Shallow Depth of Field
- Thread starter STORYTELLER32
- Start date
Sol M.
Veteran
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
Vaseline has been used forever by still photographers. Smearing it over a UV filter (NOTHING should ever touch the lense on any camera) is a technique used to give an artistic look. The effects are: slight distortion (depending on thickness and direction of smeared vaseline) and blurred details.
However, I do not see any practical use for this in video, as the scene is constantly moving (even if you lock down the camera). This "artsy" technique is used to great effect in photography as a photo is only one moment in time. But try doing the same thing with video and it just looks like you've "got something smeared on your lense". The same goes for pantyhose on the lense. Great for photography, silly for video.
Sorry, but this is not an answer to getting better DOF.
BTW: Zoom, I wouldn't offer money for a frame of someone shooting with vaseline on their lense. For the reasons decribed above, it might actually look good for that one frame, but all the rest will look terrible ;D
Vaseline has been used forever by still photographers. Smearing it over a UV filter (NOTHING should ever touch the lense on any camera) is a technique used to give an artistic look. The effects are: slight distortion (depending on thickness and direction of smeared vaseline) and blurred details.
However, I do not see any practical use for this in video, as the scene is constantly moving (even if you lock down the camera). This "artsy" technique is used to great effect in photography as a photo is only one moment in time. But try doing the same thing with video and it just looks like you've "got something smeared on your lense". The same goes for pantyhose on the lense. Great for photography, silly for video.
Sorry, but this is not an answer to getting better DOF.
BTW: Zoom, I wouldn't offer money for a frame of someone shooting with vaseline on their lense. For the reasons decribed above, it might actually look good for that one frame, but all the rest will look terrible ;D
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
I never argued that it had anything to do with depth of field. I still contend that both of these tricks (particularly the pantyhose) can be useful in video. Maybe not in minidv, because so much is in focus that you might actually get the stocking; I haven't tried minidv. But in larger chip video and 16mm film, I've used both of these tricks to successful effect IN SCENES WITH MOTION.
Anything that gets me great images without risking the camera, I'll try.
Will
I never argued that it had anything to do with depth of field. I still contend that both of these tricks (particularly the pantyhose) can be useful in video. Maybe not in minidv, because so much is in focus that you might actually get the stocking; I haven't tried minidv. But in larger chip video and 16mm film, I've used both of these tricks to successful effect IN SCENES WITH MOTION.
Anything that gets me great images without risking the camera, I'll try.
Will
Flintstone
Well-known member
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
Granted, but by saying that, you insite Zoom to retract his $5 offer, hence depriving me of a potentially well earned $5. The UV costs $8, but that's besides the point. It's the principal of the matter that counts. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Still have some rest to catch up on! I should really steer clear of this forum when I'm beat! 8)
Granted, but by saying that, you insite Zoom to retract his $5 offer, hence depriving me of a potentially well earned $5. The UV costs $8, but that's besides the point. It's the principal of the matter that counts. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Still have some rest to catch up on! I should really steer clear of this forum when I'm beat! 8)
Sol M.
Veteran
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
Geez Stone, maybe you should turn off that siren that alerts you whenever someone submits a post so that you can get some sleep ;D. And sorry about ruining your chances for an autographed $5 bill from Zoom.
Wiyum, yes, definitely an effect (whether good or bad), but not a practical option to do what is being discussed in this thread: improving DOF.
Geez Stone, maybe you should turn off that siren that alerts you whenever someone submits a post so that you can get some sleep ;D. And sorry about ruining your chances for an autographed $5 bill from Zoom.
Wiyum, yes, definitely an effect (whether good or bad), but not a practical option to do what is being discussed in this thread: improving DOF.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
[quote author=Jive link=board=news;num=1065759027;start=25#45 date=11/20/03 at 18:17:02]so that you can get some sleep[/quote]
Stone sleeps?
[quote author=Jive link=board=news;num=1065759027;start=25#45 date=11/20/03 at 18:17:02]so that you can get some sleep[/quote]
Stone sleeps?
Flintstone
Well-known member
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
I got some sleep last night, but the awakening was brutal. At 7AM, my kids decided to exercise their vocal chords, as siblings tend to do when in proximity of each other. :-/
But I'm feeling much better now! ;D
LOL
I got some sleep last night, but the awakening was brutal. At 7AM, my kids decided to exercise their vocal chords, as siblings tend to do when in proximity of each other. :-/
But I'm feeling much better now! ;D
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
There's one other trick you can use for strictly close-ups or medium close-ups if you're in tight spaces and can't help but get close to your subject. And that is to use a sheet of "Hampshire Frost" in between your subject and the background which you want to become blurred out. So you would frame your subject in focus, even if the background is also in focus just hang a sheet of the Hampshire Frost behind the subject, now the background, no matter how close it is to your subject, will be out of focus. Obviously the bigger the sheet of Hampshire Frost the further away you can be from your subject and the wider you can frame them. A sheet about 10 feet by 10 feet will probably allow you to frame the subject from head to toe and leave enough distance on either side to get a decent full shot. Hampshire Frost is available at photography suppliy stores.
Hope this helps.
There's one other trick you can use for strictly close-ups or medium close-ups if you're in tight spaces and can't help but get close to your subject. And that is to use a sheet of "Hampshire Frost" in between your subject and the background which you want to become blurred out. So you would frame your subject in focus, even if the background is also in focus just hang a sheet of the Hampshire Frost behind the subject, now the background, no matter how close it is to your subject, will be out of focus. Obviously the bigger the sheet of Hampshire Frost the further away you can be from your subject and the wider you can frame them. A sheet about 10 feet by 10 feet will probably allow you to frame the subject from head to toe and leave enough distance on either side to get a decent full shot. Hampshire Frost is available at photography suppliy stores.
Hope this helps.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
That's a similar idea to the SoftScreen (http://indietoolbox.com). I experimented with Hampshire Frost, and while the idea can work, I found it has some obstacles to overcome.
First, full-strength hampshire frost is too strong of a diffusion, I found 1/4 to be much more believable.
Second, the texture of 1/4 hampshire frost can show up in the shot. If your DOF is deep enough that the surface of the hampshire frost is in focus in the shot, you can quite easily see the surface and the grain in it, and it takes away the believability. If you can get the hampshire frost to be out of focus, then the shallow DOF effect is much more convincing.
Third, and most importantly, it's really tough to get a sheet of flexible material like that to hang completely flat (to minimize reflections, light hot spots, etc). I never found a way to do it satisfactorily. I experiemented with various frames, velcro, stretching, all sorts of techniques, and never could really get it to work well. And any wrinkles, creases, etc. become glaringly obvious in the shot.
Fourth, it's impossible to use something like that outdoors or anywhere where there's wind (air conditioner, fan, etc) because it'll ripple and cause very noticeable distortions in the background effect.
With the SoftScreen I developed a method using a sheet of transparent acrylic, so it's completely flat, completely wrinkle-free, and the surface of the diffuser is completely invisible to the camera. The results are pretty amazing, it really works well, but the drawbacks are that it's relatively kind of expensive, and because it's a hard physical material there are limited sizes you can get it in before it starts to become unwieldly. I'm not pushing the product for any personal gain, because I sold the product line and I don't get a dime off any future sales, but I'm just pointing it out because I went down this path before, and these were my findings, and this is why I came up with the product I did.
I'm not telling someone to not try 1/4 Hampshire Frost, I mean, a sheet of 1/4 hampshire frost is downright inexpensive and it *can* work, but it's got a lot of restrictions on it.
That's a similar idea to the SoftScreen (http://indietoolbox.com). I experimented with Hampshire Frost, and while the idea can work, I found it has some obstacles to overcome.
First, full-strength hampshire frost is too strong of a diffusion, I found 1/4 to be much more believable.
Second, the texture of 1/4 hampshire frost can show up in the shot. If your DOF is deep enough that the surface of the hampshire frost is in focus in the shot, you can quite easily see the surface and the grain in it, and it takes away the believability. If you can get the hampshire frost to be out of focus, then the shallow DOF effect is much more convincing.
Third, and most importantly, it's really tough to get a sheet of flexible material like that to hang completely flat (to minimize reflections, light hot spots, etc). I never found a way to do it satisfactorily. I experiemented with various frames, velcro, stretching, all sorts of techniques, and never could really get it to work well. And any wrinkles, creases, etc. become glaringly obvious in the shot.
Fourth, it's impossible to use something like that outdoors or anywhere where there's wind (air conditioner, fan, etc) because it'll ripple and cause very noticeable distortions in the background effect.
With the SoftScreen I developed a method using a sheet of transparent acrylic, so it's completely flat, completely wrinkle-free, and the surface of the diffuser is completely invisible to the camera. The results are pretty amazing, it really works well, but the drawbacks are that it's relatively kind of expensive, and because it's a hard physical material there are limited sizes you can get it in before it starts to become unwieldly. I'm not pushing the product for any personal gain, because I sold the product line and I don't get a dime off any future sales, but I'm just pointing it out because I went down this path before, and these were my findings, and this is why I came up with the product I did.
I'm not telling someone to not try 1/4 Hampshire Frost, I mean, a sheet of 1/4 hampshire frost is downright inexpensive and it *can* work, but it's got a lot of restrictions on it.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
Barry,
Are they still selling the Softscreen? Seems I remember reading on another message board that they were no longer being sold.
Also, if the Softscreen is still being sold, how is it set up? Does it come with its own stand, or do you need to attach it to something? I'm seriously considering getting one.
Thanks!
Barry,
Are they still selling the Softscreen? Seems I remember reading on another message board that they were no longer being sold.
Also, if the Softscreen is still being sold, how is it set up? Does it come with its own stand, or do you need to attach it to something? I'm seriously considering getting one.
Thanks!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
Um, I don't know -- I haven't really talked to those guys since about April. The site's still up, so I'm assuming all is well. I know they were proceeding with patenting the idea...
I don't know how they're currently marketing it, but when I had developed it I had it set in a size of 4' x 3', mounted in a solid frame, with baby studs on the sides. You'd use two C-stands to mount it, sliding the baby studs into the grip heads on the top of the C-stands. This gave you the ability to tilt it to and fro, which helped to control reflections.
Um, I don't know -- I haven't really talked to those guys since about April. The site's still up, so I'm assuming all is well. I know they were proceeding with patenting the idea...
I don't know how they're currently marketing it, but when I had developed it I had it set in a size of 4' x 3', mounted in a solid frame, with baby studs on the sides. You'd use two C-stands to mount it, sliding the baby studs into the grip heads on the top of the C-stands. This gave you the ability to tilt it to and fro, which helped to control reflections.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
Its definately a cheap option but some might notice that everything in the background, no matter how close or far they are away from each other, is equally out of focus. Real DOF will have the farther objects more out of focus than close ones. Perhaps Im being too picky but for me the effect of the soft screen is somewhat unnatural. In fact thats exactly why they were used in "Spotless Mind". They were going for a unworldly effect.
Its definately a cheap option but some might notice that everything in the background, no matter how close or far they are away from each other, is equally out of focus. Real DOF will have the farther objects more out of focus than close ones. Perhaps Im being too picky but for me the effect of the soft screen is somewhat unnatural. In fact thats exactly why they were used in "Spotless Mind". They were going for a unworldly effect.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
That's not true of the SoftScreen, and I don't believe it's true of hampshire frost although I'm not sure. With the SoftScreen, further objects are most definitely more out-of-focus than closer objects. Something that's right immediately behind the screen will look crystal clear, something that's 2 feet away will look blurry, and something that's six feet away will look completely and thoroughly out of focus.
That's not true of the SoftScreen, and I don't believe it's true of hampshire frost although I'm not sure. With the SoftScreen, further objects are most definitely more out-of-focus than closer objects. Something that's right immediately behind the screen will look crystal clear, something that's 2 feet away will look blurry, and something that's six feet away will look completely and thoroughly out of focus.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
Perhaps the one I saw at NAB and in Spotless Mind wasnt a soft screen but another brand. If so my mistake. Who else makes them? Your softscreen must not be quite as diffused. Yet now that I think about it something that is 6ft away and already completely out of focus but your only on a medium shot - that sounds like EXTREME DOF more so than even a 35mm / f1.2. Can you post a link to screen shots so I can see what you are talking about? Thanks
Perhaps the one I saw at NAB and in Spotless Mind wasnt a soft screen but another brand. If so my mistake. Who else makes them? Your softscreen must not be quite as diffused. Yet now that I think about it something that is 6ft away and already completely out of focus but your only on a medium shot - that sounds like EXTREME DOF more so than even a 35mm / f1.2. Can you post a link to screen shots so I can see what you are talking about? Thanks
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Shallow Depth of Field
The IndieToolbox guys did have it at NAB, and I don't think there is any other (he's even applied for a patent on it) so it must be the same thing...
His website doesn't have all the pictures loading for some reason, but you can see some info on it at http://indietoolbox.com
The IndieToolbox guys did have it at NAB, and I don't think there is any other (he's even applied for a patent on it) so it must be the same thing...
His website doesn't have all the pictures loading for some reason, but you can see some info on it at http://indietoolbox.com