SOLD MY HVX and bought 5D

And professional audio support, and global shutter, and a better form factor, and an I-frame format which the HVX includes. Also, you get less that 1/50 the light gathering when you do need some DOF to get the shot and you put the DII next to the HVX200 which leads to high ISO settings with a grainy footprint. There is always a tradeoff.
 
Reducing the focal length does not increase the DOF, just the way out of focus material looks (due to its magnification).

According to http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html (which is accurate btw)

200mm f5.6 from 10ft
100mm f5.6 from 5ft
50mm f5.6 from 2.5ft
25mm f5.6 from 1.25ft
12.5mm f5.6 from 0.625ft

all have 0.24ft DOF while imaging the same subject at the same distance (same magnification/framing at the focus distance), but a world of difference in the background look. It's an aesthetic change, but you will not get your actors to both be in focus. The change in perspective would be a compromise anyway.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

You can make the actors appear sharper with a real DOF change, by shooting your actors from the same distance using a wider lens, but this also doesn't help much because you have changed the framing and the type of the shot and your actors are now lost in the surrounding instead of being in a close shot.
 
Last edited:
Just got my canon mark II in and all I can say is, I'm overly amazed at the quality of the image and its low light capability. Image wise, it most definietly outshines my hvx200a. now i'm just waiting on my nikon to canon adapter to use my manual nikon lenses. I took this cam past a friends who owns the hpx, and their now debating about even using the hpx on their next film.

Soon their will be no more need for cumbersome adapters with all of its light loss. I for one like using available light to get the same quality of shot it would take me to get if I were using a light kit.
 
reem12 said:
Just got my canon mark II in and all I can say is, I'm overly amazed at the quality of the image and its low light capability. Image wise, it most definietly outshines my hvx200a. now i'm just waiting on my nikon to canon adapter to use my manual nikon lenses. I took this cam past a friends who owns the hpx, and their now debating about even using the hpx on their next film.

Soon their will be no more need for cumbersome adapters with all of its light loss. I for one like using available light to get the same quality of shot it would take me to get if I were using a light kit.
Click to expand...

As long as standard formats exist, so will 35mm Adapters. Until those Standard Formats see acquisition hardware (cameras) that have 35mm Sized sensors and inerchangageable mounts.

If someone produced a camera with a 35mm Sized sensor and a Fixed Electronic Zoom lens, shoots to P2 (AVC-Intra to take advantage of the sensor) then you can sort of get to that statement.

We "DOF" people are a small niche within a niche that lies within another niche and we often think we're really the important ones. We aren't.

Broadcast is where the money is at and may be the only place to find it in the future if things keep going the way they are. Dunno about any of you, but I'm down with my day rate being 750+. Hopefully that'll never go away for some people.
 
well said koli.

i it is easy to think the world of technology revolves around us who deem 35mm depth of feild as the holy grail, being we are in a forum that constantly talk about it. but nevertheless. what canon has packed into the little slr camera far outweighs the workarounds.
 
reem12 said:
well said koli.

i it is easy to think the world of technology revolves around us who deem 35mm depth of feild as the holy grail,.
Click to expand...

I dont think it us just 'geeks' who deem the 35 mm look as good - I have done some 'partner testing' (she is not a camera geek at all) - who voted 5d2 every time in a 'blind' pepsi challenge test

Of course misfocus etc are not seen as arty - in a test of this nature just wrong

A large chip/shallowDOF simply focuses the viewers attention on the subject and makes the footage more understandable by the brain who has to do less 'processing' to zone in on the important bit of the image

Hollywood use big chips (film) when they are going for a non art audience dont they ?

There are other techniques for making footage understandable of course - like a clean background or solid lighting

fine if you have control over your environment



S
 
morgan_moore said:
I dont think it us just 'geeks' who deem the 35 mm look as good - I have done some 'partner testing' (she is not a camera geek at all) - who voted 5d2 every time in a 'blind' pepsi challenge test

Of course misfocus etc are not seen as arty - in a test of this nature just wrong

A large chip/shallowDOF simply focuses the viewers attention on the subject and makes the footage more understandable by the brain who has to do less 'processing' to zone in on the important bit of the image

Hollywood use big chips (film) when they are going for a non art audience dont they ?

There are other techniques for making footage understandable of course - like a clean background or solid lighting

fine if you have control over your environment



S
Click to expand...

It's still a niche request. Feature Films or even narrative productions are NOT the only type of media available, or in production. You don't need 35mm FOV for broadcast, generally may not even want it for television shows etc so-on-and-so-forth.

We are a very tiny crowd and most of us have NO money. That's the primary reason why these VDSLRS are gaining so much traction.
 
Kholi said:
It's still a niche request.
Click to expand...

But how many clients know 'what to request' and before red/dslr could even actually think about such a request on costs grounds

My stills clients have not got a clue about why my pictures look nice and I have learnt not to bore them with chat about sensor size or whatever - Ive been on the bigger stills sensors since the ancient and underrated SLRn camera and then took to wilder extremes with my 'blad whose sensor is nearly 645 size !

And of course the other recording devices do have other benefits like the lack of focus problems and also (and I have been watching my local news crews operate) those guys are not dumb - they use technique to create a half decent look - like interviews with lavs shot from far away

Im not arguing with anyone BTW just chipping in some thoughts..

S
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
Broadcast is where the money is at and may be the only place to find it in the future if things keep going the way they are. Dunno about any of you, but I'm down with my day rate being 750+. Hopefully that'll never go away for some people.
Click to expand...

I hear that. Still I am very curious about Gh1 - for side projects its looking like it could be a good way to go, waiting to hear from users. Personally though without solid audio its something that doesnt enter the equation for me as far as day to day working. The amount of stuffing around to sync doesnt interest me. PRE - PRODUCTION - POST, has to be efficient as possible.

TO TP, some nice images and color. Some focus issues going on there. But quality images for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top