Getting the best possible deep/rich shots.

T

taras4444

Well-known member
Hi all, I know so often everyone craves shallow depth of field, and without a doubt it's something my af100 excels in, however today I wanted to ask people about the opposite, getting the best possible rich/deep depth of field shots. Basically, recently I've been shooting in the woods with my lumix 7-14mm, and whilst it looks decent, it just isn't impressive enough in my opinion. Most of the greatest shots in film history often feature lush wide angle shots that go on to infinity, and while I'm not kidding myself thinking the af100 can perfectly replicate some of those, I know I'm not utilising it as best as I could. Often my wide angle shots seem to lack a little clarity and almost appear softish. I want shots that look crisp and detailed when focus is set to infinity, and rich.

So basically does anyone have any good tips on getting the best in these situations? Any good file scene settings etc I should be trying? (At the moment it's pretty average e.g. detail levels set to -3.) Also it got me thinking perhaps in investing in a good external recorder, such as the atmos samurai for 10bit recording and thus great colour representation and depth? Also considering getting the olympus 12mm lens as test shots all look pretty damn sharp and tasty. Any and all advice would be appreciated as always. Thanks
 
Closing your aperture down all the way is pretty much your only tool as far as DoF is concerned. Where you focus is predetermined by the scene, but the further out it is the deeper your focus will be. Depth of field is entirely a lens function and is completely independent from scene settings, codec or anything else. That part is a different question, and is answered mostly by shooting in the right light (right time of day if you're outdoors).
 
What Cassius above says is the only way to get expanded depth of field - close down the aperture... However, it also depends on the focal length of the lens, wider lenses having more depth of field. In 35mm cinematography 35-40mm lenses were often closed down to f22 or even f32 to obtain that look (see CITIZEN KANE). Or check out some of Ansel Adam's large negative stuff, like Manzanar. He would stop down to even f45 (unavailable on small format cameras) with 1-2 second shutter speeds.

However, also be aware that most contemporary lenses, especially still lenses, are usually optimized for f4-5.6. That means that as you stop down below those stops, the image becomes more degraded - how much depends on the lens, and it's especially a problem with zooms - this is why high dollar lenses are high dollar - It's also why it's easier to shoot the scenes you describe on a 1/3" camera (check out some of the posted HPX250 visuals - most are pretty boring, but they do show that depth you want).

Also, depth of field is somewhat relative to the screening venue. There's something called the "circle of confusion" - when something is projected (or printed) larger, the circle of confusion increases proportionally. Those old (sorry, but I'm old too) 35 guys used to shoot multiple tests and screen them large to dial in the look they wanted. Dialing in often meant trying different lens/aperture combinations - that's a luxury most of us don't have.

I forgot to add that contrast can increase the perception of sharpness. A black butted up against a light area makes our eyes perceive the impression of sharpness. This is contrast in the actual scene. A flatly lit scene will not be "fixable" either with scene files (i.e. CINE-V) or post correction.
 
Last edited:
Whoa - full stop. Closing the aperture to f22 or f32 will result in scenes where *nothing* is in sharp focus. Stopping down to f/22 will make an AF100 look pretty bad. Don't do that.

Diffraction is a very real issue on small-pixel HD camcorders. The AF100 doesn't suffer from it quite as much as some other cameras*, but it can happen. The smallest iris you should ever consider using on an AF100 is F/16, and even then I wouldn't want to; I'd vote for f/11 to be sure.

Look at the DPReview test of the Lumix 7-14, for sharpness -- it's astonishingly sharp at f/4 (resolving almost 1900 line pairs per millimeter in the center) but by the time you've stopped it down to f/22 it's resolving less than 750 lp/mm in the center. And the corners and edges are less. Keep away from the deep f-stops!

Again, AVOID the deep f-stops. You don't need them, and they're just hurting your sharpness. Use the more-open f-stops, and use the built-in ND filters to compensate the exposure.

The 7mm is already going to deliver near infinite depth of field anyway, at practically any iris. At 7mm, and f/16, focused on infinity, everything from 8 inches to infinity will be in focus. Is that really the best spot in the lens though? No, not really; most lenses are optimized to perform best at about 1 to 2 stops down from wide open, and 1 to 2 stops up from the smallest aperture. With the 7mm lens, you can still have infinite depth of field even with smaller irises. I'd recommend trying f/5.6; on f/5.6, focused at 10 feet, everything from 20 inches to infinity will be in sharp focus.


Any good file scene settings etc I should be trying? (At the moment it's pretty average e.g. detail levels set to -3.)
Click to expand...
The higher you set the detail level, the crisper the image is going to appear. -3 is reasonably soft. Try going to +5 and see if it gives you the oomph that you're looking for. Now, this is a temporary fix, a suggestion of what to TRY, not what to stick with, but if you like it, then at least you know one thing that may be contributing to your impression of a softer image.

Mac is totally correct in that contrast increases the perception of sharpness -- as such, use a contrastier scene file and see if you like it better. Try Cine-V instead of Cine-D. Try B.Press. Either of those adds substantial contrast and should make the image leap off the screen as compared to the flat cine-D.

Load up your scene files with some alternatives and try again. If you're shooting cine-D with -3 detail, try cine-V with +5 detail and -5 coring and a -3 master pedestal and norm2 matrix and +3 chroma level. You might find that a lot closer to what you like. And then if there's too much sharpening, lower the detail level to the right mix of enough sharpening without looking artificial. If there's too much noise, raise the coring up to where the noise is under control but not too far or you'll smear out the fine detail in the leaves.

And, shoot at the right time of day! Shooting in the woods on an overcast day is going to lead to flat, blah imagery. Shoot when the sun is low in the sky, and slicing through the leaves, and it'll be sharp as hell.

Use the ND filters, and keep your iris around f/4 to f/5.6 on that Lumix 7mm. And consider using a circular polarizer, a polarizer can work wonders on leaves. Use a circular polarizer and twist it until the leaves stand out the most, and use all the other suggestions I mentioned, and I bet you'll be much happier with the results you get.

* regarding diffraction on other cameras -- on a 1/4" chip camera, diffraction sets in as early as f/4, stopping down more closed than f/4 makes the overall image go softer. On a 1/3" camera, it sets in about f/5.6, you really don't want to ever stop a 1/3" 1920x1080 camera down past f/5.6.
 
Already great stuff here.

If you are referring to impressive "wide angle" expansive shots you see in cinema, you might also be experiencing the limitations of the AF100 sensor size. Perhaps you are looking for the image characteristics that you see on a 24mm lens (instead of a 7mm lens) at the wider F.O.V. (look up crop factor)?

Not sure if that's it or what exactly you are trying to articulate. Others answered the sharpness/clarity issues, and you don't need a larger sensor to get fantastic images. But if you are wondering why perhaps you can't "match" some shots that you see, that could be playing into it. Read Barry's AF100 book on crop factor and he talks about ways to match larger format cameras as best as possible.
 
Hey all, this is probably some of the best replies I've ever received on here so thank you all! And thanks Barry for the scene file suggestions too! I'm going to take all what you said aboard and try it out tomorrow, I'm praying for it not to be overcast! I'm excited to test it out!! Thanks and I'll keeep you guys updated! And thanks film guy, I'll have to refamiliarise myself with the crop factors and sensor sizes to get a better understanding, I've never properly gone into it as it all sounds a bit daunting, but it's about time me thinks! Thanks
 
I have to agree with Barry. My best images from the AF100 have come at around f5.6. Utilize the ND filter to get you to that setting.
 
Hey ran a few tests today and I definitely noticed a difference thanks! It was very cloudy and grey unfortanetly though so will wait for sun before i dial in the settings I like best. One thing I did notice with your scene file settings you mentioned Barry was a fair amount of noise. I upped the coring to 0 and lowered the detail level to +3 and it coped better (was on the lowest iso setting too). Just a quick questions in regards to the V detail level, should it usually match the detail level or is there a rough ratio to be had as I assume they effect one another as they deal with the sharpness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top