Dersert/Night/Interiors: HVX+m2 Screencaps

[dcarstens]

As for the M2 however, I must say that these shots actually make a case against it for me. As I sifted through them, I kept thinking that they felt rather soft to me. The only ones that I didn't feel this way with were the last two and then I noticed that those were the stock lense. I'm not a resulotion whore by any stretch of the imagination but the loss of detail here is simply unacceptible to me. Of course, shallow depth of field has never been something I HAVE to have since I kind of like the composition options that a deeper focus allows. Ultimatly, the M2 just makes things too soft for my taste.

While you are absolutely correct that shooting into a spinning ground glass does inherently soften the image, I suppose it's a subjective opinion as to whether this is a good or bad effect. You preferred the stock lens shots that were no doubt sharper, but struck many others as retaining the harsh 'video quality'. As for myself, I see the softening that comes with using the mini35 as a pleasing effect, not unlike using Promist filters (which I wish I could have done on my pickups, e.g. the 'blue room' shots, but did not have the budget to rent a mattbox/filter set).

 

[J.R. Hudson]

The 85mm f2 seems to have been used quite extensively; a love affair with the shallow DOF no doubt. It works very nice in this but I can see, subjectively I say, where it appears to be over done.

DOF can be used in either direction but slapping it on isn't the way to use it. I believe we should have some motivation behind the decision in each shot.

Nevertheless, I really enjoy the stock lens shots and do not think it lends a 'videoy' feel at all.

Overall; it's great looking ! Wow !

 

[DavidBeier]

Whether or not to use shallow DoF is a issue unto itself. As I've mentioned before, I like deep focus because of the amazing composition options it offers. Welles, Kurosawa, Frakenhiemer, Kubrik, and recently Wes Anderson have all used deep focus to amazing affect and produced some of the most visually stunning films ever made. I certainly don't think anyone would say their stuff looks like video. I think shallow focus can be useful but only as a choice. Ridley Scott uses it gorgeously though I think the film industry on a whole uses it way too much (simply too lazy to compose stuff well so they'd rather throw everything out of focus). Ultimatly, if there is a purpose for it, good but don't just use it on principle.

What does bug me is the belief that a shallow DoF will make your work look more film-like. As I said, many of the best filmmakers worked in deep focus and they didn't touch video. It's a shame that I often see people who use the M2 having every shot in very shallow DoF. The results are often odd looking and clearly not in a way that was intended (not saying that this is the case with this footage).

Resolution is tricky. I don't think the idea that softer makes something look more film-like is accurate. Too often (and I once again am not directing this at you or the footage seen here) younger filmmakers try to get the film look by making their stuff look like bad film. They make the image softer (where as I remember try to make things as sharp as possible when shooting 16mm), they add grain (something we always tried to avoid doing 16mm). The result is that it looks closer to bad 8mm stock than anything acceptible.

Resolution is very subjective. You get used to seeing something high rez and suddenly everything else looks blurry. Brian Singer was talking about making Superman Returns and how he did some tests with 70mm footage. He said, after viewing that, suddenly all the best 35mm stuff looked blurry and soft.

Film is much higher resolution than even the best digital so I don't see how soffening the image really makes things look more filmic. Perhaps reducing the edge enhancment might but losing won't help. I think that if we saw this stuff blown up on a big screen and compared to 35mm, the stock lense stuff would probably fair much better.

Besides, I think the film look is becoming more of an illusion than anything. People often say that a video giveaway is super saturated colors but so many modern movies shot on film have this look too. Ultimatly, I think we should strive toward what looks best and I personally think the higher resolution looks better. Not that I think resolution is everything. I think color and gamma are much more important which is why I got a HVX200 instead of an XLH1. But, if all things are equal, then why not have it be sharper?

Ok, I've rambled a bit too much. My point remains that I think the footage looks great and very filmic. However, I think this has way more to do with some great cinematography than it does with shallow DoF or a softer image.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I may have to split this thread into its own if we continue !

Whether or not to use shallow DoF is an issue unto itself. As I've mentioned before, I like deep focus because of the amazing composition options it offers. Welles, Kurosawa, Frakenhiemer, Kubrik, and recently Wes Anderson have all used deep focus to amazing affect and produced some of the most visually stunning films ever made. I certainly don't think anyone would say their stuff looks like video. I think shallow focus can be useful but only as a choice. Ridley Scott uses it gorgeously though I think the film industry on a whole uses it way too much (simply too lazy to compose stuff well so they'd rather throw everything out of focus). Ultimately, if there is a purpose for it, good but don't just use it on principle.

I would prefer a shallow DOF as opposed to a deep one but do believe all shots should be started at the basis of the composition within the frame and that the decision to use a longer lens is secondary and with specific intent. I believe the filmmakers listed above used what was available to them technology wise.

What does bug me is the belief that a shallow DoF will make your work look more film-like. As I said, many of the best filmmakers worked in deep focus and they didn't touch video. It's a shame that I often see people who use the M2 having every shot in very shallow DoF. The results are often odd looking and clearly not in a way that was intended (not saying that this is the case with this footage).

I disagree. I find a shallow DOF lens itself in favor of creating this illusion. I believe the number one ingredient is the 24fps cadence. I do agree with you that using a shallow DOF without an artistic reason could be the same as using a steadicam without a good reason. Most people just strap it on and shoot.

Resolution is tricky. I don't think the idea that softer makes something look more film-like is accurate. Too often (and I once again am not directing this at you or the footage seen here) younger filmmakers try to get the film look by making their stuff look like bad film. They make the image softer (where as I remember try to make things as sharp as possible when shooting 16mm), they add grain (something we always tried to avoid doing 16mm). The result is that it looks closer to bad 8mm stock than anything acceptible.

I want a higher resolution format but it is the least of my worries. The 24p, the gamma, the lens options all come into play over the sharpness factor. I find the HVX perfectly sharp whereas a camera like the Canon XL-H1 is way to sharp for my needs. I like the softer feel of the HVX over the XL-H1 (for example)

Resolution is very subjective. You get used to seeing something high rez and suddenly everything else looks blurry. Brian Singer was talking about making Superman Returns and how he did some tests with 70mm footage. He said, after viewing that, suddenly all the best 35mm stuff looked blurry and soft.

I can dig that. Watching a film like 28 Days Later in its Xl1 glory makes me forget about resolution altogether. Watching The Devils Rejects (16mm) makes me forget. I believe it's getting to a point where 'How crystal does it have to be?'. I'm not looking for a virtual reality in my films.

Film is much higher resolution than even the best digital so I don't see how softening the image really makes things look more filmic. Perhaps reducing the edge enhancment might but losing won't help. I think that if we saw this stuff blown up on a big screen and compared to 35mm, the stock lense stuff would probably fair much better.

I believe film is going to lose that battle eventually and reducing the edges are definitely the way to go. Film is sharp, but film is intended to be broadcast on the big-screen and let's not kid ourselves, the end result on DVD. I have a few hundred films in my library and sharpness isn't the first thing that leaps into my mind when analyzing the filmic qualities!

Besides, I think the film look is becoming more of an illusion than anything. People often say that a video giveaway is super saturated colors but so many modern movies shot on film have this look too. Ultimatly, I think we should strive toward what looks best and I personally think the higher resolution looks better. Not that I think resolution is everything. I think color and gamma are much more important which is why I got a HVX200 instead of an XLH1. But, if all things are equal, then why not have it be sharper?

I love oversaturation but like everything else, it is an artistic choice. A higher rez does look nicer for me as well. But again, the HVX HD is much nicer on my eyes than the other cameras extreme superfly detail. The Canon and the JVC seem just too high (If that makes sense), it appears unnatural how everything is super sharp.

Ok, I've rambled a bit too much. My point remains that I think the footage looks great and very filmic. However, I think this has way more to do with some great cinematography than it does with shallow DoF or a softer image.

LOL. I agree. It looks great but think it is a combination of both.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Amen on that post pastor Hudson.

 

[DavidBeier]

I would prefer a shallow DOF as opposed to a deep one but do believe all shots should be started at the basis of the composition within the frame and that the decision to use a longer lens is secondary and with specific intent. I believe the filmmakers listed above used what was available to them technology wise.

That last statement is simply not true though.. Welles and Tollan had to build a new camera capable of achieving deep focus and even had to "fake it" in many shots to get the afffect they wanted. Kurosawa had to shoot from very far away with TONS of light to achieve the telaphoto deep focus look he wanted. I assume the others had similar difficulties. In all cases it was done for artistic purpose and not because of technology and the results are amazing. I don't like Roger Ebert but his commmentary on the Citizen Kane DVD is quite interesting as he talks a lot about the all the artistry that went into the deep focus photography and all the sophisticated methods Welles and Tolland make your eye move accross the frame.

I disagree. I find a shallow DOF lens itself in favor of creating this illusion.

As I said, Citizen Kane, Yojimbo, The Manchurian Canidate, Barry Lydon, and Rushmore are all gorgeous movies in deep focus and they certainly don't look like video to me. I've also seen plenty of 2/3 video cameras that look VERY video-ish despite a shallow depth of field. Having a deep depth of field only looks bad if you don't compose properly. If you use it to your advantage it looks great. A huge part of filmmaking is working with what you have after all.

I want a higher resolution format but it is the least of my worries. The 24p, the gamma, the lens options all come into play over the sharpness factor.

I'm pretty sure I said that I thought 24p, gamma, and (most importantly) color were more important than resolution. I still like resolution though.

I believe film is going to lose that battle eventually and reducing the edges are definitely the way to go. Film is sharp, but film is intended to be broadcast on the big-screen and let's not kid ourselves, the end result on DVD. I have a few hundred films in my library and sharpness isn't the first thing that leaps into my mind when analyzing the filmic qualities!

I completely agree and I said that resolution is certainly not the most important thing. That said, film is sharper and that's one of the things you notice about it. You won't notice it on a DVD but you probably will on the big screen. I can't tell much of a difference between Super 16mm and 35mm on a DVD but it's pretty apparent when it's projected. The point is that film is sharper so saying making an image softer makes it more filmlike seems a bit off to me. Perhaps only if you're just reducing the edge enhacment which is a digital give away.

I find the HVX perfectly sharp whereas a camera like the Canon XL-H1 is way to sharp for my needs. I like the softer feel of the HVX over the XL-H1 (for example)

Once again, there are a couple things to think about. First off, the XLH1 is still much lower rez than 35mm film and I assume you don't find that "too sharp." I'm pretty sure if you saw it projected you wouldn't think such a thing. Once again, it's also worth noting that much of that sharpness that bugs you may bug you because it's edge enhancment rather than actual detail (which is my main problem with the HD100).

I love oversaturation but like everything else, it is an artistic choice. A higher rez does look nicer for me as well. But again, the HVX HD is much nicer on my eyes than the other cameras extreme superfly detail. The Canon and the JVC seem just too high (If that makes sense), it appears unnatural how everything is super sharp.

I guess it just comes down to what makes it feel too sharp? Is it just the fact that you're looking at very high rez images when you're used to seeing an SD DVD. Is it that you're viewing these things on a PC screen instead of projected when you'd rarely get to see a 4k 35mm scan up close like that? Films shot in 70mm are something like 8 times the resoltion you'd get out of the XLH1 but now one calls Lawrence of Arabia too sharp. My guess is that what bugs you is the digital edges that are smoothed out a bit by the M2 but I think you could do the same things by lowering the edge ehancment without losing actual detail.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

That last statement is simply not true though.. Welles and Tollan had to build a new camera capable of achieving deep focus and even had to "fake it" in many shots to get the afffect they wanted. Kurosawa had to shoot from very far away with TONS of light to achieve the telaphoto deep focus look he wanted. I assume the others had similar difficulties. In all cases it was done for artistic purpose and not because of technology and the results are amazing. I don't like Roger Ebert but his commmentary on the Citizen Kane DVD is quite interesting as he talks a lot about the all the artistry that went into the deep focus photography and all the sophisticated methods Welles and Tolland make your eye move accross the frame.

I will definately rescind any debate on any specific films or filmmakers. I was generalizing on era's and not on any specific innovations and surely not of any specific films at that.

Much is made of Citizen Kane and it's extensive use of DF by Toland but let us make note that the film employs a shallow DOF as well. It hammers across the point 'It is an artistic decision on when to use it' or at least, should be.

(From Wiki - Specifically, Toland often used telephoto lenses to shoot close-up scenes anytime the deep focus was impossible)

As I said, Citizen Kane, Yojimbo, The Manchurian Canidate, Barry Lydon, and Rushmore are all gorgeous movies in deep focus and they certainly don't look like video to me. I've also seen plenty of 2/3 video cameras that look VERY video-ish despite a shallow depth of field. Having a deep depth of field only looks bad if you don't compose properly. If you use it to your advantage it looks great. A huge part of filmmaking is working with what you have after all.

Rushmore

Surely an artistic choice and I am not familiar with Andersons use of DF deliberately. (Sorry gigantic frame)

Now I don't know who said Deep Focus was neccasarily videoy in nature but I will totally defend that employing a shallower DOF makes the videoy nature more filmic suddenly.

I completely agree and I said that resolution is certainly not the most important thing. That said, film is sharper and that's one of the things you notice about it. You won't notice it on a DVD but you probably will on the big screen. I can't tell much of a difference between Super 16mm and 35mm on a DVD but it's pretty apparent when it's projected. The point is that film is sharper so saying making an image softer makes it more filmlike seems a bit off to me. Perhaps only if you're just reducing the edge enhacment which is a digital give away.

I've seen both sides of this one. A filmout is a different monster all together in comparison to the DVD transfer. Devil's Reject's (16mm) looks killer on DVD but noticblely soft and grainy on the big screen.

Any softening of a HD video I would be speaking for a DVD transfer personally.

Once again, there are a couple things to think about. First off, the XLH1 is still much lower rez than 35mm film and I assume you don't find that "too sharp." I'm pretty sure if you saw it projected you wouldn't think such a thing. Once again, it's also worth noting that much of that sharpness that bugs you may bug you because it's edge enhancment rather than actual detail (which is my main problem with the HD100).

It is most definate edge enhancement. Again, I'm not comparing anything for a filmout. The day I get something transfered to film for the theatre, Ill die of shock.

I guess it just comes down to what makes it feel too sharp? Is it just the fact that you're looking at very high rez images when you're used to seeing an SD DVD. Is it that you're viewing these things on a PC screen instead of projected when you'd rarely get to see a 4k 35mm scan up close like that? Films shot in 70mm are something like 8 times the resoltion you'd get out of the XLH1 but now one calls Lawrence of Arabia too sharp. My guess is that what bugs you is the digital edges that are smoothed out a bit by the M2 but I think you could do the same things by lowering the edge ehancment without losing actual detail.

No idea. I suppose when it is too sharp, we'll all know. Film transfers and DVD's are 2 different worlds in terms of image clarity!

-

Define your needs and goals and use the tools available to you.

 

[DavidBeier]

Much is made of Citizen Kane and it's extensive use of DF by Toland but let us make note that the film employs a shallow DOF as well. It hammers across the point 'It is an artistic decision on when to use it' or at least, should be.

Yes, deep focus is an articstic choice and one that is used throughout the vast majority of Kane. Yes there are some shallow shots but most or deep as are in most of the other films I mentioned. It was an artistic choice and thus I find claiming it's something that distinguishes film from video innaccurate. Besides, I've gotten some great DoF out of the stock lense when I've really wanted to do an intense closeup like the ones you've shown:

The stock lense won't give you shallow everywhere but for the zoomed in telephoto shots which are pretty much the extent of the shallow DoF in Citizen Kane, it's enough for me.

No idea. I suppose when it is too sharp, we'll all know. Film transfers and DVD's are 2 different worlds in terms of image clarity!

True but we're not even looking at DVD transfers either. You're looking at ultra high-rez stills or files displayed on a high rez monitor of the XLH1 or HD100 footage. Down rezed to a SD DVD will probably look very different. The edge enhancment that bugs you about the HD100 will probably still be there but I think the XLH1 might hold up quite nicely.

 

[nelson]

Desert Night shot

Desert Night shot

What size of lamp was used when the woman's face was next to the ground with the "flashlight" lighting her face? And for the tree?

Thanks,

Kent

 

[dcarstens]

The CU of the woman on the ground was lit by the practical flashlight. The dirt was light enough to bounce the light softly onto her face. The both it and the wider shot were lit by a single 1200w HMI though a 6x6 silk.

 

[nelson]

Cool. I was curious about it's low light sensitivity. Looks Great.

The CU of the woman on the ground was lit by the practical flashlight. The dirt was light enough to bounce the light softly onto her face. The both it and the wider shot were lit by a single 1200w HMI though a 6x6 silk.

 

[Cynic821]

i know nothing about the depth of field lenses and what not. What can i affordably get to recreate this shot?

http://www.kinoweb.de/film2001/Rushmore/pix/rm25.jpg

 

[DavidBeier]

^
You can just zoom in all the way on the HVX200 and get a similar DOF.

 

[dcarstens]

i know nothing about the depth of field lenses and what not. What can i affordably get to recreate this shot?

http://www.kinoweb.de/film2001/Rushmore/pix/rm25.jpg

Wes Anderson likes to get a weird perspective effect with wider lenses, as seen above. If I had to venture a guess, that looks like a 35mm lens.

Check the following link for calculating DOF according to focal length:
http://www.photocritique.net/dof.html

edit: even better, check this thread for a mac DOF widget and play with different stops to your heart's content.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=64610

 

[Neil Rowe]

the film looks interesting. certainly some good camera work and DP stuffises going on in the trailer. some great colors and a professional appearance overall. good luck with your endeavors on this film. it certainly looks nice.

as far as the whole DOF thing. i like the subject so ill throw in my 2cents apart from anything specific to the trailer or screen shots shown here in this thread. i personally think tha while it certainly adds a nice look to the already stunnung HVX footage.. the problem that independents generally suffer from when working with 35mm DOF is making the DOF too shallow. too often i see shots where only the plane of the eyes of the character is in focus and the rest of them falls soft, which is distracting and makes the entire image appear soft. a look at any major film on a 35mm sized imager or equivelant shows that the object is not to make the plane of focus so short that the back of the charachters head falls out of focus. instead we see alot of short lesnes, and sharp outlines around the entire charachter. hair.. clothing.. all that jazz is nicely rendered with clarity and detail. and the background does not fall quite as soft, and is still for the most part easily recognizeable . now in still 35mm photography well see a little more of that artisticly super shallow DOF , but that is because each image stands on its own and allows us time to observe and focus on what the image has to say and convey, and on the way it is composed. ..most of the time the background is completely irrelevant. but in a motion picture, the focus should not be on the same thing. its about making a masterpeice out of the flow of imagery. and telling a story though that flow. and people do not want to look at a a blurry background the whole time.. its generally only acceptable to not clearly let the audience distinguish where the charachter is unles we have already firmly established where they are, or are working up to a reveal of the location. but stringing together shots of charachters floating around on a random pallette of softly muddled colors isint in the best interest of any filmaker unless its part of the plan to have your charachters stories completely renmoved from their locations. anyway .. id agree with the comments comming previously stateing that its simply overused.. but i would add that its not just overused, but also used too strongly. deepen up the plane of acceptable sharpness, and let us see the charachters in the location, instead of floating on top of it unless theres some real motivation there. ive seen some incredible things from the M2 so far, and know that its capeable of some pretty sharp imagery.. if only the operators would allow it to do so instead of limiting the plane of focus to a razor thin line that wafts in and out of the shot with the twitch of a charachters head and occasionally manages to make things look somewhat sharp. ..again all entirely removed from the film this thread is about. just speaking off the cuff about 35mm adapted independent imagery in generall ...after midnight. anyway, time for bed.

 

[garydxd]

What res did you shoot at? 720p or 1080p

 

[dcarstens]

720 pN

 

[Milezee]

Looks fantastic. I'm not going to join on about the DOF.

How did that reflection of the car get in there?

 

[dcarstens]

There are a couple reflections- I don't know which one is of a car...

 

[darwinandpaine]

^
You can just zoom in all the way on the HVX200 and get a similar DOF.

This is true. But I think this comment is extremely simplistic and naive. What if you're in close quarters, and want to be at 24mm on the lens and have shallow depth of field? You're screwed with the HVX lens.

You make it sound like there's no difference between a shot with a 100mm lens from 12 feet away and a 50mm lens from 6 feet away. Any photographer worth his salt will tell you that's just not the case.

The thing about the M2 is that it gives you so many options. With the M2, I can get really shallow depth of field with my 24mm lens! Does the M2 loose a little sharpness? Yes. But if sharpness is your only criteria for what is aesthetically pleasing, I think you're missing the boat.