Shallow Depth of Field without adapter?

Ted OMalley · January 16th, 2009, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

There are no if's but's, why's or maybe's. The actual DOF is not affected. It is only an illusion of DOF.

Great, now even more of my life is an illusion.

Next, someone will say that time is only an illusion (and teatime doubly so - Douglas Adams, paraphrased).

Ted OMalley · January 16th, 2009, 08:30 AM

Okay, I've decided that in the future, instead of making adjustments to obtain a shallow depth of field for a dramatic effect, I will instead make adjustments to create the illusion of a shallow depth of field.

If I'm only after a visual effect, who cares if it's real or fake?

Plus, since it sounds almost magical, I should be able to charge more for it, right? I'll call it the optical illusion surcharge.

Jay Gladwell · January 16th, 2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted OMalley

Great, now even more of my life is an illusion.

Next, someone will say that time is only an illusion (and teatime doubly so - Douglas Adams, paraphrased).

Right, Ted! Don't you just love esotericism?

Michael B. McGee · January 16th, 2009, 08:44 AM

this may have already been mentioned. i didn't read every thread. has anyone tried using the macro mode to shallow the dof? i've played around with it and it appears to shallow the dof at close focusing at least. i haven't really tried it at say 10,15,20 feet. maybe i'll do that right now.

cheers.

Simon Wyndham · January 16th, 2009, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Next, someone will say that time is only an illusion

It could be said that it is. For example my time may be different to your time. What is real time? We experience time in relation to other things in our world. Who is to say what standard time is. So time could be an illusion and a reality at the same time.

Simon Wyndham · January 16th, 2009, 09:01 AM

Quote:

If I'm only after a visual effect, who cares if it's real or fake?

Because there is a difference. Witness one of the Steadicam shots in Ong Bak for example. the lens is wide. Yet they have focus differential and are able to pull focus. The shot has a lot of perspective in it, which isn't possible with a smaller sensor size and zooming in. Zooming in creates the illusion of depth of field, but it can never replace the DOF abilities of larger formats because zooming in compresses the distance between objects. In other words you lose the tool to be able to shoot wider and still have differential focus. Something that may or may not be desirable in a dramatic production.

Christopher Witz · January 16th, 2009, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

It could be said that it is. For example my time may be different to your time. What is real time? We experience time in relation to other things in our world. Who is to say what standard time is. So time could be an illusion and a reality at the same time.

" so... if your here, and I'm here.... isn't it our time?" Jeff Spicoli - Fast times at Ridgemont High

Ted OMalley · January 16th, 2009, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

Because there is a difference. Witness one of the Steadicam shots in Ong Bak for example. the lens is wide. Yet they have focus differential and are able to pull focus. The shot has a lot of perspective in it, which isn't possible with a smaller sensor size and zooming in. Zooming in creates the illusion of depth of field, but it can never replace the DOF abilities of larger formats because zooming in compresses the distance between objects. In other words you lose the tool to be able to shoot wider and still have differential focus. Something that may or may not be desirable in a dramatic production.

But we are not referring to large format cameras. This topic is in regard to using the EX1/3 without an adapter. So, in order to increase a perceived depth of field, zoom is essential. Real or fake, it is a valuable tool that helps an EX1/3 user leverage the benefit of 1/2" sensors and gain less depth of field. ("gain less" is one of the more confusing phrases here - my humble apologies)

Ted OMalley · January 16th, 2009, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Witz

" so... if your here, and I'm here.... isn't it our time?" Jeff Spicoli - Fast times at Ridgemont High

Nice one!!

Simon Wyndham · January 16th, 2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

it is a valuable tool that helps an EX1/3 user leverage the benefit of 1/2" sensors and gain less depth of field.

It can be. However I am not sure why people want to fight against the camera. As has been pointed out in days gone by the shallow DOF of 35mm film etc was considered a major problem, not a benefit.

There are better ways to get a cinematic look. Overall composition is one, lighting is another, camera movement is a biggie (I'd take a Steadicam over a Letus any day of the week if I was trying to make things look 'bigger' and larger budget), and also final grading.

IMHO these 35mm adaptors cause people to overuse the shallow DOF look. It isn't special any more because so many people are using it now. I also find that it doesn't make the production look like big cinema simply because big films selectively use DOF. They use it when it is needed, not when it isn't. Going back to Terminator 2, Cameron, as evidenced by his commentary, actively sought a long depth of field for it, even going so far as to compliment his DP for being able to achieve it in such lighting that was used in the film.

So in answer to the original thread topic "Shallow depth of field without adaptor", no you can't get as shallow a depth of field with a 1/2" camera as you can with a 35mm adaptor. Go to, say 100mm focal length with an EX and 100mm with an EX and a 35mm adaoptor, and the 35mm adaptor background will be far more out of focus than the EX even though they are at the same focal length. The EX cannot compete with it on any level. So why bother? The camera cannot achieve the same sort of shallow depth of field, so there is no need to fight it. You can certainly get a good effect when set up correctly, but to zoom into every shot just to get something OOF is silly.

Bill Ravens · January 16th, 2009, 09:36 AM

FWIW...

and this thread is degenerating....

no, there is no hidden aperture adjustment. It's just the way it works. When you zoom in, the effective aperture of the lens changes because there is a narrower field of view. The lens elements in a zoom lens move in relation to the lens iris. This has the effect of an iris diameter change. Look at some fine 35mm zoom lens specs. They quote the lens aperture as something like f/2.8-3.4. Or, point your camera at a blank single colored wall that is evenly lit. Make sure auto exposure is turned off and you're running on full manual(no auto-gain, no auto-shutter, no auto aperture)Now, zoom from one end to the other while watching your light meter. This means you get f/2.8 at wide and f/3.4 fully zoomed in. It's just the (black)magic of optical physics at work.

ya say ya wanna be a photogrfer, bunky? Better lern how them lenses work.

Jay Gladwell · January 16th, 2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

IMHO these 35mm adaptors cause people to overuse the shallow DOF look. It isn't special any more because so many people are using it now.

BINGO! Simon, you win!

Truth of the matter is, those whose insist that one must use shallow depth of field to make their little video look like a big movie, haven't watched too many big movies!

Christopher Witz · January 16th, 2009, 10:23 AM

It's in my opinion that there is a certain magic that happens when a photographers/cinematographers left and right brain hemispheres hit a sweet spot..... incredible content combined with the knowledge and knowhow of lighting and composition. Some folks can find themselves leaning to far to one side and in the end the the results are lacking. Obviously such thing as content can be subjective.... and most often a formula can not solve all.

I've noticed that most DP's tend to develop a style that is one or the other.... hyper-focal deep DOF or fast T stop shallow DOF.

I have to admit that if 2 different scenes are butted next to each other where one is SDOF and the other is DDOF is does not look like they go well together. Some sort of segway needs to connect them to make it work.

I find that the EX1 makes a fine camera for somewhat SDOF as long as it's not shot at the wide end of the zoom range.... and it's the wide end that I try to stay away from anyways since I just hate the barrel distortion. In fact, I often use the letus EX just so I can put something wider that is also distortion free.

Also.... from a personal perspective, coming from being a commercial still photographer for over 20 years using everything from 8X10 view cameras, Hassleblad etc... There ( with my eyes ) appears to be more of a 3Dish effect ( yes... even with deep DOF ) the larger the format.... as if the camera can look around the subject. I do notice this a little bit when using a letus.... and especially using the canon 5d2.

Tim Le · January 16th, 2009, 10:23 AM

Simon is right, but the catch is this is only true if the subject size remains the same. In these tests, this is done by backing up the camera (i.e. increasing the camera-to-subject distance). Here's another site that explains it: DOF2

If the camera-to-subject distance remains the same, focal length absolutely does affect DOF. Looking at the DOF equation (Depth of field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) you can see that it's affected by four variables: circle of confusion, aperture, subject distance and focal length. So for a given image format (which determines the circle of confusion), depth of field is determined by three factors: the focal length of the lens, the f-number of the lens opening (the aperture), and the camera-to-subject distance. If you keep any two of these three variables the same, then the third will affect DOF. This is not an illusion. This is what the math states.

Simon Wyndham · January 16th, 2009, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Some sort of segway needs to connect them to make it work.

I agree, we definitely need more people on two wheeled gyroscopically balanced transports in videos.

January 16th, 2009, 08:30 AM	#32
Ted OMalley Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 596	Okay, I've decided that in the future, instead of making adjustments to obtain a shallow depth of field for a dramatic effect, I will instead make adjustments to create the illusion of a shallow depth of field. If I'm only after a visual effect, who cares if it's real or fake? Plus, since it sounds almost magical, I should be able to charge more for it, right? I'll call it the optical illusion surcharge. __________________ Sony EX3, Vegas 9.0 64bit, Windows 7(64), Core i7, 12GB, RAID1 & 0, HotSwap SATA, 30" LCD(2560x1600)-GTX285 & 24" LCD(1360x768)-7800GT

January 16th, 2009, 08:44 AM	#34
Michael B. McGee Major Player Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Santa Monica, CA Posts: 318	Macro this may have already been mentioned. i didn't read every thread. has anyone tried using the macro mode to shallow the dof? i've played around with it and it appears to shallow the dof at close focusing at least. i haven't really tried it at say 10,15,20 feet. maybe i'll do that right now. cheers. __________________ Los Angeles, CA DP/Cam Op www.MichaelBMcGee.co

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

January 16th, 2009, 09:36 AM	#41
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	FWIW... and this thread is degenerating.... no, there is no hidden aperture adjustment. It's just the way it works. When you zoom in, the effective aperture of the lens changes because there is a narrower field of view. The lens elements in a zoom lens move in relation to the lens iris. This has the effect of an iris diameter change. Look at some fine 35mm zoom lens specs. They quote the lens aperture as something like f/2.8-3.4. Or, point your camera at a blank single colored wall that is evenly lit. Make sure auto exposure is turned off and you're running on full manual(no auto-gain, no auto-shutter, no auto aperture)Now, zoom from one end to the other while watching your light meter. This means you get f/2.8 at wide and f/3.4 fully zoomed in. It's just the (black)magic of optical physics at work. ya say ya wanna be a photogrfer, bunky? Better lern how them lenses work.

January 16th, 2009, 10:23 AM	#43
Christopher Witz Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 591	It's in my opinion that there is a certain magic that happens when a photographers/cinematographers left and right brain hemispheres hit a sweet spot..... incredible content combined with the knowledge and knowhow of lighting and composition. Some folks can find themselves leaning to far to one side and in the end the the results are lacking. Obviously such thing as content can be subjective.... and most often a formula can not solve all. I've noticed that most DP's tend to develop a style that is one or the other.... hyper-focal deep DOF or fast T stop shallow DOF. I have to admit that if 2 different scenes are butted next to each other where one is SDOF and the other is DDOF is does not look like they go well together. Some sort of segway needs to connect them to make it work. I find that the EX1 makes a fine camera for somewhat SDOF as long as it's not shot at the wide end of the zoom range.... and it's the wide end that I try to stay away from anyways since I just hate the barrel distortion. In fact, I often use the letus EX just so I can put something wider that is also distortion free. Also.... from a personal perspective, coming from being a commercial still photographer for over 20 years using everything from 8X10 view cameras, Hassleblad etc... There ( with my eyes ) appears to be more of a 3Dish effect ( yes... even with deep DOF ) the larger the format.... as if the camera can look around the subject. I do notice this a little bit when using a letus.... and especially using the canon 5d2.

January 16th, 2009, 10:23 AM	#44
Tim Le Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 350	Simon is right, but the catch is this is only true if the subject size remains the same. In these tests, this is done by backing up the camera (i.e. increasing the camera-to-subject distance). Here's another site that explains it: DOF2 If the camera-to-subject distance remains the same, focal length absolutely does affect DOF. Looking at the DOF equation (Depth of field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) you can see that it's affected by four variables: circle of confusion, aperture, subject distance and focal length. So for a given image format (which determines the circle of confusion), depth of field is determined by three factors: the focal length of the lens, the f-number of the lens opening (the aperture), and the camera-to-subject distance. If you keep any two of these three variables the same, then the third will affect DOF. This is not an illusion. This is what the math states.