Can u get depth of field with HVX stock lens?

F

FilmBoy77

Veteran
can the HVX emulate a shallow depth of field without using an M2 adaptor or Magic Bullet software? if so, then how?

Mini35%201%20%28WinCE%29.jpg


i was looking at the dvd/book for the dvx and it says you can emulate this look in-camera.
 
FilmBoy77 said:
can the HVX emulate a shallow depth of field without using an M2 adaptor or Magic Bullet software? if so, then how?

Mini35%201%20%28WinCE%29.jpg


i was looking at the dvd/book for the dvx and it says you can emulate this look in-camera.
Click to expand...

Yes you can! To get it as shallow as in the pic would be difficult but the idea is to :
1) Have the camera zoomed all the way in.
2) Have the iris wide open.
3) Put some distance between the object that will be in focus and the background.

So for number 1, you would need the camera placed back a fair amount from the subject/object.
For number 2 you would have to use a combination of lighting and probably HD filters.
For number 3, you need some space to do this, along with number 1.
 
4mat said:
1 is incorrect you are thinking of 3
Click to expand...

Why do you think 1 is incorrect?
It is easier to achieve the shallow depth of field "look" with the camera zoomed all the way in on a long lens than it is with it zoomed all the way out or anywhere in between.
 
FilmBoy77 said:
can the HVX emulate a shallow depth of field without using an M2 adaptor or Magic Bullet software? if so, then how?

Mini35%201%20%28WinCE%29.jpg


i was looking at the dvd/book for the dvx and it says you can emulate this look in-camera.
Click to expand...
You do it the same way as the book/DVD tells you to do it for the DVX.
 
And yes, a 35mm lens adapter with 35mm lenses would be the way to achieve shallow depth of field. The ways listed above would be a way to "simulate" a shallow depth of field.

Jason
 
I tried today on my first serious shoot with the camera, a music video. I found it very difficult to get shallow depth of field or noticable rack focus effects. Part of the problem was it was overcast, so I could not use both ND filters (enables opening the aperture more). Now I see why the lens adapters are so popular. Wish there was a simpler way though.
 
yea, i dont have the book for the dvx since i own the hvx. i have the dvd for the hvx and i dont remember it mentioning how to do it.
 
ozduc said:
Why do you think 1 is incorrect?
It is easier to achieve the shallow depth of field "look" with the camera zoomed all the way in on a long lens than it is with it zoomed all the way out or anywhere in between.
Click to expand...
The reason is that zooming in all the way will get you a smaller aperture, which works against shallow DOF.

Beyond 5.5mm, the aperture begins to close.
 
You're not going to get as shallow as that shot, but if you wanted to try, zoom the lens out as far as possible (Z00/4.2mm) and move the camera as close as possible, and push the pill bottle as far away as possible. And open the iris as much as possible. You might be able to get something that would be acceptable for a tight closeup shot.
 
The problem is if you zoom all the way out and move the camera in closer, you will have such a wide angle of view that to get the bottle far enough away for it to be out of focus, it would be so small in the shot you couldn't even tell what it was. Also at zoom 4.2 the pill could be right up on the lens almost and it would barely be a spec in the frame.
Here is a quick test example of what can be done without an adapter. This is stock HVX, iris wide open, no ND, full zoom in (55.0), pill placed 2 feet from camera, bottle another 18 inches beyond that. Lighting is a 26 watt screw in type flouro bulb in a regular houshold ceiling shade.
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/17814/1168249433.mov
 
Last edited:
There seems to be some disparity in people's thinking about focal length in relation to depth-of-field.

Telephoto will always give you shallower depth of field, but shooting wide open will allow you to place the object of focus closer to the lens, which also helps shorten your depth of field.

I would be interested to discover any mathematical formulae about DoF that might indicate when it would be better to open up and move in, and when it would be better to go telephoto and scoot back.

My guess would be that if you had a large distance between your subject and the background, your best bet would be to back off and zoom in, but in this case, since the pill and bottle are so close together, maybe Barry's suggestion to go wide and close is better.
 
you need minimun focus (macro)
with the camera zoomed in.
place the pill as close to the camera to just be in focus.
give the shot just enough light to be properly exposed, but with the iris fully open
and place the pill box a metre or so behind the pill.


ian
 
rapsucks said:
My guess would be that if you had a large distance between your subject and the background, your best bet would be to back off and zoom in, but in this case, since the pill and bottle are so close together, maybe Barry's suggestion to go wide and close is better.
Click to expand...

Why dont you try it and post the results. I tried it and as I said, it is such a wide angle of view when zoomed out, that everything in the background looks pretty much in focus and there is no way to get the pill to that size in the shot.
 
Tests

Tests

ozduc said:
Why dont you try it and post the results. I tried it and as I said, it is such a wide angle of view when zoomed out, that everything in the background looks pretty much in focus and there is no way to get the pill to that size in the shot.
Click to expand...

Naturally, but what about more common subjects, like people in a medium-tight shot? To have a person with an n-factor of shallowness at full zoom, how far back would the background have to be at the widest focal length to achieve the same shallow depth of field? Let's assume that the aperture is wide open in both cases. Of course, the framing of each shot will be drasitcally different because of the field-of-view, but I wonder how they compare in the depth-of-field category.

Upon further review, I think you're almost always going to be shallower by going with a longer focal length, but the tradeoff is interesting.

Blessing upon the people who invented 35mm adapters.
 
there is one major thing missing from that article - Yes it is true that an object in the background is the same size when zoomed in and camera pushed back as when zoomed out with camera close - BUT this is relative to the other objects.

So when zoomed in, your field of view is narrower so that same size object is "stretched" over the background thereby looking more out of focus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top