Not just DOF, Opinions?

Robert Gradisen · July 21st, 2006, 09:42 PM

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)

rob

Michael Fossenkemper · July 21st, 2006, 10:03 PM

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.

Matthew Nayman · July 22nd, 2006, 07:54 AM

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?

Dominic Jones · July 23rd, 2006, 06:51 AM

Quote:

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.

Donnie Wagner · July 23rd, 2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Porter

Post some screencaps and let's find out, Donnie.

Bill,
will do.

I dont think communicated my question well, or maybe the ones that do understand arent responding.

Ash Greyson · July 23rd, 2006, 04:26 PM

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)

Justine Haupt · July 23rd, 2006, 05:43 PM

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?

Ben Winter · July 23rd, 2006, 08:32 PM

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.

July 23rd, 2006, 05:43 PM	#37
Justine Haupt 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? __________________ ~Justine "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.

July 21st, 2006, 09:42 PM	#31
Robert Gradisen 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) rob

July 21st, 2006, 10:03 PM	#32
Michael Fossenkemper 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.

July 22nd, 2006, 07:54 AM	#33
Matthew Nayman 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?

July 23rd, 2006, 04:26 PM	#36
Ash Greyson Trustee 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)

July 23rd, 2006, 08:32 PM	#38
Ben Winter Trustee 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.