shooting a film without a 35mm adapter

Steve Laramie

Steve Laramie

Veteran
I was just wondering how bad it would be to shoot a 10 minute short on the HVX200a without an adapter? All of my other movies were with one but im just wondering if its really worth buying instead of renting. If I were to buy one could anyone recommend a well priced solution. Also I have a bogen 501 fluid will I need to get a new tripod?
 
I don't think people need a 35mm adapter.

There is a lot of good work without one. So basically, it isn't bad at all. It is something different.
 
Without an adapter, you'll have a film that looks like it was shot with a 1/3" chip camera. Back when people still shot on film, Super 8 gave a similar look in that everything was in focus unless you zoomed way in.

Sure you can shoot without an adapter, but keep in mind, EVERYTHING will be in focus so you'll have to decide if that works or how you'll create separation between backgrounds and your actors.
.
 
If this short is for you to showcase your DP skills and you feel you need an adapter to do that then either buy a used one or borrow one.... usually if the short is not for commercial use owners of adapters/cameras are willing to loan free of charge.

OR

If you own the HVX you can trade future camera rental for adapter rental.


Your tripod should be fine for now.... save your pennies for an Oconnor.


Also.. depending on your story an adapter may not be the best choice.
 
You don't need an adapter for shallow depth of field. You need to use minimal lighting/wide aperture, zone lighting, NDs, long lens when possible.

Also don't buy into shallow depth of field being "film look".
I've been shooting video on various formats for almost thirty years obtaining shallow depth of field. Others have been doing it as well.
Film shot with deep depth of field is not "video look".
Watch Citzen Kane for a good example of deep depth of field in a classic film.

Play with it and you'll get it.
 
yeah, that 501 head BLOWS. try to find you an old manfrotto/bogen 510. thats about the best sub $1000 head ive used
 
The shallow depth of field look is vastly overrated. Seeing as the look has almost become a cliche by now, I've actually grown to dislike it as it is used in many movies, and am often yearning for a wide look that creatively incorporates the background into the story, rather than sloppily blurring it out.
 
Adapter isn't necessary. You can get great DOF shots without an adapter simply by moving the camera back and zooming in (but please don't zoom while recording).

An adapter comes in handy when you don't have space to move the camera back (like in a room where the camera is already against the wall.)

"November" and "Lonesome Jim" were shot on an DVX without adapters, and they look great.

The HVX has more DOF than the DVX as well.
 
Last edited:
Lonesome Jim was great. When I discovered it was shot on DVX it just drove home once again how much more important story is than equipment.
 
I agree with the adapter being cliched. I think its no longer creative because everyone uses it. I just dont want to turn creativity into non professionalism
 
lairhair said:
I agree with the adapter being cliched. I think its no longer creative because everyone uses it. I just dont want to turn creativity into non professionalism
Click to expand...

I don't think a tool becomes obsolete just because everyone uses it. Same could be said about film cameras, computers, computer programs, video cameras, cars, etc. When the same tool is available to all, the only difference one can make is oneself's skills and tallent.
Can't bash a picture just because was photoshop-ed, can you? Ah... being a bad fake or tasteless(tones of those) I agree. BUt... nothing wrong with the program itself.

As for the adapter itself, although the SDOF is the main difference from "video look", it also enhances the (somewhat) limited dynamic range of video. I have enjoyed the look of a 1.4/35mm lens (when close focused- not macro-just close focused) on video. That look is simply not available when using a videocamera all by itself.

All in all is just another tool. If it does support tell the story, fantastic. If there ain't no story, not mother of Genesis or Arriflex dad could help. Story IS king. Skills in telling the story comes next. My 2c.
 
If u have adaptor lens 35 yr unit look pro but you know ? Some unit use it but finaly footage like a shoot by mini dv .

And hell yes some unit don't use adaptor lens 35 just a normal . But they have a great idea and good skill . Finaly footage like a shoot by lens 35


"TOOL JUST A TOOL"
 
Last edited:
mpalmer12345 said:
The shallow depth of field look is vastly overrated. I've actually grown to dislike it as it is used in many movies, and am often yearning for a wide look that creatively incorporates the background into the story, rather than sloppily blurring it out.
Click to expand...

AMEN....
 
I think it depends on the content and the feeling you want the viewer to have too.

if you're doing a story about a lonely guy walking through crowded city streets, shooting wide angle shots w/out an adapter won't let you direct attention to your character because the busy BG and everything will be in focus, whereas an adapter would allow you to do this.

I've shot one short with an adapter, and for me it REALLY opened up the doors cinematically, and as another story-telling device/ tool. I don't think I would EVER shoot without it again, eventhough it adds extra hassles, (more lights, harder to get in focus)

However, if I had it for my first short, it would've been a dismal failure. So if this is your first, you might want to use the bare HVX and practice getting BG separation with good lighting before jumping into an adapter.

I say rent one first, then you'll know what you're getting into before you buy.
 
dan said:
I don't think a tool becomes obsolete just because everyone uses it. Same could be said about film cameras, computers, computer programs, video cameras, cars, etc. When the same tool is available to all, the only difference one can make is oneself's skills and tallent.
Can't bash a picture just because was photoshop-ed, can you? Ah... being a bad fake or tasteless(tones of those) I agree. BUt... nothing wrong with the program itself.
Click to expand...


Thank you, I was gonna say the same thing. Adapters are common and super DOF may be cliche to indies and places like this forum, but to say DOF is cliche and overused is silly. When working with film or red or something, it's actually hard not to have a lot of dof at longer focal lengths. It's not a look but a matter of optics mixed with frame or sensor size. So are we gonna tell everyone that uses equipment like that that their look is played out?

The whole reason why we do that is to try and get our work to look closer to theirs, now that we can it's a problem? This reminds me of when the dvx first dropped and people were like "I'm shooting with a sony ___ or a canon ___ my work looks great, 24p is overused, I don't even like the look of it." Fair enough their work could just as easily look good but because they don't have a certain paint brush doesn't mean they've got to defame it.

Like dan said it's just another tool and I find anytime something gets popular and other people may have trouble getting it for one reason or another people throw reasoning like this around. So let's apply it to other things:

"Steadicams are so played out, the whole floating shot thing is totally cliche"
"All indies that can afford a dolly use them, dollys are cliche"
"This guy I know always uses this light kit, lighting is cliche"
"I saw this shoot where they used this huge tripod, I don't even use one because tripods are such a cliche"
"boom poles are cliche"
"handheld is cliche"
"resolution means nothing this HD talk is cliche"

See? It's kind of senseless. If we all had attitudes like that the technology available to indies would have changed the way it did.

But overused is a whole other thing. Things can be used and lack motivation, I'm sure we've all seen that, but that doesn't stop the tool from being useful. When someone uses the right mix of some or all it as we know magic happens.

Adapters are cool, they give us somethings that are hard to do without them and some things that are impossible to do without them. They aren't a necessity, you can shoot films without them and they can look great, but smoke em' if you got em'.
 
I also don't get the whole adapter craze. Film is a look film cameras produced... but if they had video camera's back then then video might be the look we're trying to reproduce. For me it's more fetishism than anything.

I think the greatest thing about our video cameras is flexibility, which for me appears to be totally ruined when you throw on a two foot extension + rails, etc...
 
yeehaanow said:
if you're doing a story about a lonely guy walking through crowded city streets, shooting wide angle shots w/out an adapter won't let you direct attention to your character because the busy BG and everything will be in focus, whereas an adapter would allow you to do this.
Click to expand...

I think this is the crux of the argument. The answer is good composition and direction. However often you don't have the time or budget and blurring everything out is better than any other option.

I used to hate shallow DOF, but the more I shoot the more I can appreciate how easy it makes things.
 
to get the shollow dof without the 35 adapter you can always back up as far as possible and zoom in . might be hard to do but will give quite a good effect . even better with 2x tel . will need tons of light and is difficult but does work.
 
markyf said:
I also don't get the whole adapter craze. Film is a look film cameras produced... but if they had video camera's back then then video might be the look we're trying to reproduce. For me it's more fetishism than anything.

I think the greatest thing about our video cameras is flexibility, which for me appears to be totally ruined when you throw on a two foot extension + rails, etc...
Click to expand...


Shooting for "the big screen" is completely different than shooting for television. All those little camera movements which look just fine on TV can make your audience feel nauseous when its projected up to where faces are 40 feet tall and your cuts are unfortunately paced for MTV.

Increased mass of your camera rig actually helps for shooting movies because small camera movements translate into much larger distances covered on a large screen. You won't notice this if all you ever do is make dvds and watch them on someone's tv or computer.

There's nothing wrong with using an adaptor if you have one, but what will make a larger impact towards that Hollywood look that everyone wants is if you have actors that can take direction combined with effective blocking. You'll have the coverage that will make your editor think they made your movie and the compostion will look wonderful as one actor strides across the screen and turns at exactly the right place to face another actor producing the perfect composition for an external reverse.

Good camera work is a lot more than the depth of field a shot has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top