Not just DOF, Opinions? - Page 3 at

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Alternative Imaging Methods

Alternative Imaging Methods
DV Info Net is the birthplace of all 35mm adapters.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 21st, 2006, 09:42 PM   #31
New Boot
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Amsterdam , Netherlands
Posts: 22
DOF and a softness due to the difusion aside, when shooting with DV the cam will normally have a harder time with high contrast stuff thats at a distance in the background ( you might notice pixalation) , but when you add a 35mm adapter your DV cam is only focusing on a close up forground ( focusing screen) that isnt actually moving ( or moving that much ) so it will seem that the resolution is better ( its not actually better its just the most resolution you can get out of your DV cam) letting the 35mm lens deal with cotrast and distance to some extent in an "analogue" way , relieving the ccds of this and allowing them to seem like they are giving better resolution.

( I dont know if this is a very clear explanation or not as I dont really know how to word it clearly maybe someone gets what Im talking about and could explain it better)

Robert Gradisen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21st, 2006, 10:03 PM   #32
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NYC, weeee.
Posts: 417
I get what you are saying. I think the selective focus gives you a contrast in resolution that makes it seem like you are getting more. I really noticed this with my letus. I know i'm getting less actual resolution but it looks like i'm getting more.
Michael Fossenkemper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2006, 07:54 AM   #33
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 917
I was looking at some M2 footage on my 32" Samsung HD TV and I am noticing the resoultion loss quite a bit. Anyone have any numbers on how much res is really lost?
Matthew Nayman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2006, 06:51 AM   #34
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Brighton, England
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by Matthew Wauhkonen
You may be right (in fact I'm pretty sure you are) except I think somesuper 35 (if not all) is 3 perf instead of 4 (to save film), which would change the aspect ratio. But that doesn't matter since it would be cropped to 2.35:1 anyhow usually so your point is well taken.
No, 3-perf is a seperate format all it's own, giving 1.79:1 ratio images with no sound track.

It was traditionally used for VFX work (as it gave more resolution and there's never any need for audio on these shots), but now with the increasing use use of DI's in post it is becoming a favoured shooting format for live action, too.

It is less expensive in terms of stock costs, although the additional cost of post work normally nullifies this (esp. when scanning to a 4k DI, for instance).

Super35 is 4-perf but fills the entire width of the stock (again leaving no room for optical audio), with an aspect ratio of 1.33:1.
Dominic Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2006, 04:04 PM   #35
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by Bill Porter
Post some screencaps and let's find out, Donnie.
will do.

I dont think communicated my question well, or maybe the ones that do understand arent responding.
Donnie Wagner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2006, 04:26 PM   #36
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
Cameras with interchangeable lenses like the XL2 can ONLY benefit in DOF control from 35mm adapters. I personally rarely use them unless there is a budget that wont allow me to rent a Varicam but I still need a TINY dof. Every 35mm adapter soaks up light (the enemy of small chip cameras) and introduces softness and aberration. IMHO the best ones attach to cameras directly with NO stock lense, the Letus35XL does just that and looks very good. It is also worth noting that the small chip cameras rarely have LCDs or viewfinders sharp enough to accurately focus with a shallow DOF....

ash =o)
Ash Greyson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2006, 05:43 PM   #37
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 208
Robert Gradisen (above) said something that I completely agree with. The realization that at a distance, there are less pixels devoted to each square meter of the actual scene makes contrasting areas look awful. For example, trees or leaves on the ground look really bad in the distance, and I think this (as tied closely with the desire for shallow DOF) is the major crux of the matter. Why does shallow DOF look more cinematic? Not because your subject is in focus and everything else is not... because that everything else would look bad if it were in focus.

I think a new term is needed... like, Pixels per Real Unit Distance (like p/m^2 for pixels per square meter). At a certian distance, how many pixels are resolving an actual square meter of the scene? At close distances, this number will be proportionally higher, and that's what we want to draw attention to with shallow DOF.

Or does something like that and I just made a fool of myself?

"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams" -Arthur O'Shaunessey (as quoted by Willy Wonka)

Last edited by Justine Haupt; July 23rd, 2006 at 09:10 PM.
Justine Haupt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2006, 08:32 PM   #38
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 1,675
Images: 1
I was looking at stills from a movie made with an FX1 and no adapter and I couldn't agree more. If you stare at a frame for a while, you can tell that the the in-focus background makes the whole image look cruddy.
Ben Winter is offline   Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

(800) 223-2500
New York, NY

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Texas Media Systems
(512) 440-1400
Austin, TX

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

(800) 323-2325
Mineola, NY

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Alternative Imaging Methods

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:14 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2018 The Digital Video Information Network