2/3" vs 1/3"

[psch1]

Would someone mind explaining, or point me in the right direction to a link, the specifics of image difference between a 2/3" vs a 1/3" chip. It doesn't seem to be in resolution or colour sampling, so why exactly is a 2/3" chip better? Thanks, in anticipation. P

[Neil Rowe]

the larger chip likely will have better light sensitivity due to less dense pixels, and also have better dynamic range and a shallower depth of feild given equivilent framing due to its larger size.

sorry . i dont have any specific link to point you to right now. but IMHO thats pretty much the 3 biggest differences in a nutshell. there may be others pending the chips as well

[Graeme_Nattress]

Also, what I'm beginning to find out is that there is a relationship between lens sharpness / MTF / Contrast and chip size, in that a smaller chip necessitates a sharper lens, which will be harder, more expensive to make (I think - anyone know if making the lens "smaller" for a smaller chip helps you get it sharper cheaper or not???), or have a lower MTF and therefore deliver a compromised picture to the chips.

I'm just beginning my research into this, so if anyone has more info - please share.

Graeme

[Bill__Turner]

All things being equal, the smaller the format(sensor) the smaller the lens will be. Since (once again a generalization) the cost of lens elements varies as the square of the ratio of the diameters ( twice as big is four times as much) the smaller lens is much less expensive to manufacture. It is true that the performance (quality) of the lens needs to increase as the sensor/format becomes smaller to maintain the same image quality.

I believe you will find the smaller sensors also use smaller pixels which is a disadvantage in sensitivity etc- which was already mentioned.

Bill Turner
Schneider Optics
Century Division

[Graeme_Nattress]

Bill, at what point do we start coming up against the lenses physical limits as we get smaller CCDs with higher resolutions?

Graeme

[Daniel Moore]

at what point do we start coming up against the lenses physical limits

In my experience, people will never stop innovating, so I don't think lens makers will hit a limit any time soon. Look at the human eye: it is pretty small and resolves hella resolution. Maybe that's the next step, some sort of liquid submerged CCD or CMOS?

[Graeme_Nattress]

The eye's limits are about 30lp/degree of arc are they not. The resolution you see through your eye are quite limited, but that amazing DSP of the brain helps an awful lot.

Indeed, lenses, no matter what they are made from, do indeed have quite physical limits in terms of the resolution they can pass, hence my question.

Graeme

[psch1]

Thanks for the great replies everyone. Very informative. Can someone explain MTF? Is DSP Digital Signal Processing? Thanks again.

[10s]

I like the larger chip format because of the shallow DOF capability. For me the ability to direct audience attention using shallow DOF is a cinematic requirement...to be used with good artistic judgement of course. This is a tool visual storytellers need in certain situations. Unfortunately most video cameras ( I assume) were designed with news and general purpose consumers in mind. These final end user requirements suggest the use of small chip/large DOF as a selling point and became a given by mfgs. Recently, mfgs are waking up to the market of visual artists. right now they're milking the money for these features but soon the race will be on to bring about low cost / large chip cameras to this market sector.

See pg. 165-167 of your American Cinematograher Manual, 8th edition for some interesting info on the Lagrange Invariant.

[evinsky]

Think of it somewhat like film. 1/3" is 16mm where 2/3" is 35mm. You would need to shoot 200 iso 16mm to aproximate the detail and grain that 500 iso 35mm could achieve. And the 35mm would still hold a few more stops latitude because there is just more silver in the frame to hold information. Thus the 2/3" has more silicone and more info.

[Shaw]

Technically 2/3" is nearly the size of 16mm film but I understood the comparison ;).

[dop16mm]

Think of it somewhat like film. 1/3" is 16mm where 2/3" is 35mm. You would need to shoot 200 iso 16mm to aproximate the detail and grain that 500 iso 35mm could achieve. And the 35mm would still hold a few more stops latitude because there is just more silver in the frame to hold information. Thus the 2/3" has more silicone and more info.

to be technical 1/3" is Super-8, 2/3" is 16mm. The only cameras with sensors like 35mm are big 1" tv studio cameras and the new panavision and dalsa digital cinema cameras. Unlike film there should be no difference in 'grain' as 1080p is the same across the the board. As others have stated the differences will have to do with depth of field and possibly light sensitivity. Depth of field is most obvious as it is an aesthetic, and it is almost impossible to match the the shallow focus look on 1/3" cameras. As 1/3" filmmakers we need to accentuate the positive, embrace deep focus and find new ways to lead the eye. I recently finished a shoot in 1/3" digital that had family photos it the back-ground that add to meaning of the main action. In 2/3" or 35mm, they would blurry mush.

Orson wells would love this camera, Stanley Kubrick would love this camera. Shallow focus is just a style and a reletively recent one at that. Look at the classics, dolly moves and deep stops. And that was with slowwwww film, they must have baked the actors with the needed light. Now we can get deep stops with a 60w light bulb, or even a 15w flow. Look at the new season of Enterprise, shot on 2/3" cinealta, much more depth of field than previous seasons on film. As Hollywood embraces digital I suspect we will see a paradigm shift back to deep focus, as it is not practical to cheat the shallow look with smaller formats.

[Sirius_Doggy]

Most studio cameras are 2/3" chips (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplayModel?m=0&p=2&sp=24&id=22049) as well. I've never seen a studio camera with 1" chips?

[thisiswells]

Bill--
It was great to meet you briefly at NAB.. BobZ introduced us there.
Appreciate the info on lenses. I've been wondering about this quite a bit myself lately. Thanks.
Brian Wells

[psch1]

Thanks for that response. I'm still confused. I thought detail was measured by frame resolution ie 1920 x 1080. How can you have more resolution that this by using a 2/3 chip over a 1/3 chip. What am I missing here? Thanks...in anticipation

[thisiswells]

I'm still confused. I thought detail was measured by frame resolution ie 1920 x 1080. How can you have more resolution that this by using a 2/3 chip over a 1/3 chip. What am I missing here?

The smaller chip has smaller pixels, that's why. While not easy to make a "HD" lens for a 2/3"
camera, the design would be much less complicated than making a "HD" lens for a 1/3" camera.

Think of the size of the pixels on a 1/3" camera. If they were the same size on a 2/3" camera,
it would be more like 3840x2060 resolution because they are so much smaller. Because of this,
1/3" cameras have recently been dubbed by a wonderful software maker for macs as being
"lens limited" because really there doesn't appear a practical way to make a lens resolve that
many lines of resolution for a 1/3" camera. If a lens were that good, it would be infinitesimally
more expensive than the finest "HD" lens made for a 2/3" camera.

Considering those lenses are in the mega-buck range already, it is unlikely a lens maker
would include such an incredible lens on a small format camera--hence they are "lens limited"

Does this make any sense?

[dop16mm]

Most studio cameras are 2/3" chips (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplayModel?m=0&p=2&sp=24&id=22049) as well. I've never seen a studio camera with 1" chips?

I never said chips I said sensors. I wouldn't be surprised if Price is Right is still using the same tube cameras it was using 35 years ago, the show still looks exactly the same. Look in the AC manual depth of field charts, 1" video is a format.

[Shaw]

1" I also still much smaller than a 35mm frame.

[psch1]

Thanks thisiswells,

sorry to sound like a dummy. if the ultimate frame resolution is limited by say 1920 x 1080, are you saying that a 1/3 inch chip feeds less information to that final frame of 1920 x 1080 than a 2/3 inch chip? Is that the bit I'm missing?

[mthornton]

If pixel count are the same, then is bigger really better?

Hummmm!

Mthornton

[Shaw]

It doesn't necessarily. His point is, I believe, that making a lens which can resolve all that detail for a 1/3" camera is much harder than a 2/3" camera. That and the pixels are physically smaller and thus have a lower signal to noise ratio.

Yep, bigger is better :D

[thisiswells]

Maybe an illustration would help?

You've got half-dollar sized pixels in a 2/3" chip.
You've got penny sized pixels in a 1/3" chip.

If you put penny sized pixels in a 2/3" chip, you would have space for a lot more pixels.
Conversely if you put half-dollar sized pixels in a 1/3" chip, you would have less space for them.

So, bigger chips have bigger pixels than a smaller chip with the same number of pixels.

As a generalisation, smaller pixels are less sensitive to light (don't do as well in low light as bigger
pixels) and that's a reason to buy a camera with larger pixels and larger chips, among others.

[Barry_Green]

People get really hung up on pixel count, thinking that it has to be 1920x1080 or else it's "no good", or less than it can be, etc. Unfortunately, that's just not the way things work.

Bigger pixels are better than smaller pixels-- they're more light sensitive, they deliver better low light performance, better signal-to-noise ratio, cleaner video, less smear, they're just overall better.

However, if the pixels are too big, you don't have enough resolution. You need to have enough pixels to get adequate resolution.

And if you have a small sensor to start with, packing lots of pixels on a small sensor = lousy video. Whether it has "resolution" or not, it'll look awful.

Further muddling the issue is that you have three CCDs, but you're not recording 4:4:4 color with them. The recording formats available in these HD cameras records either 4:2:2 or 4:2:0. That means that in a 4:4:4 system, you'd need all three CCDs to have the same resolution and the same pixel density, and lined up in exactly the same position. However, in 4:2:2 color, that's pretty much just wasteful. The camera will only resolve half as much resolution in color, so why bother making 1920-pixel CCDs (and endure the sacrifices inherent with doing so) when the camera will immediately throw away half that resolution?

That's where "pixel shift" comes in -- offsetting the green ccd by 1/2 pixel from the red & blue. Using sophisticated processing the camera is able to deliver 1920x1080 resolution from a 960x1080 CCD. What do you lose? Color information that you're going to lose anyway due to the codec. So a pixel-shifted 960x1080 CCD could theoretically (THEORETICALLY) deliver all the practical, usable resolution of a 1920x1080 CCD, but gets to have pixels that are twice as big -- which gives better low-light and dynamic range than you would have gotten from the 1920x1080 CCD.

Furthermore, as Graeme has been saying, the lens limits the amount of information that gets through the glass anyway. There comes a point where the pixels are going to be so small, measuring down to maybe 4 or 5 microns... and the lens won't be able to resolve that much information anyway. So why bother going for overkill, making super-dense-pixel chipsets, if the lens can't deliver enough information to let the chips resolve it anyway?

In bigger cameras it's a no-brainer -- the bigger chip size means you can pack 1920x1080 on a CCD and still get big-enough pixels to get decent performance. Even so, Panasonic is using 1280x720 pixels on their new 2/3" HDX400 (which delivers 1920x1080 resolution, by the way) because it employs pixel shift in both the X and Y.

What I'm saying is, you can't just count pixels and then say "ah... more = better". It doesn't work that way. There are many, many things that go into the imaging chain. In general, you want pixels that are as big as you can get them, arranged in such density (and even pixel-shift) such that they can capture the maximum resolution that the lens can deliver to them. If you're recording 4:4:4 you want native resolution. But for 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, pixel shifting bigger pixels may result in better overall video.

As always, the proof will be in the testing.

[thisiswells]

Oh boy.. I was trying to avoid a pixel shift shift convo.. I'm out of this thread from here on out......

[psch1]

Thanks everyone for your contributions. Now it makes sense. Best Regards. P

[thisiswells]

1" I also still much smaller than a 35mm frame.

Better anwer from Bill Turner below.

[Bill__Turner]

As a point of reference the terms 1" video , 2/3" video date to the use of tubes in the cameras and represent the approximate outside diameter of the tube, not the active area used in forming an image. The image diagonal of 1" video is 15.8mm if memory serves me, 2/3" is of course 11mm.

For anyone who may not know, 16mm film is 12.8mm diagonal, super16 is 14.5mm, 35mm Academy aperture is 27.3 mm -- it is smaller than the old silent or full aperture (30mm) to make room for the sound track. There are several Super 35 formats but they tend to have a diagonal as small as the academy format or as large as full aperture but an aspect ratio wider than 4:3 ( 1.85 for example)

There were other larger tubes used going clear back to the Black and White Image Orthicon tubes that had a 40mm image diameter.

Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics

[Constantine]

Also, all this talk of shallow depth of field is incorrect. 2/3" cameras have shallower depth of field because they usually have longer lenses, NOT because of the size of the CCDs...just thought I should clarify that. But this really was a great discussion! Peace.

[thisiswells]

Depth of field is a combination of film/sensor back size, lens focal length, aperture,
shutter angle/shutter speed and even the emulsion chosen if shooting film.

There are more factors than simply focal length.. This ought to be another thread entirely.

Brian

[psch1]

Great, great discussion. Can someone explain what MTF is? Thanks

[Constantine]

I'm just saying DOF is NOT related to the CCD size.

[Staven]

With the size of the pixels bigger in a bigger chip, does that not translate to it holding up a lot better on a large screen thus making a 2/3" chip better for use for theatrical release?

What kind of ballpark price differencial is a 2/3 chip camera to a 1/3 camera?(hypothetically pretending one could get the exact same camera just with different chips)

[thisiswells]

What kind of ballpark price differencial is a 2/3 chip camera to a 1/3 camera?
JVC has illuded a $27K HDV 2/3" camera. Draw any conclusions you wish.
:lipsrseal

[Daniel Moore]

Here's what I don't get: how is it that a pocket-sized digital camera can have a 6 megapixel resolution (much larger than HD), but then, we can't have a cheap lens that resolves HD resolutions for video? What is the difference?

[thisiswells]

What's the difference?

Video cameras have three sensors (red,green,blue) as opposed to a single sensor on a digicam.

[Daniel Moore]

I get what you're saying thisiswells, but it still doesn't make sense to me... A Canon Digital Rebel (SLR) for example has a very high quality imaging system, which much less abberation than pocket cameras. Also, the color rendition on these SLRs is pretty good too, so why do we need three CCDs? To me it sounds like 1 big CMOS is the answer, but I'm sure I'm missing something.

[thisiswells]

Daniel--Your comment about 1 BIG CMOS is what everyone is the video community has been
shouting for the last couple of years since we knew about such a thing. Give it a couple of more.

I've concluded if it were possible they would be doing it. Things like refresh rate and ability to handle
high frame rates (like 60Fps in HD) come to mind as possible problems. I am terribly undereducated
on the subject and frankly I'm not a camera or lens designer. I'd recommend not making an
issue about the type of sensors, lenses, and cameras available now because it doesn't really
do much help... Just know that what they have and what we've got is all there is. There are
a couple of experimental 1CMOS cameras and a couple of mega-buck CMOS cameras but I
don't think you're missing anything. There aren't any real field usuable 1CMOS cameras.

[Daniel Moore]

I'd recommend not making an issue about the type of sensors, lenses, and cameras available now because it doesn't really do much help

thisiswells- Hmmm, I agree. Thanks for your response!
Daniel

[zenbarai]

I seem to recall seeing some software a few months ago that faked shallow depth of field. I think it analyzes your foreground vs. background elements and throws the background out of focus. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Does anyone know the name of it?

Thanks,
Ben

[Policar]

There's a lot of software like that but none of it works so well for video. The amount of motion tracking and masking would just be too intense.

Constantine, we all know that DOF is related to aperture setting and focal length rather than sensor size, but the cropping due to sensor size necesitates shorter focal lengths for small sensors. So while you may technically be right, it's simpler to think of it in terms of effect rather than cause. The cause may be the lens, but the effect is a shallowed DOF with the same image.

The canon's CMOS would overheat and die if it had to shoot that fast, and it can't even shoot over 5fps as it is. 2/3'' chips require lots of cooling in video cameras and they are much smaller than an APS-C sized chip. And point and shoot digital camera lenses may capture tons of resolution, but they have pretty major abberation issues and are VERY TINY and don't let much light in.

Rockwell makes a pretty sweet Bayer pattern CMOS for 700 dollars that's 2/3'' and offers full HD resolution. (1920X1080+). JVC will be using 3 of them for their new HDV camera, but what would be coolest would be a small single chip camera with one (sure, you'd lose some resolution...whatever) that doesn't use HDV and has a c-mount for 16mm lenses. That would be ideal so far as I'm concerned.

As for dynamic range/resolution/whatever...just compare 16mm film to 8mm film. Same difference. (Well, same idea. Sensors vary in quality just as film stock does and that's another independent factor.)

[Loki]

Still cameras work differently than motion picture cameras, that is one large and main difference between SLR's and Digital Video Cameras.

Single Chip systems use a Bayer Pattern to interpolate the final image. Think of a bayer pattern this way:

a 3x3 grid of pixels on a Single CCD (and CMOS) will have 2 Red pixels, 2 green and 2 blue. Each pixel can only interpret one colour of the light spectrum so the camera's DSP must interpolate between pixels to get the final image by blending and performing guessing algorithms to get acheive the final image.

Now at the resolutions that a still camera can take, it isn't very noticeable. But in a single Chip video camera, it would be problematic. The camera is recording 24 or 30 etc.. frames a second.. so first the image is captured, with a Bayer Pattern, interpolated, then compressed to the DV codec (or whatever codec). compressing to the DV codec is effectively degrading the image quality enough as it is to keep an accpetable data rate... adding a bayer pattern would really make a mess of the image.

The more digital processing the worse the image is subjeted to, worse off the final caputured image will be.

For capturing Pure colour reproduction, right now a single chip is not a good solution.

a single CMOS chip still uses a Bayer pattern as does a single CCD.

Technologies like the Foveon X3 are still in there infancy.

It is also an issue with lenses, and low light capability, chip size..etc..

a still camera can capture those huge resolutions because it has a bigger chip, and only one chip.. still camera chips (as far as I know) are pretty standard.

bigger chips mean different lenses must be used... too many discrepencies between video and still photography to list... but they are very different animals indeed.. not just a matter of slapping a CMOS chip in there and calling it a day.

[Graeme_Nattress]

There's no problem using a bayer pattern chip with moving video if the image is high enough resolution. All you have to do is look at a basic 1-chip video camera to see that today it can make a good enough image for consumer use. I would argue that if you take 3 chips, and add up the total number of sensors on them, then make a single chip with that total number of sensors and use a bayer pattern, you'd end up pulling in a much better image off the 1-chipper than the 3-chipper.

Foveon isn't there yet, and it's very, very slow - you'd only get a few frames per second. Would be much easier and cheaper just to go with a higher resolution bayer. Indeed, you could put the bayer chip up to a higher resolution thanthe lens could take, and then almost just assume the 4 coloured pixels that make up a block are co-sited. (sort of the reverse of how we see colour on a CRT tube)

Graeme

[Graeme_Nattress]

Barry, as far as I can figure out, the theoretical maximum resolution enhancement percentage of pixel shift is 1.414 (root 2) times the ccd resolution. But in a BBC white paper, they say about 1.3 is much more realistic, not the 2.0 factor you're working with above. However, the first paper talks about working with severely aliassed images (ie the lens is much sharper than the resolution of the CCD, and there's no anti-alias filter ahead of the CCD) and that the pixel-shift will perform some of the anti-aliassing as you boost to the higher resolution.

In a 3ccd situation yes, you will loose colour resolution, but as you'd reduce chroma resolution in the CCD anyway, this is ok.

But 1920x1080 is recorded as 1280x1080 on the DVCproHD codec, so to get there from 960x720 is within the bounds of the science of pixel-shift as I understand it, but.... you've still got to have a lens capable of sending information though to that sensor. If that lens is not sharp enough, the difference between the spatially shifted pixels will not be great enough to get any extra resolution out of the system, or at least, that's my understanding of how sampling theory works and applies to CCDs.

Graeme

[evinsky]

The new Arri D20 which I saw demo'd at NAB uses a 35mm size CMOS chip and produces a stunning image. However if you look at what Arri has had to do to get these 5 prototype cameras working you understand why Panasonic is taking the approach it is.

1. The camera is the same size as a Varicam/435 with about 20min of solid state memory.
2. The system requires very percise & expensive Zeiss Master Primes to take full advantagge of the chip's resolution.
3. The R&D has taken 5 years just to this point.
4. You could never afford the lenses or support equipment even if you could get the camera.
5. Assuming you were recording 1080 this is just overkill.
6. At 1080 will it look better than a 2/3" chip? Sure but not much.

This system and any 35mm chip system will remain in the relm of major production for a long time to come. It is designed to replace the traditional 35mm film camera with as little resistance as possible. Which means it must fit and be comfortable in that extremely risk averse environment. Thing are changing but my guess is it will be us. The next generation of filmakers cutting our teeth on the XLs, DVXs and HVXs that will truly embrace the change from Silver to Silicone.

[Graeme_Nattress]

What's the resolution and exact chip size on the Arri?? I'm keen to work out it's resolution in lp/mm to see what kind of lens resolution you'd need.

Well, as HD downconverted to SD looks very good, I'd expect that an image from whatever higher resolution the Arri is, downconverted to HD, would look very good indeed also.

Graeme

[Shaw]

evinsky, doesn't that camera have a latitude of around 12 stops? That's a good deal more than a 2/3" chip if I'm not mistaken.

[Jenga]

Just for clarification here: The larger you make the frame size/imaging target the less sensitive it will be because more surface area requires MORE light. Thus if you were to set up a camera shooting 16 mm with one stock of choice side by side with a camera shooting the exact same film stock only cut in a 35 mm sized version, in low light the 16 mm frame should be easier to expose. If you had two different sized sensors with the same sized pixels the smaller one would again be more sensitive (because there would be less pixels of the same size that need light to expose/fill up their electron wells).

The point here is to stress that bigger sensor can just as easily mean slower (less sensitive), as it can mean faster (more sensitive). This is why large format cameras (that really highlight the size difference at play) are so slow. Getting a moderately fast lens for that kind of equipment is so expensive because the taking elements need to be big and high quality so that they can pass a lot of light through to such a large target.

It's the increase in pixel size/grain size that counteracts this effect. When the pixel size no longer remains constant but instead scales with the size of the chip you then you have the effect of same number of pixels with larger surface area. This in turn means more light hitting the same number of pixels and greater sensitivity. Also if the pixel size scales with the CCD size this has the positive effect of larger pixel sites that can absorb more electrons and therefore represent a greater range of light in the image and maintain lower noise levels (i.e. dynamic range!).

This is the reason larger size sensors in video cameras are ideal...because they can have BIGGER pixels in the SAME NUMBERS that smaller sensors can. Bigger pixel = sensitivity and more importantly (in my opinion) more dynamic range.

alright hope that didn't make things confusing for psch1.

[LIPINSKI]

1/3" chip: width -4.8mm, height - 3.6 mm + perfect lens: 100 lines/ mm = 360 lines / It`s not HDTV. What do You think?.

[Barry_Green]

Barry, as far as I can figure out, the theoretical maximum resolution enhancement percentage of pixel shift is 1.414 (root 2) times the ccd resolution. But in a BBC white paper, they say about 1.3 is much more realistic, not the 2.0 factor you're working with above.
DOH! I KNEW THAT! ;)

Okay, what I meant to say was, I didn't mean to use 2.0, because obviously that would be stupid. I meant to use 1.5, but I got distracted in the notion that 960 is half of 1920.

The Sony records 1440 pixels, which is 1.5x the 960 resolution. And 1.5x would be what you'd get if you set the green CCD a half-pixel offset between the red and blue (talking theoretical maximum here). Setting it a full pixel offset would give you *no* benefit, as you'd just be a pixel offset, so 2.0x would be impossible. You wouldn't be seeing any additional resolution, you'd just have a mis-aligned CCD! So a half-pixel offset is the right way to do it.

Interesting that the BBC says that 1.3x is realistically attainable, and 1.414 is the highest possible... since DVCPRO-HD's two recording modes are 960 or 1280 (horizontal pixels), and the difference between them is 1.33x... they could perhaps build the CCD with 960 pixels and get 100% native horizontal resolution for 720p, and 100% pixel-shifted horizontal resolution for 1080p, yet have the biggest possible pixels for dynamic range and light sensitivity. Don't know about the vertical... if it's possible to pixel-shift 720 up to 1080 with no loss in actual resolution, then yes, they could get 100% resolution from as small as 960x720... that would give the camera a potentially significant advantage in low-light and dynamic range performance as compared to the competition. Very interesting...

[psch1]

Yup. I'm still following along...just. Thanks guys.

[Graeme_Nattress]

It wasn't the bbc that said 1.414 was theoretical max, it was another paper, but it was using vibration in a single B/W CCD for infra-red micoscope imaging to generate it's pixel shift. They said that if you want an increase of resolution of n, then you need n squared shifted images. Given that we have 2 shifted images, that would give root 2, or 1.414 as max. Now that was not for having coloured filters for colour imaging on the chips, and hence the BBC figure of 1.3 is much more reasonable IMHO.

So yes, just as the 400 series camera whateverit'scalled does 1280x720 upscaled to 1080i, I think that either 960x720 or 1280x720 will be sufficient, if, and only if, the lens is capable of passing 200lp/mm through to the CCDs, which I doubt.

Graeme

[thisiswells]

That's a pretty strong statement. I have no rebuttal, though.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Strong I know, and I dearly want someone to prove me wrong. The measured resolution of the FX1 is no-where-near 1440, and it tried the pixel shift game, and I reckon it didn't work due to too soft a lens, but I'm not sure, so I'm as much fishing for information as being a doom merchant. I don't want to be a doom merchant though, and I really want the HVX200 to look blinkin amazing, but I'm finding it harder and harder to believe you can do real full detail / definition HD on a 1/2" imager. Go on Panasonic - please prove me wrong.

Graeme

[braw]

So since this is all numbers and theory here, what does anyone think would be better, 960x720 or 1280x720? Does the resolution benefit outweigh the sensitivity or vice versa?

This is all pretty much over my head at this point.

[Gibby]

Great, great discussion. Can someone explain what MTF is? Thanks

Hey psch1,

Looking back over this thread I don't think anyone ever answered your question about the definition of MTF. Here's a simple explanation: MTF stands for Modulation Transfer Function. A perfect lens would be capable of creating a perfect image. In reality there are no perfect lenses, thus there are variations between the objects you are shooting and the actual images you are getting. The ability of any given lens to accurately pass through the information on objects in creating an image is defined as the MTF of the lens. There's an inverse relationship between resolution and contrast. Increase one, and the other decreases. Resolution is usually measured in lines per millimeter (L/MM), or line pairs per millimeter (LP/MM). As light travels through a lens there is loss of some of that light. This loss of light, in terms of contrast loss, is called modulation of contrast. The modulation of contrast is measured in various frequencies - most often pairs per millimeter (LP/MM). MTF measurements identify the contrast between white and black lines of different thickness. If you test a lens on its modulation of contrast, and illustrate it with a graph, its called a MTF chart. The properties of the lens are represented on the chart in curved lines - thus you'll hear the phrase "MTF curve" used. In simple terms, the MTF curves of a good lens will be high, flat curves on the chart . MTF charts also help to show how well a lens does at reproducing the out of focus areas of the image (called Bokeh). There are many other factors involved with analyzing the quality of a lens: relative illumination, chromatic abberrations, distortion, etc. How magnified the image is, and aperture setting can really affect the performance of a lens.

Remember - resolution isn't a scientific absolute when it is quantified. It can be very subjective. A whole group of observers can observe different resolutions on the same test (variance). I've kept my explanation of MTF very simple. Hope this hepls you understand it!

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

[psch1]

Gibby, everyone, thanks for sharing your knowledge. This has been a fascinating thread for me. Regards Peter

[Barry_Green]

So since this is all numbers and theory here, what does anyone think would be better, 960x720 or 1280x720? Does the resolution benefit outweigh the sensitivity or vice versa?
The resolution only benefits you if the lens can transmit enough information to take advantage of the higher resolution.

And resolution is, again, only one part of the imaging chain.

The question we're exploring is: what elements are important, and what can we expect, etc... if the lens is only capable of resolving a certain amount of lines per millimeter, then packing more pixels on the chip than necessary will serve only to degrade the video (although that won't stop the uninformed from bragging about how many pixels are on their chip!)

Frankly, I expect that Panasonic will design the chips in tandem with the lens. They'll put in as many pixels as it takes to resolve the image at the highest resolution that the lens can transmit. They will likely employ pixel shift, as it would be daft not to (to borrow a word from Graeme). Pixel shift will give them higher legitimate resolution, while letting them make the pixels as big as possible, maximizing latitude and sensitivity and lowering noise.

[Graeme_Nattress]

But Barry, pixelshift is not going to improve the resolution one little bit if the lens can't pass that resolution. You can't have the pixelshifted resolution of 133lp/mm and the real resolution of the chip at 100lp/mm (these are about right for 960x720 sensor, 1/3" BTW) if the lens is only passing 100lp/mm. As far as I understand, to get more resolution out of your CCD than it's normally capable of by using pixelshift, the CCD has to be fed enough high frequency information that it can alias.

Or looking at it another way - we know that a higher resolution CCD will provide a more accurate sampling of the light than a pixelshifted array (ignoring noise etc for the moment). Just think about replacing the shifted CCDs with real CCDs of the exact resolution you'd expect to get from the shifted versions - say 33% more pixels horizontally and vertically. The lens must pass that higher amount of information or else that extra resolution has gone to waste. I think, when calculating what resolution of lens you need, you've got to look at the resolution of the interpolated via pixelsshift CCD, not the CCD before interpolation, and hence cannot get higher legitimate resolution out of the system if the lens is limited to the lower (cheaper) resolution of the native CCD.

So pixelshift does not ease our lens requirements at all, but it will probably improve our noise / low light requirements significantly.

Does that make sense, or am I off on another planet?

Graeme

[Barry_Green]

Graeme, re-read my post, I think you'll see that we're agreeing. No, pixelshift won't ease the lens requirement, because in the end what pixelshift is doing is making a higher-resolution CCD.

What I'm guessing is that they will likely determine the highest resolution the lens can support, and design the CCD in tandem. It will likely resolve the highest resolution the lens produces, and I'm guessing that it will do so with a pixel-shifted CCD, which will let the pixels be as massive as possible. This combination should provide the ultimate in resolution, dynamic range, low-light performance, and signal-to-noise that it's possible to get on a 1/3" high-def chip. More pixels than that would a) be wasted, b) degrade the overall video performance, and c) be pandering to those who just want to brag that their CCD has more pixels, regardless of whether it helps or hurts the video performance.

[Neil Rowe]

Also, all this talk of shallow depth of field is incorrect. 2/3" cameras have shallower depth of field because they usually have longer lenses, NOT because of the size of the CCDs...just thought I should clarify that. But this really was a great discussion! Peace.


..i woud say your correct that the larger chip cameras use longer lenses, or the longer end of a zoom lense.. because they have to to get equivilent framing as a 1/3" chip cam. but to say that the DOF has no relation to the chipsize is sort of a birds nest of confusion. your right of course.. one does not have a direct effect on the other, but it does have an indirect effect given the practical workflow one would normally face. of course, as we know.. they are not directly mechanically linked.. meaning a bigger chip will automatically give you a shallower DOF. but the issue lies in the problem that given the same exact lense with the same focal length on either chipset, the feild of view is going to be larger on the larger chipset because the chip is bigger and therfore pics up more of the image the lense is projecting.. which as i noted in my first post ..allows for "a shallower depth of feild given equivilent framing due to its larger size." simply because of what you said. if you have the same lense on a 1/3" cam and a 2/3" cam .. the 2/3" inch cam will have to zoom in to frame the image the same as the 1/3" cam which will result in a shallower DOF. but its sort of a daisy chain. so just to explain where we arrive at a shallower DOF from a larger imaging area to those who are unaware of the chain of events to follow.. im going to walk through it.
note: i do not explain things concisely or clearly all the time.. just ask barry green. im hoping he or someone else summarizes the tornado to follow.


..again the bigger chip does not just give you a shallower DOF.
..but imagine that the chip or imaging area is a projector screen.. and the lense is the projector.. thats basically whats happening in the camera.. the lense projects the image onto the sensor. now if you have a smaller screen.. it will pick up less of the image. but the same image is being projected if you have the same lense.. so imagine looking at a movie theatre screen and lets say its a 35mm sized screen. now if we keep the same lense/projector ruinning. and cut the screen down in size.. were just cropping of the image that the screen picks up.. so lets say it goes all the way down to the equivilent of a 1/3 inch size sensor.. now the projector is projecting the same image.. but all the screen is picking up is whats in the center of the picture. .. so how do we see the same image that you would be getting on the 35mm sized sensor with a 1/3 inch sensor?.. well wed have to change our focal length of the lense to zoom out so that we fit what would have been projected onto the full sized screen onto the little center part.. .. basically we have to zoom out to keep the same framing,. cause our sensor doesnt pick up the same full image at the same lense setting. and of course zooming out makes us lose DOF. so its not like the sensor size changes the DOF.. the same image is being projected with a same shallow DOF if you kept the lense at the same setting., but the issue is .. on the smaller sensor.. you cant see the whole image.. so again we zoom out..and lose the dof.. to see the same frame size.

now.. heres where the spacial issue comes in to play.. which is somthing i think gets ignored in the DOF differences of smaller to larger sensors. now that we seee that the DOF is just a matter of being zoomed in, one might ask .. well if the shallow dof just comes from staying zoomed in.. why cant i just zoom in to the same amount on the DVX and have the same shallow DOF. ..well you can. only your going to still only see a small little part of what the 35mm cam sees. this is the same as my first theatre screen illustration. the lesne could be the same.. but if the shot showed a whole medium shot on a guy in the full 35mm sensor area.. youd only be getting an ECU of his face in the center little 1/3" sensor area. this is why we get so many shallow DOF shots in the screengrabs section that consist of ... a leaf.. or a twig.. or a branch or other small trivial things. because using that long lense means your pretty zoomed in on a small sensor given that you can only see a little bit of a 35mm area to begin with comparatively.. the 35mm cam could use the same lense and have it at the same zoom/focal length, and it would be a wide shot cause the sensor pics up alot more image area.. but it would still have the same shallow DOF.. anyway.. back on track... so .. now one might ask.. whay cant i keep the lense at the same setting and instead of zooming out to get the same framing .. just back up from the subject until they are framed the same ... and keep the shallow DOF.. .. well heres the part that i think is ignored often.. you cant do that because your focal plane distance setting (focus) also affects the apparent DOF (for you tech heads... i DID say "apparent"...which is relatively .. all that matters... what is apparent to the viewer).. the CLOSER.. i repeat... CLOSER.. you are to your subject, the shallower your apparent DOF will be.. .. because the more you pull focus in.. the shallower the DOF gets.. it does this on a curve though, so you wont notice the effect as much going from z99 to z70 (19 numbers) as you would just going from z 50 to z40 (10 numbers)..and the closer you get.. the more of a differnce it makes.. so anyway.. if you were to back up far away enough from your subject to keep your same longe lense setting. and get the same framing as the 35mm cam has close up at the same lesne setting.. well.. then youd have to push your focus way out to focus on the subject.. and guess what. youll lose the apparent DOF when you push the focus out..


so moral of the story is . .. you cant get the same DOF if given the same framing for both a small and large sensor. cause the smaller sensor will have to zoom out to get the same framing. but if you didnt change framing. you would have the same DOf .. but your framing would be too small.. to really use that DOF while framing a normal sized subject anyway.. .. you could use it for a ECU though. or a cutaway shot of a phone and stuff like that with small subject matter.
blah blah blah.. why do i bother trying to explain anything.. i have to be one of the most redundant people on earth. hope all this blather helped someone out there anyway.. i need an official translator to summarize my posts for me so that i can clearly and concisely state a simple concept.

anyhow.. just to restate the rules that have been stated countless times here .. heres how to get the shallowest DOF possible on ANY camera

1. be as zoomed in as possible.
2. be as close as possible to your subject so you can pull focus as much as possible.
3. have the iris as open as possible. using ND filters will help you keep an open iris while controlling exposure.


now #1 and #2 are sort of interchangeable sometimes.. obviously if you want a particular framing of your subject.,. you can zoom in.. but that makes you back up to keep the framing.. or you could get closer and pull focus more .. and have to back off of the zoom some to keep the same framing.
in my experience ..with the DVX, the trade off comes somewhere around Z60 and MF 40

and it works like this.. if the focus is apx at z40.. getting closer would likely benifit a shallow DOF pretty much either the same or more ...to much more by getting closer, and pulling focus more and zooming out a little to keep framing and focus. as deffered to backing off and zooming in more.

but if the zoom is APX z60.. youll likely benifit more from backing off a little to zoom in more and pushing the focus out to keep framing and focus, as deffered to getting closer and pulling focus more.

these numbers are based off of framing an average sized person as the subject in a CU shot consisting of apx the sujects head and top of shoulders.
obviously if your subject size changes .. your figures and options change too.

ive found that framing any subject bigger than the CU described above will benifit a shallower DOF from a longer lense which means being a little further away, smaller subjects can benifit either way.. from a longer lense having to be back a little. or a shorter lense and pulling focus more .. this all given the framing of your subject is very tight. you could frame a small subject wide or a big subject ultra tight.. and these generalities would not be workable. aaaaaaaaaaanyway.. moving right along.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Yes Barry. Totally agreed. We're singing from the same song sheet here!

Graeme

[Shiloh Arts]

Well let me ask this (even if it's silly), do you think there can ever be a camera with 3/3" CCD's?

[Policar]

Shiloh, there's definitely a good change of 3/3'' CCDs when the 2/2'' CCDs and 4/4'' CCDs come out.

Just being asinine. No, chips are getting smaller. Once foveon-style chips are used that trend may stop but I doubt companies would introduce some arbitrary new size. Full super-35 sized chips are already in use, and an APS-C dSLR style camera would be amazing, but I doubt any comany would ever release one.

[stephenlnoe]

To make the most use of the CCD's the lens will have to surpass the CCD's max resolution. Didn't they (panasonic) say the lens was all new?

[Kevin Briggs]

http://www.bioeng.auckland.ac.nz/information/newsletters/may03/Full%20Brain.jpg

[pmark23]

All this talk about shallow DOF as if it's the be-all-end-all of film-making. Time to set the record straight...

Shallow DOF is a red-herring for starting film-makers. There are very few professional films which use shallow DOF to the extend that amateur films do. Overabundance of meaningless shallow DOF is cliche and the sure sign of an amateur.

Until the 70's (though there were exceptions), part of the frame going fuzzy was considered an effect, and a DOP that allowed this accidently would be immediately fired for imcompetence (same thing for lens flares.)

Watch movies. There is very little shallow DOF field in anything professional -- especially older films. Everything is razor sharp, all the time. This was very hard to do, hence the large amounts of lighting -- especially on older films.

It's currently a fad in amateur filmmaking because it's considered "hard" to do, so somewhat of a challenge. This isn't even true -- almost any video camera can create the shallow DOF effect, it's just easier to buy extra hardware (gear fetish) and bitch on forums than to learn about cinematography.

In short, shallow DOF is soooo nineties. Don't ruin your film by blindly assuming that somehow because you're using video you're disadvantaged and have to try to emulate the "film look". Film guys don't give a shit about shallow DOF, except to avoid it.

If you want your film to appear more professional, concentrate on motivated lighting and camera movement. That's what really separates the amateur from the professional film.

**phew** I feel better now. :beer:

[Zig_Zigman]

"Film guys" in fact do care about shallow dof, especially if directors ask for it. Any many do. Lost in Translation and Elephant were trying for it almost all the time.

Sure it's a style, but so is quick editing. Think that's going away?

To answer a question someone had, I think the cheapest NEW 2/3" video cam with a decent fujinon lens runs you about 11k. Of course, you'll be shooting DV.

[Policar]

Shallow DOF was common in the 30s, less common in the 40s and 50s due to the influence of Citizen Kane, then returned because it was unavoidable with the earliest anamorphic lenses. Now, it's a matter of style. Kubrick shot with f0.7 lenses, remember. Some movies have a shallow DOF, others don't, but all have a shallower DOF than DVX footage. So while saying a blurred background is the holy grail is goofy, so is denying the fact that a shallow depth of focus is a valueable storytelling tool to have access to. Also, it smooths out blown highlights and can hide a messy background and (with the assistance of good lighting) serve as a depth cue.

[evinsky]

You guys should read this.
http://www.arri.com/news/newsletter/articles/09211103/d20.htm
http://www.arri.com/prod/cam/d_20/tech_spec.htm

[Simon Wyndham]

Shallow DOF is an artistic decision, not a professional versus amateur one.

I do love the effect of shallow DOF, especially when it is managed on wider shots. It guides the eye.

It is true that in the early days many films strived for very deep DOF. Things are different now. If you want deep focus you can have deep focus. if you want shallow focus you can have shallow focus.

[Shiloh Arts]

If you want your film to appear more professional, concentrate on motivated lighting and camera movement. That's what really separates the amateur from the professional film.

**phew** I feel better now. :beer:
You forgot sound design! :grin:

John Hudsons Critque (http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=27110&page=1&pp=10)

Pete

[pmark23]

I also forgot the most important thing -- story.

I'm not saying the shallow DOF should be completely avoided, but used sparingly and only where necessary. It looks very nice, and can make a drab shot look beautiful, but has become overused and a cliche. As Simon says, it's an artistic decision -- but make the wrong decision and your art will suck!

One of the reasons shallow DOF was historically avoided for so long even though it was very easy to do since the early days of photography was that it was considered bad or lazy direction. The audience could no longer choose what to look at -- the director was forcing them to look where the director though they should look, whereas a more skillful director will instead use composition to guide the viewers eye.

[wabbit]

While shallow DOF can be over-emphasized and overused, I believe judicious use of DOP gives the picture a 3D quality as that is how we see things in the real world. To have something up close and far away all in focus flattens out the perceived distance. It's not a amatuer/pro thing, it's a what do you want your picture to look like thing.

Since video traditionally has the deep DOF, it's understandable that some people want to add shallow DOF to their arsenal.

[Simon Wyndham]

I agree about guiding the eye with composition.

However the old tradition was exactly that, a tradition. Cinematography just isn't restricted by preconceieved ideas anymore.

I don't see shallow DOF as overused or cliched. When I watch a movie I don't look on use of DOF as being some kind of effect or gimmick, just a compositional choice.

Shallow DOF is also extremely advantageous to the DV25 compression.

[stephenvv]

Orson wells would love this camera, Stanley Kubrick would love this camera. Shallow focus is just a style and a reletively recent one at that. Look at the classics, dolly moves and deep stops. And that was with slowwwww film, they must have baked the actors with the needed light. Now we can get deep stops with a 60w light bulb, or even a 15w flow. Look at the new season of Enterprise, shot on 2/3" cinealta, much more depth of field than previous seasons on film. As Hollywood embraces digital I suspect we will see a paradigm shift back to deep focus, as it is not practical to cheat the shallow look with smaller formats.

Thanks for pointing this out :thumbup: - I always get shot down when pointing out the "trend" that is shallow focus right now. Especially when I point out how much easier composition is with shallow DOF. Deep focus composition is hard, especially with camera movement, but the result of great deep focus photography are masterful and still underappreciated.

What would be a real technical innovation is variable imager size - a CCD that could be anything from 1/4" to 2" - as an artists I want as many tools a possible, rather than being "obsessed" with short DOF. Sometimes, the blurry short DOF look suites a subject, but often, especially when shooting 35mm or 65mm anamorphic it's just a pain in the ass as you have to throw so much light on the scene just to get it in focus the results are very unnatural and creatively limiting.

[Simon Wyndham]

Generally you need more light for deep focus, not the other way around.

I'm not sure how shallow focus can be a 'trend'. To me that idea is ridiculous. If it is a trend, it's certainly one that has been around for a number of years! Since the 70's and 80's! That's one heck of a long trend!

As for composition being easy with short DOF, I disagree entirely. Composition is much, much harder because focus becomes very critical, especially when the subjects are moving, and you need to refocus on another character etc.

In the early days if cinemtatography it would be very basic to suggest that short DOF was looked down upon because it was somehow hack cinematography. That is not the whole story. One reason is that it is simply a pain in the backside to keep focus on moving objects with short DOF.

Shooting a person down because they like short DOF and you think it is over used is nothing short of eliteism. Short DOF of long DOF is the directors choice, and theirs only.

To me, if someone goes out of their way for deep DOF all the time claiming that it is somehow superior they are robbing themselves of a very useful tool. I might also say that they might be making excuses for owning a 1/3" ccd camera ;)

[Shiloh Arts]

I also forgot the most important thing -- story.

I'm not saying the shallow DOF should be completely avoided, but used sparingly and only where necessary. It looks very nice, and can make a drab shot look beautiful, but has become overused and a cliche. As Simon says, it's an artistic decision -- but make the wrong decision and your art will suck!


:embarasse I feel a bit embarassed right now, but can some one give me a visual example (a pic) of Shallow DOF, or a simple explaination like "It's those shots when ......".

Thanks
Pete

[GenJerDan]

Don't even need a camera...

Hold a finger up at arm's length in front of your face, close one eye, and look at it.

Notice how everything beyond the finger is out-of focus? (don't look at the other things...just notice them).

That's what a shallow DOF looks like.

Dan

[Shiloh Arts]

Don't even need a camera...

Hold a finger up at arm's length in front of your face, close one eye, and look at it.

Notice how everything beyond the finger is out-of focus? (don't look at the other things...just notice them).

That's what a shallow DOF looks like.

Dan

That's an awesome explaination. Thanks! :beer: :thumbsup:

So I'm asuming that shallow, short, and long are just different distances of the finger.

Pete

[thisiswells]

ever read a book about photography or use a camera? sorry. you need to, it would really help.

no, it's more than different distances of the finger. probably best to accept one little fact:
video cameras have more depth of field (deeper focus) than film cameras, as a generalization.

[Shiloh Arts]

I might also say that they might be making excuses for owning a 1/3" ccd camera ;)

Awww...dude! Now why would you go and say somthing like that? :cry:

You must be an elite...ay? :happy:

Pete

[thisiswells]

Awww...dude! Now why would you go and say somthing like that?
You must be an elite...ay?
I know you're kind of making a joke there, Peter. What I think Simon is saying is nearly every "filmmaker" with a 1/3" bends over backwards to obtain a shallow depth of field look. It's sort of become the holy grail to DV filmmakers because it is so difficult to obtain. Most productions would be better off renting a more expensive camera with the larger sensor back size for when they need the shallow focus aesthetic. Trying to pull that off day after day with DV makes one restless. It's hard explaining this to you since you've made it pretty darn clear your lack of understanding of what depth of field is (okay, you get it now) and one step further, how a bigger camera has less depth of field and how that is a desirable reason to have said bigger camera. Leave Simon alone.

[Simon Wyndham]

Indeed.

One of the really horrible things about being a DV filmmaker is that when you take 35mm publicity stills they always look so much cooler than the film itself, mainly due to the short DOF.

As Thisiswells said, more control over DOF is one big reason of many why people prefer to use 2/3" ccd cameras. With a 1/3" camera you don't really have much choice but to have a very deep DOF most of the time, unless you zoom in which compresses distance. 2/3" cameras are not perfect by any stretch, but they do allow you more choice as to whether you want short DOF or deep DOF.

I am not a film person, but I would imagine it is the same for film these days. With modern filmstocks being so sensitive I imagine that short DOF or deep DOF is more of an artistic decision these days rather than a technical limitation.

Examples of shots with shallow DOF on my Algolith upres comparison page;
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/algolith/algolith_comparison.htm

The first picture is an example of how shallow things can become with a 2/3" camera. Only the front part of her face is in focus with everything from her ear backwards being OOF. This was shot with 1/64 ND and the iris at f1.7, fully open. Pretty much the same story for all shots.

[Shiloh Arts]

It's hard explaining this to you since you've made it pretty darn clear your lack of understanding of what depth of field is (okay, you get it now) and one step further, how a bigger camera has less depth of field and how that is a desirable reason to have said bigger camera. Leave Simon alone.


Wow! Are you serious? Relax there bub! :laugh: I was just making a joke, and I do know what depth of field is, and some of the basic issues in regards to DV shooting.

The only thing I wasn't clear on are the different terms like short, long, shallow etc.

I'm sure Simon knows a lot more then me. I was just giving him a hard time in a friendly manner. I also know what he was referring to about the 1/3" issue. So...no need to make me look like the jerk now :huh:

Thanks
Pete

[Shiloh Arts]

Examples of shots with shallow DOF on my Algolith upres comparison page;
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/algolith/algolith_comparison.htm

The first picture is an example of how shallow things can become with a 2/3" camera. Only the front part of her face is in focus with everything from her ear backwards being OOF. This was shot with 1/64 ND and the iris at f1.7, fully open. Pretty much the same story for all shots.

Simon, great explaination and resources...thanks! Also, my apology about the comment, I really was just joking. :)

Thanks
Pete

[Simon Wyndham]

No prpbs Pete, I was fully aware you were ribbing me :)

[Shiloh Arts]

No prpbs Pete, I was fully aware you were ribbing me :)

Hey great shots by the way...do you own the Sony XDCAM?

Pete

[Simon Wyndham]

Yep, indeed I do. Fantastic camera with virtually zero noise as you can see. I used a 1/3" camera to make my living with for many years before moving up to this one. Will be shooting another action feature with around August time utlising the xd workflow as fully as we can. Call us mad, but we are aiming to make a very watchable 90 min long production with it in the space of 10 days for principle shooting, editing as much as poss as we complete each day. It will be... interesting! :)

[Shiloh Arts]

Yep, indeed I do. Fantastic camera with virtually zero noise as you can see. I used a 1/3" camera to make my living with for many years before moving up to this one. Will be shooting another action feature with around August time utlising the xd workflow as fully as we can. Call us mad, but we are aiming to make a very watchable 90 min long production with it in the space of 10 days for principle shooting, editing as much as poss as we complete each day. It will be... interesting! :)

Sweet! :grin:

I remember reading about this camera having the progressive scan capabilities, but I’ve never seen it in action until I saw your reel. The CCD's are great, and your popular camera angles compliment them. Sort of like the matrix effect (steadycam?). I love it! :thumbsup:

Do you right your own music or sub it out to someone. I wrote a piece for an action trailer called "Boom" that I've been looking to use in the right production.

Pete

[Simon Wyndham]

Hehe! Well, I'm going to throw a bombshell in there. The demoreel on my website is my 'budget' demoreel to illustrate low budget stuff. Most of that was in fact shot on a Canon XM1. I'm currently preparing a newer reel with the XD stuff on it.

But yes, the XD does have true progressive scan, and it stays firmly in the 'on' position :) I'm in two minds as to whether to get the new Glidecam due out in the summer, or HD glass.

Most stuff I do I use a composer that I know for music.

[Shiloh Arts]

Well I'd love to see it once you finished.

Pete

[GenJerDan]

So I'm asuming that shallow, short, and long are just different distances of the finger.


No...that things 3 inches beyond the finger might be in focus, but 8 inches out they wouldn't be. That's pretty short/shallow. And it applies to things in front of the finger, too.

If things 8 feet beyond the finger were in focus, that'd be fairly deep/long.

At least, that's my interpretation of it. I'm pretty new, myself.

Oh..and for more fun... Do the finger thing in bright sunlight, then out at night. The DOF at night will be much shallower because your eye's iris will have "opened up". The same thing happens with the cameras. Wider-iris, shallower DOF.

Dan

[pmark23]

On a large screen, your eye (really the brain) will automatically blur (ignore) what it's not looking at. This is one of the main reasons why shallow DOF wasn't used for so long -- why not let the audience decide what they want to look at?

Don't believe me? Look at the top-left of your screen to the browser bar and read the title of the web-page, and at the same time -- without moving your eyes -- read the clock on the lower-right (if you have one there). Blurry, isn't it? But it's not optical blurriness -- it's your brain protecting you from information overload.

I'll go a bit off-topic here, but it relates, so hang in there: There are drugs (LSD, for example), which will override this brain function and let you read the clock -- process all the information in your visual field. Some movies have the reputation of being "acid movies" because they give your brain a large number of interconnected things to observe at once (which were there anyway -- just were harder to comprehend because our brain was shutting them out for us). BUT, your subconscious still sees this -- your just not made aware of it. Blur this for the viewers, and you deprive them of the choice of observing what they think is important -- and you make your film a little (ahem) shallower. I'm not saying that you have to be tripping to make or watch movies, but it's a good example of how your brain comprehends movies -- and why some movies are deeper than others.

20 years is less than 20% of movie history -- and shallow DOF is still shunned by many directors and used only as an effect in one or two motivated shots during an entire film.

For example, in AI Spielberg introduces the roboboy by having him walk into focus. This is motivated because from the female's POV (sorry, forget her name), she doesn't know anything about boy -- he is a complete mystery. She's half expecting her own son, and half not knowing what to expect. Her mind doesn't know what to make of it, so even though she can see the boy, she can't really focus on it. It takes time for her to make up her mind -- to see the boy as he really is (and then she is angry). Great use of shallow DOF to make a very specific effect on the viewer. Spielberg didn't throw in shallow DOF willy-nilly because it looks pretty. He has a point and a reason to use it (which is what I mean by "motivated".)

Just to reiterate -- I'm not saying that shallow DOF is to be avoided entirely. This isn't a black-and-white issue. But having an entire film where half the screen is blurry all the time is annoying and ultimately boring.

The stock DVX100 is more than adequate to make movies -- movies have already been made and they look fine. I think it's a mistake to think that you need "more stuff" to make it more acceptable by the viewing audience. The audience just wants a good story, and you're capable of doing it right now with the gear you already have.

Lets get back to the real point of all this: The time has come to stop jerking each other off with your gear fetishes, and get your film done!

[Simon Wyndham]

All I ever see in movies these days is shallow DOF. In fact I couldn't name you a single recent film where deep DOF was used constantly. Asking if we should just let the audience look where they want is a bit like the old interactive cinema debate where the audience decides what happens in the film with multiple choices.

A film is the directors choice. You are right that too much shallow DOF is boring. It cannot be used in every single shot. But by the same token the opposite is also very true.

However one point I made earlier that you haven't taken on board is that shallow DOF is beneficial to DV25 sourced footage. It makes things much easier on the compressor, especially if you have, say, dense foliage or trees in the background. So shallow DOF is desirable for DV footage for this reason alone.

Lastly, if the composition is good then you, the viewer, shouldn't even notice the background is out of focus, or at least it shouldn't occur to you.

[Michael_Bott]

why not let the audience decide what they want to look at?

Absolutely! Sack the DOP!

[Shiloh Arts]

The time has come to stop jerking each other off with your gear fetishes, and get your film done!

Wow, motivational speaker...huh?! Nice work!

Do you realize what this forums is becoming? A completely free digital film university that will revolutionize the future of filmmaking

Thanks pmark23 :beer: for your insight.


Pete

[Shiloh Arts]

All I ever see in movies these days is shallow DOF. In fact I couldn't name you a single recent film where deep DOF was used constantly.

(Don't want to ruin it for those who have not yet seen star wars 3 but... :grin: )

Well...actually Simon have you checked out Star Wars Episode 3 yet? A lot, if not all shots use deep DOF. You can particularly see it when Anakin is commanded to stay back while the evil chancellor was going to be dealt with. In that shot, you can actually see the clones in the background walking to the point where you can make out their faces.

Another part was when Anakin is sitting down with the chancellor at the weird symphony and as they talk about the not trusting the other senators, you can see people talking causally in the background. However, Lucas doesn't switch to shallow DOF but rather pulls the camera closer as the conversation deepens, and the people are no longer in view.

Pete

[Neil Rowe]

"....becoming" .. where have you been?

[Shiloh Arts]

"....becoming" .. where have you been?

what do you mean where have I been :huh: ? :angry: I don't think you understand the context then...

I was referring to the amount of growth of this forum, and not just the information that it provides. So the question is where have you been :grin: ?

The people! the people! ...growth in mind with ideas to shine! :happy:


Pete

[Neil Rowe]

..alrighty then.
http://www.shop4photos.net/graphics/216/216454.jpg

..lol, chill out..
my point was that this forum has been just that for a quite some time already
..here have one of these.:beer:

[Shiloh Arts]

..lol, chill out..
my point was that this forum has been just that for a quite some time already
..here have one of these.:beer:


aaaahhhh! thank you! :grin:

[wigby]

(Don't want to ruin it for those who have not yet seen star wars 3 but... :grin: )

Well...actually Simon have you checked out Star Wars Episode 3 yet? A lot, if not all shots use deep DOF. You can particularly see it when Anakin is commanded to stay back while the evil chancellor was going to be dealt with. In that shot, you can actually see the clones in the background walking to the point where you can make out their faces.

Another part was when Anakin is sitting down with the chancellor at the weird symphony and as they talk about the not trusting the other senators, you can see people talking causally in the background. However, Lucas doesn't switch to shallow DOF but rather pulls the camera closer as the conversation deepens, and the people are no longer in view.

Pete

i understand your point but star wars 3 is not the best example of dof considering it was shot digitally. even with the same super 35mm lenses and conventional celluloid projection, digital hd cams will still alter the dof, colors, blacks, etc. from the look of "old fashioned" film. besides, i wouldn't be surprised if lucasarts occasionally went into each frame and shallowed the dof a little. i do it on my cheapy digital still cam all the time.

[icicle22]

i understand your point but star wars 3 is not the best example of dof considering it was shot digitally. even with the same super 35mm lenses and conventional celluloid projection, digital hd cams will still alter the dof, colors, blacks, etc. from the look of "old fashioned" film. besides, i wouldn't be surprised if lucasarts occasionally went into each frame and shallowed the dof a little. i do it on my cheapy digital still cam all the time.

I'm sure they do this! Since so much is shot against Green screen they would purposely try to create the same dramatic DOF that 35mm would have given them if:

1)they were actually shooting 35mm
2)the digital set existed in the real world to optically be blurred by the lens

By stating that Lucas does this to the shots on purpose actually stregthens the argument that shallow DOF is more popular than ever.

[pmark23]

Wow, motivational speaker...huh?! Nice work!

Do you realize what this forums is becoming? A completely free digital film university that will revolutionize the future of filmmaking

Thanks pmark23 :beer: for your insight.


Pete


Thanks. That line was directed mostly at me. I'm a terrible technofetishist, but at least I know I have a problem -- and that's the first step to recovery. :grin:

[pmark23]

I'm sure they do this! Since so much is shot against Green screen they would purposely try to create the same dramatic DOF that 35mm would have given them if:

1)they were actually shooting 35mm
2)the digital set existed in the real world to optically be blurred by the lens

By stating that Lucas does this to the shots on purpose actually stregthens the argument that shallow DOF is more popular than ever.


a) Popularity = Cliche.

b) If Lucas jumped off a bridge, would you follow?

c) Using the latest Star Wars film as an example does not help your argument, particularly since Lucas isn't known as a great director and uses whatever gimmicks are currently popular. In fact, I bet if you watch the first film, then the last three, you'll notice a marked difference in the use of shallow DOF.

d) Don't you agree that those Star Wars shallow DOF shots would be more effective if you could actually see what was going on in the background? Especially since the acting and script is so attrocious that I'd like to tune-out and watch the pretty robots. But nooooo. Lucas forces us to watch his crappy dialogue. Fascist filmmaking at its finest. A better director would have used the background action to support and build the story or backstory instead of just showing abstract movement.

[Policar]

This argument is so stupid it hurts. How does it relate to 1/3'' versus 2/3'' chips? Both have a much deeper DOF than 35mm.

Pmark, a better director does not distract the viewer from bad acting, a better director has GOOD acting. Although I love Lucas, so be quiet.

The deep DOF shots (greenscreened) are nothing new. See Citizen Kane (even Strangers on a Train for one shot) were rear projection is used to create a virtually unlimited DOF. I can't believe people here feel they know the complete truth regarding a subjective artistic decision which even Hollywood DPs and directors (and eras of film making, even!) can't agree on.

[Antoine_Fabi]

Funny...

When film was slow, they had problem to get broad DOP.
With the fast new film, it is more difficult to get shallow DOP.

I think i am just lucky to have access to a good image quality at an affordable price.
I prefer to adapt my shooting to existing technology.
Yes a 35mm Panaflex has a narrower DOP (distance from subject etc... beeing equal), but small camcorders have a tremendous advantage...they are lightweight, simple, and thus can be manipulated in a very different way.

I think film (35mm) has some advantages, and digital video has also some advantages.

[Walter_Graff]

Except 70% of star wars was green screen so any perception of depth of field was created electronically in post. And the lenses they used cost more than all the peoples cameras who come to this site combined.

[Walter_Graff]

And just for you folks that must know, here is a depth of field calculator for various formats:


http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/reference/calcFOVform.asp

[David Jimerson]

But nooooo. Lucas forces us to watch his crappy dialogue. Fascist filmmaking at its finest.

Oh, please. No one made you watch it. :huh:

[icicle22]

a) Popularity = Cliche.

b) If Lucas jumped off a bridge, would you follow?

c) Using the latest Star Wars film as an example does not help your argument, particularly since Lucas isn't known as a great director and uses whatever gimmicks are currently popular. In fact, I bet if you watch the first film, then the last three, you'll notice a marked difference in the use of shallow DOF.

d) Don't you agree that those Star Wars shallow DOF shots would be more effective if you could actually see what was going on in the background? Especially since the acting and script is so attrocious that I'd like to tune-out and watch the pretty robots. But nooooo. Lucas forces us to watch his crappy dialogue. Fascist filmmaking at its finest. A better director would have used the background action to support and build the story or backstory instead of just showing abstract movement.

a)so don't use the most effective tool to draw a persons attention to a specific subject because someone else does? So by that same theory I shouldn't paint with water colors cause it is cliche becase other artist do that too?

b)I have no loyalty or great love for Lucas. But the fact is that when creating digital environments that directors want us to get immersed in, they need to adhere to some of the optical standards that we have come to embrace. This keeps the piece at least slightly grounded.

c)Basic principles of lenses are gimmicks? I agree that Lucas has gone overbaoprd and should shoot more practical elements and not rely on greenscreen so much but to me the shallow DOF is on par with most other 35mm films I see. Why wouldn't George embrace digital but still try to harken back to his 35mm roots?

d)Too much going on in the background is distracting as hell. Expecially in the Star Wars films that already overload your senses with too much going on. There is a time and place for shallow or deep depth of field in films but to say a better director wouldn't use shallow DOF is really narrow minded.

[Zig_Zigman]

*L* I just couldn't leave this one alone -

a) Popularity = Cliche.

Popularity means using archetypes audiences understand and enjoy. If you want someone to give you $$ for a film the sooner you figure this out, the better. If you are using your own money for a film, then feel free to do what you want.

b) If Lucas jumped off a bridge, would you follow?

Hell yes, for the kind of money he's throwing around... ;-) besides, it'd be a CG bridge.

d) Don't you agree that those Star Wars shallow DOF shots would be more effective if you could actually see what was going on in the background?

It will neither help the film nor hurt it. Star Wars is DOF-agnostic. You are buying into the legend and the characters, (or not) and no one is watching the upper left hand corner of the screen to see if a storm trooper is in focus or not, except for DP's and geeks who do not affect the box office. (I am including myself here as well).

[pmark23]

Folks, this isn't a black-and-white issue, so don't point out every instance of shallow DOF in every single film as an "ah-hah!". I'm not saying that it should NEVER be used, but rather it should be recognized as an optical effect and used sparingly like all effects.

Of course it has it's place. Just don't overuse it, that's all. Nothing screams amateur more than flagrant use of shallow DOF for no good reason (except maybe zooms, dolly-zooms, and bad acting.)

The original point is that shallow DOF is not mandatory for film. Nobody is going to notice if you don't have shallow DOF in your movie. You're not impressing anyone by including shallow DOF unless it's used well -- and then nobody will notice it anyway if it was executed properly.

[J.R. Hudson]

I agree.

DOF is merely another technique one can use to communicate to the audience. It should be used with purpose and not because you can. Like a Steadicam, Dolly or hand-held; I hope you know why you are using it and what purpose it serves in your piece.

Some of the greatest films of all time had ZERO use of shallow DOF so quit preaching it to be the end all of all filmic quallties.

[reservoir]

This gave me an idea for my first feature film. It will be called *Depth of Field* and feature 90 minutes of shallow DOF shots. It will be "artsy", it will be "indie", it will RULE Sundance and Cannes in 06'. No need for a real script with a good plot and meaningful dialogue. Just hardcore *IN YO' FACE* DOF shots from beginning to end. It will be MARVELOUS I tell you!! MARVELOUS!!

~reservoir~

[Spiff]

Better yet reservoir, you should make sure that the subject is ALWAYS out of focus, with the camera getting beautiful crisp footage of flowers in the foreground, or the background action in the distance.

Can you imagine how much it would suck if consumer video cameras had shallow DOF? Everything would be blurry all the time. Thank God that tiny lenses and images result in everything in crisp focus.

Frankly, I don't want a big-CCD camera that has shallow DOF. I want a 4 small CCD camera that records a 4th depth channel. Then I could simply change the DOF to whatever I want in post.

-Spiff

[pmark23]

Depth of field isn't a gimmick. The human eye focuses a certain way and emulating that increases your chances of the audience focusing on what you want them to focus on.

The hallmark of a bad director is thinking that somehow you have to force the audience to look where you want them to, using tricks such as zooms, iris, or shallow DOF.

This has been known for over 80 years. Try studying some film history. FYI, I already posted a brief history of shallow DOF somewhere in this thread.

The prevalence of shallow DOF today comes from television, where shallow DOF is used much more since the screen is much smaller and becomes cluttered more easily. Many newer directors come from television commercials and music videos, and brought their habits and techniques with them into film.

On a movie screen 80 feet wide, your eye will do it's own blurring of whatever it is your not look at directly. Deliberately using shallow DOF in this case is redundant, unless for a specific reason (ie, you don't want the audience to see exactly what's there until later).

[Isaac_Brody]

Rules are made to be broken. Once you lock yourself into doing things one way, you limit your possibilities.