Depth of field right out of the box

[mccainds]

I spoke with a DP at a lighting seminar my school held and he says he doesn't even bother with a 35mm adapter, he just stacks ND filters so he can keep the aperture as far open as possible.

Compared with 35mm motion picture film, there's a 5.5X crop factor (about 7X compared with still film) for the dvx. So if you wanted the DOF of f4, where most cinematographers seem to like to shoot while using 35mm film, you'd need an aperture that opened up 5.5 further than f4. So you'd need to shoot at about f0.8 to get equivalent depth of focus, but this is clearly impossible since the dvx's lens only opens to f1.4 at wide angle and f2.8 at full telephoto.

So consider shooting at wide angle similar to shooting 35mm at f8, which is actually pretty reasonable. Shooting at full telephoto would be like shooting at f16, but you're using a 250mm equivalent lens, so the depth of focus would be decently shallow.

So, no, it's not going to be close to most hollywood films, but there are films shot between f8 and f16, so it's not necessarily going to give itself away as video, either. As long as you don't attempt any "soft-style" cinematography, you'll be all set. The dvx just gives everything a deep focus, high contrast look...sort of. But it looks surprisingly close to 16mm otherwise.

If you want deep focus cinematography without having to use a ton of light, however, this can be seen as a blessing.

I own an operate a P+S Technik Mini35 adapter unit. I have many clients who would disagree with your professor. Being able to use 35mm lenses makes a huge difference in the asthetics of the image. You can stack as many ND filters on a 1/3 camera as you want and you will never get close to the beautiful shallow focus of a 35mm lens.

 

[esperman]

I disagree on the camera as close as possible, if you are doing "beauty", this is not the way to go as you distort the actress/actors face.
ND´s, I agree are essentials

LOL I didnt say macro on the actors!!! Being in close range (not across a room 15 feet) keeps me close to the actors. Being as close as possible mean as close as the frame allows possible.....this is a combination of lense, focal lenght etc etc for the appropriate shot. Also you can be physically close without distorting an actor's face....myself I avoid the fish eye lense when doing closeups LOL

 

[Policar]

Mccaids, I'm actually working on a shoot with a mini35 (my first with the mini35) in a couple weeks. I know the value of the mini35, I'm just saying that they aren't necessary for narrative work. After all, a lot of the best movies ever--and the best looking--have deep focus cinematography.

"Beautiful shallow focus" is great, but deep focus can be too. Citizen Kane, after all, had ultra-deep focus and I'd say its greatest achievements were in cinematography. Another thing to remember, is if you WANT deep focus with a mini35, you really can't have it unless you use ultra-wide lenses. Even shooting at f4 requires a ton of light.

 

[mccainds]

Mccaids, I'm actually working on a shoot with a mini35 (my first with the mini35) in a couple weeks. I know the value of the mini35, I'm just saying that they aren't necessary for narrative work.

I am curious to see if you have this same opinion after working with real 35mm lenses.

"Beautiful shallow focus" is great, but deep focus can be too. Citizen Kane, after all, had ultra-deep focus and I'd say its greatest achievements were in cinematography.

Citizen Cane wasnt shot on video. IMHO When shooting narrative work you want your piece to feel as much like film as possible. I believe auidences have been conditioned to associate the film look with high end narrative production. Therefore anything you can do to make your production look more like film gives your film credibility. Shallow depth of field is a big element in the film look. Do you always want it? Of course not, but from my experience the untrained eye associates shallow depth of filed with high production values.

Another thing to remember, is if you WANT deep focus with a mini35, you really can't have it unless you use ultra-wide lenses. Even shooting at f4 requires a ton of light.

One of the great things about the Mini35 is you can put whatever lens you want in front of it. You could even use the same lenses Greg Tolland used to achieve that deep focus you love in Citizen Cane if you want!

 

[Policar]

Even though I agree with 90% of what you're saying (my argument was that the mini35 helps a lot, but it isn't necessary for dispelling the "cheap video" look, which I'll stick to), I'm going to argue since I'm just like that.

First of all, I agree that a "film look" is a good thing to have, yet a lot of big movies are going for "video-looks." Bleach bypass is really popular for increasing contrast. Consider War of the Worlds. It had incredibly deep DOF and blown highlights all over the place. I'm not sure if this was a digital intermediate or bleach bypass, but--either way--you get the idea. And there are a lot of other movies using this visual style. Even without the high contrast, deep focus can look great. Look at the Royal Tenenbaums. The depth of focus is always very deep and the movie is quite pretty. The list goes on... It's not just Citizen Kane. And there are even movies shot on video made to look nothing like film--Sin City, Sky Captain, even Waking Life.

Now, I know I could theoretically use the same lenses Tolland used, but a lot of film makers are now using 500ASA stock (and I know Citizen Kane was made possibly because of the introduction of super sensetive panchromatic stock so that was at least 160ASA or something). The fvx with mini35 is not this sensetive, so you'll have to invest a fortune in lights. If you're shooting at f8 (which won't really work with the mini35 anyway because of grain), you'll have already lost about 2-3 stops with the adapter and zooming in all the way to use the min35. Then, you'll be shooting at f8 instead of f1.6 to get the same depth of focus. What is that, another five stops? So now I'm using literally hundreds of times more light and I'm losing resolution and getting grain in order to get the same look. That's NOT flexibility. The dvx with a mini35 in progressive scan must have an ASA rating of somewhere around 50-100. It's just not so good, and not appropriate for deep focus cinematography. Granted, you'll probably never NEED to light to f8. That's an f-stop you'd only want to use in exteriors anyhow, but you get what I'm driving at. Deep focus isn't as hard with a mini35 as shallow focus is without one, but it's close. And both are BEAUTIFUL looks when used correctly.

Now, I'm not saying that the flexibility of a 35mm adapter isn't valuable. As soon as I can afford one and am convinced I can get a good one, I will (I'm a student right now and that means poor). All the same, I believe with proper lighting, careful manipulation of the image during the shoot and in post, and by shooting wide open, you can get an AMAZING "film look" without a mini35. Can you get a "soft style cinematography" look? Not even close. I'll admit that. But soft style isn't even the dominant trend nowadays in most genres.

I'm not insulting the mini35...I really wish I had one and I think they're worth every dollar to those who know how to use them. I'm just saying that an hvx won't need one to get an acceptable image.

 

[AshG]

Citizen Kane, while great, is not a fair example. Black and white is just a different animal, in color, with the deep focus shots, it would not have looked nearly as stunning. DOF is indeed a limitation of the CCD size. Many people have used 35mm still cams and 1/3"CCD video cams but havent used a 2/3" CCD camera. All the difference in the world. If I need a shallow DOF I dont use a mini35, I rent a nice 2/3" CCD camera. As far as 1/3" CCD cams, the XL2 has the most shallow dof solely because of its longer lens.


ash =o)

 

[mccainds]

Now, I know I could theoretically use the same lenses Tolland used, but a lot of film makers are now using 500ASA stock (and I know Citizen Kane was made possibly because of the introduction of super sensetive panchromatic stock so that was at least 160ASA or something). The fvx with mini35 is not this sensetive, so you'll have to invest a fortune in lights. If you're shooting at f8 (which won't really work with the mini35 anyway because of grain), you'll have already lost about 2-3 stops with the adapter and zooming in all the way to use the min35. Then, you'll be shooting at f8 instead of f1.6 to get the same depth of focus. What is that, another five stops? So now I'm using literally hundreds of times more light and I'm losing resolution and getting grain in order to get the same look. That's NOT flexibility. The dvx with a mini35 in progressive scan must have an ASA rating of somewhere around 50-100. It's just not so good, and not appropriate for deep focus cinematography. Granted, you'll probably never NEED to light to f8. That's an f-stop you'd only want to use in exteriors anyhow, but you get what I'm driving at. Deep focus isn't as hard with a mini35 as shallow focus is without one, but it's close. And both are BEAUTIFUL looks when used correctly.
.

You only loose 1 and 1/3 stop going through the adapter. The Mini35 is not only about depth of field, it is also about being able to photograph the characteristics of the lenses you put in front of it. For example if I put a ziess super speed in front of the adapter, it will look different from a cooke and all of the above will look different than the DVX100 lens.

However you get the same depth of field and angle of view of 35mm lenses, so if it can be done on 35mm you can do it with the mini35. If you want deep focus and to maintain exposure, use a wider lens at f1.4 or f2, no one would try to get sharp focus with a 50mm for example, it would just be silly to try. However I can put a 16mm on the mini 35 and everything is in sharp focus. However the adapter gives you all kinds of options, for example you could put a 9mm wide angle lens which can give you some very interesting looks. That IS flexibility: I can shoot from a 85mm with shallow DOF to a fish eye whereas without the adapter you could never get either look.

 

[Walter_Graff]

" where most cinematographers seem to like to shoot while using 35mm film"

Where did this myth start? Myself and most folks I know are always shooting wider open than four. I know everyone "knows" that f4 is considered the "sweet spot" on most lenses (another not entirely true statement) so perhaps that is where this all began. They don't make lenses go to T1.4 just because.

 

[Walter_Graff]

Black and white is not a different animal in terms of focus than color. Many folks keep using Citizen Cain as a reference for how it lacks shallow focus. THAT WAS DELIBERATE! Wells used scale more than focus, hence wider lenses that don't make for shallow focus.

 

[esperman]

B/W and color neg don't vary when it comes to DOF. Also, for deep focus most cinematographers will use a fixed focal lenght lense...some shots in Kane employed this, and some were optical illusions.

Back in the day, they liked to shoot around F4- 5.6 becuase it was the sweet spot and the light coming into expose the film was a tighter beam...with newer lense technology this prob has changed. But shooting at those fstop gives you a good depth of field...shooting at F16 will be more background in focus compared to F1.9. All depends on what you want to see. It all comes down to how you want to manipulate the image and control the viewers attention.