 |
05-15-2012, 08:45 PM
|
#16
|
|
IndieTalk Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MN, USA
Posts: 7,673
|
Move the camera farther back... remember that I mentioned that focus is a single point in space with "acceptable focus" in front and behind... if the background is out of focus, put them closer together... as the focal range moves farther away from the camera, it gets longer... so putting the camera farther back may help get the subject and background in focus at the same time.
|
|
|
05-15-2012, 10:27 PM
|
#17
|
|
Basic Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,490
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGriffith
At 18mm f/22 everything past about two feet in front of your camera should be in focus.
|
2' 6" to be exact 
At the other end of the spectrum, 55mm, anything 23' 3" and further away from camera will be in focus at f/22.
|
|
|
05-16-2012, 03:19 AM
|
#18
|
|
Basic Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,790
|
Okay I probably had the object closer than 2.6 feet. Thanks. So when it comes to these deep focus shots I have in mind, I am going to need some really really bright lights. Anything that does the job that is not too costly?
|
|
|
05-16-2012, 03:47 AM
|
#19
|
|
Basic Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,490
|
The sun?
Seriously, anything to light a scene properly at f/22 is going to be not only very costly, but also very difficult to power without a generator or three phase power.
The best way to achieve deeper focus without huge lights, is to narrow your scene. Ie, you can't expect to rock up to a 400ft warehouse at night with a couple of 300w lights and expect to get the whole thing in focus.
Rework the scene to fit a 10x10' room with big windows in the middle of the day and you'll be looking more promising. Even a warehouse with massive windows in the middle of the day will be better. The sun is your friend. Use reflectors and bounce and you'll be good. Locally, on an overcast day the sun here tends to measure at about f/11-f/16. On a sunnier day, it can be f/16+. I've been outside in LA in the middle of summer on a bright, sunny, cloudless, hot day and taken video on my DSLR at 100 ISO, 1/50 shutter and f/22 and it's still been about a stop or so over exposed.
Last edited by jax_rox; 05-16-2012 at 03:50 AM.
|
|
|
05-16-2012, 04:46 PM
|
#20
|
|
Basic Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,790
|
Sure I will narrow the scenes but I want to do a thriller script most likely, and had some ideas for shots, that will be wide angle master shots, in certain sections of scenes. The sun can help a lot but there are a lot of scenes, with characters doing things they would not want to be doing during the day in front of open windows.
Would a split focus diopter help? I was reading about them, but are there any disadvantages that would apply to my case particularly?
|
|
|
05-16-2012, 05:29 PM
|
#21
|
|
IndieTalk Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MN, USA
Posts: 7,673
|
Move the characters farther away from the camera... or the camera farther away from the characters.
|
|
|
05-18-2012, 03:57 AM
|
#22
|
|
Basic Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,790
|
Sure. The reason why I mention a split focus diopter is because then I can have more light.
|
|
|
05-18-2012, 05:27 AM
|
#23
|
|
Basic Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,490
|
Split Focus Diopters have a very distinct look and are not equivalent to deep focus.
|
|
|
05-18-2012, 09:11 AM
|
#24
|
|
Basic - Premiere Expired
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 2,544
|
F/22 is pretty extreme. Try running faster, f/16, , somewhere in between. You'll still have pretty deep focus but need way less light.
Focusing is hard on some shots, but almost never impossible. The best bet is still to practice the shot and focus on actors as they move and from actor to actor for each line.
|
|
|
05-18-2012, 01:45 PM
|
#25
|
|
Basic Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,790
|
I kind of don't like 'rack focusing' though. It's okay, but I was watching Citizen Kane which uses a lot of deep focus and thought, that's the style I want! Everything looks so sharp.
|
|
|
05-18-2012, 07:45 PM
|
#26
|
|
Basic Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,490
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by harmonica44
I kind of don't like 'rack focusing' though. It's okay, but I was watching Citizen Kane which uses a lot of deep focus and thought, that's the style I want! Everything looks so sharp.
|
You can light your scene to f/5.6 or f/8.0 and keep a deeper focus look. That doesn't mean you won't have to pull focus as things happen in the scene, just that the DOF won't be really shallow. Deep focus is not the ability to shoot a scene without a focus puller, it's just having a deeper DOF. Also keep in mind that something like Citizen Kane, for example, had massive amounts of light. Old movies tended to have large amounts of light, because they had slow lenses and slow film stock. When 50 speed film stock is the fastest you can get (equivalent to ISO, so imagine your ISO only went up to 50) and lenses don't open as wide as they do today, you're going to need to be putting 4k, 8k, 10k lights and possible even more depending on the scene. Big lights are expensive to buy and rent, but that doesn't mean you can't have deep focus. Just light for around f/8.0
|
|
|
05-19-2012, 06:00 PM
|
#27
|
|
Basic Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,790
|
Okay thanks. When it comes to shots such as following actors while running though, I cannot find a DP or focus puller that can see if something is out of focus, or not, while in the process of running. It's just too difficult to see in that case. So I could use some deep focus in shots like that, that will not require focus pulling.
|
|
|
05-20-2012, 12:04 AM
|
#28
|
|
Basic Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,490
|
If your DP has a focus puller, then why are they pulling focus themselves? If you have a focus puller, then they should be getting marks during rehearsals and adjusting the focus as the scene takes place. If they're not adjusting the focus, then they're not a focus puller. You do have rehearsals right? Also, it's much easier to keep a smaller scene in focus at f/8 or even f/5.6 than it is the same scene at f/2.8 or f/1.4.
|
|
|
05-20-2012, 03:25 AM
|
#29
|
|
Basic Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,790
|
No I don't have a focus puller now, I was just meaning hypothetically for future projects. How exactly do I mark though? I mean the actors will run differently in each take so it's unpredictable to mark, it seems.
|
|
|
05-20-2012, 03:36 AM
|
#30
|
|
IndieTalk Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Shrewsbury/Sheffield
Posts: 2,064
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by harmonica44
No I don't have a focus puller now, I was just meaning hypothetically for future projects. How exactly do I mark though? I mean the actors will run differently in each take so it's unpredictable to mark, it seems.
|
Then the actors should hit the same marks in each take. While you occasionally have to "cheat" an actor's position to make the shot work, if you don't make any effort to preserve continuity on the set, how are you going to be able to edit a coherent sequence in post?
A very good focus puller using cine lenses will often be able to keep things sharp without marks. An inexperienced focus puller using stills lenses will find it tricky even if actors and the camera hit their marks exactly take after take. Choose your battles wisely.
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:27 AM.
©2003-2013 IndieTalk
|
|
 |