DOF on hpx 500

[LuckyStudio 13]

Considering the lens available for the hpx500 is eng and the camera is designed for eng use, is there still a need to add a 35mm adapter in order to reach that "film like 35mm" DOF ?? I know that the RED is basically a digital "35mm" camera with plount 35mm lens and after all is said and done (batt, evf ...etc), the hpx 500 and RED are in the roughly same price range.

So, would you say for indie film making the RED would be a better choice than the Hpx500 ? Personally, coming from the HVX200 I am comfortable and happy with the P2 workflow.

[FBAS]

2/3" has roughly the same DOF as 16mm film, so you're somewhere in between. While you can hardly achieve shallow DOF with a 1/3" at all, it's relatively easy with a 2/3". Just make sure your f-stop is between 1.7 and 2.8 and you can shoot really nice portraits.

I don't know the HPX at all, but I have a lot of experience with Sony's DXC D30 and D35 2/3" and some with the DVX100 and HVX200 1/3". You can achieve totally blurred-out backgrounds with a 2/3" while with the 1/3" all you can do is make the background a little blurry.

[Mtech]

Of course you need an adapter for 35mm DOF. The question really is, do you need more dof than what you get with 2/3? Grap a DSLR with 2/3'' sensor and start experimenting.

[LuckyStudio 13]

Besides the all manual settings and markings on a 2/3" cine lens, what are some of the advantages of
cine lens vs ENG lens that justify the 2x 3x cost of the later ??

[Mac]

Actually cine lenses aren't more expensive than good HD 2/3" lenses - any lens type that's made in small numbers is going to cost more because the manufacturer can't defray the costs of R&D and hand assembly with mass market sales...

But, to answer part of your question, the advantages of cine lenses range from minor preferences to major differences. Cine lenses have T stops instead of F stops - a very good thing if you use a meter. Cine zoom lenses tend to have shorter total zoom ranges (since they're not considered all-in-one like ENG lenses) and that makes for an optically superior design. Cine lenses don't have handles on them.. ask any film cameraperson what they think about using a lens as a handle.

Cinematographers, snobs as a rule, don't like to use zooms - they prefer prime lenses. As a result, when a zoom is designed for cinematography use, it has to compare favorably with, say, Zeiss primes in order to impress the DPs... That means that they are (usually) optically superior at a wider range of stops, and through the zoom range, and they don't breath as much when focusing...

Cine lenses are also usually very heavy because handholding isn't the prime directive...

I'm sure I'm forgetting some others, but that's a start...

[monkeyking]

cine lenses have a longer focus throw. Lens has to be rotated more from infinity to min. focus pt. That helps the camera assistant in fine tuning focus marks. Cine lenses are better corrected to minimize breathing .