Culmination of a month of DOF research

Thanks! It's loosely based on the M2 DIY, with a bunch of "improvements". The rail system is my design to mount the GS400 inverted, or upright. It also allows balancing on my tripod.
 
The image looks clean. but it has a very distinctive look. Which, depending on your project could be good or bad.

I'm really impressed with the focus. It looks pretty clean but the haze of the out of focus sections is a bit to "dreamy" for me.

Nice work as a whole. And the unit looks pro.

-rook
 
Thanks for your comments Rook. Would you believe that several folks have commented on the lack of diffusion in the out of focus areas? It's amazing what you can go with a few ABS plumbing parts, filter rings, ebay $2.50 teleconverter flange....and a crap-load of time.

I guess this provides what I've been yearning for on the video side, the option to control interest in your shots. I've always loved taking portrait shots with my trusty old SLR, capturing fleeting expressions and knowing that the viewer is looking at the face, not the scene behind it! I just wish the CCD on that cam was 24x36mm instead of the measly 1/4.6". Of course if it was, we wouldn't be strapping these rigs on our cams.
 
That footage looks really fantastic! Are you going to post any instructions on that baby? I'd love to finally begin fiddling around with my own rig, knowing the results could look this amazing!
 
This is a GS400 in pro-cinema mode. "Pro-cinema" mode grabs a 16:9 section of the CCDs, using 30fps frame mode, with cinne-gamma applied. I've reduced contrast and sharpness slightly using the cam's manual image controls. Otherwise the footage is untouched in post. It's interesting that you asked.
 
Wow, that's impressive. I thought the first shot was shot on a DVX. I might have underestimated the GS400.
The question is if 24p, higher resolution, XLR and the improved cine gamma of the DVX is actually worth those extra $2000. :P
 
Norbert said:
The question is if 24p, higher resolution, XLR and the improved cine gamma of the DVX is actually worth those extra $2000. :P
Click to expand...

It is.


I admire your efforts but the diffusion blur is too "stylistic" for me. I could see myself getting tired of it very fast.
 
Thanks Disjecta, you really put things in perspective. :D

This is very off topic, and I apologize for that, but I'm not likely to ever blow up my results on film. Is the progressive scan and the extra resolution really necessary for me if I just wanna make great looking movies for tv and internet? After all, it isn't the camera that makes beautiful footage, it's the man behind the camera. :)
 
Having no interlacing artifacts and film motion at 24fps were the two absolute deal breakers for me. I have never looked back, nor would I ever buy a non-progressive camera again.

Do a search under "interlace" on this site and you'll get lots of hits. It's a subject that has been discussed to death.
 
Indeed, progressive scan is a beautiful thing, but deinterlacing works fine as well if you're not thinking of transfering to film, right? Deinterlacing only reduces the resolution, and often it still looks okay if you're not thinking film transfer.

I'm sure I wouldn't look back after buying a dvx, I love that cam, but instead I would be broke. :huh:
 
Basically, it comes down to a number of things. If you are satisfied with the look of deinterlacing, then go for it. I did that for a few years using Magic Bullet software and, although it did a pretty good job, when I saw DVX footage for the first time it was like night and day. Deinterlacing does not get rid of all of your interlacing problems...it does an average job resolving jagged diagonal lines...that alone drove me crazy.

It's a personal preference thing.
 
Ahh, disjecta rings in! I've sent dozens to pine lake films to bask in the sun of your cinematography skills. Truthfully, I'm a little surprised you're not playing with an adapter. From what I've seen of your outstanding work/style of shooting, you're achieving the shallow DOF when you want it by using a 2x lens and lots of zoom. By the term "sylistic" I'm not sure what you're referring to? From my (limited) experience the look is just closer to that achieved with film/cinema lenses. The great thing about video is that using an adapter, you at least have a choice over shallow and deep DOF. From what I've read, DP's at times curse the shallow DOF of cinema lenses, and now I understand why.

I also now understand why follow focus units are almost essential when trying to focus a moving shot. The focus markings on SLR lenses are great. I find myself relying on them to mark the beginning and end focus points of my simple transitions. What I wasn't expecting is that these focus changes require a focus ring rotation beyond what is possible with a single twist. So there is no way to do this smoothly without a 2nd person, or a follow focus unit.

Keep in mind that these tests had the camera deliberately setup to achieve shallow DOF with a 50mm lens at f/1.4 and shutter sped up a bit to leave the cam at a low f/stop too (waiting for adapter rings to use my ND and CP). Had I used a higher f/stop on the 35mm lens you would have had a much deeper DOF. From my res tests with EIA1956, there is a slight softening of the image, but very little resolution loss, so this contributes to the look.

From our tests and research over at pana3ccd user, we're pretty sure the GS400 uses a "real" flavour of Panasonic's cinne-gamma program. In 16:9 mode it likely has similar resolution to the DVX100. Where it loses in not having progressive CCDs, it gets back in not having to crop and zoom like the DVX. So in good light, I can understand why the footage might be confused.

As far as the DVX being worth another 2K, I would tend to agree that it is. Having said that, had I shot a short on the GS400 and posted it here as DVX100 footage..one wonders if many would have questioned that. I would cite your work (disjecta) as the best example of how art is far more important than technical specs when playing in the visual world.

Btw, this footage is untouched from the camera, and it is not deinterlaced!
 
guskersthecat,

Thanks for the kind words.

I do not think you are getting a typical 35mm look here. It seems like you are using something that is causing your picture to be diffused. This is not a natural look. If you study any film scene that is using narrow depth of field, you will clearly see that it does not look like what you are getting. Now while you can argue that a lot of filmmakers use filters like ProMist, etc., the results of your footage look like two promist filters back to back....do you know what I'm saying?

In fact, I would venture to say this is the most unusual look I've seen from an adapter. This is just a "Look", I'm sure a lot of people will like it but it's not for me.

I will be testing out some of the pre-existing 35mm adapters soon, I'm currently talking with the various makers.
 
Ok, I see what you're saying and you're absolutely correct. This adapter uses a very thin GG that I've been experimenting with. It has a fine, but consistent diffusion surface that delivers great sharpness, but not the degree of "fuzziness" that you get with a coarser GG. So far I've done carefull analysis of light loss (1.6 stops loss with 50mm f/1.4 lens), resolution, and distortion with this GG.

My next experiment will be to do a run of the same tests with a much coarser GG and repeat my observations. If I can maintain the desirable qualities that the GG currently has, with better diffusion, I'll likely start using it.

Now that you've mentioned the unusual look of the adapter footage, I hadn't considered that to be a potential positive to some. Were I to make a few, that may very well factor in....a variety of looks to chose from.
 
guskersthecat said:
I would cite your work (disjecta) as the best example of how art is far more important than technical specs when playing in the visual world.
Click to expand...
Exactly, so it shouldn't matter if you have a DVX or a GS400. A good cinematographer can get awesome results out of both cameras, or any other camera that has manual controls and settings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top