XL2/DVC100a testing
 

Ok,

I know the XL2 isn't readily available. But as an aestheticlly analog film enthusiast, try this on for a proposal:

I'm live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and am willing to help put something together. Ideally, I'd like to test each camera's capabilities to produce an "acceptable" look for feature length narratives. Since I'm not much of a knowledge book on audio, any gurus who are willing to contribute expertise (and equipment) are extended a warm welcome.

A comparison test between the two beasts.

XL2 must haves:
1) EF lens adapter for prime lens adaptation
2) Filter set & matte box
3) Follow focus
4) As many of the zoom lenses as we can get, but I am more interested in noting the effect with the EF lenses as I am in no way happy with the lenses that come with it.

DVX100a must haves:
Everthing noted above as to create an equal platform to compare. I potentially have access to a nearly complete setup already, but would need help with the XL2.

I have access to INT studio space for controlled lighting if desired.

If anyone is interested or would like to make suggestions as to the setup, feel free to do so.

I can be contacted via email at tmpyron@yahoo.com

thanks,

Tom

<< XL2 must haves: 1) EF lens adapter for prime lens adaptation >>

Not sure why you'd insist on this requirement, as even the widest Canon EOS lens (which is a 14mm) yields an equivalent field-of-view of about 110mm in 16:9 mode, and 135mm in 4:3 mode -- both of which would be telephoto.

You're not happy with the 20x flourite lens that ships with the XL2?

I been edumacated
 

Well,

My insistence on that EF adapter was based on the impression that those lenses would allow for a narrower depth of field.

I have since learned that DOF is primarily dependant upon other factors (don't ask me to name them).

But I was finally able to see some footage from a DVX100a with a P/S Tekniks adapter and was HIGHLY impressed. So I don't really have a strong desire to do the tests anymore. I'm sure that both cameras are quality cameras and can get the job done.

I'll go back to reading now.

-t

<<My insistence on that EF adapter was based on the impression that those lenses would allow for a narrower depth of field.>>

Well in the sense that the EF adapter will create extreme telephoto FOV with anything resembling a normal lens, yes there can be "shallower" DOF (this is traditionally expressed in terms of "deep" and "shallow"....hence the term depth of field <g>).

You can get similar results by shooting at the long end of the 20x lens and controlling your camera to subject position and background distance. I've acheived some dramatic shallow DOF with the stock XL2 setup.

And because it's a thread on DOF and you didn't want to be asked to name them <g>. the basics of DOF are relatively straight forward, much like there are only 12 notes on the music scale...it's how you combine them that creates art.

In basic terms, it has to do with the focal length of your lens (longer yeilding shallower DOF depending on camera to subject), the f/t stop you choose (the lower or the more open the iris the more shallow the DOF and of course conversely, the more you "stop down" the lens or reduce the aperture and increase the f/t stop the deeper the DOF, camera/subject position and foreground/background.

All of these parameteres are interchangeable to a point. For instance if you came in as close as your focus distance would allow to a subject on, say a 35mm lens, and then opened the iris up to perhaps f/ 1.4...the most open you could set that lens (allowing the most light to enter), you could see a nice shallow depth of field behind the perimeters of the closeup of that subject.

But, that would depend in large part on the background. If, for instance the person was 5 feet away from a wall, there would reasonable focus in the entire field of view. However, in that same situation if the person were outdoors and there was a treeline 100' feet behind, then you could see that background blur considerable giving the kind of 3 dimensional "make your subject pop off the background" effect that we commonly talk about when discussing shallow DOF.

So that's why DOF is a combination of a few "not rocket science" parameters and how you work with them to achieve either deep or shallow focus.

Think Focal Length, Aperture, Foreground and Background, Camera to Subject position and how they all interact, and that's what DOF is all about