A Thread About Not Using 35mm Adapters

Chris Light

Chris Light

Veteran
i am not a purist, mainly because i've never shot on film. i am not a still photographer who got bored with non-moving pictures. i am just a fan of film who managed to get ahold of a Canon XH-A1 camera, and i'm having a blast with it. i am not a filmmaker, as i've never scripted, or staged a scene that i've shot. i use my camera for enjoyment, but i'm also interested in getting better, as well as paying close attention to the trends, so i can pick and choose various stylings that others are employing and interpreting them into my own work. and the huge trend is this famed adapter.

the purpose of this thread is not to rant about why i (or you) choose not to use one, but rather, to connect with other individuals who have opted to not use one and still have acheived success at making interesting movies, both aesthetically, and structurally. i do not have a huge catalog of footage to share as of yet (though i have a bit), but in creating this thread, i hope to trade ideas and gain insight into how the non-35mm folks are doing it with the stock lens of the XH-A1. Editing and post-production ideas are always welcome as well...

let me know what you think!

Chris
-Knight On The Town Films-
 
I don't use one because i'm a poor college student. It doesn't keep me from making short films, or even the feature film that I shot last summer. Although, if I had money for the system+lighting, I would prefer to use one. I think they create really beautiful images that I can't get from the stock lens, although I still try hard to create beautiful/filmic images with what i have.
 
Last edited:
Check out the Simon Hoefer films. He does not use an adapter and still makes some good stuff. They are amazing but not needed IMO. I just got an HVX200 and I have been taking the Letus Extreme off a lot lately.
 
A shallow depth of field can be beautiful and dramatic, especially for narrative work.

But every time I contemplate building a 35mm adapter, I am reminded that one of the greatest films of all time, Citizen Kane, was shot with the specific intent of achieving deep focus. Orson Welles went to great lengths using wide-angle lenses and small apertures to achieve sharp focus throughout each scene.

I also think about the modernist photographers of the early 20th century lead by Alfred Stieglitz who strove to achieve sharp focus throughout a shot by shooting at f64.

All of this was before video, of course, so I guess you always want what you can't easily have.

A shallow DOF can be very effective for separating your subject from the background. I find this especially useful in urban scenes where there are a lot of things happening all around the main subject.

Personally, I can't justify buying or building an adapter for the kind of work that I do. Right now I shoot documentaries and I am in run-n-gun mode most of the time, so I prefer a minimalist approach to shooting.

I am really excited about the Nikon D90 and 5d mkII. As a still photographer and videographer the idea of an all-in-one shooting solution sounds pretty sweet. But I am also probably going to wait until the bugs are worked out before moving in that direction. Although, with the D90 under a grand, I may just have to pick one up sooner rather than later.

Chris
 
A lot of independent filmmakers use DOF as a bit of a crutch to minimize the lack of art direction and even poor compositions. Others are using it more skillfully. There are times where shallow DOF fills an emotional, narrative need and other times where it is not appropriate at all.

e
 
I like this thread because I don't use an adaptor, and now I don't feel so bad about myself. :)

I've just got my hands in too many elements of the production process. Shooting, lighting, editing/post. Can't buy everything....can't come close to being a master of anything. I guess if the project really calls for a shallow DOF, I'll hire someone with an adaptor or rent.

If 35mm adapters were cheaper and not so daunting for me to introduce to the workflow, I'd be all over it. Right now, it's just not a high priority based on price and ease of use. Maybe someday soon, but not just yet.

With that said, I think you can acheive some shallow focus with the stock A1 lens if you monkey around with your shot a bit. I think it's got one of the nicest lenses that I've used for being such an inexpensive camera.

BTW, my screen name has nothing to do with advocating deep focus, it's just a dumb moniker from an old joke.
 
There are some really good indie films shot without an adapter. But your location, lighting and production design, along with your composition, have to be truly exceptional. Citizen Kane was highly stylized with every set built for the film. The lighting is amazing. If you can pull something like that off, then go for the deep depth of field.

Certainly the adapters are a big hassle. Maybe spending the time on production design is worth the trade off.
 
The more your content is worth shooting the less important the instruments to shoot it are.
Honestly people get caught up more with gear, tech specs, excuses and buzz marketing crap then they do with capturing something worth capturing.
 
I find it quite refreshing sometimes to go back to shooting without an adapter. It's nice to not have to deal with pulling focus all the time and not having to constantly switch out lenses and lug around a super-heavy rig. I still try to get the background out of focus, as I do think that it is a nicer look. I was surprised to find that it's really not that hard even with just the bare camera; been shooting w/ adapter for such a long time that I've forgotten. The A1 in particular has a really long lens and just zooming in usually gets me the look I wanted.
 
I really dig this thread. You get to see a lot of views on shooting stock or with an adapter. I personally Just got my adapter and it does have its bugs, but I really dig the "look" it produces for the image. Now I am not saying that the stock a1 doesnt produce a beautiful image, because it does; but the adapter with the right lens does add something more to your production. Now of course the adapter attached to the a1 is not practical for a run and gun type of project but if you want to achieve a "look" then I believe that the 35mm adapter is essential.

www.vimeo.com/youngdirect
 
Chris Stearns said:
Orson Welles went to great lengths using wide-angle lenses and small apertures to achieve sharp focus throughout each scene.
Click to expand...

They even did a few double exposure film effects by covering half the frame, exposing one part of the image in focus, roll the film back, cover the opposite side, and expose the 2nd piece of the shot also in focus. Combined = sharp focus in a deep shot throughout.
 
Huy Vu said:
The A1 in particular has a really long lens and just zooming in usually gets me the look I wanted.
Click to expand...

you know, i agree, and never owning an adapter, i guess that's all i try to do, and i think it'd be a great idea for some people to really explore all the depths of their lens before throwing something on the end of it. i guess that's why i started this thread....awesome responses sofar, all of you...

chris
-Knight On The Town Films-
 
From a recommendation by skinny!, here's a quick scene from a short I am working on right now:

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=476981

The "film" look came out surprisingly well for not using an adapter and after playing around with Vegas for a bit, I got the "look" I was going for.

Edit: The link is at the bottom right of that URL.

Enjoy.
 
ddp said:
Honestly people get caught up more with gear, tech specs, excuses and buzz marketing crap then they do with capturing something worth capturing.
Click to expand...

Ha ha, so true. Reminds me of one of the funniest posts I've seen on this forum recently:

booggerg2 said:
people here regard a few spliced together still life shots of grass and leafs as "cinema" or "filmlike", as long as it's 24P it's all good.
Click to expand...
 
Deepfocus88 said:
Ha ha, so true. Reminds me of one of the funniest posts I've seen on this forum recently

Originally Posted by booggerg2
people here regard a few spliced together still life shots of grass and leafs as "cinema" or "filmlike", as long as it's 24P it's all good:
Click to expand...


I couldnt agree with that quote more! I really love vimeo and the community of people that congregate there, but more and more I see videos of leaves, trees, and long dusty roads shot in 24p/f, CC'd with magic bullet and claiming that it is the "film look"

Now don't get me wrong, that is art ( i have a few of those videos, but strictly used as practice purposes to get more familiar with my camera) but it isn't the essence of what a "film" is or looks like. In my mind generally I call videos of that nature " a composition of shots"
 
apstatus said:
Now don't get me wrong, that is art ( i have a few of those videos, but strictly used as practice purposes to get more familiar with my camera) but it isn't the essence of what a "film" is or looks like. In my mind generally I call videos of that nature " a composition of shots"
Click to expand...

Everyone's definition of art is different. Film is art. Who has the authority to decide what the "essence" of film is or isn't?
 
No one has the authority to decide what the essence of film is or isn't, but every is entitled to their own opinion, and that is my opinion. Your definition of film may be a shot of a plant with a droplet of water on it. (beautiful? yes. art? yes. A film?? possibly yes depending on how it is constructed, portrayed and then accepted by the audience)

My definition holds more substance within the frame, shot composition, lighting (natural or set) dialogue, character arc, climax of the story etc. These elements drive the common film.

Perfect example William Robinette, your "film" "Tone" well it is just that a film.

-Check for me on vimeo, i will comment! -Young & Direct Cinema

Cool thread guys I love hearing other people's thoughts on topics such as these
 
No problem William no offense taken! It is always difficult I know when it comes to art because you always want to stand behind it so firmly, I know I have that issue. But its all in good "thread discussion" LOL

But no seriously you have some good work!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top