length does affect DOF. But there are areas where you achieve the same DOF with different focal lengths - same subject framing being one of them.



Return to posts index

Steve Wargo
Re: reply
on Dec 22, 2007 at 5:32:18 am

[Todd at Fantastic Plastic] "professional wrestling is real."

So that's why they don't have the results in the newspaper and on the TV. Darn!



Steve Wargo
Tempe, Arizona
It's a dry heat!

Sony HDCAM F-900 & HDW-2000/1 deck
5 Final Cut (not quite PRO) systems
Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck
Sony EX-1 on the way.


Return to posts index


boydmcc
Re: Managing depth of field for a low end camera
on Dec 3, 2007 at 8:51:12 pm

point of clarification - there are only 2 elements that affect depth of field (DoF), that is f-stop (aperture) and image size (or in the case of video, sensor size). The smaller the image/sensor size, the greater the DoF and the lower the f-stop (for example f/2.0), the shallower the DoF. Depth of Field is the result of a mathematical relationship between these two, and the focal length doesn't matter.

Zooming in, or increasing your focal length, creates the illusion of a shallower DoF, but this is due to higher magnification. Longer focal lengths flatten perspective, which makes the background larger relative to the foreground (basically magnifying the inherent blur in the background image). Focal length can also affect the distribution of the DoF around the focal plane: at a shorter focal length (wide angle), the majority of what is in the DoF takes place behind the focal plane, while at a longer focal length (telephoto), the DoF is more evenly distributed in front and behind the focal plane.

I


Return to posts index

Steve Wargo
Re: Managing depth of field for a low end camera
on Dec 5, 2007 at 5:14:59 am

[boydmcc] " Also remember, a shallow DoF is not the sole objective of good cinematography. "

Thanks for that. In the past year or so, it seems like all I hear about is the need to have the background out of focus at all times. The people who are concerned own the small cameras with the small chips. The one major problem is that the Image records upside down. I have seen cameras and monitors upside down and DPs and crew members concentrating all of their efforts on dealing with this instead of doing their real job. They will have crummy lighting and a non-existent sound package, but all they care about is that soft background.

Poor priorities for sure.



Steve Wargo
Tempe, Arizona
It's a dry heat!

Sony HDCAM F-900 & HDW-2000/1 deck
5 Final Cut (not quite PRO) systems
Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck
Sony EX-1 on the way.


Return to posts index

Steve Wargo
To complete my prior post...
on Dec 7, 2007 at 6:06:29 am

In my original post, I started to move a remark and deleted it altogether.

Thanks for that. In the past year or so, it seems like all I hear about is the need to have the background out of focus at all times. The people who are concerned own the small cameras with the small chips. The solution, it seems, is the adapters that mount film lenses onto the front of the small cameras The one major problem is that the Image records upside down. I have seen cameras and monitors upside down and DPs and crew members concentrating all of their efforts on dealing with this instead of doing their real job. They will have crummy lighting and a non-existent sound package, but all they care about is that soft background. This is not to say that the adapters shouldn't be used, but they need not be the primary place to put money when the budget is really tight. I will be more impressed by an awesome sound track than I will with a fuzzy background.

I have had distributors ask "How is the soundtrack" but I've never heard one say "So, the background's out of focus, right?"

As I said before, poor priorities.



Steve Wargo
Tempe, Arizona
It's a dry heat!

Sony HDCAM F-900 & HDW-2000/1 deck
5 Final Cut (not quite PRO) systems
Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck
Sony EX-1 on the way.


Return to posts index


Todd at Fantastic Plastic
Re: To complete my prior post...
on Dec 7, 2007 at 2:52:14 pm

All true and valid points... but...

[Steve Wargo] "The one major problem is that the Image records upside down. I have seen cameras and monitors upside down"

Well... NOT if you use a good one :)

We use a PL mount DoF converter almost every day with our little Canon XLH1 (not with an upside-down image)... but not purely so I can get a super soft background. Rather I use is so I have a controllable background... as a cinematographer sometimes I want DoF super shallow, sometimes deep, sometimes in between. On a "real" movie set how deep the DoF is, is one of the first thing that the DP considers... and then the lighting is affected accordingly to allow him to get that. Plus it allows me to use real cinema lenses, lenses that are many MANY times better than any video lens that I could ever hope to use on the camera.

It's just part of the package for us... no more (or less) important than good sound, lighting, or anything else.

Without some kind of conversion to a 35mm frame size... video will never truly look like 35mm film (which is obviously the goal of many people). Even the highest-end HD at 24p... it still looks like video. GREAT video, but video nonetheless. I remember watching "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" in the theatre (before I knew how it was shot) and remember thinking, "Why is this VIDEO"? For me, a good DoF converter just gives the image the "look" that puts it over the top. Not necessarily because of shallow focus, but because of a number of factors combined.

I thinkk a lot of it has to do with one's background, and what one is used to shooting. For the videographers who are used to electronic images, then HD knocks their socks off, and rightly so. But most cinematographers who have been used to shooting film feel that HD just doesn't look "quite right" to them, even at 24p. It's the up-and-coming kids who think a DoF converter suddenly turns their little palmcorder into a Panavision that have unrealistic expectations and put too much weight on using them.

They are just a tool, they aren't "God's gift to filmmaking"... but to be honest, if I didn't have my P+S Technik Mini35 and great lenses I would be shooting 35mm film a little later today, not HD.


T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com






Return to posts index

Steve Wargo
Todd. You are not...
on Dec 8, 2007 at 1:21:27 am

Todd. You are not the guy that I was talking about. But I think you knew that. Your input is always level headed and shows your years of experience.



Steve Wargo
Tempe, Arizona
It's a dry heat!

Sony HDCAM F-900 & HDW-2000/1 deck
5 Final Cut (not quite PRO) systems
Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck
Sony EX-1 on the way.


Return to posts index

Nate Graham
Re: To complete my prior post...
on Dec 18, 2007 at 10:41:02 pm

I helped a crew shoot a short this summer. They used a redrock converter and I must say that there is something very appealing about narrow DoF. Eventually they took the redrock off because they were having "focus" problems. But I must admit that while having out of focus backgrounds looks very nice, it doesn't make a video look any more "like film" but it definitely doesn't look so much like video either. It might taste like chicken but it still just isn't quite chicken somehow.

Todd,
Your talk about only using quality lenses and converters raises a question (begging your pardon for my lack of knowledge on the subject). What makes a good lens, well, good?

My father is a still photographer and he's always talking about this lens and that lens. I finally asked him what makes these high quality lenses more desirable than others. He admitted that he didn't really know. He just goes off of what his piers say is good, but they never really say why, either. I have yet to see someone look at a photograph, film, video, etc. and say "WOW, this must have been shot with (insert lens model here)" I can understand distortion is factor on wide lenses but what other things does one look for in quality lenses?

The best lenses are always primes, too. Why? Is there no such thing as a really good zoom lens?

Thanks to all of you who so patiently share your knowledge with those of us who are not as learned.

Nate


Return to posts index


Todd at Fantastic Plastic
Re: To complete my prior post...
on Dec 19, 2007 at 6:25:43 am

[Nate Graham] "What makes a good lens, well, good?"

The only thing that makes a lens "good" is whether it shoots good images to your satisfaction.

That being said, cheaper lenses are generally mass produced, without the same attention to detail and quality control that that is available in high-end cinema lenses. High-end cine lenses are typically sharper and somewhat more contrasty than inexpensive lenses. High end cine lenses are designed to "resolve" an image at a higher quality (since they were designed for actual film), whereas video cameras typically have lenses that will resolve only for video-level resolution, if you're lucky (be it SD or HD). Motion picture lenses are generally made/assembled by hand by guys you would more consider craftsmen.... the optical elements, coatings,
machining and all of that will be surperior. Of course the lack of mass production comes with a price... they can be very expensive. Often times on a real film set the lenses can be the most costly thing around... a single prime can be worth more than the camera itself. A matched set of primes most certainly will be.

Some cinematographers really do know their lenses well, and can tell just by looking that such-and-such movie must have been shot with a particular model of Cookes because it's more contrasty, or that film must have been shot with so-and-so model of Zeiss because it is wamer... etc. Most of us can't tell.

The "best" lenses are generally primes, largly because the more glass an image has to go through, the more the image degrades. Primes have just a few elements in them, whereas zooms have a whole boatload. Zooms typically are much slower than primes as well. That's not to say there are not good zooms, as there are some out there. Really good ones are quite costly though.

A great deal of it has to do with fit/finishing/machining, too, not just the optical elements themselves. Many people try to shoot video with DoF converters and use SLR still lenses, and readily learn the difference in inexpensive lenses and higer-end cinema lenses (although some people still do it with great success). Firstly, the "fit" on the SLR lenses (even good ones) do not have nearly the tolerance of cine lenses. Some even "wiggle" a bit... which is inconsequential for still photography, but a killer when shooting motion footage. Many SLR lenses, even expensive ones, breath a bit (the image size changes slightly when focusing), whereas good cine lenses should never breath. They can be difficult to use, too, especially for racking or follow focusing. This is because to go from near to infinity on an SLR lens you only have to turn the barrel a tiny bit, whereas a cine lens will make almost an entire barrel turn to go through its focus range.

A lot of still lenses DO have excellent elements in them, it's just that they were not mechanically designed for cine use. For example, four of the superspeed lenses in my primes set are Leitz lenses, and started their life as lenses for Leica still cameras. The actual glass in them is second to none, but they would not have been useful for motion work because of the reasons I mentioned. However the optical elements were rehoused by Panavision, and now they have the right mounts, gear rings, focus travel range, collimation, engraving, and all that good stuff... so even though they were once still lenses they are now as good as any cine lenses that started life that way.

I could say a lot more, but those are the basic points. Again, what makes a "good" lens is if it looks good to you. And price isn't always a factor... some excellent primes will easily cost as much as a new car, but I also have some excellent Russian LOMO cine primes that were dirt cheap (maybe only a few hundred bucks a piece) and they give stunning results as well.

It seems a lot of people are catching onto the fact that using cine primes on an HD camera (often with a DoF converter) can give stunning results. I'm basing that guess on the fact that the market for cine primes has really dried up. A few years ago you could sometimes find a decent small set of superspeed primes in the $10-15K neighborhood. Today unfortunately you can easily pay twice that or more, if you can find them. If and when RED finally releases their primes they will go for about $20K/set, which might be worth looking at. Incidentally, they will also have an 18-50mm zoom for $6500 and a 50-150mm for $8500. They are both T3... which is reasonably fast for a zoom, but pretty slow compared to primes.

There are two test instruments that you should use to make your final and most critical judgment..... your eyeballs.


T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com






Return to posts index

Nate Graham
Re: To complete my prior post...
on Dec 19, 2007 at 4:48:15 pm

Wow, that was an awesome post, thanks Todd!

One other question. I've noticed that on The Hunt for Red October every time they do a rack focus there's an odd sort of distortion. Other films don't seem to have this same effect when doing a rack focus. Do you know why it looks so different on this film?

Thanks again for the info. You should do a COW video on lenses. I'd be interested in learning more.

Nate


Return to posts index

Todd at Fantastic Plastic
Re: To complete my prior post...
on Dec 19, 2007 at 5:04:31 pm

[Nate Graham] "I've noticed that on The Hunt for Red October every time they do a rack focus there's an odd sort of distortion."

Hmmmmm.... dunno what that was. Haven't see that film in a while, but next time I catch it I'll look out for that. Maybe the lenses were breathing, maybe they specifically selected a vintage set of primes (probably anamorphics) for their certain "look," which happens often. If I recall, the DP on "Red October" was Jan de Bont, and he certainly knows what he is doing so anything that happens on screen was probably done on purpose by design.


T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com






Return to posts index

Bill Moede
Re: To complete my prior post...
on Apr 6, 2008 at 2:35:10 am

Interesting discussion.

My view on shallow DOF; It's just another tool. I shoot with Canon XL2 cameras. I found that I can get quite shallow DOF by getting farther any from the subject, shooting wide open (smallest F stop number) sometimes using the ND filter to cut light so I can open up the lens. But, most often I prefer to use the focal length that best suits the mood, or emotions of the scene and not worry about the DOF unless that effect is needed to create the mood or tell the story.

Seems like the latest "buzz" is super shallow DOF, but I think if that's your main goal when shooting, then your missing the point. I am much more concerned lighting, framing, sharp focus and above all performance, whether the actor is person, train, storm clouds or a car.



Bill Moede
CESA 7 ILS
Green Bay, WI


Return to posts index

Danny Grizzle
Re: Managing depth of field for a low end camera
on Dec 28, 2007 at 7:00:14 am

There is an excellent set of 6 short videos discussing interrelationship of focal length, aperture, format, depth of field, and perspective on the Letus website:

http://www.letusdirect.com/depth-of-field-tutorial-videos.html

This is worthwhile viewing for anybody interested in cinematography. Straight, lucid, and well illustrated.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]