DoF Too Deep?

Buck Forester said:
180mm? That's a long lens. Wouldn't getting a little closer and using a 24mm make it easier to follow focus her? Different wider look, but mucho easier-o.
Click to expand...

Indeed it would but Im all about aquiring quality frame filling shots that represent actions in a way that is efficient ie can be shot quickly and therefore cheaply - because Im a stills man I think I have a high bar in terms of expecting the frame to be full at all times - just like a still in fact

I think those shots would look really cool if they had a proper actor doing something interesting in a nice location (that will come when I gain confidence)

If the shot is a 20 foot track with a 24mm wide your talent will be a dot in the didtance at either end of the shot if you plop your sticks in the middle -so that fails on the frame filling requirement

you could follow the track by using your 24 on sticks by doing four takes - so that fails on the speed of aquisition requirement

A 'news videographer' would sustain the frame fill by using zoom - not possible with 5d lenses

If you come off sticks you neead a steadicam to follow - no simple thing to put on or set up (or throw into your canoe)- so that fails on the speed of aquisition requirement

If you go back with a long you can keep the frame adequately full for the whole track

Put sticks at the side of the track and the shot is boring but focus easy - add sticks near one end of the track and the shot gains dynamism - I hope

I have been facinated how the shot gains a dynamic three dimensionality when the subject moves cloer and away from the camera

I started out loathing sticks because they have a static POV - now Im learning what they offer - if you can pan and pull (and tilt for headroom) together - which is the heart of much of the 'basic' cinematography I have been studying recently having spent 20 years learning stills - im now learning the new dimension - movement

S
 
Last edited:
Indeed it would but Im all about aquiring quality frame filling shots that represent actions in a way that is efficient ie can be shot quickly and therefore cheaply - because Im a stills man I think I have a high bar in terms of expecting the frame to be full
Click to expand...

morgan, I totally agree with you. I was just making the obvious point that DOF is a choice, and follow focus obviously gets tougher the shallower you shoot. If you fill a frame with a finger at f1.2, the nail might be in focus but the knuckles are not, and the slightest movement will change everything. Nearly impossible to follow. You could shoot the same finger composition at f22 and the finger can move in the frame all it wants and it will remain sharp. We know this. So it's just a matter of what look you're going for.

The follow focus may or may not be difficult depending on how shallow you go. I think this whole discussion is subjective because if you're talking about follow focusing at f1.8 and someone else would've chosen f4, one will be harder than the other. Neither is wrong.

To make a blanket statement that the MKII is tough to follow focus makes an assumption you're shooting quite narrow. Stopping down does indeed increase DOF and makes it easier to follow. If someone wants to make it easier on themselves and shoot with a smaller sensor with inherent deeper DOF, that's fine. It's all good. I also have a Sony HC9 and that little boogar seems to go from 6" to infinity razor sharp, so people can go to any extreme they want to achieve deep DOF. I prefer to just stop down my lens to the desired/practical effect. But that's just me. And a guy named Bob. He understands me. Bob, if you're out there, "hi, man".
 
Buck Forester said:
Ahhh, you're right. DOF concepts only apply to still photography, which has nothing in common whatsoever with moving images, even though we're talking about a 35mm 'still' camera with 35mm lenses. Yer right, Kholi, my bad. How in the world has Hollywood pulled off so many movies for so many years without smaller sensors and flim stock? Full frame is just too difficult to be practical.

Kholi, I'm surprised you're not familiar with the advice most cinematographers give... master still photography before you make movies because the concepts and physics are the same.



I'm sorry, I just can't stop crying. This is a very emotional time for me and my family. :Þ

Kholi, people are follow focusing with the Mark II, trust me. Morgan showed you it can be done even with shallow DOF. If you can't handle it, I can see your problems with it. Keep practicing. If you want. It's up to you.
Click to expand...

Sorry buck. There's been a misunderstanding. That post wasn't meant for you. I have no intention of entertaining your opinion. One which is founded on the choice to shoot at stops of T2 instead of stopping down to cater to an AC is "artsy".

It seems like you have little working knowledge of the on-set relationship between camera crew in a narrative or commercial environment.

This is what you define as snooty. I define it as experience, less conjecture.

Thanks for your participation. Enjoy your new purchase.
 
Buck

Im just learning cinematography - with a big advantage in being a pro stills guy for years - there are many choices - Im looking for the ones that meet my requirments - minimal takes and tripod moves, stability, the ability to track a subject from A-B to create a basic story telling skill

Im trying to find sweet points like using the lens at 5.6 - maybe using my Ex1 for movements and the 5d for lock offs

Even stepping back and cropping ! !

But look at my f8 vs 2.8 shot - stopping down a 5d does not give you an EX1 view even at F64

All I can say to everyone who wants to operate professionally (like I do) is to get out and test and practice then practice some more- then do some tests - I got that drilled into me by the steadicam crowd - bizarrely it is steadicam that has taught me possiblities tripod and handheld - wierd

S
 
Last edited:
morgan, I think we're in the same boat! I'm loving cinematography and I now take much more video than I do stills, it's more fulfilling to me, which is saying a lot because I lived and breathed photography for years.

As for stopping down a MKII compared to an EX1 shot at a given aperture, I guess I'm not so concerned about comparisons. When I have the MKII in my hands, or the EX1 in my hands, I'll be shooting them based on their individual strengths/pluses and be in the moment. I won't be thinking, "should I shoot this scene with my MKII at f5.6 or my EX1 at 1.9", etc.

I will definitely use my MKII on multi-day backpacks instead of my EX1 (I've slogged that thing around many miles, ouch, ha!), and use the MKII for GND shots at sunrise/sunset, and for shallow DOF when appropriate (wildflowers come to mind).

I love the picture of my EX1 and the ability to over/under crank and do in-camera time lapses. I have a Sony PCM-D1 for field audio recording nature sounds to be used with my MKII so audio isn't a great concern. The EX1 is a 'real' full-featured video camera while the MKII delivers an amazing picture and great DOF range and the ability to use my interchangeable Canon lenses. Both together... what a team!

I'm usually not this active on this forum but I'm supposed to be doing 'work' right now and this is funner. :)
 
morgan_moore said:
But look at my f8 vs 2.8 shot - stopping down a 5d does not give you an EX1 view even at F64
Click to expand...

Again Morgan I think you need to look at the difference using the same lens. You would agree that a 35mm lens has less DOF than a 50mm just like a 180mm has much more DOF than a 50mm. You're comparing a 35mm and a 50mm. Equalizing the FOV difference doesn't change the inherent DOF differences between a 35mm and a 50mm.
 
Buck Yeah - I have a pile of raw to wade through

I think the nature thing is very different from Kholis environment where you have an expensive (and often difficult) human crowd around - different pressures - no snootyness about what he is saying just a different place - not better or worse

Making the jump from stills however is learning to construct story - you will see that lack in much work of ex stillers hitting the 5d street

Thats my beef with most of the 'hero' vids on vimeo for example - lovely images - no structure

Im keen to learn to handle the 5d alone becuase I just couldnt carry a EX1 and stills primes and sticks and stills camera currently I use d3 - shot I my first still frame with the 5d today all in the mission of getting my whole vid/stills kit 'hand luggage only'


Nath

If you use the same lens then your shot looks totally different - FOV is critical to shot composition- else you could just slap on a 14.28 at 11 and blat away all day - Ive tried it - quite fun - no focus issues but many bulging heads and tiny feet

Of course lens choice helps make the 5 usable- my EX1 mate always stays fully wide at a narrow ap and doesnt even know what focus pulling is - his footage of course looks like the local TV news - which is exactly what it is :)

Using short lenses have other problems though - if you are on sticks you need to move them a lot because you have little coverage this slows down aquisition

You can set up sticks with an 80-200 (or 100-300) and aquire a huge range of acceptable shots - really work a room

With a short you often need to change the sticks height too to sustain some sort of eyeline and maybe control your verticals (see architecture photography) - and if anyone knows portable vid sticks that change height easily please post a link - im most displeased with my Miller Solo sticks on that front - the head is awesome but the sticks a PITA

S
 
Last edited:
I think the nature thing is very different from Kholis environment where you have an expensive (and often difficult) human crowd around - different pressures - no snootyness about what he is saying just a different place - not better or worse
Click to expand...

morgan, don't get me wrong, I've shot more narrative/fiction lately for film festivals than I have nature. Large sets, lots of actors, multiple cameras, good food, 16-hour days (including many all-nighters), using my dolly/track, jib, tripod, handheld, multiple shots/angles, follow focus, make-up artists, standing around for huge amounts of time between shots (usually doing behind-the-scenes stuff, I've always got my camera on!), dialogue, planned shots, unplanned shots, beautiful actresses, the entire gamut of being a cameraman on a set. You know, the "action!" "cut!" stuff. Crashed cars, zombies eating people, yadda yadda yadda. I've been turning down shooting flicks each weekend because I have a wife and two young boys (ages 3 and 11 mos) and I love spending time with them and I was shooting way too much. Don't buy into Kholi's "you have no idear what you're talking about", he's just that way. There's a handful of those guys around here who spend their lives on these forums (nothing wrong with that!) and try and tell everyone how it is and how it should be. I like Kholi, no worries, but he's as snooty as can be. I've seen him "LOL" and try and belittle people because of their views and/or different experiences, which says a lot about him. But I don't have a problem with it. I just don't bow a knee to his self-proclaimed deity status.
 
Nathan Troutman said:
And to ignore that in fact you can control DOF on the 5D by stopping down your lens and/or choosing a wider lens and then create a hollow argument around OOF highlights as the reason why is even more silly.
Click to expand...

Morgan clearly showed you an example of how to match FOV and DOF to something that's close to academy... by your own idea that you can "simply" stop down and/or use a wider lens.

The example defeats the idea, without fail, that this is not a simple few stops down. 2.8 to 8 is not a simple few stops down.

There's really nothing more to debate thanks to Morgan's participation and experienced viewpoint on the matter. Hell, he did a better job than I did dispelling the myths of just how simple it is or is not.

As useless as this debate has been, I hope that someone takes some real fact out of it and, no matter which camera you choose to shoot for any job, apply it well.
 
Last edited:
the thing is I see that whole big crew thing as old school - like film and lighting - and $50k steadicams - and $000s of excess bagage fees -Im hoping the camera can break new boudries - thats the exciting bit

(puts head down for cover)

S
 
Kholi

You are of course forgettng that the 5d at 1000 + ISO may give you F8 and suitable quality and a director pleaseing look with your 'normal' lighting rig - just dont tell anyone that you are at 1250 ISO at F8 because they will think you are a big girl - get some lenses with rounded iris blades - or even get a (1980s manual) nikkor 100-300 5.6 and shoot it wide open ($100) - no horrid hexagons - ultra light - great focus barrel, awesome gearing -and cheap filters and less lens changes than a pile of overfast overpriced primes

The thing about that test which I did years ago is that I learned that the look is sustained with a bigger chip even at small apertures - it totally changed the way I use my hasselblad 645 stills camera - which is a REAL ***** to focus - and when to choose the nikon D3 but that is a different story

Again I learned through testing for myself

S
 
Last edited:
Hey Morgan,

actually the light is something that I didn't hAve to consider as both cameras are fast enough for these particular jobs.

I made my decision based on lens choice and camera mechanics. Which one would allow me to work the fastest with handheld results. Shooting wide open for image characteristics was planned from the get go so with these facts the mkii was ruled out and the heavier camera became the tool of choice.

There's no doubt that the mkii at f8 can be practical in severAl situations. And glass with high aperture blade counts would be awesome. Those tools wrentit available to me at the time so I had to make a decision based on what I knew and what I could offer. It just wasn't the right blend for this. That's literally all I said in my post.

Never called it impractical, unworkable, bad, or unusable. But my words got twisted per usual.
 
Kholi said:
Morgan clearly showed you an example of how to match FOV and DOF to something that's close to academy... by your own idea that you can "simply" stop down and/or use a wider lens.

The example defeats the idea, without fail, that this is not a simple few stops down. 2.8 to 8 is not a simple few stops down.

There's really nothing more to debate thanks to Morgan's participation and experienced viewpoint on the matter. Hell, he did a better job than I did dispelling the myths of just how simple it is or is not.
Click to expand...

No Kholi it doesn't. FOV can be made the same by moving the camera instead of using a wider lens. This isn't a FOV test it's a DOF test and the lens matters. A 35mm has less DOF than a 50mm so of course it makes it seem you have to stop down so much more to get the same DOF. Shoot the smaller chip camera with a 50mm. Create the same framing with the 5D using the 50mm and then look at the results. This is a true representation of the actual DOF differences between the two formats.
 
The DOF difference between two chip sizes with the same lens and aperture is absolutely zero

the smaller chip is just a crop from the larger image

a negative never changed depth of field or perspective when I last cut one up with a pair of scissors

FOV is therefore inherent in the concept

moving the camera does all sorts of things to perspective and the relative sizes of objects in a frame - therefore picking your viewpoint is critical to the process of composing an image

Too wide - small background - too long - an ugly flattening -irrelevant of DOF*

That is not even considering whether the lenses are available/affordable/have decent speed

a 20mm on FF is a bargin wide compared to a 14 2.8 and a 300 2.8 on a small chip gives you good reach and portability for little money compared to a 400 2.8 or 500f4

---

The other way of thinking about it shooting a 50 on a small you have to step back (compared to 50 on a big) and focus closer to infinity - gaining more DOF

You have to be closer or longer with a bigger chip either cuts you DOF


S

* I had a short stage of shooting my Ex1 fully zoomed all the time to cut DOF but found that people looked flat and lifeless - also it challenged the stability of my sticks and started to create a need for accurate focus pulling (!!)
 
Last edited:
Nathan Troutman said:
No Kholi it doesn't. FOV can be made the same by moving the camera instead of using a wider lens. This isn't a FOV test it's a DOF test and the lens matters. A 35mm has less DOF than a 50mm so of course it makes it seem you have to stop down so much more to get the same DOF. Shoot the smaller chip camera with a 50mm. Create the same framing with the 5D using the 50mm and then look at the results. This is a true representation of the actual DOF differences between the two formats.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong... I'm actually lighting a model right now but...


Depth of Field is constant between lenses. The only thing that changes is the COC. Distance of subject from the camera and aperture determine DOF.

The effect of the lens itself (outside of Aperture changes) isn't a steady factor and when it is, it's pretty small man. Almost not enough to even matter. Again, if I remember right it's different for Macros.

The Angle of View would change, again, but DOF would remain virtually the same...

So Morgan's example actually shows a matched image, or close to. You can already see a perspective shift between the two.

Of course if I'm totally wrong on what I remember about how DOF, COC, AOV and Aperture all work together (on a very basic level) I'd be happy to be re-educated with sources.
 
morgan_moore said:
The DOF difference between two chip sizes with the same lens and aperture is absolutely zero

the smaller chip is just a crop from the larger image

a negative never changed depth of field or perspective when I last cut one up with a pair of scissors

FOV is therefore inherent in the concept

moving the camera does all sorts of things to perspective and the relative sizes of objects in a frame - therefore picking your viewpoint is critical to the process of composing an image

Too wide - small background - too long - an ugly flattening

That is not even considering whether the lenses are available/affordable/have decent speed

a 20mm on FF is a bargin wide and a 300 2.8 on a small chip gives you good reach for little money money compared to a 400 2.8

S
Click to expand...

You beat me to it. LoL

By the way, 400/2.8... sick.
 
Nathan Troutman said:
No Kholi it doesn't. FOV can be made the same by moving the camera instead of using a wider lens. This isn't a FOV test it's a DOF test and the lens matters. A 35mm has less DOF than a 50mm so of course it makes it seem you have to stop down so much more to get the same DOF. Shoot the smaller chip camera with a 50mm. Create the same framing with the 5D using the 50mm and then look at the results. This is a true representation of the actual DOF differences between the two formats.
Click to expand...

Except if you move the camera back to compensate the perspective and background will be different. If that's not important to you then fine, but it's not always a possibility or desired.

EDIT: Morgan beat me to it.
 
Kholi said:
Depth of Field is constant between lenses. .
Click to expand...

This is true but hard to visualise

Basically (ignoring smearing distortion of wides) a tele shot is just a crop of a wide shot taken from the same POV - lenses cant see round corners and light goes in a straight line so your camera always has one view from one fixed point the lens choice just chooses how much of that view you can see in the frame

Im boring myself now - I wont start on 'the philosophy and phsycology of lens choice and camera positioning' which I have considerable thoughts on

examples
-get close to your friends and keep distant from your enemies
- if you want it to look like a hollywood film use a camera with a hollywood film size chip
etc


S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
The DOF difference between two chip sizes with the same lens and aperture is absolutely zero

the smaller chip is just a crop from the larger image
Click to expand...

Yes but in order to create the same FOV with the smaller chip sensor you move the camera back. Now you have a smaller chip camera further away with a 50mm and a FF camera closer with a 50mm. The difference between the two in terms of DOF is what we're talking about. Hey maybe it'll be exactly the same as your test with the 35mm since the wider lens is essentially compensating for the distance you'd need to move the camera back with the 50mm. I guess in concept that seems correct.

Only downside however is the compression properties of a 50mm are not the same as a 35mm. Meaning if you use the 35mm you can get the FOV of a 50mm but you can't get the actually properties of a 50mm in terms of how it handles objects. Wide's stretch things out and Tele compress them. Using the exact same FOV with a 28mm and then a 105mm creates two very different images - even though they are exactly the same in terms of FOV.

A resident complained about a sign being to close too her house. Her lawyers hired a photographer who shot the scene with a tele. The lawyer for the sign's company used a wide. The judge was looking at the exact same FOV but in one it looked like the sign was too close but in the other it looked much further away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top