So how good is the Bokeh?

[Mavoz]

As a prospectice HVX purchaser I'm curious about the depth of field possibilities the camera offers out of the box...

I'm a bit more experienced in the world of Digital SLR photography than in video...and I know that at 1.8 aperture using an 80mm lens..I can achieve some nice 'subject' popping out of background effects....ie. nice bokeh effect...(particularly when keeping subject further from background..and cropping up tighter)

How does the HVX go by comparison? What would the lens equate to in terms of what's possible on an SLR?
From what I can gather looking at the specs...with the right framing etc. it should go reasonably well in getting that nice background blur.

Does one really need one of the m2 adaptor type things...or can a lot be achieved with the Leica lens itself?

Thanks!

[SurJones]

I really like the out of the box DOF. Depends on the person. It is a personal preference. And I am sure that is all you are going to get. The 35mm adapter, are great as well :)

[Ted Spencer]

Unfortunately, with the stock lens there is a generally long depth of field even at wide aperture settings. It apparently has to do with the small CCDs, and is characteristic of most similar HD camcorders. By zooming in *and * using a wide aperture you can get a pretty good amount of bokeh, but you're also distorting the perspective due to the zooming. If you're looking for a more flexible, traditional cinematic look where this is concerned, I think a 35mm lens adapter like the M2, Brevis etc. is the only way to get it.

The HVX's generation of HD cameras is still pretty "bleeding edge" where price/performance is concerned, so to get all the features one could ideally have still involves a considerable amount of aftermarket kit. I think in a few years or less we'll see some second or third generation "affordable" HD cameras that will incorporate many of these things out of the box, and depth-of-field control would have to be very high on the wish list.

In the meantime we do what we can, and thankfully even now, an HVX/aftermarket rig can be set up to create truly amazing, cinematic results, as many of the clips posted elsewhere on this board can show.

This year I assembled my "HVX starter kit", which in addition to the camera includes basic lighting, tripod, P2 cards, Final Cut Studio, boom/lav mics, light meter, HD field monitor, powerbook and cases for all above. Next year I'll probably add a 35mm adapter and lenses, and then see what else makes sense. Perhaps a stabilizer, dolly, jib...???

The bleeding edge can be fun, actually... : )

[khmuse]

My biggest objection to use of an adapter with a small imager camera is mixing footage between with and without the adapter shots. The difference is more than the selective focus that the adapter offers and most of the time, for me, it just draws too much attention to the two conditions.

If you are an experienced still shooter and you know your craft well, when you transistion to a moving image shooter you should be able to achieve a lot of what an adapter offers (in terms of story telling, not look) by knowing how to frame and light a scene to move the focus point to where you want it.

Way too much emphasis is placed on this single aspect of image control.

[darwinandpaine]

You can get shallow depth of field with the stock lens. But you have to shoot on the long end of the lens and be wide open. It's not very practical for small interiors, which is what a lot of us with these smaller cameras end up shooting in.

This was a key question of mine as well because shallow depth of field does more for me than just look "filmic" or cool --- it establishes a more three dimensional look to the two dimensional plane of the viewing screen. I ended up buying the M2 and couldn't be happier with the price/performance ratio of the adapter. If you're looking for truly cinematic imagery from the HVX, the M2 is a great way to go.

[Mavoz]

Thanks for the feedback..one of the things I've loved about my Canon 300D SLR has been pairing it with a lens or two that achieves those really nice portrait shots...so I'd love to do this in the Video world too.

Might have to place that M2 on the shopping list too;)

[Noel Evans]

My biggest objection to use of an adapter with a small imager camera is mixing footage between with and without the adapter shots. The difference is more than the selective focus that the adapter offers and most of the time, for me, it just draws too much attention to the two conditions.

If you are an experienced still shooter and you know your craft well, when you transistion to a moving image shooter you should be able to achieve a lot of what an adapter offers (in terms of story telling, not look) by knowing how to frame and light a scene to move the focus point to where you want it.

Way too much emphasis is placed on this single aspect of image control.

This is very true and I have seen some bungles. But I dont think its totally out of the question. You have to be very careful and know whats coming out.

[Dennis Wood]

The XH-A1 at 20X zoom has pretty shallow DOF with the 1/3" CCDs. If you could shoot at 20x all the time, there would be no need for an adapter :-)

[khmuse]

It is true that you can achieve very shallow DOF at the long end of the lens on most 1/3" camera, look at this example:

http://www.museelectronics.com/production/scene_34_insert_06.jpg

But the comment that "If you could shoot at 20x all the time..." illustrates my earlier point. You don't need selective focus in every shot! Consider something like an establishment shot. In many cases extremely shallow DOF would defeat the value of this type of shot as it is intended to establish the environment and the relationship of the characters to the environment. When you punch into your coverage shots, then the ability to make use of selective focus can be an advantage.

I am not trying to say that there is anything wrong with shallow DOF, but the idea that you need it in every frame seems a bit absurd to me.

[Dennis Wood]

I agree completely. For many applications, like running a stabilizer without external focus, shallow DOF has no place. If you are using an adapter, having use of the higher f stop ranges is very important IMO for the reasons you describe. Running a 35mm lens at a higher f stop defeats the purpose of the adapter, however it maintains a consistent "look" to the footage if shallow DOF is also being used in the same piece.

Another great reason not to shoot wide open all the time is the resolution hit (didn't realize the DVX was so bad wide open!) from the camera, and/or 35mm lens. It's just nice that there are tools out there for video, so shooters can now pick their look.

[darwinandpaine]

The problem with shooting at 20x is that any camera movement is exagerated and looks much more jerky. Try going handheld at 20x --- not a good look.

The other thing to remember is that when you have wider lenses on the M2, you'll naturally have greater depth of field --- particularly when shooting wide (like for a master). What you can't do with the stock lens is be wide AND have shallow depth of field. This is something very acheivable with the M2 and a 24mm lens. I don't know about you, but I LOVE having that option.

[DC]

The problem with shooting at 20x is that any camera movement is exagerated and looks much more jerky. Try going handheld at 20x --- not a good look.

The other thing to remember is that when you have wider lenses on the M2, you'll naturally have greater depth of field --- particularly when shooting wide (like for a master). What you can't do with the stock lens is be wide AND have shallow depth of field. This is something very acheivable with the M2 and a 24mm lens. I don't know about you, but I LOVE having that option.

I hear ya, Brian! :)