Thanks all of you at DVinfo.net

Philippe Orlando · February 3rd, 2006, 09:32 AM

All the comments are very useful.
One thing I'd like to point out though.

I'm extremely fed up, annoyed, bothered, worried by people who believe that shallow depth of field=film look.

Frankly, your audience will NOT notice.
That piece of attachment called Mini35 or whatever is the biggest marketing scheme I've seen in recent years in the video market.
To spend so much money just to achieve a shallow depth of field shows only one thing; shallow depth of mind.
Orson Wells tried to do the exact opposit in Citizen Kane by the way. Everything was in focus from back to front. Do you remember anybody telling him his movie didn't look like movie. Jesus dude, work on story telling, lighting, color correction oh and did I say it, an amazing story to tell. Whether you go see something stupid like an Ape or a Dinosaur lumbering down Mains Street or something more edgy and definitely more substantial like Memento or the Woodsman did you really pay attention to depth of field? Do you really believe this is what people pay attention to?

If I hear one more guy talking about that Mini 35 attachment I'll track him down and....don't worry, I'm French, so I'm half a foot shorter than everybody on this board and 50 pounds lighter

I'd go, I'll probably go eventually with the JVC WITHOUT the F....35mm thingy!

Chris Hurd · February 3rd, 2006, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philippe Orlando

That piece of attachment called Mini35 or whatever is the biggest marketing scheme I've seen in recent years in the video market.
To spend so much money just to achieve a shallow depth of field shows only one thing; shallow depth of mind.

From one Citzen Kane fan to another: the Mini35 doesn't "just achieve shallow depth of field." What it does is so much more than that: it lets you use 35mm motion picture lenses on these little DV / HD video cameras. Shallow depth of field is only one feature of 35mm motion picture glass. The film look, which is hard for many people to define, begins with that glass. The best way I know how to describe it is "better than real." I'll never forget the day that Charles Papert let me look through the finder of the Panaflex camera he was operating on a Hollywood television studio set a couple of years ago. I saw the "film look" when I put my eye to that finder and gazed through a Panavision lens. I didn't even notice the depth of field, because the "better than real" look of that glass just about took my breath away. The P+S Mini35 enables a videographer to get that same look from a camcorder by providing a way to mount that motion picture lens to the camcorder. And that's what it's all about. Shallow depth of field is only one small aspect of that.

Quote:

If I hear one more guy talking about that Mini 35 attachment I'll track him down and...

Well, you've really got your work cut out for you, as I'm trying to position this site as the internet nucleus for the Mini35 (not to mention all of the garage-built knock-offs, heh). We have the largest Mini35 discussion group on the planet, plus the largest "alternative to the Mini35" discussion group, and a couple of case studies on the content side of our site:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=58
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=70

http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcp...ini35test1.php
http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcp...ini35test2.php
http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcp...ini35test3.php
http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcp...ini35test4.php
http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcp...ini35test5.php

http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article84.php
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article85.php
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images19.php
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images20.php

I think your best bet might be to just pretend it doesn't exist, because at this point you'll have a pretty hard time stopping the Mini35 wave. Hope this helps,

John Colette · February 6th, 2006, 10:44 PM

Yeah Chris! I have to say - the Mini35 depthof field is a great addition to the tools we have available - but also the way the GG reduces contrast [like a lowcon filter] and the lovely bokeh you can get.

I know plenty of directors [one sits across the desk from me when he isn;t overseas shooting commercials] who put multiple NDs on a lens in daylight to get shallow DOF.

Sure - good story - lighting etc - blah blah. Kind of an obvious point though isn't it? This is not the "script development" thread, it's actually *about* the Mini35, so don't look if it annoys you.

Me - I LOVE being able to walk out of the studio - with my own gear - and shoot whenever I want for the cost of some DV tape. THAT makes me happy.

Prise my mini35 from my cold twisted hands....

-j

Philippe Orlando · February 7th, 2006, 11:11 AM

Honestly, I was half serious about what I said on the mini35.
Thanks Chris for all the links. Of course I wouldn't spit on it if I could afford it.
I do believe it's a nice tool, but it's just that I've heard too many people who should start working on many other things rant about it. If you are an expert at lighting and know how to compose each shot like an artist then yes, the mini35 is another great tool that will push the production of a "poor" skilled team in the right direction. But so many people get excited about it when they should first worry about many other things. Like having something worth saying as a start. I guess I was so traumatized by the low level quality of so many festivals, I'm starting to be a snob...and when I hear people talking about such and such piece of equipment and how nice it'd be and when I realize all they need it is to "film" the next low budget horror movie or teen comedy I reach for the barf bag.
I don't know if I should be happy or cry that so many people these day can grab a decent cam and start telling "their" stories.

But I got your points.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · February 7th, 2006, 02:13 PM

One point you apparently didn't get, Phillipe, is that people are out there "doing something." While you might be reaching for a barf bag, they're doing something. While you're disgusted, they're probably making a little money, learning the process, or teaching someone else.
The Mini35, like any other tool is just a tool. But it's one that makes people feel good about their look. It's like toothwhitener, a faster computer, Nike shoes, or anything else that might help people feel good about themselves, what they're doing, and where they're going.
Additionally, it provides a look that many people are seeking. I wouldn't shoot all my photos with a Lensbaby either, but for those times I want it, I want it. Regardless of how cheap or silly some folks might think it is.
Who am I or you, or anyone else to tell people what they *should* be working on vs what they *want* to be working on. Some folks think I should work on music videos, I want to be working on Native American docco's. Since I'm king and lord over my production decisions...guess who wins out?
;-)

Emre Safak · February 7th, 2006, 04:32 PM

You'd think a cinematographer concerned with depth of field would already have thought about lighting and color correction. Nah, that's just the fool inside me talking.

John Colette · February 8th, 2006, 05:50 AM

Good point Emre. For me it's all about freedom. I can afford a mini 35, and I love being able to shoot whatever I want, when I want, and I get a great look with it [but I already spent a lot on lighting etc...]

...guess I'll have to start thinking about that story :-)

[and please - the genre films - teen / horror etc are important cultural products and sometimes great works of art. at leaest they access irony so much more eloquently than a lot of "arthouse" cinema. if you don't get Evil Dead 2 - you just don't get it IMO].

the mini 35 is like a good 4x4 filter but sooooooooooo much better. and then some.

Dennis Hingsberg · February 8th, 2006, 09:14 PM

I think the audience would notice, they would not be able to tell you what it is... but they would definitely feel a difference between a film shot completely with a large depth of field and one shot with varying DOF.

No one ever said a film has to be shot entirely with a narrow DOF, and certainly most films never are but having the ability to vary your DOF in your film can definitely bring out a cinematic value not possible with traditional CCD's...

Just look at these images.. sigh....

www.starcentral.ca/acorns

February 3rd, 2006, 09:32 AM	#1
Philippe Orlando New Boot Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 22	Thanks all of you All the comments are very useful. One thing I'd like to point out though. I'm extremely fed up, annoyed, bothered, worried by people who believe that shallow depth of field=film look. Frankly, your audience will NOT notice. That piece of attachment called Mini35 or whatever is the biggest marketing scheme I've seen in recent years in the video market. To spend so much money just to achieve a shallow depth of field shows only one thing; shallow depth of mind. Orson Wells tried to do the exact opposit in Citizen Kane by the way. Everything was in focus from back to front. Do you remember anybody telling him his movie didn't look like movie. Jesus dude, work on story telling, lighting, color correction oh and did I say it, an amazing story to tell. Whether you go see something stupid like an Ape or a Dinosaur lumbering down Mains Street or something more edgy and definitely more substantial like Memento or the Woodsman did you really pay attention to depth of field? Do you really believe this is what people pay attention to? If I hear one more guy talking about that Mini 35 attachment I'll track him down and....don't worry, I'm French, so I'm half a foot shorter than everybody on this board and 50 pounds lighter I'd go, I'll probably go eventually with the JVC WITHOUT the F....35mm thingy!

February 7th, 2006, 11:11 AM	#4
Philippe Orlando New Boot Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 22	Ok Honestly, I was half serious about what I said on the mini35. Thanks Chris for all the links. Of course I wouldn't spit on it if I could afford it. I do believe it's a nice tool, but it's just that I've heard too many people who should start working on many other things rant about it. If you are an expert at lighting and know how to compose each shot like an artist then yes, the mini35 is another great tool that will push the production of a "poor" skilled team in the right direction. But so many people get excited about it when they should first worry about many other things. Like having something worth saying as a start. I guess I was so traumatized by the low level quality of so many festivals, I'm starting to be a snob...and when I hear people talking about such and such piece of equipment and how nice it'd be and when I realize all they need it is to "film" the next low budget horror movie or teen comedy I reach for the barf bag. I don't know if I should be happy or cry that so many people these day can grab a decent cam and start telling "their" stories. But I got your points.

February 7th, 2006, 02:13 PM	#5
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	One point you apparently didn't get, Phillipe, is that people are out there "doing something." While you might be reaching for a barf bag, they're doing something. While you're disgusted, they're probably making a little money, learning the process, or teaching someone else. The Mini35, like any other tool is just a tool. But it's one that makes people feel good about their look. It's like toothwhitener, a faster computer, Nike shoes, or anything else that might help people feel good about themselves, what they're doing, and where they're going. Additionally, it provides a look that many people are seeking. I wouldn't shoot all my photos with a Lensbaby either, but for those times I want it, I want it. Regardless of how cheap or silly some folks might think it is. Who am I or you, or anyone else to tell people what they should be working on vs what they want to be working on. Some folks think I should work on music videos, I want to be working on Native American docco's. Since I'm king and lord over my production decisions...guess who wins out? ;-) __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

February 8th, 2006, 09:14 PM	#8
Dennis Hingsberg Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,055	I think the audience would notice, they would not be able to tell you what it is... but they would definitely feel a difference between a film shot completely with a large depth of field and one shot with varying DOF. No one ever said a film has to be shot entirely with a narrow DOF, and certainly most films never are but having the ability to vary your DOF in your film can definitely bring out a cinematic value not possible with traditional CCD's... Just look at these images.. sigh.... www.starcentral.ca/acorns __________________ Blog: www.hingsberg.com Ultimate Exposure Guides for FS5/F7S/F5/F55

February 6th, 2006, 10:44 PM	#3
John Colette Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 108	Yeah Chris! I have to say - the Mini35 depthof field is a great addition to the tools we have available - but also the way the GG reduces contrast [like a lowcon filter] and the lovely bokeh you can get. I know plenty of directors [one sits across the desk from me when he isn;t overseas shooting commercials] who put multiple NDs on a lens in daylight to get shallow DOF. Sure - good story - lighting etc - blah blah. Kind of an obvious point though isn't it? This is not the "script development" thread, it's actually about the Mini35, so don't look if it annoys you. Me - I LOVE being able to walk out of the studio - with my own gear - and shoot whenever I want for the cost of some DV tape. THAT makes me happy. Prise my mini35 from my cold twisted hands.... -j

February 7th, 2006, 04:32 PM	#6
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	You'd think a cinematographer concerned with depth of field would already have thought about lighting and color correction. Nah, that's just the fool inside me talking.

February 8th, 2006, 05:50 AM	#7
John Colette Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 108	Good point Emre. For me it's all about freedom. I can afford a mini 35, and I love being able to shoot whatever I want, when I want, and I get a great look with it [but I already spent a lot on lighting etc...] ...guess I'll have to start thinking about that story :-) [and please - the genre films - teen / horror etc are important cultural products and sometimes great works of art. at leaest they access irony so much more eloquently than a lot of "arthouse" cinema. if you don't get Evil Dead 2 - you just don't get it IMO]. the mini 35 is like a good 4x4 filter but sooooooooooo much better. and then some.