more diffusion = film texture
- Thread starter PIMP
- Start date
What kind of diffusion? Bokeh? Or general Magic Bullet type diffusion? I think it's a very subjective thing. People seems to complain endlessly about hazy bokeh or whatever, but I've never heard a single audience member comment on the out of focus background; hopefully it's the in-focus part that's grabbing their attention.
Word, i've never heard any fan complain about the shizznit we fuss about on these boards.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Short answer - No.
Does film always look diffused - No
Lenny Levy
Does film always look diffused - No
Lenny Levy
tmnt
King of Australia
I think really nice bokeh (which comes from the 35mm adaptor + the lens bokeh characteristics) goes a long way to getting a filmic look. A lot of SGpro footage looks nice.
And I think average joe in the cinema would notice bad bokeh (for one example), he won't know 'why' exactly the film looks 'funny' but I'm sure at the very least subconsciously he'd notice.
Take all these cheap ass shot on digital horror movies going straight to DVD, I'm sure you'd take one home to watch with your girlfriend and she'd notice it's cheap looking without knowing why.
And I think average joe in the cinema would notice bad bokeh (for one example), he won't know 'why' exactly the film looks 'funny' but I'm sure at the very least subconsciously he'd notice.
Take all these cheap ass shot on digital horror movies going straight to DVD, I'm sure you'd take one home to watch with your girlfriend and she'd notice it's cheap looking without knowing why.
Taylor Rudd
Veteran
And soap operas. Trying to explain the difference in framerate to non-savvy folks is an uphill battle.
Diffusion is a factor, but never underestimate the power of a good lens. Papa posted pictures of an 85mm shot open at f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6 (found here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1293520&postcount=151). Cheaper lenses will have very globular bokeh when wide open. With his particular lens, nothing seemed to look "right" until he reached f/5.6
Once we see side by side stuff of the various Brevis GGs, I'll be able to better grasp what this variable does.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
I don't think it does.
Film look is a combination of qualities. one of them is a feeling of softer edges and just a greater gentleness than video. A heavily diffused video image can give you a cheap imitation of that, so you do get that from an M2 more than a Brevis. That's what we used to do in the days of Betacam - shoot through a promist or a net.
But look at real film - its not nearly as diffused as an m2. maybe if you aren't doing other things to give yourself more of a filmlook, then the heavy diffusion is what you need. i've seen plenty of stuff shot with a Brevis that looks very very filmic. and stuff from an M2 as well. But some of what I've seen from an M2 that people call film-like, looks like film shot through heavy diffusion filters.
That's my 2 cents on the subject.
- Lenny Levy
I disagree. Look at any of the Bourne films for example. They've been used over and over again as example of films that have "bad" textbook bokeh (which is deliberately done I believe) and no movie goers ever said a thing about that.
Unlike 24p framerates, which is ubiquitous across things that are shot on film, bokeh is an aesthetic choices that varied wildly from one film to the other; different lenses produces decidedly different bokeh. The average movie goer certainly won't be aware of the standard for "filmlike" bokeh as as such won't be able to perceive it as "wrong."
I've seen cheap ass horror movies on film look as cheesy as any digital flick, and I've seen a lot of cheap ass horror movies on both mediums. I think that speaks to the entire production process and not just the bokeh. People on this board spend so much time on bokeh that its simply nauseating. You've never seen a good film with bad bokeh? Until the whole bokeh discussion started on dvinfo.net umpteen years ago I never paid attention to it. The movies you're talking about have bad everything...exposure...lighting...special fx...and likely acting. Bokeh doesn't even register.
There are cases where Cinematographers will consciously use Bokeh to compose a frame. I can't remember the name of the DP, but on many occasions he'll request-- from the art department-- strings of christmas lights in the far back so that out of focus areas at night become a bit more interesting.
Again, just another tool in the arsenal but the emphasis on it is quite interesting.
Again, just another tool in the arsenal but the emphasis on it is quite interesting.
People are just becoming ridiculously anal about adapters. When I think of the adapter scene just two years ago, when there were fewer choices, months long wait time no matter which adapter you get, no flip modules, horrendous light loss and sharpness issue, I'm still in shock at how far the products have come. Back then I never thought that I would be able to afford an adapter, simply because they have so many issues and require so many accessories to actually make them work well, that it was forever out of my reach. Now with the flipped option available to all adapters and increased light performance and sharpness across most of them, I can actually get 35mm DOF for something approaching a reasonable budget, which is why it just confounds me to no end when people complain endlessly about manufacturer's prices.
Word and word. Remeber when the mini35 was "it". Then God sent his child Agus to the DVInfo forum and he said "my children...you have long waited for the delivery of DOF. He who follows me and purchases a black project box, hacks apart a cd player for the motor, and frosts the clear disc at the top of a blank cd case shall be blessed." And so he passed around the plans and those who could diy did. And then came Dan D. with his lathe and a Beatie screen and the world vibrated asunder. Focus soon followed to commercially available solutions upon which all of cinema's children could partake. Hallelujah!
John Caballero
Veteran
What a monumental waste of time discussing these things about adapters. First of all film is mostly sharp, sometimes extremely sharp. It just has the background or foreground out of focus most of the time. As for bokeh, what a joke. The average person watching a movie won't even know the difference between a bokeh and a suffle. Most of the adapters produce a soft image that won't compare in a million years to the sharpness that film produces. You are better off using the bare lens to get more film sharpness.