1/3" VS 1/2" CCD chips

sodotoguwangus said:
My question is: would a 1/3 inch CCD camera (a la, HVX200) WITH a mini35 adaptor be capable of achieving a shallower depth-of-field than, say, a 1/2" CCD camera WITHOUT an adaptor? Or would the camera with the larger chips always prevaile in depth-of-field regardless of the 35mm adaptor?

What is better 2/3" CCDs or 1/2" CCD's? I'm assuming that it's the 1/2", but I just want to make sure.
Click to expand...
1. An HVX200 with a mini35 will create a much shallower depth-of-field characteristic than even a 2/3" imager. The penalty you pay for this aesthetic benefit is a 2+ stop loss in light (plus a small loss in resolution and contrast).

2. All things being equal, a larger CCD will always be better than a smaller CCD: shallower depth-of-field, greater light sensitivity, reduced chroma noise, and improved latitude--these are all benefits that are to be had with larger CCD sensors.
 
sodotoguwangus said:
I understand that without a 35mm adaptor, in order to get a shallow depth of field, you want to open the iris, stand far away and zoom in on your subject, and put as much space between the subject and background as possible.

But my question is...

With a 35mm adaptor, do you still have to do all of the above? Or is it simpler? Say, for example, you are shooting a scene in a small room where there is not enough space to put a lot of distance between the camera and the subject. Is it possible to achieve the shallow depth of field with a 35mm adaptor in smaller spaces like this? Or inside a car, for example?
Click to expand...
Yes. That's the beauty of 35mm adapters. They can achieve unbelievably shallow depth-of-field characteristics, even in tight spaces, even with relatively short-focal length lenses. You just have to realize, that, with a 2-stop loss of light, you have to add FOUR TIMES the light you would've normally needed to light your scene. So, instead of keying your subject with say, a 2-foot, 2-bank standard KinoFlo, you'd need a Diva 200 or 400. Or, similarly, instead of a 500W Chimera, you'd need a 2,000W Chimera.
 
yes - much easier and with the right lenses and an open iris you can get even too much shallow DOF
 
Emanuel said:
Well, CineMek promises 1/2 stop loss...
Click to expand...
That's just from the adapter. Then you have to factor in any loss coming from the lens you're using. For example, if you use an ultra-fast f/1.4 lens, you'll still lose a full stop of light transmission as compared to if you were using an f/1.0 lens. Most still-camera lenses are in the range of f/1.8 to f/3.5 as maximum opening, so depending on what lens you use, you'll lose an awful lot more than just 1/2 stop!

That's why UltraSpeeds are so sweet; but also why they're so exorbitantly expensive.
 
Thanks Barry, as always, for the useful info!

One question: with a 35mm adapter, it will have more handling with highlights in order to avoid the blowlighting or am I wrong?
 
It's definately not going to make it better, in might just make it worse if the adaptor introduces any flair. What you need to do ideally is reduce the contrast in the scene, on some things a polarising filter can help, black mist filters can also help but you need to watch not getting them in focus!
Ideally what you want is more latitude and bigger CCDs are what give you that. Less noise means you can push the gamma more with less noise. Ulimately also you reach the limits of 8 bit acquisition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top