GH3 DOF on MFT aka GH#

J

JasonMillard81

Active member
Greetings,

How do you guys go about trying to achieve a shallow DOF on the GH series, such as metabones attachment, or lens choice? Similar to those found on Canon FF? Also how do you guys use settings and post editing to improve color since it is limited to only 8 bits?

Thanks!
 
Shallow DOF on the GH can be achieved mainly through using a fast lens - generally 2.8 or faster. You can also use an ND filter which will allow you to open up more in bright light. You are not going to be able to achieve a shallow DOF as quickly or easily as, say, a 5D, but I would be careful of using a shallow DOF too much (or not using it as part of a well thought out aesthetic), as it has become fashionable to do it because it is considered more "filmic"... As far as the 8 bit issue with the GH series I wouldn't worry about it because GH footage holds up beautifully in post. I usually shoot in "SMOOTH" mode and turn everything down to -2 and color correct afterwards...
 
Shallow DOF is easily achieved with any combination of fast lenses, close focus, and telephoto focal lengths. If you have a wide, fast lens, it's still possible to throw a background out of focus if you place the subject (and focal point) very close... of course this introduces distortion and other fun things to play with.

My general rule of thumb on color with the GH2 (not certain how it is with the 1 or 3) is to balance to eye by K, sometimes by manual spot WB, then adjust the color balance two steps towards magenta and two steps towards amber. Also stay below ISO 1600 (possibly even 800), because the camera gets ugly quick above that. Avoid "NOSTALGIC."
 
A M4/3's sensor is not as small as most people think. Don't compare it to full frame, which is a photography standard. Compare it to the correct reference in this business, (super) 35mm film (or APS-C for tha.

Then suddenly the difference is not so big anymore. Shallow DOF is easily achieved on 'normal' and tele lenses. Gets a bit harder compared to a FF sensor to achieve it on wide angles, but it's there. Actually, I like the subtle blurry backgrounds on wide shots. Matter of taste.
 
If your primary goal is to match the DOF of a FF sensor, MFT is probably the wrong system to choose. You can get plenty shallow DOF using various lenses (the f/0.95s, or even just a 50 1.8), but it's never going to match a full frame sensor. Of course, that isn't most people's main consideration when selecting MFT; usually it's some combination of small/inexpensive, very high quality video, and ease of adapting other formats.

As for the 8-bit color, that's pretty standard to most cameras, so it's no more an issue than it is with anything else recording H.264 (and somewhat mitigated by high bitrate hacks). There are more options now, when you consider raw recording from the BMCC or the new ML Canon stuff, but it's generally more costly and complicated. So it really comes down to what system meets your needs and fits your budget.
 
stoneinapond said:
Really?
Click to expand...

Jason is convinced of this, so there's no point in explaining the difference between the color of footage directly from the camera and the color of footage that has been properly corrected and graded.

It seems there are many people who love Canon color because they don't want to do post processing of their footage.
 
While condescension and sarcasm may be cute, my lack of knowledge on the topic is not. In case there was a lack of clarity in my post I will enunciate in a different way. I do not actually know this answer and my rhetoric was not tongue-in-cheek. I truly do not know. By the response you gave I assume you believe that the color produced on the Canon 5D3 is exactly the same to what is produce on the GH3. Also, if I am inferring correctly you're stating that 5D owners are better at post production than GH3 users since they produce better color.

Would you please indulge me and with as minimum sarcasm as possible help explain to an untrained amateur your response?

Thanks!
 
Well basically in terms of dof you are looking at a factor of 2. a 50mm f2.8 on FF has the same depth of field as 25mm f1.4 on M4/3. The fov and aperture need to be half for the lens to produce the same depth of field look. About the best you can currently get with M4/3 is 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 in terms of dof look from a FF camera. That would be with the full manual 17mm f0.95 and 25mm f0.95 lenses for M4/3. That covers most lens options and shooting situations but FF does have some faster lenses like 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.4 which currently have no M4/3 equivalent since that would be f0.7. But honestly there has to be some level of tradeoff between using FF and M4/3.

Like others have said however no movie or very few of them shoot on a FF sensor. Even 35mm cinema film is not the size of FF photography since the frame is used sideways. Yes a couple of movies have thrown in a 5D here and there for a few shots but none of those shots used the level of dof most are obsessed with. Most or almost all Hollywood movies big or small are shot on sensors that would have a crop factor of 1.5 if we must compare them to FF stills. This means for moving pictures you really should be comparing to a crop size of 1.5 and not 2. In this range M4/3 is actually very well covered. This means even a f1.4 lens on FF can be matched on M4/3 with a f0.95 lens, in terms of dof.

The other thing I would like to point out is that very few movies actually use the insane shallow depth of field so many DSLR users seem to strive for. I cannot recall in recent memory a single movie that used those kind of shots except for the opening title sequence for Amelie. Yes depth of field is used in movies but not the razor thin type where the nose is in focus but the eyeball isn't. Typically it is a more subtle effect which is super easy to achieve with M4/3 even on a slow lens outdoors.

As for color that is subjective and no one camera is better than the other. Canon has an insanely large and loyal user base that love the look of the color. To me camera sensors are like film stocks. They all have a different look. No one camera is better than another when it comes to color they are just different.
 
JasonMillard81 said:
...then why do 5D 8-bit cameras produce more vivid and realistic coloring than gh3?
Click to expand...

JasonMillard81 said:
In case there was a lack of clarity in my post I will enunciate in a different way. I do not actually know this answer and my rhetoric was not tongue-in-cheek. I truly do not know.
Click to expand...

Well first off, you need to understand that the original post was a question wrapped in a statement of fact, and your attempt at elucidation is still predicated on that "question" that many consider to be a false assumption.

I gather from The Dingo's response that this is not the first time you have made such claims.
 
JasonMillard81 said:
By the response you gave I assume you believe that the color produced on the Canon 5D3 is exactly the same to what is produce on the GH3
Click to expand...

I believe that almost any modern video camera can produce a very high quality image, but most of this image quality will come from post processing of your footage and NOT from the camera you shoot with.

Each camera has it's own set of pros and cons, and it's up to you to decide which pros you want and which cons you are willing to live with.

I know that if you took out Shane Carruth from the production of his feature film Upstream Color that there's a good chance it will turn out to be a piece of crap. Shane shot his film using a cheapo GH2 camera with affordable DSLR lenses, but he could have shot his film with almost any camera and still end up with a great film. It's having Shane Carruth on board that makes the difference, not his choice of camera.

Both the Canon 5D Mk3 and the Panasonic GH3 can produce a "feature quality" image on the big screen, but it's the talent and skill set of the film-maker that determines how good the finished work is.

The bottom line is that you can't go wrong with either of these cameras, you just have to pick one and start shooting.
 
JasonMillard81 said:
By the response you gave I assume you believe that the color produced on the Canon 5D3 is exactly the same to what is produce on the GH3.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has said that. I think they are responding to your 'vivid and realistic'. While one can agree with the 'vivid', I don't think I agree, and many others don't as well, with the 'realistic'. Many of the Canon shots that have been presented here and elsewhere seem to have 'white' people with a pinktomagenta cast which I don't particularly care for, nor 'see' in the real world.

As for the 'shallow DoF'... at the present moment many of the 'smaller sensors' on DSLR's are approaching the standard size of 35mm MOVIE film. That means in essence that their DoF is more akin to 35mm MOVIE film cameras of yore, than the much different 35mm STILL film frame size, which was larger, and has a different aspect ratio than any of the traditional MOVIE film ratios.

Again, at this point it is personal preference, but the fetish of shallow DoF, is just that a fetishization of a technique. At this point it is so over used, it's as bad as a power zoom, only seen in late 60's early 70's US action films, and then taken up by Hong Kong Kung Fu films. It is almost totally absent from most films these days otherwise.

The most recent use of extreme shallow DoF was in the film "Les Miserables"(2012) and for many that was a technical distraction. The actors had to be very careful of their movement, and one can see focus move from the 'formost eye', to 'nose' and back again as the actor attempted to belt out an emotional song without moving their head an inch...

But on to how to get 'shallow DoF'... buy a $80K lens, that has a wide open f/2 or f/2.8 (or t-stops if you like) and you may get a lens that is almost flaw free at 'wide open'... any ordinary 'consumer' lens at wide open has a number of flaws, which requires that they be stopped down at least one or two stop. It would be better rent the quality lens if one needs that sort of DoF.
 
Thomas Smet said:
The other thing I would like to point out is that very few movies actually use the insane shallow depth of field so many DSLR users seem to strive for. I cannot recall in recent memory a single movie that used those kind of shots except for the opening title sequence for Amelie.
Click to expand...

"Les Miserables"(2012) has many, many 'insanely shallow DoF' shots. Now I was pretty aware of them, but I liked the film, so, I 'ignored' them. But they were there, and one could see the forward eye in a 1/3 profile CU shot, and the nose and far eye 'soft'... then if the actor/actress moved, you could see the the nose sharpen...

Here's an example... the plane of sharp focus is on the camera side of Anne Hathaway's eyebrow. It is close to the glint in the 'eye'... but it's about 1 inch off, and heck for a movie, everyone's caught up on the emotion of the moment they are not looking at such details... but... technically Anne is 1 inch from having sharp focus on her eyes... now it may be that the 'story' is about her eyebrows... but I think not... I think the moment is her eyes, and the communication of her internal state as transmitted by her eye. (Good thing she doesn't have any hair in her ear... it would be razor sharp...).

In this shot if she move an inch more way from the camera, head wobble, turn for some dramatic reason... etc... she drops out of focus, as indicated by the eye brow on the far side of her face.

anne-hathaway-les-miserables-image.jpg
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
... any ordinary 'consumer' lens at wide open has a number of flaws, which requires that they be stopped down at least one or two stop.
Click to expand...

This is not completely true of two MFT lenses. The Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f1.4 and the Olympus Zuiko 45mm f1.8 both exhibit amazing clarity and almost flare free (as long as the lens is not pointed directly into a bright light source) performance with excellent contrast wide open.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
"Les Miserables"(2012) has many, many 'insanely shallow DoF' shots. Now I was pretty aware of them, but I liked the film, so, I 'ignored' them. But they were there, and one could see the forward eye in a 1/3 profile CU shot, and the nose and far eye 'soft'... then if the actor/actress moved, you could see the the nose sharpen...

Here's an example... the plane of sharp focus is on the camera side of Anne Hathaway's eyebrow. It is close to the glint in the 'eye'... but it's about 1 inch off, and heck for a movie, everyone's caught up on the emotion of the moment they are not looking at such details... but... technically Anne is 1 inch from having sharp focus on her eyes... now it may be that the 'story' is about her eyebrows... but I think not... I think the moment is her eyes, and the communication of her internal state as transmitted by her eye. (Good thing she doesn't have any hair in her ear... it would be razor sharp...).

In this shot if she move an inch more way from the camera, head wobble, turn for some dramatic reason... etc... she drops out of focus, as indicated by the eye brow on the far side of her face.

anne-hathaway-les-miserables-image.jpg
Click to expand...

But that is a bit of an exception. I do know of a couple of other movies with a few shots but they are much more rare and really is not the norm in traditional film making. It makes sense when it has a purpose like a cross dissolve or vertigo shot but should be used with restraint. I see too many "cinematography" demo reels where every single shot has razor thin depth of field and a rack focus in every shot. That is like doing a reel where every shot has a cross dissolve or worse a page turn transition.

if somebody does need that for a particular shot M4/3 can still do it. You just need to use very specific lenses and may have restricted focal lengths to work with. About the only thing not possible is extreme wide angle with a razor thin depth of field but then again that is hard to do anyway since the wider the lens the more you see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top