Shallow depth: who did f0.7 with 35mm adapter? at DVinfo.net

Kurt August · October 21st, 2005, 06:56 PM

Hello,

This one is for all you shallow depth freaks. I was wondering if someone had the chance put a f0.7 lens on his 35mm adapter. If Stanley Kubrick could work with f0.7, I know you can too!

A couple of examples in photography

http://www.abex.co.uk/sales/optical/...enses/fast.htm

http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed01.html#top

First one with footage gets free dvd. Deal.

Matthew Groff · October 25th, 2005, 10:34 PM

If my memory serves me correctly, Kubrick had to specially engineer an reappropriated NASA lens on the body of an old Mitchell camera as there was a problem with the lens' huge backfocus. My details may be fuzzy, but the point is that it would be difficult to get one of these lens and probably harder still to put together a mini35 style setup with it.

mg

Bill Porter · October 25th, 2005, 11:46 PM

It also depends on the focal length, as one of those links shows. An F0.75:1 lens is very shallow if it is also 50mm focal length like the one Kubrick used. The same F0.75 aperture is not shallow at all if the lens were 14mm focal length, for example. A 14mm F0.75 lens would have the same DOF as a 50mm F2.7 lens... not very shallow.

However, it would let in lots of light. And that is why Kubrick used one, not for shallow DOF.

I think in the 30 or 31 years that have passed since that film was shot, there are lenses that are "faster," so to speak. The Canon 65mm F0.75, as is listed in one of those links you posted, is the equivalent DOF of a 50mm F0.58!

I shoot with a 55mm F1.2 Canon SSC lens (equiv DOF to a 50mm F1.09) and an 85mm F1.5 (equiv DOF to a 50mm F0.88!). While they pass lots of light, sometimes it is too shallow of a DOF. At times it looks gorgeous though!

I'll post footage, but what DVD are we talking about?

Kurt August · October 26th, 2005, 03:17 AM

Bill, I was thinking about a weird 30min movie I made. A bit more personal than a cash prize and of course, much more sophisticated...

Your post was really interesting, by the way.

Bill Porter · October 26th, 2005, 11:29 AM

Sounds cool! I'll post some footage, I just have to find something to shoot that you guys might want to see, instead of just shooting my family.

BTW, your posts on this topic are very interesting too; you have done your homework! I got a real kick out of the other post a few months ago about the triple-wicked candles and such (I clicked both links in that post and read everything on those as well). That's the dvinfo spirit!

What I do like about super shallow DOF is that, when combined with very snappy editing, it can create a laser beam-like "focal point" (pardon the pun) for the viewer. Instead of just showing someone's face in CU, with a slight change in focus on the lens we can move the focal plane from their hair to their eyes. It creates more goosebumps for me than just showing, to continue the above example a closeup of the subject's hair and then a quick cut to a closeup of their eyes.

Oscar Spierenburg · October 26th, 2005, 04:44 PM

<<<<instead of just shooting my family>>>>
Bill, how about using an axe instead of just shooting? That'll be worth the DVD.

John Sandel · October 26th, 2005, 10:33 PM

'K, that's The Shining, not Barry Lyndon.

Back to topic.

Bill Porter · October 26th, 2005, 11:35 PM

Oscar,

I won't be able to manually focus my SLR lens if the axe is in that hand.

October 21st, 2005, 06:56 PM	#1
Kurt August Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 94	Shallow depth: who did f0.7 with 35mm adapter? Hello, This one is for all you shallow depth freaks. I was wondering if someone had the chance put a f0.7 lens on his 35mm adapter. If Stanley Kubrick could work with f0.7, I know you can too! A couple of examples in photography http://www.abex.co.uk/sales/optical/...enses/fast.htm http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed01.html#top First one with footage gets free dvd. Deal.

October 26th, 2005, 03:17 AM	#4
Kurt August Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 94	To Bill Bill, I was thinking about a weird 30min movie I made. A bit more personal than a cash prize and of course, much more sophisticated... Your post was really interesting, by the way.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

October 25th, 2005, 10:34 PM	#2
Matthew Groff Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 132	If my memory serves me correctly, Kubrick had to specially engineer an reappropriated NASA lens on the body of an old Mitchell camera as there was a problem with the lens' huge backfocus. My details may be fuzzy, but the point is that it would be difficult to get one of these lens and probably harder still to put together a mini35 style setup with it. mg

October 25th, 2005, 11:46 PM	#3
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	It also depends on the focal length, as one of those links shows. An F0.75:1 lens is very shallow if it is also 50mm focal length like the one Kubrick used. The same F0.75 aperture is not shallow at all if the lens were 14mm focal length, for example. A 14mm F0.75 lens would have the same DOF as a 50mm F2.7 lens... not very shallow. However, it would let in lots of light. And that is why Kubrick used one, not for shallow DOF. I think in the 30 or 31 years that have passed since that film was shot, there are lenses that are "faster," so to speak. The Canon 65mm F0.75, as is listed in one of those links you posted, is the equivalent DOF of a 50mm F0.58! I shoot with a 55mm F1.2 Canon SSC lens (equiv DOF to a 50mm F1.09) and an 85mm F1.5 (equiv DOF to a 50mm F0.88!). While they pass lots of light, sometimes it is too shallow of a DOF. At times it looks gorgeous though! I'll post footage, but what DVD are we talking about?

October 26th, 2005, 11:29 AM	#5
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Sounds cool! I'll post some footage, I just have to find something to shoot that you guys might want to see, instead of just shooting my family. BTW, your posts on this topic are very interesting too; you have done your homework! I got a real kick out of the other post a few months ago about the triple-wicked candles and such (I clicked both links in that post and read everything on those as well). That's the dvinfo spirit! What I do like about super shallow DOF is that, when combined with very snappy editing, it can create a laser beam-like "focal point" (pardon the pun) for the viewer. Instead of just showing someone's face in CU, with a slight change in focus on the lens we can move the focal plane from their hair to their eyes. It creates more goosebumps for me than just showing, to continue the above example a closeup of the subject's hair and then a quick cut to a closeup of their eyes.

October 26th, 2005, 04:44 PM	#6
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	<<<<instead of just shooting my family>>>> Bill, how about using an axe instead of just shooting? That'll be worth the DVD.

October 26th, 2005, 10:33 PM	#7
John Sandel Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: stately Eldora Road Posts: 386	'K, that's The Shining, not Barry Lyndon. Back to topic.

October 26th, 2005, 11:35 PM	#8
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Oscar, I won't be able to manually focus my SLR lens if the axe is in that hand.