Hello Everyone,
I have thought for a while that shallow depth of field was only a part of what makes the 35mm image pleasing. Even when I shoot a landscape with 28mm wide angle, where shallow DOF does not come into play, it has a 3 dimensional, cinematic quality that I could not achieve if I were to shoot wide angle with my camcorder alone.

I think this is an important distinction when weighing the benefits and costs of moving to a 35mm adapter setup. If it were just DOF, I feel the novelty would wear off quite quickly, but it's not.

What do you think?

I think most cinematographers would agree that 90% of the picture quality we recieve into our cameras is dictated by the lenses.

Unfortunatly, most Video cameras are created with a fixed "do-all" type lens, which usually leaves the optical quality, sharp, precise, and soulless.

Most 35mm film lenses, have a lovely warm look to them, and simply "feel" more cinematic (whatever that means).

A great example of how lenses affect the image is in Anamorphic 2:35:1 pictures. Watch a film like "Pirates of the Carribean" (1st) and compare the image with "King Kong"...

The anamorphic lenses used in Kong (I am almost 99% sure) squeeze a 2:35:1 image onto a film strip and the image is then projected througha lens to unstretch, while pirates was shot in typical 16:9 and cropped in post (again, 99% sure).

Both are shot on film, both are 2:35:1, but they loo kdifferent cause of the glass...

Try out some cheap AF lenses on your 35mm adapter, then try out an Arriflex PL mount Prime...

You'll see the diff.

Totally agree, I for one am not buying any adapter simply because of DOF, it's the cinematic langauge that changes for me. I can decide what I want to show, wide angle, CO, ECU etc. That's what it's all about.

Hi Donnie!

I am going to say that the biggest part of getting a 'cinematic' sequence is the frame rate. Shallow DOF at 29.97/30fps is still going to 'feel' like a home video, even with careful camera movement.

I agree with the use of professional lenses...and also with careful lighting (which often comes up in these discussions), etc... but shoot anything at 24 frames per second and it will look more cinematic.

Just my thoughts. ;)

The anamorphic lenses used in Kong (I am almost 99% sure) squeeze a 2:35:1 image onto a film strip and the image is then projected througha lens to unstretch, while pirates was shot in typical 16:9 and cropped in post (again, 99% sure).

Both are shot on film, both are 2:35:1, but they loo kdifferent cause of the glass...

No, Pirates was shot 2.35:1. What made you so sure it was cropped?

I was almost entirly sure I saw a documentray whikch showed the uncropped 16:9 frame with 2.35:1 guide lines.

Either way, doesnt Cameron shoot some of his stuff and then crop? I need to find some good examples and then post some screens. Without VFX (throws it all off)

Hi Donnie!

I am going to say that the biggest part of getting a 'cinematic' sequence is the frame rate. Shallow DOF at 29.97/30fps is still going to 'feel' like a home video, even with careful camera movement.

I agree with the use of professional lenses...and also with careful lighting (which often comes up in these discussions), etc... but shoot anything at 24 frames per second and it will look more cinematic.

Just my thoughts. ;)

I completely disagree with this statement. I believe the framerate is a very small piece of the puzzle...as is shallow DoF. I've seen very videoy looking film and very filmy looking video. Citizen Kane is almost entirely screaming wide DoF...still looks like film. The difference is the $$$ you put in front of the lens...the camera is nigh irrelevant...if anything, the lattitude is more important than anything else in camera as per looking cinematic...but I've said many times before, the Cinematic feel is a combination of many things...the least of which is the frame rate. Set dressing, Costumes, Lighting and prefessional acting is the defining "Picture" pieces...along with smooth, professional camera movement and great editing. Everything else is secondary.

I'm in total agreement with Cole here.

I came off angry up there...I apologize, it was unintentional...I don't retract anything I said...just imagine me saying it while smiling cheerfully :)

I will also add that the money you put in front of the camera doesn't have to be from your budget...if a construction company is tearing down a building and you can get them to let you shoot there for free/cheap...that is an environment that is pre-dressed...that saves $$$...location scouting extensively and consistently.

look around once a month or two for things in your town that have changed or that catch your eye...talk to the owners - "Hi, my name is Cole McDonald and I'm a local independant filmmaker...would it be ok if I used your front yard/business/home/garage/whatever to shoot a scene, we can be out in X days...great...could I have you sign a release form saying it's ok for us to do so?"

Keep props on hand...guns come to mind (airsoft, $15/3 handguns, ebay)...paint them to look real, you can examine real guns at a local sporting goods store for free to match the painting job to.

Own your own gear...save up to get a good camera and tripod, buy lots of ACDelco clamp lights outfitted with GE Soft white flourescent screw in bulbs ($15/light & bulb). Get 3 or 4 lighting stands, one with a boom. Couple of halogen 500w worklights for bringing the night to life. You car can act as a generator using a plug in transformer thingy from walmart ($20). Have lots of long orange power cables 200' or more. foamcore bounce cards tucked in the garage with one side of each painted silver or gold (or lamae fabric strectched and paper clamped onto the foamcore.

build what you can't afford...it's not that hard...my rod system cost $20...just have to fashion mounting brackets for it now.

You can make up for lack of $$$ by spending time instead...time really is money, if you choose time, you don't need money.

Hi Donnie!

I am going to say that the biggest part of getting a 'cinematic' sequence is the frame rate. Shallow DOF at 29.97/30fps is still going to 'feel' like a home video, even with careful camera movement.

I agree with the use of professional lenses...and also with careful lighting (which often comes up in these discussions), etc... but shoot anything at 24 frames per second and it will look more cinematic.

Just my thoughts. ;)


Both sides are right.

The real answer is, "shoot anything at 24 frames per second and it will MAY look more cinematic."

Shallow DOF at 29.97/30 fps won't necessarily feel like a home video. It may, but it may not - it very much depends on the scene.

Hi,

I just got back from holiday in Paris where I shot some great footage using my new Letus35 and a Cannon 50mm lens.

The image quality is pretty good -it has a nice 'warm' feel to it, way better than the standard lens but somewhat less sharp. The 50mm f1.4 lens creates a very shallow DOF -good for focusing in on snails at the dinner table!

I find with this setup you concentrate much more on 'planes of focus' -panning between objects with a static camera -in other words you gain a new dimension to play with not available b4...

I let the camera choose the shutter speed and it still looks good in conversations when rendered in Vegas at 25fps...


Nick.

Cinematic Look is a broad topic. My question is more specific...

Setup #1- 3ccd 1/3" camcorder zoomed to 7.4mm (equal to 50mm in 35)

Setup #2- 3ccd 1/3" camcorder with adapter, NO diffuser, just a field lens to capture full frame of the aerial image. And a 50mm lens.

I'm trying to figure out if and why these two setups look differnt in regards to the 3d nature, perspective, depth; even though they have the same FOV. Maybe I'm not using the right words to describe what I'm seeing. Or think I'm seeing.

What are you referring to by "field lens"?

I beleive what Donnie means is with a strong enough achromat and condesner lens, you are able to remove the GG without hotspot. This will give a good comparision between the 50mm SLR lens and the equivalent without adapter. This will remove shallow DOF, and the comparision will focus on the other attributes.

I beleive what Donnie means is with a strong enough achromat and condesner lens, you are able to remove the GG without hotspot. This will give a good comparision between the 50mm SLR lens and the equivalent without adapter. This will remove shallow DOF, and the comparision will focus on the other attributes.

Wayne,
Yes, exactly what I meant. Although I dont think all cameras require an achromat to view the 35mm frame. Just a field lens may be enough.

Bill,
as far as I know, the frenel lens on the back of some focusing screens acts as a type of field lens. I think you could use a pcx or dcx lens at the film plane as a field lens. I found this link interesting...
http://www-optics.unine.ch/education/optics_tutorials/field_lens.html

Quote from link...
"When the object point is moved away from the axis, more and more rays pass beside the second lens, i.e. are lost. If the field lens is used, then those rays are bended back into the second lens, and the final image contains the maximum energy. Nevertheless, the imaging properties of the original system are not influenced by the field lens.

Conclusions
The field lens presents a strong interest when light propagates within a tube-like system. It allows the use maximum energy, which can be a critical issue in many applications.

However, some precautions are to be taken with field lenses. They should have no dust and scratches, because otherwise these will become visible in the final image."

Either way, doesnt Cameron shoot some of his stuff and then crop? I need to find some good examples and then post some screens. Without VFX (throws it all off)

He shoots everything 4:3 then crops in post.

Wow, even Cameron doesn't do real 16:9!

I started wondering if a Terminator 2 VHS for example has been cropped from the widescreen or is it the original 4:3 footage?

Even film 4:3 is leaps and bounds ahead in terms of resolution compared to DV or even HDV...Cameron can afford to lose some. We, the budget-constricted, hold on to every last pixel. I'm assuming the cropped 4:3 area is used as giant overscan to make sure the boom mic doesn't dip down into the shot, etc. Sigh...I wish I had that kind of resolution to work with.


Besides...isn't all 35mm film 4:3 natively? 16:9 is just shot with an anamorphic adapter and stretched in post right?

If my memory serves me correctly and oft it is that it doesn't :-

I have read reference to Greystoke the legend of Tarzan that it was shot on vistavision which was then cropped to the distribution format.

Vistavision as I understand things is a larger frame size than 35mm either through using a larger gauge film system or running 35mm film horiztonally across the gate not vertically which enables a larger gate for a given film width.

There is plenty of resolution to trade off without quality loss which might otherwise be seen down the 35mm chain.


Master and Commander was shot on Super35mm. In the two-disk DVD version, there is a very comprehensive and generous series of small documentaries and technical presentations on how they went about making the film.

One of the presentations on Disc 2 offers menu selection over individual cameras used in the multi-camera shoot and you can view all the cameras in sync on one screen. These presentations are in the camera's native frame.

Super35mm, I understand to be a more severe vertical cropping of the standard 35mm frame. I am guessing it might also be accompanied by use of 3 perf pulldown on the camera to achieve economies on film which would otherwise be wasted as thick black bars between each frame.

Although it would yield a much smaller image area in proportion to the resolving capability of the film, the quality of film stock has advanced such that this solution is now viable when with inferior stocks of the past it may not have been.

I am only a guess-merchant here so regard my comments with a very critical mind. Someone else may soon comment with more competence and authority than I.

Quote from link...
"When the object point is moved away from the axis, more and more rays pass beside the second lens, i.e. are lost. If the field lens is used, then those rays are bended back into the second lens, and the final image contains the maximum energy. Nevertheless, the imaging properties of the original system are not influenced by the field lens."

I beleive what Donnie means is was a strong enough achromat and condesner lens, you are able to remove the GG without hotspot. This will give a good comparision between the 50mm SLR lens and the equivalent without adapter. This will remove shallow DOF, and the comparision will focus on the other attributes.

These two statements are contradictory.


??

These two statements are contradictory.


??

All esle being equal, a field lens will not effect the other qualitys of the system. But all else is not equal, we've removed the diffuser. That is why there is no shallow DOF. And it would allow us to evaluate the images indepentent from DOF issues.

I started wondering if a Terminator 2 VHS for example has been cropped from the widescreen or is it the original 4:3 footage?

I'm pretty sure it's just unmatted.

Besides...isn't all 35mm film 4:3 natively? 16:9 is just shot with an anamorphic adapter and stretched in post right?

I think Super 35 is natively 16:9 while normal 35 is close to 4:3.

Film is natively either 1.37:1 or 1.17:1 depending on the sound track.

1.85:1 is matted down to be semi-widescreen.
1.66:1 is "European widescreen," which is also matted.
Vistavision is 1.66:1 but has a much larger negative.
Anamorphic is 2.66:1, then 2.55:1, then 2.35:1, now 2.40:1 and uses the whole negative but stretches the image across it.

Super35, the most common format, is around 16:9 (3 perforations instead of 4) I believe and is frequently matted to 2.35:1, then distributed in anamorphic prints. Because lenses and new film stocks are so sharp, it still looks pretty good. Effectively, it's just cropped 4:3 but Super35 wastes less space.

All numbers are off the top of my head, could be slightly off.

I thought Super 35 was the same as 35mm but using the soundtrack area for picture.

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.

Every time I check this tread I have to laugh, major A.D.D.

The question is, can we see a difference between 35mm adapter images and standard video camera images INDEPENDENT of DOF. By removing the diffuser and inserting a field lens we can evaluate the other characteristics of the images.

The benefit of doing so help us understand what else (besides DOF) makes the 35mm adapters beneficial.

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

It's not so much A.D.D. as a misunderstanding of the question, I think. The main effects of a 35mm adapter (besides DOF) are due to the diffusion screen (softer highlights, less CA, controlled flare), and the lens without a screen is unfocusable.

You might pick up some of the same color tint as the 35mm lens, so I guess it's not a pointless experiment just for curiosity's sake, but it won't yield practical results.

Also, smart lighting and post-processing are something we're all forgetting. Most printed films don't show nearly all the dynamic range of which the negative since it's not a desirable look and most truly poorly exposed and lit films (rare, since 35mm is much more expensive than a light kit and light meter) don't look THAT much better than video.

Also, my dvx looks fine to me with no adapter....

DOF is one of those things that subconciously triggers a reaction a people. So is cinematic lighting, good acting, high production values, 24 FPS, diffusion, etc.

I think it's true DOF makes movies look a lot more like 35mm film, as do the lenses infront. However, it really is, in my oppinion, the money that goes into making hollywood films, spent on lighting, set design ,costumes, props, that make it look so good. If you take a super16mm cam or a 35mm cam and go out and shoot doc footage withit, people will respond exactly like they would to a video 24p doc.

You spend just as much on what goes infront of a video camera , you'll get a similar reaction (I know there are many substantive differences, but just trying to prove a point).

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)

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?

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.