Why shallow dof? Why all the 35 adaptors? I don't get this...

D

Deniz Coker

Active member
At the expense of sounding moronic, I decided to go ahead and post this anyway. Part of me wants a redrock or letus or one of those flashy looking adaptors. That part of me wants to hook up some sweet lenses to my HPX170 and experiment with all the new possibilities of shots. But I always stop myself. Part of me just doesn't see the point to it and won't let myself take the jump. I'll present my case and I'd love to hear other people's perspectives on this. I guess it's mostly just me trying to understand this subject and my taste a little better. I feel that most people dive for those adaptors because they think it'll make their videos "look like film". I feel like it's also become a trend. I don't want to knock these things or the people using them, I'm certainly pretty drawn to them myself and plenty of DPs I respect have used them on shoots. But I feel specifically that the HPX has an awesome Leica lens already. Might not be a super expensive top of the line prime lens but I think it can hold it's own, especially in that range. Something about fixing a second lens to an already existing really nice lens at the expense of losing brightness, possibly incurring noise all to compress the space in my shot a little more doesn't seem worth it. Not to mention, when you factor in the adaptor costs, lens rentals and setup time. I also feel that it's already limited by the camera. I think no matter how nice a lens you can put on the camera, it can only do so much due to the camera's recording format. Although I have no gripes with P2, I understand it won't have the same flaring and fall off of light that film has and I don't think attaching nicer lenses to another lens will help that happen, or will it? Narrowing it down in my mind, it becomes about DOF. Something I like to use sparingly. I know many people who shoot solely by isolating one thing and only keeping that in focus and personally I cringe at that, to each their own, just not me. If I'm going super close to say someone holding a phone and I want the message on the screen to be visible then I'd like to single that element out. But in a conversation scene with two people talking in say, a restaurant, I'd only like the background to be a little soft and compressed, not flat. I'd still like some depth and just enough softness to help keep the attention on the person speaking. I feel that the stock lens does this good enough for me for now. I've always told myself if I need a "film look" then it's time to shoot on film. I've focused on framing and lighting and have tried to use the stock lens as best as possible to work my ideas. So what I'm getting at is, am I way off the mark? And missing out on a potentially useful tool? Or is there really some substance to the way I've been looking at this? I see the adapters as something I'd only really use occasionally as I said, to isolate out a specific item and I do manage to do that with the camera as is. As I mentioned, I've always thought that with a nicely framed and thought out shot, one that's lit properly and staged properly, the stock lens does beyond enough if you use it the right way. Either way, please chime in!
 
well i'm not an expert on all this adaptor stuff but no one said you have to use the adaptor on every single shot (unless it's permanent or something??) yes it incurs light loss, quality loss blah blah but certain shots are much better with shallow depth of field for artistic purposes period so ofcourse they will have their benefit.
and honestly for you to say that you don't like all shallow DoF and rather use other methods to focus the viewer's eye is just as bad as 5dmkii users who are obsessed with shallow DoF. both have their purpose (i.e. using shallow dof and not using it) and sometimes you do need to use it and other times you don't so neither extreme is the right answer. however what i will agree with you on is that it's much better probably to shoot a film with all deep DoF than one with almost nothing but shallow DoF. as you can still tell a story with deep DoF but all shallow DoF is amateurish and extremely fatiguing to the eyes
 
Homunculus said:
well i'm not an expert on all this adaptor stuff but no one said you have to use the adaptor on every single shot (unless it's permanent or something??) yes it incurs light loss, quality loss blah blah but certain shots are much better with shallow depth of field for artistic purposes period so ofcourse they will have their benefit.
and honestly for you to say that you don't like all shallow DoF and rather use other methods to focus the viewer's eye is just as bad as 5dmkii users who are obsessed with shallow DoF. both have their purpose (i.e. using shallow dof and not using it) and sometimes you do need to use it and other times you don't so neither extreme is the right answer. however what i will agree with you on is that it's much better probably to shoot a film with all deep DoF than one with almost nothing but shallow DoF. as you can still tell a story with deep DoF but all shallow DoF is amateurish and extremely fatiguing to the eyes
Click to expand...

Homunculus, I think you might have misunderstood what I meant. I didn't say that it would be used every shot, and that I didn't like all shallow DOF. I said quite the opposite. I mentioned how I do like a soft background, just not overly done and that the stock lens achieves this quite well when the shot is properly prepared. Selective focus is something I use with a reason, and of course, compressing the background and other such decisions are also taken into consideration depending on what the scene calls for. When there is a bit of depth, you can get some softness with the stock lens to the point where I like it. What I'm mostly gauging is how different is it really to go the adaptor route? To me it doesn't seem like it would be an effect worth spending so much, especially when I could get pretty close with the stock lens. It may just boil down to preferences and taste, but I might also be completely wrong with my assertion and might be missing out on an otherwise wonderful tool.
 
I don't think I had, except perhaps for a brief moment, any interest in getting an adapter for my DVX100. As I read more about how people thought of 'shallow DoF', it became apparent to me that this was more of a fetish item than any thing 'real', in the sense that anyone viewing ones film would stop when it was apparent one was using 'deep focus'.

It also became apparent to me that people, at least that's how it seems, don't watch movies... if they had, they would notice that many films have been shot, many classic films, which have either medium or deep focus. And the more important aspects of 'that elusive filmic look' are in lighting, set design, script, and acting.

On a number of 'shallow focus' offerings, it seems people forget an important consideration... well... that it is a 'shallow DoF'... and the talent is falling in and out of focus, due to either staging, or their inexperience in working in the 'box' of Field of View and Depth of Field, or the cinematographer now absolutely needing a focus puller.. then there's lighting in that box...

The other thing is greater than 2 aspect ratio... While it may be that 4:3 is really tainted by TV... something like the 1.6/1.7/1.85 ratios are quite all right for a 'artful' presentation.. no need for ultrawide, unless one is making a remake of "Lawrence of Arabia"... Most people's home theater or computer screen, does not 'fill the field of vision' for the viewer, and so the ultrawide is letterboxed, and looks 'weird...

I'm sure I'm in a minority on these sorts of points, given the various reels/demos and clips people put up for review.
 
Film is art. Some people draw stick figures, some draw masterpieces. How you use DOF is very subjective, depending on your story, tastes, etc. There are lots of over-used effects in tv/movies/video/film and any effect that draws attention away from the story itself is not usually good. Great, you don't like to use it as much. Then don't. But artistically speaking, don't close yourself off to ideas if it will work at times to achieve what you're looking for.

And you can get good shallow DOF with many lenses in ideal circumstances. But make no mistake, in the same circumstances (lighting mainly), lens for lens, stock versus the adapter, you'll get much shallower depth of field with them, that's why they make them and people by them. It was a look that they chose to use, you my friend don't have to choose that route. It may not be worth it to you, but may be well worth it in their eyes. Some people don't see the need to invest $50 grand in lights. Some see value in it.

Basically, what I concluded from your post is that you believe DOF is overrated. Umm, ok. That is your right as an artist.
 
can't you still get shallow DoF via 'compression' (i.e. zooming in from further away) or does the hpx170 does not zoom?
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I don't think I had, except perhaps for a brief moment, any interest in getting an adapter for my DVX100. As I read more about how people thought of 'shallow DoF', it became apparent to me that this was more of a fetish item than any thing 'real', in the sense that anyone viewing ones film would stop when it was apparent one was using 'deep focus'.

It also became apparent to me that people, at least that's how it seems, don't watch movies... if they had, they would notice that many films have been shot, many classic films, which have either medium or deep focus. And the more important aspects of 'that elusive filmic look' are in lighting, set design, script, and acting.

On a number of 'shallow focus' offerings, it seems people forget an important consideration... well... that it is a 'shallow DoF'... and the talent is falling in and out of focus, due to either staging, or their inexperience in working in the 'box' of Field of View and Depth of Field, or the cinematographer now absolutely needing a focus puller.. then there's lighting in that box...

The other thing is greater than 2 aspect ratio... While it may be that 4:3 is really tainted by TV... something like the 1.6/1.7/1.85 ratios are quite all right for a 'artful' presentation.. no need for ultrawide, unless one is making a remake of "Lawrence of Arabia"... Most people's home theater or computer screen, does not 'fill the field of vision' for the viewer, and so the ultrawide is letterboxed, and looks 'weird...

I'm sure I'm in a minority on these sorts of points, given the various reels/demos and clips people put up for review.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what was going through my mind! I haven't been able to justify it as anything other than something that has a strong following of people who love to use it. I'm sure the same can be said about using a china ball over a chimera or the millions of other varieties in this industry, but in that example, I feel comfortable making those decisions. In regards to these adaptors I've often felt like this, yet wondered, maybe there is something I don't quite get.

Kit Hannah said:
Film is art. Some people draw stick figures, some draw masterpieces. How you use DOF is very subjective, depending on your story, tastes, etc. There are lots of over-used effects in tv/movies/video/film and any effect that draws attention away from the story itself is not usually good. Great, you don't like to use it as much. Then don't. But artistically speaking, don't close yourself off to ideas if it will work at times to achieve what you're looking for.

And you can get good shallow DOF with many lenses in ideal circumstances. But make no mistake, in the same circumstances (lighting mainly), lens for lens, stock versus the adapter, you'll get much shallower depth of field with them, that's why they make them and people by them. It was a look that they chose to use, you my friend don't have to choose that route. It may not be worth it to you, but may be well worth it in their eyes. Some people don't see the need to invest $50 grand in lights. Some see value in it.

Basically, what I concluded from your post is that you believe DOF is overrated. Umm, ok. That is your right as an artist.
Click to expand...

Again, it's not that I'm implying that I'm closing myself off to the idea, very much the opposite, I'm trying to further understand the place of this tool so that when the time comes, I can use it to it's fullest potential. When you mentioned "lens for lens you'll get much shallower depth of field with them" is exactly the type of thing I've been seeking to understand better. Unless this was directed to j1clark, I never insinuated that DOF was overrated. I mentioned many times that it's a tool used with a specific cause but that I wanted to understand the boundaries of this adaptor when used as the tool to help create that effect and what the benefits were over using a stock lens. Maybe I need to spend an afternoon sitting around messing with one to answer my own questions. But I sought out, at least in an elementary sense, to get some kind of higher understanding before even attempting that.

Edit:
Homunculus said:
can't you still get shallow DoF via 'compression' (i.e. zooming in from further away) or does the hpx170 does not zoom?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I've been doing. I felt that going with an adapter might be a nicer more controllable (in terms of how far the camera is and how much compression I'd like), but still wasn't sure if that was the case.
 
When I see extreme close-up shallow dof, I think TV, not movie. I'd like to get a shallow look on a close-up, but I think it is the only time it is warranted. It is a tool, If you lack that tool, you can still tell your story, and most people probably wouldn't notice it missing. So many get hung up on trying to find the illusive ingredient that will make their little movie look Hollywood, and overlook everthing else that comes with the $100 million budget. Look at small european movies, asian films etc. They are typically shooting 35mm as well, but look nothing like the perfection of hollywood.

As for aspect ratio, it is to look different from TV. Widescreen basically started with the dawn of tv, until then academy standard was 4/3 as was the native format of both 35mm and 16mm. Now that tv is widescreen, movies have to be more widescreen, even though very few are shot in true anamorphic and simply cropped out of super35 or 16/9 native digital sensors.
 
It DOES help make the footage look like film. - Added Boeke -- *sp? - Slight grain
It DOES let you utilize film like practices - Pull focus - different Lenses

It HAS become a trend because its a popular addition to filmmakers cameras. So HELL YEAH we use it. Obviously if you buy it your gonna shoot shallow dof with it. Duh. I don't mean to belittle but come on now. I'm so sick of people asking "How come all these 35mm adapter shooters are shooting with shallow DOF?" ..... Um... Because that's why we bought the adapter... So our "Movies" look a little more like we shot them with a professional camera and not a stock pro-sumer.

I'll admit after shooting a lot with my adapter and extensively trying to remove the grain and gg artifacts and TOO shallow dof from some of my shots I briefly wondered if taking the adapter off would be the wise choice. This didn't appeal to me because I had spent a lot of money on the adapter so of course I'd like to shoot with it and try to work around those issues.

There's some pluses and minuses with them but people buy them for the pluses.

To me it all came down to these questions... "what can a hollywood camera that shoots hollywood movies do?" "can my little hvx do that?" "can an adapter help me bridge that gap?"

I decided to buy. You can get a used one so cheap now if you have any interest in learning to shoot with one.

You'll learn a lot of useful info about lenses, focus, and "something I just forgot" ... LOL.
 
Last edited:
Check this out...

All shot with adapter.

1. I'd say thats pretty deep dof even with the adapter you can shoot deep.
2. Same here
3. Little less as we're supposed to be looking at something specific
4. Finally... the closeup. Very shallow dof
 

Attachments

  • fd13.jpg
    fd13.jpg
    51.6 KB · Views: 0
  • fdposter works10.jpg
    fdposter works10.jpg
    52.8 KB · Views: 0
  • fd4 (2).jpg
    fd4 (2).jpg
    54.8 KB · Views: 0
  • hicks1.jpg
    hicks1.jpg
    25.3 KB · Views: 0
^^^nice article. Love me some 5.6. Dont be discouraged DCoker... the leica lens is very nice, great range. There are plenty of tricks to pull with a camera, adapters are great, but its not the only trick, be unique thats pretty much it, not predictable.
 
Zblock said:
Check this out...

All shot with adapter.

1. I'd say thats pretty deep dof even with the adapter you can shoot deep.
2. Same here
3. Little less as we're supposed to be looking at something specific
4. Finally... the closeup. Very shallow dof
Click to expand...

a good example! I hate these focus pulls in dialogues! I very much agree on shallow DOF in closeups!!! And almost only then.
I found shallow DOF in 3D totally absurd and ridiculous. So if 3D was the future, goodbye to shallow DOF.
 
Postmaster said:
Not moronic at all. In fact deep DOF may be the new shallow.
More and more guys seem to go after a more cinematic DOF, than a DSLR DOF.

I did some writeup on this: Don`t be so shallow – Deep DOF – A new trend?

http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/deep-dof-a-new-trend/

Frank
Click to expand...

In sort of a weird coincidence... I was looking at the most recent American Cinematographer and saw an ad for the Toland App for the iPhone, $39.99, which encapsulates some amount of the ASC's 'manual' in calculator form. I think I'll get it... beats lugging the manual around... if I had one...

But the thing is, of all the cinematographers they could have used for a name for their application... it is a name I fundamentally associate with 'deeper than deep' focus...
 
At some point I was sweating bullets about how I was going to achieve that "film look" because I couldn't afford a DOF adapter with my film's budget.

Then I realized I hate the 35mm adapter look. HATE IT. I HATE this trend. It's stupid looking and it doesn't mean anything. Most films don't even use it that much. Most indy films OVER use it. What we need is unique looking films, not films that follow some standard.

I also use 4:3 (or whatever the exact ratio is for native DVX100). I actually like the squarer look. I can't imagine ever using anything wider than 16:9, and to be honest I don't even really like 16:9 that much.

I'm also not a big fan of color and I like films with lots of mistakes. So I'm REALLY a minority. Ummff.
 
One thing to remember, running around with a full frame camera with the lens at f/1.2 (like all the cool kids are doing these days) looks mighty different from a S35mm camera with the lens at something like f/5.6 or even f/8 (more typical cinema).
 
Honestly, I think that regular depth of field is pretty. Portraits have it. Our eyes have it. And truth is, it's been a standard of cinema for decades, with cable television taking the backseat as the medium that doesn't require it. And combine a camcorder-quality camera with no depth of field, you'll get some really corny looking stuff. With depth of field, I rarely see examples of it going overboard, but with a lack of it, the absence is instantly negatively noticeable in many situations. Now, of coarse, it's only a factor, a great shot will look great with depth of field or not, but it sure helps bad shots out and for that, I'd honestly rather shoot on a DSLR where the option to have it is there - but at the same time, I wouldn't overuse it just cuz I have it, its very easy to get rid of if you know the focal length rules.

Now, for different purposes, I wouldn't dare use a DSLR, newscasting, sports, sitcoms, ect ect, those things just do so much better with no depth of field, but for cinema, even budget cinema, the standard seems so strong and ingrained that to match the beauty of portraits, that a little blur in the distance is simply flattering. I often use it for mystery, for example, if my script calls for the viewer seeing a figure but not knowing exactly what the character looks like, sneaking up behind the subject. It can be very plot relative.
 
Last edited:
Im not buying a DOF adaptor cause I'm too busy studying Welles, Renoir, Murnau, etc. Its cheaper, I'm learning more, and its more exciting.

EVERYTHING IN FOCUS?

God forbid. That'll look awful.

SKILLS NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEAR NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEARSKILLS NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEAR NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEAR NOT GEAR SKILLS NOT GEAR........


http://mikedempsey.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5532538c488330105362e6279970c-320wi

http://www.screenpedia.org/images/8/85/Ladyfromshanghai01-DeepFocus.jpg

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/app/webroot/content/2010_images/2006/08/21/citizen_kane_3.jpg

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:....film-trip.com/images/7samurai-group.jpeg&t=1
 
At some point I was sweating bullets about how I was going to achieve that "film look" because I couldn't afford a DOF adapter with my film's budget.

Then I realized I hate the 35mm adapter look. HATE IT. I HATE this trend. It's stupid looking and it doesn't mean anything. Most films don't even use it that much. Most indy films OVER use it. What we need is unique looking films, not films that follow some standard.

I also use 4:3 (or whatever the exact ratio is for native DVX100). I actually like the squarer look. I can't imagine ever using anything wider than 16:9, and to be honest I don't even really like 16:9 that much.

I'm also not a big fan of color and I like films with lots of mistakes. So I'm REALLY a minority. Ummff.
​
Click to expand...
LMAO. Dude I have a really nice super vhs cam in basement, seems like it's right up your alley. Do you have any vids on youtube or vimeo? If so post a link. I would like to check out your style.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top