Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
"As for the depth of field problem, I don't understand why so many people bring this up. The depth of field of a 2/3" CCD camera shooting at T/2.8 is like the look of shooting 35mm at T/5.6. Is that the end of the world??? What, deep focus is verbotten in filmmaking from now on? Shallow focus is the only accepted look for movies to have? Much of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was shot at T/11, especially outdoors. In fact, most of Douglas Slocombe's photography is deep focus. And Super-16 has a similar depth of field to HD, so does that make Super-
I just finished shooting a 35mm anamorphic feature and there were days where I'd have killed for some more depth of field! Sure, the deeper focus of a 2/3" CCD can occasionally be a problem, especially when you are forced to use shorter focal lengths, but too little depth of field in 35mm shooting can also lead to problems. So having a format will a little more depth of field can be helpful sometimes and a problem other times. It's a wash."
written by David Mullen jul 12 2004
Cinematography.com Forums
...may i say... i agree 100%
Let's enjoy our 1/3" CCDs.
I just finished shooting a 35mm anamorphic feature and there were days where I'd have killed for some more depth of field! Sure, the deeper focus of a 2/3" CCD can occasionally be a problem, especially when you are forced to use shorter focal lengths, but too little depth of field in 35mm shooting can also lead to problems. So having a format will a little more depth of field can be helpful sometimes and a problem other times. It's a wash."
written by David Mullen jul 12 2004
Cinematography.com Forums
...may i say... i agree 100%
Let's enjoy our 1/3" CCDs.