2/3" vs 1/3"

Simon Wyndham said:
I might also say that they might be making excuses for owning a 1/3" ccd camera ;)
Click to expand...

Awww...dude! Now why would you go and say somthing like that? :cry:

You must be an elite...ay? :happy:

Pete
 
Shiloh Arts said:
Awww...dude! Now why would you go and say somthing like that?
You must be an elite...ay?
Click to expand...
I know you're kind of making a joke there, Peter. What I think Simon is saying is nearly every "filmmaker" with a 1/3" bends over backwards to obtain a shallow depth of field look. It's sort of become the holy grail to DV filmmakers because it is so difficult to obtain. Most productions would be better off renting a more expensive camera with the larger sensor back size for when they need the shallow focus aesthetic. Trying to pull that off day after day with DV makes one restless. It's hard explaining this to you since you've made it pretty darn clear your lack of understanding of what depth of field is (okay, you get it now) and one step further, how a bigger camera has less depth of field and how that is a desirable reason to have said bigger camera. Leave Simon alone.
 
Indeed.

One of the really horrible things about being a DV filmmaker is that when you take 35mm publicity stills they always look so much cooler than the film itself, mainly due to the short DOF.

As Thisiswells said, more control over DOF is one big reason of many why people prefer to use 2/3" ccd cameras. With a 1/3" camera you don't really have much choice but to have a very deep DOF most of the time, unless you zoom in which compresses distance. 2/3" cameras are not perfect by any stretch, but they do allow you more choice as to whether you want short DOF or deep DOF.

I am not a film person, but I would imagine it is the same for film these days. With modern filmstocks being so sensitive I imagine that short DOF or deep DOF is more of an artistic decision these days rather than a technical limitation.

Examples of shots with shallow DOF on my Algolith upres comparison page;
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/algolith/algolith_comparison.htm

The first picture is an example of how shallow things can become with a 2/3" camera. Only the front part of her face is in focus with everything from her ear backwards being OOF. This was shot with 1/64 ND and the iris at f1.7, fully open. Pretty much the same story for all shots.
 
thisiswells said:
It's hard explaining this to you since you've made it pretty darn clear your lack of understanding of what depth of field is (okay, you get it now) and one step further, how a bigger camera has less depth of field and how that is a desirable reason to have said bigger camera. Leave Simon alone.
Click to expand...


Wow! Are you serious? Relax there bub! :laugh: I was just making a joke, and I do know what depth of field is, and some of the basic issues in regards to DV shooting.

The only thing I wasn't clear on are the different terms like short, long, shallow etc.

I'm sure Simon knows a lot more then me. I was just giving him a hard time in a friendly manner. I also know what he was referring to about the 1/3" issue. So...no need to make me look like the jerk now :huh:

Thanks
Pete
 
Simon Wyndham said:
Examples of shots with shallow DOF on my Algolith upres comparison page;
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/algolith/algolith_comparison.htm

The first picture is an example of how shallow things can become with a 2/3" camera. Only the front part of her face is in focus with everything from her ear backwards being OOF. This was shot with 1/64 ND and the iris at f1.7, fully open. Pretty much the same story for all shots.
Click to expand...

Simon, great explaination and resources...thanks! Also, my apology about the comment, I really was just joking. :)

Thanks
Pete
 
Yep, indeed I do. Fantastic camera with virtually zero noise as you can see. I used a 1/3" camera to make my living with for many years before moving up to this one. Will be shooting another action feature with around August time utlising the xd workflow as fully as we can. Call us mad, but we are aiming to make a very watchable 90 min long production with it in the space of 10 days for principle shooting, editing as much as poss as we complete each day. It will be... interesting! :)
 
Simon Wyndham said:
Yep, indeed I do. Fantastic camera with virtually zero noise as you can see. I used a 1/3" camera to make my living with for many years before moving up to this one. Will be shooting another action feature with around August time utlising the xd workflow as fully as we can. Call us mad, but we are aiming to make a very watchable 90 min long production with it in the space of 10 days for principle shooting, editing as much as poss as we complete each day. It will be... interesting! :)
Click to expand...

Sweet! :grin:

I remember reading about this camera having the progressive scan capabilities, but I’ve never seen it in action until I saw your reel. The CCD's are great, and your popular camera angles compliment them. Sort of like the matrix effect (steadycam?). I love it! :thumbsup:

Do you right your own music or sub it out to someone. I wrote a piece for an action trailer called "Boom" that I've been looking to use in the right production.

Pete
 
Hehe! Well, I'm going to throw a bombshell in there. The demoreel on my website is my 'budget' demoreel to illustrate low budget stuff. Most of that was in fact shot on a Canon XM1. I'm currently preparing a newer reel with the XD stuff on it.

But yes, the XD does have true progressive scan, and it stays firmly in the 'on' position :) I'm in two minds as to whether to get the new Glidecam due out in the summer, or HD glass.

Most stuff I do I use a composer that I know for music.
 
Shiloh Arts said:
So I'm asuming that shallow, short, and long are just different distances of the finger.
Click to expand...

No...that things 3 inches beyond the finger might be in focus, but 8 inches out they wouldn't be. That's pretty short/shallow. And it applies to things in front of the finger, too.

If things 8 feet beyond the finger were in focus, that'd be fairly deep/long.

At least, that's my interpretation of it. I'm pretty new, myself.

Oh..and for more fun... Do the finger thing in bright sunlight, then out at night. The DOF at night will be much shallower because your eye's iris will have "opened up". The same thing happens with the cameras. Wider-iris, shallower DOF.

Dan
 
On a large screen, your eye (really the brain) will automatically blur (ignore) what it's not looking at. This is one of the main reasons why shallow DOF wasn't used for so long -- why not let the audience decide what they want to look at?

Don't believe me? Look at the top-left of your screen to the browser bar and read the title of the web-page, and at the same time -- without moving your eyes -- read the clock on the lower-right (if you have one there). Blurry, isn't it? But it's not optical blurriness -- it's your brain protecting you from information overload.

I'll go a bit off-topic here, but it relates, so hang in there: There are drugs (LSD, for example), which will override this brain function and let you read the clock -- process all the information in your visual field. Some movies have the reputation of being "acid movies" because they give your brain a large number of interconnected things to observe at once (which were there anyway -- just were harder to comprehend because our brain was shutting them out for us). BUT, your subconscious still sees this -- your just not made aware of it. Blur this for the viewers, and you deprive them of the choice of observing what they think is important -- and you make your film a little (ahem) shallower. I'm not saying that you have to be tripping to make or watch movies, but it's a good example of how your brain comprehends movies -- and why some movies are deeper than others.

20 years is less than 20% of movie history -- and shallow DOF is still shunned by many directors and used only as an effect in one or two motivated shots during an entire film.

For example, in AI Spielberg introduces the roboboy by having him walk into focus. This is motivated because from the female's POV (sorry, forget her name), she doesn't know anything about boy -- he is a complete mystery. She's half expecting her own son, and half not knowing what to expect. Her mind doesn't know what to make of it, so even though she can see the boy, she can't really focus on it. It takes time for her to make up her mind -- to see the boy as he really is (and then she is angry). Great use of shallow DOF to make a very specific effect on the viewer. Spielberg didn't throw in shallow DOF willy-nilly because it looks pretty. He has a point and a reason to use it (which is what I mean by "motivated".)

Just to reiterate -- I'm not saying that shallow DOF is to be avoided entirely. This isn't a black-and-white issue. But having an entire film where half the screen is blurry all the time is annoying and ultimately boring.

The stock DVX100 is more than adequate to make movies -- movies have already been made and they look fine. I think it's a mistake to think that you need "more stuff" to make it more acceptable by the viewing audience. The audience just wants a good story, and you're capable of doing it right now with the gear you already have.

Lets get back to the real point of all this: The time has come to stop jerking each other off with your gear fetishes, and get your film done!
 
All I ever see in movies these days is shallow DOF. In fact I couldn't name you a single recent film where deep DOF was used constantly. Asking if we should just let the audience look where they want is a bit like the old interactive cinema debate where the audience decides what happens in the film with multiple choices.

A film is the directors choice. You are right that too much shallow DOF is boring. It cannot be used in every single shot. But by the same token the opposite is also very true.

However one point I made earlier that you haven't taken on board is that shallow DOF is beneficial to DV25 sourced footage. It makes things much easier on the compressor, especially if you have, say, dense foliage or trees in the background. So shallow DOF is desirable for DV footage for this reason alone.

Lastly, if the composition is good then you, the viewer, shouldn't even notice the background is out of focus, or at least it shouldn't occur to you.
 
pmark23 said:
The time has come to stop jerking each other off with your gear fetishes, and get your film done!
Click to expand...

Wow, motivational speaker...huh?! Nice work!

Do you realize what this forums is becoming? A completely free digital film university that will revolutionize the future of filmmaking

Thanks pmark23 :beer: for your insight.


Pete
 
Simon Wyndham said:
All I ever see in movies these days is shallow DOF. In fact I couldn't name you a single recent film where deep DOF was used constantly.
Click to expand...

(Don't want to ruin it for those who have not yet seen star wars 3 but... :grin: )

Well...actually Simon have you checked out Star Wars Episode 3 yet? A lot, if not all shots use deep DOF. You can particularly see it when Anakin is commanded to stay back while the evil chancellor was going to be dealt with. In that shot, you can actually see the clones in the background walking to the point where you can make out their faces.

Another part was when Anakin is sitting down with the chancellor at the weird symphony and as they talk about the not trusting the other senators, you can see people talking causally in the background. However, Lucas doesn't switch to shallow DOF but rather pulls the camera closer as the conversation deepens, and the people are no longer in view.

Pete
 
iamloser said:
"....becoming" .. where have you been?
Click to expand...

what do you mean where have I been :huh: ? :angry: I don't think you understand the context then...

I was referring to the amount of growth of this forum, and not just the information that it provides. So the question is where have you been :grin: ?

The people! the people! ...growth in mind with ideas to shine! :happy:


Pete
 
..alrighty then.
216454.jpg


..lol, chill out..
my point was that this forum has been just that for a quite some time already
..here have one of these.:beer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top