Depth of Field: 16mm v. DV
- Thread starter ccroo
- Start date
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Depth of Field: 16mm v. DV
Not out of experience (I've never shot in 16mm) but from what I've heard, the DVX's depth of field is quite comparable to 16mm, pending of course the lenses used on the 16mm camera.
Not out of experience (I've never shot in 16mm) but from what I've heard, the DVX's depth of field is quite comparable to 16mm, pending of course the lenses used on the 16mm camera.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Depth of Field: 16mm v. DV
That does make more sense...I'm just going by what I heard.
Where *is* Barry?
That does make more sense...I'm just going by what I heard.
Where *is* Barry?
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Depth of Field: 16mm v. DV
Dear Folks:
I bet 16mm is closer to a 1/3 than 2/3 chip. That 16 mm frame is tiny.
How does 16 compare to DV?
16 mm
film look (gamma, motion, that je ne se quoi)
color rendition (no cruel compression)
Fine grain 400 speed stock
better lenses
very expensive
DV on DVX
cine gamma, matrix, motion
harsh DV color compression
resolution limited to DV format, but is that tiny 16 mm frame that much better?
600 or so (?) ASA equivalent at 0 db
very cheap
Just some food for thought.
I bet if DVD is your endpoint DV gives 16mm a run for it's money. (Or it sure would be nice to think so)
Raoul
Dear Folks:
I bet 16mm is closer to a 1/3 than 2/3 chip. That 16 mm frame is tiny.
How does 16 compare to DV?
16 mm
film look (gamma, motion, that je ne se quoi)
color rendition (no cruel compression)
Fine grain 400 speed stock
better lenses
very expensive
DV on DVX
cine gamma, matrix, motion
harsh DV color compression
resolution limited to DV format, but is that tiny 16 mm frame that much better?
600 or so (?) ASA equivalent at 0 db
very cheap
Just some food for thought.
I bet if DVD is your endpoint DV gives 16mm a run for it's money. (Or it sure would be nice to think so)
Raoul
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Depth of Field: 16mm v. DV
I'd say that *for sure* if DVD was your endpoint the DVX gives 16mm a run for its money. And from what Barry said about his 35mm blow up, it even gives it a run for it's money in a 35mm print!
I think we should look at the DVX (as has been stated endlessly) as a *different* medium. 16mm will give you a somewhat sharper, but grainier image. DVX footage is softer, but less grain.
Because of the fact that a 35mm blow up from DV is SO expensive, it would basically cost the same, regardless of whether you used 16mm or the DVX, so it depends on what look you're going for.
And definitely for guys like me, who in NO WAY can afford 16mm, and will likely NEVER have any of my DVX work make it to a film print, it's DEFINITELY cheaper.
I've shown my first DVX film to guys who have used 16mm before, and they've said that my footage (in DV resolution) was absolutely believable as telecined 16mm footage, only not as grainy.
Bottom Line: for an independent filmmaker, the DVX is the ABSOLUTE best option to go for. Even if I had the resources to shoot on 16mm, I probably wouldn't; 35mm would have to be my selling point. LONG LIVE THE DVX!!!
...But, taking a moment to breathe, I'll get back to the original question:
Barry, how *does* the DVX's depth of field fair in comparison to your average 16mm lens?
;D
I'd say that *for sure* if DVD was your endpoint the DVX gives 16mm a run for its money. And from what Barry said about his 35mm blow up, it even gives it a run for it's money in a 35mm print!
I think we should look at the DVX (as has been stated endlessly) as a *different* medium. 16mm will give you a somewhat sharper, but grainier image. DVX footage is softer, but less grain.
Because of the fact that a 35mm blow up from DV is SO expensive, it would basically cost the same, regardless of whether you used 16mm or the DVX, so it depends on what look you're going for.
And definitely for guys like me, who in NO WAY can afford 16mm, and will likely NEVER have any of my DVX work make it to a film print, it's DEFINITELY cheaper.
I've shown my first DVX film to guys who have used 16mm before, and they've said that my footage (in DV resolution) was absolutely believable as telecined 16mm footage, only not as grainy.
Bottom Line: for an independent filmmaker, the DVX is the ABSOLUTE best option to go for. Even if I had the resources to shoot on 16mm, I probably wouldn't; 35mm would have to be my selling point. LONG LIVE THE DVX!!!
...But, taking a moment to breathe, I'll get back to the original question:
Barry, how *does* the DVX's depth of field fair in comparison to your average 16mm lens?
;D
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Depth of Field: 16mm v. DV
Where am I? Having a pretty good day, so far. Got a letter of commitment for distribution for my upcoming picture, and got a commitment for financing for the next picture too. And tonight's the Emmy award nominations (hey Hudson, go down to the US Grant hotel and see if I get any, willya? I'm up for two more!) ;D
Anyway, I will probably be around less now that this film project is finally moving forward. Having the distribution agreement in place should make raising money much easier, but there's still no guarantee... :
Now, back to 16mm vs. DV, as far as DOF goes. Lest I harp like a broken record, it's the lens focal length, not the frame size, that dictates the DOF. Frame size dictates FIELD OF VIEW, but not DEPTH OF FIELD. And a standard zoom on a 16mm camera is 10-100mm (or 12-120mm), vs. the DVX's 4.5-45mm. So you can expect that yes, you will get shallower DOF on average when using 16mm.
16mm frame sizes are roughly akin to 2/3" video. Remember, just because the chip is nominally 2/3", that doesn't mean you get to use the full surface. DV size is more like Super 8 film. A Super 8 lens would typically be on the order of 6mm-60mm, not far from the DVX's 4.5-45 or the PD150's 6-72mm.
It is much easier to get shallow DOF effects on a 16mm camera at 100mm zoom, than it is on the DVX at 45mm zoom. 16mm will give you shallower DOF than the DVX. The DVX will give you DOF comparable to Super 8.
As to the question "how does DVX footage hold up to 16mm"? Very, very well. Having done side-by-side comparisons on TV, and blown DVX footage up to 35mm, I'd say that the DVX is very competitive. They don't look like each other, but for overall quality they're quite competitive. You'll get more latitude (and more grain) from 16mm, you'll get the soft organic look of 16mm (which can be somewhat simulated in post with the DVX) but you get the much lower operational costs of the DVX. And DVX footage looks sharper. On blowup, the DVX looks very competitive with standard 16mm. I expect Super16 on Vision 2 stocks will still hold a sizable advantage on blowup, but as for regular 16, the DVX does indeed have its number.
Where am I? Having a pretty good day, so far. Got a letter of commitment for distribution for my upcoming picture, and got a commitment for financing for the next picture too. And tonight's the Emmy award nominations (hey Hudson, go down to the US Grant hotel and see if I get any, willya? I'm up for two more!) ;D
Anyway, I will probably be around less now that this film project is finally moving forward. Having the distribution agreement in place should make raising money much easier, but there's still no guarantee... :
Now, back to 16mm vs. DV, as far as DOF goes. Lest I harp like a broken record, it's the lens focal length, not the frame size, that dictates the DOF. Frame size dictates FIELD OF VIEW, but not DEPTH OF FIELD. And a standard zoom on a 16mm camera is 10-100mm (or 12-120mm), vs. the DVX's 4.5-45mm. So you can expect that yes, you will get shallower DOF on average when using 16mm.
16mm frame sizes are roughly akin to 2/3" video. Remember, just because the chip is nominally 2/3", that doesn't mean you get to use the full surface. DV size is more like Super 8 film. A Super 8 lens would typically be on the order of 6mm-60mm, not far from the DVX's 4.5-45 or the PD150's 6-72mm.
It is much easier to get shallow DOF effects on a 16mm camera at 100mm zoom, than it is on the DVX at 45mm zoom. 16mm will give you shallower DOF than the DVX. The DVX will give you DOF comparable to Super 8.
As to the question "how does DVX footage hold up to 16mm"? Very, very well. Having done side-by-side comparisons on TV, and blown DVX footage up to 35mm, I'd say that the DVX is very competitive. They don't look like each other, but for overall quality they're quite competitive. You'll get more latitude (and more grain) from 16mm, you'll get the soft organic look of 16mm (which can be somewhat simulated in post with the DVX) but you get the much lower operational costs of the DVX. And DVX footage looks sharper. On blowup, the DVX looks very competitive with standard 16mm. I expect Super16 on Vision 2 stocks will still hold a sizable advantage on blowup, but as for regular 16, the DVX does indeed have its number.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Depth of Field: 16mm v. DV
Barry, thanks for the info, and:
Congratulations on the distribution deal! Sorry if I should know this already, but what is your role on this film? Director? Producer?
Congratulations again!
Barry, thanks for the info, and:
Congratulations on the distribution deal! Sorry if I should know this already, but what is your role on this film? Director? Producer?
Congratulations again!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Depth of Field: 16mm v. DV
Writer/Producer/Director, although director duties and credit will most likely be shared with Pat Kerby (filmmaker58 on this board), who will also be director of photography and may co-produce as well.
Writer/Producer/Director, although director duties and credit will most likely be shared with Pat Kerby (filmmaker58 on this board), who will also be director of photography and may co-produce as well.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Depth of Field: 16mm v. DV
Guess there's no reason to ask, I'm sure you'll keep us informed ;D
Guess there's no reason to ask, I'm sure you'll keep us informed ;D
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Depth of Field: 16mm v. DV
You know I will. This one is the DVX feature I was talking about, that may tie in to the book.
And to top off this day, one of the commercials I submitted to the Emmy's did get nominated!
Thanks for all the kind words!
You know I will. This one is the DVX feature I was talking about, that may tie in to the book.
And to top off this day, one of the commercials I submitted to the Emmy's did get nominated!
Thanks for all the kind words!
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
Re: Depth of Field: 16mm v. DV
Well, it's good to hear your recognition reaches far beyond the loyal fans you have here on DVXUser.com.
When will production begin on your DVX feature?
Well, it's good to hear your recognition reaches far beyond the loyal fans you have here on DVXUser.com.
When will production begin on your DVX feature?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Depth of Field: 16mm v. DV
We're planning on shooting it this summer.
We're planning on shooting it this summer.