Depth of field right out of the box

A

alldridge

Member
Does anyone have any idea what kind of depth of field this camera will have? I know there has been talk about it, and among a few other benefits (real focus pulling, etc.), the primary reason one would invest in a mini35 is for depth of field control.

Being HD, I don't know if it is safe to assume it will be on par with the DVX being SD. But if it very similar, for all you experienced DVX users out there, how is the depth of field on your DVX? With no gain, how does it look?

Coming primarily from photography, I know the ins and outs of exposure/apeture control for desired look in stills. How is camcorder "aperture" and "exposure" different? If you're shooting 24p, I assume your exposure will be 24th/sec. So that'll be a constant. So if you want a shallow(er) depth of field, can you open the aperture up and put the ISO down to its lowest setting for low noise quality, etc. Is this what is done?

Still photographer getting into this new-fangled moving pictures.
 
If you are really concerned with DOF then you will need a 35mm Adaptor. The DVX100 does wonderful Macro work but thats about the limit.
 
A 35mm adaptor would be ideal.

I am not looking for SUPER shallow focus. Just enough shallow depth to look more film-like and less live/video-like. I know that is an issue with smaller sensors among other optics involved. But will it pass to not look like a soap opera being very flat looking?
 
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.
 
If you want to avoid flat looking, just make sure you use a blacklight to seperate different planes or get your art director to color the wall a different color from the subject's shirt.
 
Thanks for the info and insight everyone. This forum is the best and people reply FAST! Are there some of us bored at work?
 
For a given focal length, magnification, and aperture, the depth of field will always be exactly the same. So if you have your DVX lens zoomed to 10mm and your HVX zoomed to 10mm, and both at the same aperture--the DOF will be the same. Because the HVX has a longer focal length zoom (58.5mm vs. 45mm), you'll be able to get *slightly* shallower DOF than the DVX is capable of--but it's nothing to write home about (especially if mom is a DP).

alldridge said:
Does anyone have any idea what kind of depth of field this camera will have? I know there has been talk about it, and among a few other benefits (real focus pulling, etc.), the primary reason one would invest in a mini35 is for depth of field control.

Being HD, I don't know if it is safe to assume it will be on par with the DVX being SD. But if it very similar, for all you experienced DVX users out there, how is the depth of field on your DVX? With no gain, how does it look?

Coming primarily from photography, I know the ins and outs of exposure/apeture control for desired look in stills. How is camcorder "aperture" and "exposure" different? If you're shooting 24p, I assume your exposure will be 24th/sec. So that'll be a constant. So if you want a shallow(er) depth of field, can you open the aperture up and put the ISO down to its lowest setting for low noise quality, etc. Is this what is done?

Still photographer getting into this new-fangled moving pictures.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I was talking equivalent focal lengths and therefore equivalent f-stops. Also imprecise measurements, but you get the idea...assuming I'm anywhere close to right which I may not be.

If 10mm on the dvx is 50mm on a 35mm camera, then shooting 50mm at f4 on 35mm would look like shooting 10mm on the dvx at "f0.8."
 
For the DVX my best DOF film looking shots were outside where I had a lot of room, highest ND filter on, wide open iris, 10 feet from my subject, zoomed to end of the lense, with 10 to 15 feet of bacground behind them. I thought those results were great. I would assume with the HVX specs so far it would be about the same.
There are other ways to "trick" that depth of field as well...using something in the foreground of you subject out of focus, for instance, can help get that "feel"

RJC
 
The thing is...you don't want every shot to be ultra-telephoto. It makes you feel distanced from the characters and it makes space feel flat. Again, shooting with the dvx at 45mm f2.8 should be something like using 35mm film at 250mm f11-f16. The depth of focus will appear quite shallow, but you'll be so far from your subject as to really compress space, which decreases the immediacy of the cinematography. Whatever, though...I haven't even shot a bit of footage in months pretty much so I shouldn't ramble about stuff like this...
 
getting way back and zooming in really flattens a face. you may want that or you may not. personally i prefer to be closer and give them a more 3D look.
 
I'd like to introduce you to my friend, Neutral Density Filter. I prefer the camera as close to the actors as possible as well. Good filters help a bit.
 
second that. get a good mattebox and stack NDs in. and if the room allows you to move back and get the background further away even better.
 
esperman said:
I'd like to introduce you to my friend, Neutral Density Filter. I prefer the camera as close to the actors as possible as well. Good filters help a bit.
Click to expand...
Even if you use NDs and your iris is all the way open, if you're at wide angle with the DVX/HVX, you aren't going to get a very shallow background. I have to zoom in at least halfway to start seeing the effects of it, and even then it's not incredibly pronounced.
 
Exactly. At 4.5mm and T1.8, you hardly even need to focus the lens, the DOF is so great. There's no option for shallow focus regardless of how many ND filters you own. It's just inherent in 1/3" chip cameras because the 35mm equivalent focal lengths to produce a given field of view are so small. Using the long end of the zoom is totally impractical indoors and still flattens the image when used outdoors.

Haakon said:
Even if you use NDs and your iris is all the way open, if you're at wide angle with the DVX/HVX, you aren't going to get a very shallow background. I have to zoom in at least halfway to start seeing the effects of it, and even then it's not incredibly pronounced.
Click to expand...
 
This all true..but shallow DOF is really only important in medium and closeup shots. Here ND really helps you out....I only would use ND on wide shots when the scene was overexposed for the fstop I was shooting at...never to add shallow depth of field.
 
I wouldn't recommend that. I don't trust the dvx much at f16. At f4.8 it's sharper. Using ND filters is always a good idea, although shooting wide open is kind of soft.

Which basically justifies the mini35 to me...either way you lose some resolution.
 
Quote: "Does anyone have any idea what kind of depth of field this camera will have? I know there has been talk about it, and among a few other benefits (real focus pulling, etc.), the primary reason one would invest in a mini35 is for depth of field control."

I was under the assumption that the primary factor in depth of field, for either video or film cameras is the size of the image gathering device. In film cameras, that means the size of the film (8mm, 16/super16mm, 35mm), or in video cameras, the size of the processing chips (1/3 in, 1/2in, 3/4in).

All 1/3 CCD cameras will have the same basic depth of field as super 8 film - which is, of course, deep indeed.

The only way to achieve the true depth of field of 35mm film is to use some sort of adapter that the camera can focus its image gathering device on (the ground glass in the adapter).

Using ND filters combined while wide open helps simulate the DOF, but as noted, it will look 'flat' at leats when compared to true 35mm DOF - It should be noted, however, that this was the primary technique used by the DP in "28 DAYS LATER," aside from shooting through a varity of different plasic 'filters.'

The other benefit of using an adapter is that you could use a primo 35mm lens - but on the HVX you'd still be using the camera's original lens (and thereby be affected by any defects it has). Hope this helps....
John
 
esperman said:
I'd like to introduce you to my friend, Neutral Density Filter. I prefer the camera as close to the actors as possible as well. Good filters help a bit.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top