Amazing Latitude thanks to GG

S

someday

Well-known member
Or better said: amazing latitude illusion!

I shot this at 12:00 with a Letus35fe attached to my DVX-100.
See how much more accettable are the whites when you use such an adapter! (best appreciated seen in a tv post)
download the DVPAL to be seen in your TV monitor
http://www.giovannisperanza.com/welcome2/images/stories/videoclips/letu35feDVPAL

Mpeg4 movie:
http://www.giovannisperanza.com/welcome2/images/stories/videoclips/Letus35FE-latitude.mov
The mpg4 movie seen on the computer monitor really doesn't render the quality of the video seen in the tv post
(i didn't exactly rotated the letus thus the small edge upper left..)
 
Last edited:
Hey man,

i believe what you are seeing is not an increase in latitude, but due to the ground glass and its diffusion, you are seeing a softer blow out section for the whites, which might make you think you are getting more lattitude, but, someone correct me if im wrong, it just blurs and smoothes out edges ( hence hard edges when it comes to blown out artifacts )

beautiufl women u got there. She owns the same belt as me. I wasnt staring.... i swear.
 
Yes, i agree, i'ts just a latitude "perception". For average audience this could seem Film latitude, an optical illusion. I'm very happy whith it
 
someday said:
Yes, i agree, i'ts just a latitude "perception". For average audience this could seem Film latitude, an optical illusion. I'm very happy whith it
Click to expand...
I have the Letus35fe and it does seem to carry out the illusion of more latitude. I wish the depth wasn't so freaking shallow at times but with tons of light one can compensate.
Jgastelb
 
someday said:
You wish the depth wasn't so freaking shallow at times? I don't... ;D
Click to expand...

I'm referring to CUs. The closer the object the harder it is to keep the whole face in focus. I like the shallow depth but if the person is moving around too much you will find later on on a 42inch plasma that the blurry nose may be a bit much at times. There's a place for everything. And, there may be times when only having the left eye in focus is all you want but that's not always the case.
Having said this -- I really love the 35mm look despite it's challenges. :Drogar-Evil(DBG):
Jgastelb
 
O course if you are filming moving subjects, you have to plan the shooting, have an assistent who manipulates the follow focus...
 
someday said:
O course if you are filming moving subjects, you have to plan the shooting, have an assistent who manipulates the follow focus...
Click to expand...

Not to mention a field monitor and a good lighting kit for indoors at night ;-)
 
Last edited:
If you want to do a CU with a 35 mm adapter and have a less shallow DOF, use a wider angle lense. A CU on anything above 50mm without a focus puller is a challenge.
 
ncje said:
If you want to do a CU with a 35 mm adapter and have a less shallow DOF, use a wider angle lense. A CU on anything above 50mm without a focus puller is a challenge.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, ncje. My first project will have a follow focus and an assistent.
 
ncje said:
If you want to do a CU with a 35 mm adapter and have a less shallow DOF, use a wider angle lense. A CU on anything above 50mm without a focus puller is a challenge.
Click to expand...

Which Wide Angle Lens would you recommend?
Jgastelb
 
I have to un-spread (for lack of a better word) some misinformation:

1) You can't judge lattitude based on a single shot. If a shot is lit for the appropriate medium, there will never be a loss of detail--unless you want it. The shot here has tons of blow outs; imo, it's quite poorly lit if a correct exposure is the goal. If overexposure is the goal, it looks okay, and the highligh rolloff is a bit soft/diffused; I do see that.

2) You may not want to shoot close ups with anything less than a 50mm lens. It's done all the time (frequently for comic effect), but it makes the face look ugly--big nose, awkward. Traditional potraits ups are 85mm for women, 105mm for men assuming a 36mmX24mm sensor.
 
Policar said:
2) You may not want to shoot close ups with anything less than a 50mm lens. It's done all the time (frequently for comic effect), but it makes the face look ugly--big nose, awkward. Traditional potraits ups are 85mm for women, 105mm for men assuming a 36mmX24mm sensor.
Click to expand...


I think you missed the important factor to my post - my advice wasnt "dont shoot a CU at 50mm or above". It was mentioned that its hard to keep in focus when theres "lots of movement" so I said simply for this shot its difficuilt at 50mm or above without a focus puller and it is. Now if youre talking a fairly static 2 person its very easy, set focus points and even the camera op can pull it where needed.

Of course lense choice is totally subjective on how you want a character portrayed, or how you want the scene to appear.

As to an easier lense to work ON YOUR OWN in a high action CU, I like 35mm, as its wider but doesnt introduce barrel distortion.
 
Don't get me wrong: I've done it too, but 35mm is not a portrait lens by any means. Of course, Lubiezki uses almost exclusively wide angle lenses and no one bugs him about it. But his movies don't look like Classical Hollywood, either.

It's a fine aesthetic choice (unless you're going for a glamorous look), but it introduces a whole lot more than a deeper depth of focus. Personally, I'll just pull focus unless I'm going for a shot where I want a comic effect or I want the background to play a significant role in the composition--or I want the camera to feel like a character that's in on the action. Tape makes for cheap takes, after all, though, so for conventional shots close ups, I stick around 50mm or even 85mm.
 
Should i remember that this shot was made out of the box just to enjoy the new arrival?
I can do perfect focus with the same DOF, and i will, because this is the look i love more.
 
Policar said:
Don't get me wrong: I've done it too, but 35mm is not a portrait lens by any means. Of course, Lubiezki uses almost exclusively wide angle lenses and no one bugs him about it. But his movies don't look like Classical Hollywood, either.

It's a fine aesthetic choice (unless you're going for a glamorous look), but it introduces a whole lot more than a deeper depth of focus. Personally, I'll just pull focus unless I'm going for a shot where I want a comic effect or I want the background to play a significant role in the composition--or I want the camera to feel like a character that's in on the action. Tape makes for cheap takes, after all, though, so for conventional shots close ups, I stick around 50mm or even 85mm.
Click to expand...

Again missed my point.
 
ncje said:
Again missed my point.
Click to expand...

Probably because you don't seem to have one. My patience is short this week, what are you trying to make me see? If you regret making bad aesthetic choices for the sake of keeping a shot easily in focus, don't go spreading misinformation online since you'll feel better if others make the same mistake you do.
 
i think ncje was simply saying that the wider the lens the more DOF you have. This is absolutely right.
Another method is more working at lower apertures or using slower lenses.
So i would stop discussing that.
And i have a theory:
Le larger the screen the more DOF you want. The smaller the screen, the less DOF you want.
 
Policar said:
My patience is short this week, what are you trying to make me see?
Click to expand...


Your patience is not my responsibility - and as far as you're concerned I wasnt trying to make you see anything. Have a nice day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top