I think this was shot with an adapter at DVinfo.net

Ben Winter · February 15th, 2007, 01:08 PM

What do you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li3mg1GrKe0

Lau Ho Ming · February 15th, 2007, 01:33 PM

I don't think so. Adapters will have super swallow DOF even it is a super wide shot.

Ryan Damm · February 15th, 2007, 01:38 PM

Obviously, the content is very good.

And the shooting format was clearly video (look at the lens diffraction pattern in the car, when the sun is visible through the window). Six straight blades for an aperture, and I thought I saw some CCD row overload as well.

The resolution on YouTube is so low that it's really hard to say much about the defocus blurs - it's possible it was shot on a large format video camera with a relatively large aperture (given most of it's outside, they would've had to use ND filters or the like). The blurs at the poolside did look a little (tiny) bit chunky, but there could be many reasons for that.

It provokes a couple of questions - was this content user-submitted, or did Dove hire someone to do it, etc? Because if it was user created, I wouldn't be surprised if it were done on an adapter. If it's a professional crew, I'd be curious why they'd use an adapter.

On the other hand, it's obvious that more expensive options are a bit wasted on YouTube, if you can't tell the difference. To tell the truth, that's one of my major gripes with YouTube.

Good post.

Cheers,

Ryan

Phil Bloom · February 15th, 2007, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lau Ho Ming

I don't think so. Adapters will have super swallow DOF even it is a super wide shot.

That's not true...if you have the lens closed down you will get a wide depth of field in that light.

There is one shot that has a very shallow depth of field when the focus goes in and out on the girl in the playground but that is easily attainable on a 2/3rd inch camera on a long lens...

If it was shot on an adaptor...and I doubt it, then they didn't use it to it's full potential.

I also see no reason why adaptor's can't be used by professional crews. i have been using an M2 and a Brevis myself on number of docos for Channel 4 in the UK recently. Although only for sequences. But currently it is very rare.

Anyway...it was made professionally for Dove, by a proper creative team.

Charles Hurley · February 15th, 2007, 11:47 PM

It's like name that tune, but different. My guess would be adapter yes but only on about 8 shots, and I would agree that they are obvious. The motion rendering of the compression makes it difficult to tell but I would say shot at 24 or probably 30p on the dvx.

February 15th, 2007, 01:08 PM	#1
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	I think this was shot with an adapter What do you think? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li3mg1GrKe0 __________________ BenWinter.com

February 15th, 2007, 01:33 PM	#2
Lau Ho Ming Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 81	I don't think so. Adapters will have super swallow DOF even it is a super wide shot.

February 15th, 2007, 01:38 PM	#3
Ryan Damm Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 46	Obviously, the content is very good. And the shooting format was clearly video (look at the lens diffraction pattern in the car, when the sun is visible through the window). Six straight blades for an aperture, and I thought I saw some CCD row overload as well. The resolution on YouTube is so low that it's really hard to say much about the defocus blurs - it's possible it was shot on a large format video camera with a relatively large aperture (given most of it's outside, they would've had to use ND filters or the like). The blurs at the poolside did look a little (tiny) bit chunky, but there could be many reasons for that. It provokes a couple of questions - was this content user-submitted, or did Dove hire someone to do it, etc? Because if it was user created, I wouldn't be surprised if it were done on an adapter. If it's a professional crew, I'd be curious why they'd use an adapter. On the other hand, it's obvious that more expensive options are a bit wasted on YouTube, if you can't tell the difference. To tell the truth, that's one of my major gripes with YouTube. Good post. Cheers, Ryan

February 15th, 2007, 11:47 PM	#5
Charles Hurley Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Brooklyn NY Posts: 128	It's like name that tune, but different. My guess would be adapter yes but only on about 8 shots, and I would agree that they are obvious. The motion rendering of the compression makes it difficult to tell but I would say shot at 24 or probably 30p on the dvx.