Does the CO 1.6 tele alter the DOF enough to make a good blurry background or should I spend the money on an M2 or Letus35? I like to shoot real wide or long lensed in with short DOF...a la Leone. I have a .6x Co wide angle and like the fact I can swap out with the 1.6 quickly. Anyone who has used both and has input would be greatly appreciated....thanks
Century Optics 1.6 Tele versus 35mm Adaptors???f
- Thread starter Solomojo
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
No, not really. It's a little shallower, but nothing like a Letus or M2.
Barry_Green
Moderator
It makes some difference, but not a tremendous amount. It moves a DVX's maximum focal length from 45mm up to 72mm. But, you can't zoom out very far because it will vignette.
It's nice to have, and I bought one for my HVX, but I just don't want anyone thinking it's a night-and-day difference. It's definitely better. Just not astoundingly better, only moderately better.
It's nice to have, and I bought one for my HVX, but I just don't want anyone thinking it's a night-and-day difference. It's definitely better. Just not astoundingly better, only moderately better.
Wow...I had two of the most knowledgable Titans chipping in to my question. Thank you both for helping out. My ulitmate question is this...
The DVX is a wonderful camera. I love the images it creates when properly used. After reading about the success of November and the Iraqi doc and it's Sundance Cinematography Awards...are 35mm adapters really necessary???
Most DVX shot films won't make it to screen...and that's fine. I feel that filmmakers can make a fantastic film with the DVX and not have to worry about trying to emulate 35mm film cameras in the process. November and Iraqi prove this...
I just want a clean, easy and quality image concentrating on wide and long lens shots with easy on the fly switching...no rod systems...no snazzy thousand dollar accessories that sound good but just make shooting more difficult.
I like the stock wide angle DVX coverage...love the clear zoomed out CO .6x wide angle (only used for wide angle so no worries about vignetting) and like the flexibility of extra DOF with the CO 1.6x tele and the quick swapping on set of either lens.
I've viewed alot of frame grabs and shots from the 35 adapters that look very nice but the STORY is always the most important thing. I appreciate and keep tabs on all new technologies but feel most of the frame grab/video section clips are kind of boring shots of flowers or what not. That's fine and I appreciate the effort and investment people make to get a quality image...I just think more emphasis should go to story and acting then equipment...but that's just me.
November/Iraq...no adapters...no anamorphic...good stories...great visuals...enough said.
I enjoy the site so much, have learned tons and hope to see more complete and substantial contributions...I know the next Forman/Kubrick/Spielberg/Tarantino can be found on this site...
Sorry for blabbing...I just want a simple, clean, easily swapped set up to cover everything without worrying about boke all day as the moment passes...
all the best and please feel free to comment!
The DVX is a wonderful camera. I love the images it creates when properly used. After reading about the success of November and the Iraqi doc and it's Sundance Cinematography Awards...are 35mm adapters really necessary???
Most DVX shot films won't make it to screen...and that's fine. I feel that filmmakers can make a fantastic film with the DVX and not have to worry about trying to emulate 35mm film cameras in the process. November and Iraqi prove this...
I just want a clean, easy and quality image concentrating on wide and long lens shots with easy on the fly switching...no rod systems...no snazzy thousand dollar accessories that sound good but just make shooting more difficult.
I like the stock wide angle DVX coverage...love the clear zoomed out CO .6x wide angle (only used for wide angle so no worries about vignetting) and like the flexibility of extra DOF with the CO 1.6x tele and the quick swapping on set of either lens.
I've viewed alot of frame grabs and shots from the 35 adapters that look very nice but the STORY is always the most important thing. I appreciate and keep tabs on all new technologies but feel most of the frame grab/video section clips are kind of boring shots of flowers or what not. That's fine and I appreciate the effort and investment people make to get a quality image...I just think more emphasis should go to story and acting then equipment...but that's just me.
November/Iraq...no adapters...no anamorphic...good stories...great visuals...enough said.
I enjoy the site so much, have learned tons and hope to see more complete and substantial contributions...I know the next Forman/Kubrick/Spielberg/Tarantino can be found on this site...
Sorry for blabbing...I just want a simple, clean, easily swapped set up to cover everything without worrying about boke all day as the moment passes...
all the best and please feel free to comment!
Rush
DVXuser Sponsor
You're welcome Solo. I pulled my post because it just reiterated Barry's, and was redundant at that point.
While I do believe that certain artistic ventures can be better served with reducing DOF beyond what the 1.6x and open aperture can do, I 100% agree with your statement, that more emphasis should go to story and acting that it does today. Lighting and camera angles help the actors and the script, but it really comes down to the latter two focal points. First the script, then the actors, then the gear.
I will say though, that often, what makes a movie 'good', and separates it from more mediocre counterparts, is a full cohesive assembly of parts. Those parts, once assembled properly, build an organism greater than the sum of the individual parts. And sometimes, a shallower DOF on one shot can take a scene from an average A-, to a powerful A+, and generally, A+ scenes are what make a whole greater than the sum of the parts. That is because they increase the potential energy of the scene, and cause it to have emotional impact due to a pragmatic shift in the audience's understanding of a character, and the externalization of that character's emotional state or thought. That may not always be a 35mm adapter. It may be an angle, a certain object in the background balancing the left half of the frame, hiding part of the face, use of diegetic audio, a highlight increasing depth of perspective, a color choice... All these devices represent choice. And the more choice you have as a filmmaker, the better your ability to take from your mind and print to film. The more accurate the transfer, the more powerful the message.
It is important to remember as well, that quickness is a duty one owes to actors, and sometimes, making them wait for an hour while mounting certain lenses or rearranging dollies to get a certain MS, may in the end take away from the intensity of their moment. As professionals, they should adapt, but sometimes the moment is gone, and everyone pays the price. The director's duty is to the actors, as well as the audience and the DP. Balancing all these responsiblities is what makes it fascinating.
While I do believe that certain artistic ventures can be better served with reducing DOF beyond what the 1.6x and open aperture can do, I 100% agree with your statement, that more emphasis should go to story and acting that it does today. Lighting and camera angles help the actors and the script, but it really comes down to the latter two focal points. First the script, then the actors, then the gear.
I will say though, that often, what makes a movie 'good', and separates it from more mediocre counterparts, is a full cohesive assembly of parts. Those parts, once assembled properly, build an organism greater than the sum of the individual parts. And sometimes, a shallower DOF on one shot can take a scene from an average A-, to a powerful A+, and generally, A+ scenes are what make a whole greater than the sum of the parts. That is because they increase the potential energy of the scene, and cause it to have emotional impact due to a pragmatic shift in the audience's understanding of a character, and the externalization of that character's emotional state or thought. That may not always be a 35mm adapter. It may be an angle, a certain object in the background balancing the left half of the frame, hiding part of the face, use of diegetic audio, a highlight increasing depth of perspective, a color choice... All these devices represent choice. And the more choice you have as a filmmaker, the better your ability to take from your mind and print to film. The more accurate the transfer, the more powerful the message.
It is important to remember as well, that quickness is a duty one owes to actors, and sometimes, making them wait for an hour while mounting certain lenses or rearranging dollies to get a certain MS, may in the end take away from the intensity of their moment. As professionals, they should adapt, but sometimes the moment is gone, and everyone pays the price. The director's duty is to the actors, as well as the audience and the DP. Balancing all these responsiblities is what makes it fascinating.
Rush,
thanks for the post...kind, intuitive, wise words. I posted before you removed your comment and I thought for a minute I lost my marbles because I didn't see your comment...and thought it was the vodka talking...
Glad you agree about the "work-flow" of Story, Cast, Equipment...to hammer that point home I watched THE SHINING again today during the day...scared shitless...again.
The whole movie was wide angle...extreme wide angle...curved walls and doorways...wheelchair steadycams contrasted with static shots (which could be done with a $10 tripod). Beautiful film...one location used to the extreme...a good strategy to anyone shooting/writing a short or feature...pick ONE location you have full access to and abuse it! Think Saw or Saw II recently. 1.5 and 4 million respectively production with 80 and 100+ domestic in tickets.
My good friend is one of the exec producers and they luckily OWN the whole franchise from day one and never have to work 9 to 5 again. Great story, great characters, well shot...I would argue that shot on the DVX and the same result would have been garnered...just my take...
anyways time for sleepy...I hope everyone puts their cameras down for a sec and writes 5 pages before they go to sleep...each night
thanks for the post...kind, intuitive, wise words. I posted before you removed your comment and I thought for a minute I lost my marbles because I didn't see your comment...and thought it was the vodka talking...
Glad you agree about the "work-flow" of Story, Cast, Equipment...to hammer that point home I watched THE SHINING again today during the day...scared shitless...again.
The whole movie was wide angle...extreme wide angle...curved walls and doorways...wheelchair steadycams contrasted with static shots (which could be done with a $10 tripod). Beautiful film...one location used to the extreme...a good strategy to anyone shooting/writing a short or feature...pick ONE location you have full access to and abuse it! Think Saw or Saw II recently. 1.5 and 4 million respectively production with 80 and 100+ domestic in tickets.
My good friend is one of the exec producers and they luckily OWN the whole franchise from day one and never have to work 9 to 5 again. Great story, great characters, well shot...I would argue that shot on the DVX and the same result would have been garnered...just my take...
anyways time for sleepy...I hope everyone puts their cameras down for a sec and writes 5 pages before they go to sleep...each night
Bill__Turner
Well-known member
Norbert:
November was shot using two DVX100's (very early camera's not 100a's) and the Anamorphic was not used. Some Century attachments (tele and wide) were used for specific shots.
Filtering was minimal (mostly ND's to control exposure and aperture).
Extensive tests were shot and blown to 35mm before production began to make these decisions.
Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
November was shot using two DVX100's (very early camera's not 100a's) and the Anamorphic was not used. Some Century attachments (tele and wide) were used for specific shots.
Filtering was minimal (mostly ND's to control exposure and aperture).
Extensive tests were shot and blown to 35mm before production began to make these decisions.
Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
The telephoto extender does not increase the aperture size (so it would be like 72mm f4 or something?) and thus the depth of focus really isn't that much shallower. In fact, for the same framing, I don't see why it would be appreciably shallower at all.
Also, there's this distance (sometimes awesome, sometimes not) telephoto lenses give you from the subject that provides a weird effect (and makes camera stabilization, boom pole cable length, size of area you're shooting in, etc. a major issue.) For me, the telephoto adapter is for specific shots and for documentary work, mostly.
The 35mm adapter, however clumsy, is a much better solution for a "cinematic" feel.
Also, there's this distance (sometimes awesome, sometimes not) telephoto lenses give you from the subject that provides a weird effect (and makes camera stabilization, boom pole cable length, size of area you're shooting in, etc. a major issue.) For me, the telephoto adapter is for specific shots and for documentary work, mostly.
The 35mm adapter, however clumsy, is a much better solution for a "cinematic" feel.
Bill__Turner
Well-known member
Just to clarify a point. A properly designed telephoto attachment can maintain the f number of the lens (that is part of the reason the front element is so much larger that the front element of the zoom lens on the camera)
The DVX100 with the Century 1.6X is still f2.8 at full tele. You are correct that the DOF with the same framing will be the same, but because the FOV is narrower the background appears much different, even tho the subject is the same size in the frame.
Jarred or Barry have posted some excellent examples of this, and I imagine covers it in the paper on DOF, which I admit (sorry to say) I have not read.
I do agree that Tele attachments cannot mimic the shallow DOF obtainable with the various 35mm adapters, or by shooting with a larger format camera.
They can let you achieve a focus isolation that, when properly used, on a specific shot can be very useful dramatically.
Bill Turner
Schneider Optics
Century Division
The DVX100 with the Century 1.6X is still f2.8 at full tele. You are correct that the DOF with the same framing will be the same, but because the FOV is narrower the background appears much different, even tho the subject is the same size in the frame.
Jarred or Barry have posted some excellent examples of this, and I imagine covers it in the paper on DOF, which I admit (sorry to say) I have not read.
I do agree that Tele attachments cannot mimic the shallow DOF obtainable with the various 35mm adapters, or by shooting with a larger format camera.
They can let you achieve a focus isolation that, when properly used, on a specific shot can be very useful dramatically.
Bill Turner
Schneider Optics
Century Division
Ah, fair enough. I didn't know that the tele-adapter maintained f2.8. That's very cool and impressive; it definitely seems even more useful to me now for dramatic work, and especially for documentaries/concert films or events.
Certainly if you don't want to risk losing sharpness (35mm adapters all lose some, even the mini35, which is pretty good in that regard) then I could see how zooming in to full telephoto for shot/reverse shot could help draw the attention to the characters, but this issue for me is this: you want some level of intimacy with the characters and telephoto lenses deny this. For certain effects, shooting shot/reverse shot through a telephoto lens can be cool: it can give a distanciation or surviellance effect that can be creepy and very very useful for certain shots. But for traditional conversations, I say zoom in no further than half way and use depth cues (backlights, figure movement, color differences) instead of a shallow depth of focus. If you use ND filters to keep the aperture open all the time (a pretty cheap alternative, actually) you can definitely get some decent results and just a hint of that defocused look that guides the eye where it should be.
Certainly if you don't want to risk losing sharpness (35mm adapters all lose some, even the mini35, which is pretty good in that regard) then I could see how zooming in to full telephoto for shot/reverse shot could help draw the attention to the characters, but this issue for me is this: you want some level of intimacy with the characters and telephoto lenses deny this. For certain effects, shooting shot/reverse shot through a telephoto lens can be cool: it can give a distanciation or surviellance effect that can be creepy and very very useful for certain shots. But for traditional conversations, I say zoom in no further than half way and use depth cues (backlights, figure movement, color differences) instead of a shallow depth of focus. If you use ND filters to keep the aperture open all the time (a pretty cheap alternative, actually) you can definitely get some decent results and just a hint of that defocused look that guides the eye where it should be.