Another Camera Question...

Just curious, do the digital cameras in the 30k to 50k range offer better depth of field than the dvx100's and the XL1's for example, or is most of the benefit in the color saturation and things of that nature.

What I'm actually trying to understand is the lens configuration for the higher tier cameras. Do they contain that which the prosumer cameras don't have to generate excellent depth of field?

The reason I ask is that a friend received some footage shot on digital (no film involved at any point in the process) with excellent dept of field characteristics. All I'm familiar with is some of these prism adapters (P+S) for example that take the image from a 35mm lens on an XL1 of DVX100. I'm told, however, that this is not the configuration that was used for the footage I mentioned.

Any thoughts? Bottom line, I want to understand how to get the best "depth of field" results from my DVX100. I'm not ready to put out a chunck of change for a P+S (yet anyway), but may have to go that direction to get what I'm really looking for.

All comments welcome and encouraged.

Thanks!

Hutch
 
Too much

The problem we've found with most standard-def and high-def cameras is too much depth of field.

One of the easiest ways to tell the difference between a film shoot and a video shoot is the massive depth of field most of those video cameras give, which isn't what I want most of the time. They just handle low-light situations far too well. I guess this because they were designed with ENG, studio and corporate work in mind, rather than single camera location drama.

I don't use mini dv or dvcam very often, however the same basic principles apply to all cameras. You get more depth if you have more light. This means either putting more light in, creative use of reflectors and using the wide end of the lens as opposed to the long end. Basically it means having the camera closer to the action.

The other thing to remember, is that if depth of field is your primary concern, then you can't afford to allow the camera to do your thinking for you on exposure. Switch it over to manual and get the aperture shut down to give you the depth you want.

Hope this helps.
 
Please allow me to clarify Clive. Simply put, I don't want the background to look as close as the foreground. I want to see some depth and not something that resembles 2 dimensional. Make sense?

Regards,

Hutch
 
Ahh with you now

Ahh, I'm with you now.

Yep, you need to do the opposite of what I just said.

You need narrow depth of field in order to create a sense of depth. Although staying on the wide of the lens will help with a sense of depth, because Telephoto tends to flatten the image. Think Godddards "Breathless" or anything by Kurosawa, where the long end of the lens was used to flatten the image.

Your problem might not be depth of field though, but composition.

If you look at most people's holiday shots of landscapes, they look very flat. This because the eye needs reference points. One way to give depth is to put something in the foreground of the picture, a tree, a rock, a blade of grass, anything that tells the eye "this is very close, therefore the mountain is far away" The same principle applies in all shots, you can create depth as a function of foreground objects, main action in the mid ground and something far away in the background.

Is this helping?
 
Basically it does depend on the lens. The more you spend, generally the better quality the lens and like you said you can get attachments for the Xl1 that fix a 35mm lens to the camera...

But depth of field is also, as well as to do with lens length, is dependent on the aperature of the camera, so if you light a scene well you can use ND filters to allow you to open up the aperature more, which effects depth.

rad.
 
There are only 2 things that affect depth of field within a lens: 1 focal length - the shorter the focal length the smaller the depth of field. 2 aperture - the larger the aperture, the smaller the depth of field.

If you want a smaller depth of field, get a wide lens and open it up all the way. What you’re seeing is a typical problem with pro-cumer and consumer video lenses. First, compound (zoom) lenses have many more elements in them than primes, and in addition to being slower, they generally have a larger depth of field unless you have an extremely high end lens. Second they’re not made as well. Most of the elements are plastic, not glass, and have poorer optical thresholds than expensive lenses.

The best way to get the best cinematic picture is to use a 35mm adaptor. There is the P+S which I have used and gives a very good picture but is rather expensive ($6,000+), and there is the EF Adapter (http://www.canoncompanystore.com/cgi-bin/annex.storefront) which canon sells for around $660 that allows Canon EOS 35mm still lenses to be mounted (http://www.canondv.com/xl1s/a_adapters.html). I have not used this, but form 10% of the cost, it should give you a better picture.

Finally, there was some post a long time ago here that someone was selling the poor filmmaker’s depth of field screen (or something like that). I’ve never used it but a friend of mine has and for interviews or close-ups he says it works great. Basically it’s a gauze that is on a frame that can be attached to c-stands. You place this between the subject and the background and it blurs everything in the background giving the appearance of a short DOF but it only works if the framing is tight enough so you don’t see the gauze’s frame of course.
 
First off, thanks so much, to all of you, for taking your valuable time to share some great information with me. Please allow me to take this discussion further.

I spent the whole evening yesterday, with my DVX100, shooting behind my house. In 24p mode, I used every apeture setting in combination with both my wide angle and telephoto lenses and, all of that in combination with the 3 filters I own - not to mention playing with other options on the camera.

We have woods behind our house which extend a good ways and evetually go up a steep hill where I can see homes from another subdivision. I say all that to say, I had some great stuff to use to test out my need to distinguish foreground from background. Truth is, everything pretty much always looks flat and in the foreground - no matter what I choose.

On the other hand, a movie in South Ga. was recently produced by some friends of mine with the XL1 which, should give a similar response (+/- the difference in the wide angle lens on that camera versus the one I can put on mine.) The big difference is that they used the P+S Technik adapter on the front end of the XL1. They have a scene where they are shooting an old garage in someone's back yard with a car in it. A guy walks through the back yard and opens the garage and they pull a car out of it. The 3-d appearance of the yard is incredible - apparently totally due to the P+S adapter.

One more piece of information before I pose a question or two. This same group, due to the success of their movie, has hired a DP with his own digital camera to shoot their next feature, which they just finished casting. He sent them some footage to bid for the job, and they loved it. However, they tell me he is using a digital camera but not an adapter, and they suggest that the depth of field and color saturation is better than what they did with the P+S.

So, here's my questions...

1) Does a high end commercial (not prosumer) digital camera present the 3-d effect (good contrast between foreground and background) you see on major studio productions, or is that camera mostly about better color saturation.

2) Talk to me about lenses. Does the 35mm lens do most of the work contrasting foreground to background, or is it something else. In other words, am I truly limited by the lenses that I have versus the 35mm lens I could put on the front end of an adapter?

Example: Everyone's seen Braveheart. When you're looking from the POV of Mel's army and you see the enemy across the field, it truly looks like they are distant. If I were to take a digital camera and shoot the same thing, it would look flat. In other words, even though Mel Gibson would be on the same side where I'm shooting, it would be only his size that would distinguish him from the guys on the other end of the field.

Looking for any information on this foreground vs. background issue.

Thanks again!

Hutch
 
First the easy question: depth of field is solely determined by the lens. The camera, recording medium, and lights make no difference (actually according the ASC, anamorphic photography affects the depth of field but the root cause is still the lens). I’ve used the P+L with a rented 35mm 6 lens prime kit, and it looked fantastic. I have a close-up where the eyes are in focus but the ears are soft. Now that’s good DOF.

Second, I’m not really sure that your concern is depth of field. Just so we’re clear, the depth of field is the space in front of and behind (in relation the camera) the plane of critical focus where the image still appears to be in focus to us lowly humans. It sounds like the way you’re composing the picture might be giving you that flat look because depth of field is usually measured in inches not yards. There’s a space on all lenses between infinity and conversational distance (and it varies by lens) where action moving directly away from or towards the lens seems to have no movement. For instance, have a friend run straight at the camera from about 20 yards and s/he will appear to make very little movement towards the camera. This same effect tends to squash the background onto the foreground when there is a continuous subject from foreground to background. This can be mitigated by changing the angle of the camera so that the subject is not straight onto the lens:
______XXX
<_______XXX
___________XXX
in stead of

________XXXXXX
<____________XXXXXXX
_____________________XXXXXX


sorry, that’s the best drawing I can do with just the keyboard (from the sky, the < is the camera, X are subjects, and ____ is there because this board erases tabs and spaces)

or, incorporate movement into the shot. For instance, a perpendicular dolly to a line of people from their sides to the front will accentuate the depth. On the other hand, with the Mel Gibson example, if the space between the subjects is visually distinctive but not distracting (bushes, small trees, a creek, etc), then that will help to reinforce that special difference. If it’s just a blank field of grass, it will look very flat no matter what you use. Shooting from multiple angles and cutting from a straight on shot (like the Mel example) to a oblique or sideways shot will help to show that distance. Finally, you could place the background subject next to a generally recognizable object like a tree and that will help to distinguish distance.

Does that help at all?
 
Film,

Thanks again for the great response. And yes, it did help. Believe it or not, I just had a very profound revelation brought about by reading your note.

Ironically, my daughter took up still photography at the end of last year. And, I had forgotten that she too had gone outside to take a few stills of the wooded area behind the house. It's actually quite scenic with the stream that flows behind our house, so she too had decided it might be a good place to try a few shots out on her new 35mm camera that we gave her for Christmas.

Well, I just went and looked at those pictures (35mm stills) of the very same thing I shot with the video camera and (AT FIRST) I was thinking it was clearly the lens that made her shot so much more three dimensional than what I did with the dvx100.

And then, something amazing dawned on me. I took my hand and covered the lower part of her picture where the trees connected into the ground. Suddenly, I could not tell which trees were in front and which ones were in back. In other words, your comment on "composition" was much more true than I had realized. With only the tree tops visual, all of my depth perspective was gone. And, more importantly, I realized that she was right in the woods with her shots where as I was on the back deck a good 25 yards away from where the woods even start.

I've come to realize that I have tried to tie two problems into one. It dawns on me that the combination of good composition and a film like look is what creates the magic in what the eye sees - assuming all other factors, such as lighting, are the same of course. I had neither the film look nor good composition in my shot. My daughter had both in hers - even if it was a still.

And so, as I re-read your post, I take from it that I can fight part of this fight very affordably by simply using good composition - but that I'm ultimately going to have to take a serious (expensive) look at getting a 35mm lens on the front of my camera (using the P+S for example) if I'm going to produce something convincing to the eye from a film perspective.

Would you agree?

Again, thanks to everyone.

Regards,

Hutch DeLoach
 
Zoom completely out or choose a nice prime and move the camera closer to the subject. I can create unbelievable DoF with just my ultra low-end Mini-DV and very minimal lights.

The plane of zoom is called the Z-Axis.
 
Since the short that I did was an artistic piece, it made sense for me to use the P+T. I was lucky, since I only needed it for one day and I knew someone who owned one, he let me rent it for $1 (I still spent $350 a day on lenses). I wouldn’t spend money on one for every day use. It’s awkward and you have you have a head that’ll hold iris rods. Also, since there is a spinning mirror inside of it, there is a potential for noise problems. Generally it’s not a problem, the one I was using had some use, and we were putting it through some pretty harsh conditions (24 hours straight), but the mirror started to whine so loud that it disrupted production.

Do you have any filters? Look at what Tiffen has (http://www.tiffen.com/filters.htm). Judicious use of filters can really help a composition. If you don’t have a UV filter, get one now and never take it off the camera. Not only does it improve picture quality by removing the haze that will sometimes appear with sunlight, but it’s a cheap way to protect your lens and it basically does not affect light intensity at all. If you clean your lens really well before putting on the UV, then no dust or marks will ever reach the front element. That means you clean it less, there is no chance of scratching it (if anything you scratch the filter which is cheap to replace) and over time, even the best cleaning methods can affect the coatings on the element. For exteriors, a circular polarizer works wonders. A warm polarizer or a warm soft helps give it a professional look. I just found out about the Ultra Contrast and the Low Contrast. I’ll have to buy a pair, the test images look really good. And of course, I love my pro mist, black pro mist, and Warm Soft FX filters. For close-ups and cinema look, they really help with color saturation and general appearance. Softening and smoothing but maintaining a clear distinct picture is the trick. That way on a close-up, you don’t see every little pore and imperfection. It makes the subject look better and decreases distractions. And filters are a hell of a lot cheaper than a P+S and all the accessories. Even with the P+S you should have filters, and if you have a decent matte box you’ll need cinematic square frame filters which are three to four times more expensive than the round screw on, not to mention you’ll have to buy or rent 35 primes. A set of good primes may cost more than the camera, P+S, and filters combined and that doesn’t even include a zoom lens. If you don’t have any filters, buy a UV, CP (circular polarizer), and a ND .3 or .6. If you already have filters, get a warm soft FX, or an Ultra Contrast, or a pro mist. Remember many of these reduce light intensity so you can open up the lens by a stop or more, which will help your DOF.
 
Film,

Once again, incredible information. Thanks!

I had already pretty much made up my mind that I'm NOT going to buy the adapter for a 35mm lens - at least not in the near future. Further experimetation with the camera and filters has convinced me that I can get quite a bit more out of the camera than I have so far, by working harder on lighting and being a better student of the filters. I have a UV, PL, and F-DL right now. I'll look into your other recommendations, do some testing, and try to make some purchasing decisions soon.

I have a documentary to shoot and a feature length project. Other than the interviews, the documentary is 100% outside. Interestingly, the feature is almost 100% inside other than establishing shots. I'll be shooting the documentary over the course of the year but should be ready for post on the feature by summer's end.

Thanks again!

Hutch
 
If you’re shooting outside, get the Enhancing Filter; maybe an ND .3 or .6 or a Graduated ND, but the CP works as a ND too; definitely an Ultra, Low, or Soft Contrast depending on where you plan on shooting; and maybe a Pro-Mist if appropriate for the look of the piece. If you’re shooting inside under lights, I wouldn’t worry about the color correcting filters because in video you’re not dependant on speed stocks (you can white balance video). I always shoot under lights so I can’t make any recommendations for interior natural light. I’d get the ND.3 and maybe the .6, but a light dimmer may work better if it doesn’t affect color temperature; a Warm Soft FX 1 or 2; maybe a 812 Color Warming; and a Black or Gold Diffusion ½ or 1 (which may replace the Warm Soft FX but they give slightly different effects); and a star filter if appropriate (get one or two of the Hollywood FX filters they look better and you can use two or more simultaneously for some really good looking star effects). Before the shoot, experiment with white balancing before placing the filters on, and also white balancing after you add the filter to see which gives the best look for your particular camera. Go to Ebay. I’ve been getting new or as new Tiffen filters that retail for $95 (72mm) and up for around $20 after shipping. Or get a matte box that holds square filters, they’re sometimes more versatile than screw-on types, but screw-ons are easier to store because you can stack them into a filter tube and are cheaper. Don’t forget about gels for windows and such, you still have to balance color temperatures from your practical light sources.

PS - I got you're email. I'll call later.
 
The dvx100 has a built in ND filter that works wonderfully. Beyond that, I picked up a CP and a Tiffen Black ProMist 1/2 yesterday. Took it out for a test stroll today (inside and outside) and was delighted with the results. Despite the loss of the f-stop with the promist (no problem for what I was shooting and easily remedied with lights on set) the color saturation was great. I didn't anticipate one great benefit - red stops bleeding entirely! I tried to close the iris down without the filter just to see if I could accomplish the same thing. Couldn't! Even with low light, red bleeds. Don't guess I realized that. But, with the black filter - no more bleeding. Dog-gone-it, wish I had had it on our last production. Had to spend a lot of time in post color correcting to deal with excessive reds + oranges at a location we secured. Outside shots looked great too! It really draws out the blue sky without washing out the lighter colors. Thanks again for the suggestions...

Regards,

Hutch
 
Filters are cool. I’m getting all mine as screw-on type with a couple of stack caps so I don’t have to carry around all those damn plastic round boxes the filters come in or a separate filter box. My camera has a single density ND filter built in (it looks like a .3 or a .6 but it doesn’t say what the power of it is), but when shooting outside, I find that sometimes it’s just a shade too heavy or too light. I like using the ND filters because you can stack them for added effect if need be. For instance I can stack the .9 and the .3 for an f-stop effect of +4 when the most the in cam ND will give me is a +2. Of course the CP has an effect of +2, so I don’t know. I just like to have them on hand; they make me feel all warm and cozy.
 
Back
Top