GH3 Why cant i get shallow depth of field like a cheaper canon dslr?

That really weird for you not getting enough DoF with 25mm or 45mm, though the background really have to be further than the subject to make the blur more obvious

This one is taken with 25mm @ 1.4
P1050668.MOV_snapshot_01.21_[2013.10.14_09.59.36].jpg
 
Last edited:
Looks like he was right up beside his background. Give at least 2x the camera-to-subject distance behind the subject when possible if you want to throw out the background.
 
Derek Chingwell said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4e6HLfv-PI

Pick up the Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 - a manual lens, but one I'd consider to be a 'go to' lens for GH1/2/3 etc.
Click to expand...

Given that the OP is not getting the desired out of focus look with a 1.4, a .95 won't change that much. In terms of DoF, the f/1.4 @ 10' yields a 6" DoF zone, where as a f/.95 will yield appox, 4"... and the background from the given example, won't change that much.
 
mcbob said:
Looks like he was right up beside his background. Give at least 2x the camera-to-subject distance behind the subject when possible if you want to throw out the background.
Click to expand...

Good tips. I had my camera against the wall so I guess my best bet is to try to film in a different room next time. I would LOVE a Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95. It looks very film like as well. For the price though I'd might have to go with the 12-35 or 35-100mm
 
Derek Chingwell said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4e6HLfv-PI

Pick up the Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 - a manual lens, but one I'd consider to be a 'go to' lens for GH1/2/3 etc.
Click to expand...

For the kind of interview work he seems to be doing, the Nokton 25mm f/0.95 wide open will probably throw that background out of focus but the depth of field is so "razor" thin at his kind of working distance that most of the time with the subject moving around and leaning this way and that the face will also be mostly out of focus.

He has both the Pan/Leica 25mm f/1.4 and the Olympus 45mm f/1.8, so I stand by my original statement that he must learn to manage his depth of field. I don't care how many years he's been doing video, if he cannot apply what he says he knows, he does not know what he's doing. The solution is to learn and it really doesn't take long, there's plenty of tutorials and articles out there on the web.

Depth of field management is a basic part of photography. I've seen both stills and video done with the 18-55mm "kit" lens that came with Canon Rebels where the operator achieved a very credible shallow depth of field effect at the telephoto end by "managing" spatial relationships between camera position, subject position, and being far enough away from background elements.

His current lenses will do the job.
 
Bruce Foreman said:
For the kind of interview work he seems to be doing, the Nokton 25mm f/0.95 wide open will probably throw that background out of focus but the depth of field is so "razor" thin at his kind of working distance that most of the time with the subject moving around and leaning this way and that the face will also be mostly out of focus.

He has both the Pan/Leica 25mm f/1.4 and the Olympus 45mm f/1.8, so I stand by my original statement that he must learn to manage his depth of field. I don't care how many years he's been doing video, if he cannot apply what he says he knows, he does not know what he's doing. The solution is to learn and it really doesn't take long, there's plenty of tutorials and articles out there on the web.

Depth of field management is a basic part of photography. I've seen both stills and video done with the 18-55mm "kit" lens that came with Canon Rebels where the operator achieved a very credible shallow depth of field effect at the telephoto end by "managing" spatial relationships between camera position, subject position, and being far enough away from background elements.

His current lenses will do the job.
Click to expand...

thanks I'll keep watching tutorials and working on setting up interviews, I know I have a lot to learn. Settings on those were ISO 200, f1.8, shutter was 1/120 since the video was shot at 60p. Used a variable nd filter keep it properly exposed. 2 600w lights with blue gels to match the daylight behind him and a 150w light as well as the outdoors to work as a backlight. I was all the way back against the wall and had him come as close to me as I could till he got where we wanted the framing. Any other suggestions to shoot this better next time? I think he was looking to far off camera at the interviewer for one.
 
I also find it hard to believe that you shot at 1.8 (on the 45mm). You should have about 6 inches in focus, but here's my tips anyway. I agree he's facing too far away; window sill through the middle of his head; shot is too wide to start with; close the blinds. Yes, it's hard in pokey rooms so tell them - there's always a better option than this.....and Also watch your reflection on the right .
 
If you absolutely have to duplicate the look of an APS-C sensor camera like the Canon 60D, then the only way to do that with a m4/3 camera is to use the Metabones Speedboster adapter with the camera, as Polaroid22 recommended to you back on the first page of this thread. That will accomplish two very important things for you:

1) It will give you the same sensor coverage on the lens you are using as you would get with an APS-C sensor camera

2) It will increase the speed of the lens by a full f-stop


While Metabones starting shipping their Nikon to m4/3 Speedbooster earlier this year, the Canon version is unfortunately not yet available. But I would expect it to come on the market sometime in the near future.

As you are aware, there are lots of excellent cheap Canon and Nikkor lenses available on the used market. So while the Speedbooster isn't cheap, it does open the camera up to using lots of affordable lenses.

Here is a White Paper on the Speedbooster. Check out page 4:

http://www.metabones.com/images/metabones/Speed Booster White Paper.pdf
 
The lens and lighting was good. I think you could have pulled the desk and chair 2 feet closer to the camera and received a better look that you wanted. The outdoor scenery had the bokeh you wanted, but the glass window with the shutters distracted away from it. Also, opening the blind completely and eliminating the shutters may of helped.
 
PegLeg Media said:
Well the aperture was all the way open bc I wanted a shallow depth if field. I couldn't move closer to the subject because those are prime lenses and this I where they wanted the framing to be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5O4gfqpT1U&hd=1
Click to expand...

Looking at your YouTube video, there are two things that I would have done to try and improve your shots:

1- Move the vertical blinds out of the way. Most vertical blinds will allow you to slide them horizontally to one side of the window.

2- If you've got the room, pull your subject's chair 1-2 feet away from the window, then re-frame your shot. This would have helped to de-emphasize the vertical blinds by rendering them more out of focus, which is probably what was concerning your client.

...I don't think an APS-C or Full Frame camera would have helped much with your shooting situation.
 
thanks guys!

i thought about moving the blinds but then it would have just looked like he was outside only with a weird reflection.
 
PegLeg Media said:
Any other suggestions to shoot this better next time? I think he was looking to far off camera at the interviewer for one.
Click to expand...

Yes, too much profile on the tighter shot.

Why 60p vs 24p? did you mean 30p? and someone educate me......1/120th for a shutter speed? Why so high? Why not 60?

On the plus side, the image has a very nice look to it. (aside from you quest for mo' DOF, which IMO is pretty good as it stands) So you got that going for you. Those windows/reflections are a disaster though...live & learn.
 
Scott F said:
Yes, too much profile on the tighter shot.

Why 60p vs 24p? did you mean 30p? and someone educate me......1/120th for a shutter speed? Why so high? Why not 60?

On the plus side, the image has a very nice look to it. (aside from you quest for mo' DOF, which IMO is pretty good as it stands) So you got that going for you. Those windows/reflections are a disaster though...live & learn.
Click to expand...


I like the look of 1080 60p more than 24p, its just a lot smoother. You want to shutter speed to be double the frame rate so 60p = 1/120th shutter speed. Thanks for watching, ill try to get the talent closer next time and that will def help the DOF
 
When someone addresses the audiences directly the eye-line should be down the barrel. Move him closer to the camera and you'll be fine.
 
I don't believe you want to run 1/125th shutter with 1080-60p if you plan to render to 30p most often. I almost always shoot at 1/60th even in 60p so that the bulk of the time the image has just the right motion blur. 1/125th for 30p strobes too much for my taste and 1/60th isn't too blurry for slow motion. It's always a compromise when shooting 60p, but that seems to be the best of both worlds for me.

Give 1/60th at 60p a try and see if it suits your taste better when rendering to 30p. I don't really see any issues in your posted clip, but that's because there's no real motion to deal with.

Cheers,
Pete
 
malibudutchie said:
That's true, but I don't think that's the case here - he's being interviewed. The eyeline should be just to the side of the camera.
Click to expand...

I've had this discussion with other film-makers before, and we don't always agree. :-)

Personally I feel that if the subject is looking off camera then you need to indicate who they are addressing, either through audio or through a quick cut-away to the interviewer.

Otherwise, if the subject is addressing the viewing audience directly, then the camera is that audience.
 
malibudutchie said:
That's true, but I don't think that's the case here - he's being interviewed. The eyeline should be just to the side of the camera.
Click to expand...

I only watched the first few seconds, he didn't look or sound like he was being interviewed in that part. He looked and sounded like he was giving a speech, "I'm here today to talk to YOU about Asset..." Maybe he relaxed a little later...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top