Do I Really Need a DOF Adapter?

S

shoook

Active member
Do I want my material to look as filmic as possible? Yes.

Reasons I don't like the thought of using a DOF adapter:

  • Loss of light
  • Increased grain (the HVXa/HPX are already bad enough)
  • Having to constantly adjust the adapter
  • One more thing to purchase
Could you guys weigh in and help me figure out if the pros outweigh the cons? Will my shots really look much more filmic with a properly adjusted DOF adapter or am I just throwing away cash?
 
I've shoot some stuff with the HVX and the stuff that looks good and not "videoish" is everthing somewhat zoomed in with selective focus, however this is not using a 35 mm adaptor. I've seen so much footage of people just DoF the hell out of their 35mm adaptors and it looks like crap. To sum up, I don't like the HVX on wide, and I don't like most of the 35mm stuff I've seen, I did like the mid-range to full telephoto that I've shot. Also, I don't wanna lose light!
 
"filmic" is subjective term.

Shallow DOF plays a large role, but is not the only factor.
Lighting is actually more important, IMO

Do you know how to light? That's the first thing you should learn if you want "filmic" footage.

Believe me. I got a DOF adapter two years ago before I understood lighting and I basically threw my money away.
 
Is knowing the basics of three point lighting, the typical angles and directions of the lights, how to light the background or how to give the subject backlight enough knowledge to use a 35mm adapter? Also what about if you are using it outside?
 
I don't like them...too fussy. Work with what you've got...there are way more factors that go in to making a good film than DOF. Don't get bogged down by that but look at how best to use the camera to achieve the images you want. Like the previous poster said you can achieve a hell of a lot at mid to full telephoto.
 
If you want the DOF of a 35mm lens, then zoom your oncamera lens to 35mm. you'll have the same DOF as a 35mm-film camera, just different FOV (field of view).

(I really think the Letus, Redrock, etc. should be called FOV adapters & not DOF, but that is a completely different debate by itself)

the DOF/FOV adapters serve a purpose & create an effect. if you don't want the effect for a shot, then it'll just slow you down & get in the way.

so NO you don't NEED an DOF adapter to make your shots look good. good lighting, framing, motion, direction, etc. etc. etc. are the things you really NEED. those & shooting progressive, will give you enough of the "film" look to make people impressed.

if you want the effect, then save up the money & get an adapter when want it. until then, spend the money on good mics *cough* MKH416 *cough*.
 
I would recommend nothing under 20mm on your HVX if you want at least a shallowER DOF.

35mm adapters are like high maintanance women. They take some getting used to, and require alot of attention.

I'd reccommend getting used to your HVX first, fimiliarizing yourself with what looks most "filmic" to you.

and remember, light light LIGHT. Lighting is everything
 
zijital said:
If you want the DOF of a 35mm lens, then zoom your oncamera lens to 35mm. you'll have the same DOF as a 35mm-film camera, just different FOV (field of view).
Click to expand...

Wouldn't go so far as to say that. You will have less in focus...

And video will always look like video. It isn't really in the DOF that makes an image look "filmic". The latitude is what is more prevalent.
 
No, you do not need an adapter. Drop those light levels, watch the signal to noise.

Alot of the stuff I'm seeing with adapters has the BKGD ridiculously out of focus. That might be a style for a certain few directors or DPs but now all the indie stuff is looking the same. Discretion can't be bought from B&H.
 
Mattykins said:
The latitude is what is more prevalent.
Click to expand...


I disagree. I do not think latitude is the most prevalent "filmic" quality of film. I believe it's the quality of the set design, the grip and camera equipment used (expensive dollys, cranes, ect) that allow the camera to move so fluidly, and most of all, the lighting. Most professional films spend millions hiring experiences DPs and gaffers to create a professional, "filmic" lighting setup.

Video is what it is, but if you have a reasonably good video camera, a DVX even, and use it on a set that is professionally lit, with excellent production design, wardrobe, ect, you'll come that much closer to achieving that film look.

That's why I stress the importance of lighting.

I've been on the CSI set nmumerous times, and seen how much time they spend setting up lights and getting that perfect look. And that's just a TV show.

and Ive been on a ton of indie sets, from dvx100 to RED, and I've seen many a time the DP skimp out on lighting, mostly because he/she does not have a professional understanding of it, and thinks that the 4k resolution and the dynamic range will save them

those projects looked like absolute crap. It jsut goes to show that whether you have a DVX, an HVX, an EX1, a RED or even an HPX3700, the concepts and principles of professional production design remain the same.

No camera will save a movie. no adapter is going to make your films better, only you can do that
 
Umm - I meant the actual medium of film as the definition of "filmic". A film like look is generally in reference to the physical film medium. Unless a fancy dolly can get you that glorious look of a film stock. In which case - I would just get the most glorious (expensive) dolly I can and never shoot film again.

I just don't understand the need to toss resumes around. Clearly though you have never shot on film if you think the dollies and grip equipment is what gives film it's inherent look.

Film is a physical medium - not an ideology.

The look of a film stock is derived from first and foremost its dynamic range. At 14 stops of latitude and a graceful failure curve - there is more information there to use. Which is why you don't get the ugly blowouts you get on video using film. On video - when that clip point is reached - you got nothing.

Film's look can never be recreated mostly because of the composition of the stock itself. Since each frame has a different construct of silver halide crystals, the image is is not the same per each frame color wise and rendition wise. Which gives film the true look. The DOF stuff is just something extra you get when shooting with them. However - DOF is hardly needed in a film.

It depends firmly on the actual style of the film.
 
Those who say you do not need a 35mm lens adapter and that you can achieve a lot with the proper lighting and zoom/focus configurations are only partially correct.

The correct answer is, it depends on what you are trying to achieve in your movie.

Of course, this is not meant to suggest that footage shot on video can replicate what is shot on film stock.

In any event, if you are filming a shot half-way up a short, cramped stairwell, or say, a bathroom, there is no way without the right lens you are going to be able to zoom out enough to get anything remotely close to shallow depth of field, no matter what you do or how you light the scene.

Similarly, there is no way that without a lens adapter you are going to be able to get the kind of shot that we see in Rainman where Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise are walking away from the camera down that long pathway. For shots like those, you need the right kind of lens. Period. There is a reason why filmmakers use a wide range of lenses, from wide angle to very long.

Cinematography is all about conveying a message using visual elements, and thus, depending on the message, you may require a lens adapter.
 
Last edited:
just shoot with the iris wide open with the most ND filters you can (you can even tape some on the hood on a bright day- - voila - instant DOF adaptor- and its built in! 60% of the result for 0% of the cost - be carfeul here though - most of the claims of a soft picture on the HVX come from crew that havent focused properly - and focusing will be critical with this set up.

As an aside - you almost have to go to a monitor to pull good focus with a DOF adaprot - so thats an additional pile of dollars to spend on top of the adaptor itself.

But i agree - progressive is a given - as is a good story, hook or gag

good light (supplied by god or power cables) is #1, smooth appropriate movement is #2

Shallow DOF looks nice but is way overrated

ironically my most productive addition lately is spending some time with the note pad and pen storyboarding and thinking up gags / smooth story telling shots

On a recent project my client was all amped on 3d graphics- so i told the story with basic 2d graphics and sound instead - amazing what you can achieve in sound with "sound" ideas and a small budget. They loved the result!

here is an example of storytelling with sound - the context of this scene was that the product technology is so good that competitors will do anything to get a hold of it:

http://exposureroom.com/10d92cb945fa46dd97881749ae8de7fd/

ultimately you will nail all areas mentioned above to tell your story - within your budget.
 
Last edited:
Reflex, took a look at the film you posted. Originally I couldn't get it to work - turns out I forgot the "h" in "http". But sound is 70% of a completed film. It's why we sound designers get paid good money - or are wanted in such high demand. :)
 
Mattykins said:
Umm - I meant the actual medium of film as the definition of "filmic". A film like look is generally in reference to the physical film medium. Unless a fancy dolly can get you that glorious look of a film stock. In which case - I would just get the most glorious (expensive) dolly I can and never shoot film again.

I just don't understand the need to toss resumes around. Clearly though you have never shot on film if you think the dollies and grip equipment is what gives film it's inherent look.

Film is a physical medium - not an ideology.

The look of a film stock is derived from first and foremost its dynamic range. At 14 stops of latitude and a graceful failure curve - there is more information there to use. Which is why you don't get the ugly blowouts you get on video using film. On video - when that clip point is reached - you got nothing.

Film's look can never be recreated mostly because of the composition of the stock itself. Since each frame has a different construct of silver halide crystals, the image is is not the same per each frame color wise and rendition wise. Which gives film the true look. The DOF stuff is just something extra you get when shooting with them. However - DOF is hardly needed in a film.

It depends firmly on the actual style of the film.
Click to expand...


I was not "tossing my resume around" If you saw it that way, than I am sorry. So reason to get fussy on the boards we're all friends here.

I do agree though, with what you said, about film as a physical medium displaying inherent traits that just cannot be duplicated with digital.

BUT, i was saying that pretty damn good movies can be made if you invest your time into production design, lighting, and camera movement, and pick a pretty good video camera (not some big box consumer junk)

And it was entirely appropriate to talk of my experiences with both film and video, it was not resume tossing.

If I just grabbed a film camera, stuck a lens on it and tossed it around shooting random crap, without any setup time, it would look, well sh*tty.

Film itself, as a physical medium, can only take you so far. Thats what I'm saying. A good DP can make video look good.

I've seen it done.

:)
 
Sorry Dan, I totally read your post wrong.

I am working on a sound design that is really kicking my butt. The film isn't very good and is internally confused as to what genre it falls into. So I am trying to salvage it and getting worked up over it. Haha.

But otherwise, I agree with your comments. A DP can make video look great. Which is why I shoot both. :)

Genre and project dependent really.
 
It's alright man

I do agree with you though. 35mm film has a dynamic range that still exceeds even 12 bit codecs like red RAW.

someone should start developing a gamma setting or something of that nature that produces more filmic highlights. Film has that characteristic "s" curve that pulls the highlights down a little, and enables them to "bloom". That's the only word I can think of to describe it. And I have shot on film . Just not as much as I'd like to. I'm stuck in the digital world as a result of money contraints and do all my work on 2/3 inch cams
 
The look of film is first derived from the frame rate. Shooting video at 24p does a lot to come close to a "film look".

When thinking about film latitude, consider this. Not every scene encompasses a 14 stop range in exposure. If you're shooting 35 in a particular scene which ranges say only 3 stops, it doesn't stop looking like film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top