Barry_Green
Moderator
Brilliant. Nothing like putting it to the test.ozduc said:
Can u get depth of field with HVX stock lens?
- Thread starter FilmBoy77
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
androoow said:
He purports to show the difference in depth of field by using f/8?!?! Had he used f/2 any differences would have been much more apparent.
With that said, it is correct that focal length does not actually change the depth of field. What is in focus, and out of focus, is equivalent regardless of focal length. But focal length changes the APPEARANCE of shallow depth of field, and if you want a softer-looking background, shoot with more telephoto (or, you can also simulate it by getting extremely close and focusing very very close, but the more telephoto you can make your shot the shallower the depth will APPEAR to be.)
What I strongly disagree with is the quote at the end that says "There is no point in changing to a shorter focal length lens and moving closer, because if the image size remains the same so will the depth of field." Yes the depth of field remains the same, but does that mean that there is "no point" to changing the focal length and moving closer (or further)? There's a massive point, which is the same point that Walter spends the second half of his article demonstrating!
Or, is anyone seriously going to argue that there's no perceptible difference between these images:
Obviously the "tele" shot looks like it has a much shallower DOF than the "wide" shot. It doesn't, they're exactly the same DOF, but it APPEARS that the one on the left has shallower DOF. Regardless, the one on the left definitely has a softer background. And if that doesn't clearly demonstrate "the point", I'd sure like someone to explain why.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Exactly. That's what makes it look blurrier.smelni said:
Just like if you took a slightly-out-of-focus photo and shrunk it down in photoshop, it'd start to look sharper, and if you took that same photo and blew it up in photoshop it'd get fuzzy. That's the same thing the lens is doing, either pushing the background further away (which makes it appear sharper) or bringing the background very close, which magnifies it and makes it look blurrier.
ozduc
Well-known member
4mat said:
4Mat, If you notice in my explanation that I said to achieve the "look". That doesn't mean having the camera moved closer and zoomed out or farther away and zoomed in will actually make things in different focus. Technically it doesn't really matter. The original poster was looking for the "look" or illusion of DOF. To achieve it with the stock HVX lens you pretty much have to do what I suggested. We could debate the technicalities of it all day long but in the end it is all about what works to achieve the "look". Check out the test in my last post to see what I mean.
There's a technique I've used for close ups with shallow depth of field that's been very successful. For my TRV900 (standard def 3chip minidv) I simply added a magnifying filter. It cost me about $40 for a set of three (each a different strength). I throw one of those on and open my aperture. You can achieve an extremely small focal plane. In fact if you strap on all three filters you’ll get only a few millimeters of focus. The magnifying filters make focusing a wacky exercise of fiddling with the focus ring and moving the camera in and out. The results are excellent for closeups…
Here’s a link to a test video I shoot using some of these filters. If you look at the finger shots you’ll notice the shallow DOF. This was shot with my TRV900. Hope this helps someone out.
http://www.skotleach.com/suffocation_large.htm
Here’s a link to a test video I shoot using some of these filters. If you look at the finger shots you’ll notice the shallow DOF. This was shot with my TRV900. Hope this helps someone out.
http://www.skotleach.com/suffocation_large.htm
I shot this handheld when the cherry blossoms bloomed.
I zoomed all the way in, stopped down with one ND filter and opened the iris as much as I could. Had I been thinking more I would have slowed the shutter speed and put on the 2nd ND, but I still got pretty shallow DOF: http://www.jlboyce.com/video/20070316-Cherry_Blossoms.mov
I zoomed all the way in, stopped down with one ND filter and opened the iris as much as I could. Had I been thinking more I would have slowed the shutter speed and put on the 2nd ND, but I still got pretty shallow DOF: http://www.jlboyce.com/video/20070316-Cherry_Blossoms.mov
I wouldn't call them macro lenses. They are literally screw-on filters that magnify 1x, 2x, and 3x. I've heard them called close up filters.
As far as the footage goes, it was shoot at 29.97, standard deffinition on a Sony TRV 900 mini DV camera. The shutter was at 1/60.
I messed with the levels a bit - crushed the blacks down. That's about it.
I imagine the results would be very impressive with the HVX200.
I ordered my HVX200 yesterday. I'm hoping to get it tomorrow. I'm already on the look out for more of these filters. As soon as I get some I'll shoot a test and post it.
EDIT: Just found some filters on ebay. Do a search for 82mm close up filters and you should get results. I'll posts tests when I can.
As far as the footage goes, it was shoot at 29.97, standard deffinition on a Sony TRV 900 mini DV camera. The shutter was at 1/60.
I messed with the levels a bit - crushed the blacks down. That's about it.
I imagine the results would be very impressive with the HVX200.
I ordered my HVX200 yesterday. I'm hoping to get it tomorrow. I'm already on the look out for more of these filters. As soon as I get some I'll shoot a test and post it.
EDIT: Just found some filters on ebay. Do a search for 82mm close up filters and you should get results. I'll posts tests when I can.
Last edited:
Am very interested in this discussion....
I have a Canon EOS SLR Camera with 50mm (that equates to 80mm with crop factor) 1.8 prime lens....
Is it reasonable to say that the HVX will be able to achieve comparable shallow depth of field to that?
Or do apples not exactly = oranges when it comes to the stats?
I've been able to get some really nice portrait shots ..with background blur etc..out of this Eos Lens....if the HVX can pull off similar results I'll be impressed!
I have a Canon EOS SLR Camera with 50mm (that equates to 80mm with crop factor) 1.8 prime lens....
Is it reasonable to say that the HVX will be able to achieve comparable shallow depth of field to that?
Or do apples not exactly = oranges when it comes to the stats?
I've been able to get some really nice portrait shots ..with background blur etc..out of this Eos Lens....if the HVX can pull off similar results I'll be impressed!
Mavoz said:
I would say it's pretty close. I have a Canon EOS SLR as well, not with a prime but when i set my zoom lens to 50mm i'd say it's pretty comprable to the HVX200 at 80mm. Additionally when you open up the iris all the way you get a pretty shallow DOF... Again i encourage all to play with the close up filters as well.