Proof that DOF isn't everything...
I just felt like re-emphasizing a pretty well known point amongst the vDSLR hype. Video cameras a very much capable of producing cinema quality images, my case in point: [ame="http://vimeo.com/7827566"]Ghost Town on Vimeo[/ame]. There are hundreds if not thousands of other videos that prove that naked video cameras can do amazing things. I just felt like surfacing this again. Lighting and Grading can do wonders.
Case and point. The case is not in the point.
And your right, a naked camera can give off very nice images. But what's wrong with having a depth of field adapter?
Your comment is silly and doesn't make sense. That image has very DEEP depth of field. There is no such thing as a photo or video image with no DOF. There is shallow DOF, deep DOF, and everything in between.
And there's no such thing as a "DOF Adapter". There are 35mm adapters that let you mount lenses, which depending on aperature and subject range could result in shallow DOF, Deep DOF, or something in between.
Depth of field is present in everything you ever have seen or shot!
He is saying that you don't need to buy a device (known as a 35mm Depth of Field Adapter) to create a cinematic image with a camcorder. The "Depth of Field Adapter" lets the user control the depth of field, a naked camcorder does not.Originally Posted by Snazzy Flapper
Well, that's not really true. You can control the amount of DOF with just about any cam with certain settings, filters (ND), and cam placement.
There seems to be a whole new generation of illiterate video entusiasts that have adopted the term "depth of field adapter" for what should be called a "35mm adapter", since that is what the device adapts-- 35mm lenses to mount on a video camera. The depth of field employed is always a function of lens focal length, aperature, and subject distance from the lens.
Not to overexpose my ignorance, but isn't this shot with a $6000 camcorder on top of a $6000 dolly? I would hope that quality is pretty standard with a qualified operator.
Well i was hoping people understand that i mean shallow depth of field being that generally people refer to shallow depth of field in conversations like this. and you don't get a 35mm adapter for deep depth of field. With a 35mm adapter or DOF adapter you are in some way adapting it's (the small chipped camera) capability to get shallower depth of field. So it's generally acceptable to call it a Depth of field adapter since yes you are adapting it's depth of field.
Yes but price isn't everything. Take White Red Panic for instance, that was shot on an HV20. Good stuff.
Actually a lot of people use 35mm adapters to use deep focus. They like the expanded range of lenses they have access to. Plus many feel the images they capture have a certain "look" to them that they don't get shooting naked.
Most SLR lenses on a 35mm adapter result in a very shallow DOF which is ugly and very unprofessional looking.
Wow, so many over-generalizations in such a short thread!
First, CrazyEight, SpiderAlex used it correctly, the idiom is "case in point."
SnazzyFlapper, I tend to prefer "DoF adapter" over "35mm adapter" as the latter quickly becomes more confusing to newbies (often they ask, 'Then why is everybody using a 50mm lens?'). One refers to format size, the other to focal length, yet both use "mm." Confusing, no?
Also, SLR lenses on a 35mm adapter may result in very shallow DoF, but do not have to: an 18mm lens stopped down to f/16 has DoF most viewers would not describe as "shallow."
Ah. So, it's okay to invent a new term (which is innacurate) to appease the newbies. Got it!
Erm, how do you figure it's "inaccurate"? Fundamentally, all these adapters do is provide an enlarged focusing area, "tricking" the camera into acting as though it had a larger chip. All other factors being equal, that's going to make the apparent Depth of Field shallower.
EDIT: If you want to call it a 35mm adapter, I could argue it would be "more correct" to call it a "full frame 35mm SLR lens adapter." At least that way it would be harder to confuse the VistaVision-size focusing screen with the smaller Super35mm frame or a 35mm (focal length) lens.
I suppose Letus, Canon, and the other manufacturers are gonna start chaning their marketing materials to the new "DOF Adapter" standard soon.
Still not getting how this isn't clear, while 35mm adapter is a correct statement, calling it a depth of field adapter is still accurate being that you adapt the camera's (which generally has a 1/2" chip at best) depth of field capabilities. The only way to get somewhat close to the shallow depth of field a SLR lens can produce is by zooming your camera in all the way and standing far from your subject. Therefore you are adapting the Depth of field capabilities of the camera.
Now calling a shot with shallow depth of field unprofessional means that the only film you've ever watched is Citizen Kane. Which was a very well shot movie containing primarily deep focus cinematography that Welles was obsessed with. Along with many other fifties movies. But any movie is the past twenty years is just plain old unprofessional.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, SnazzyFlapper: "35mm" can already mean so many different things depending upon who's using it and in what context — Full frame still, aka "Lazy 8" or VistaVision? Academy aperture (sometimes also called "full frame" by motion picture types, to add to the confusion)? Super35? 3-perf, 4-perf, or even 2-perf Techniscope?
Plus it relates to lens dimensions only insofar as specifying that the size of the image circle projected by the lens be large enough to cover the (somewhat arbitrary, see above) full dimensions of whatever you're calling "35mm" — you might just as well call it a "43.27mm adapter," as that at least describes the diameter of the image circle the lens must provide to fully illuminate a full-frame (still) 35mm focusing screen.
But I think the primary reason it continues to confound the uninitiated is simply that camcorder lenses like those found on the HV series are marked with a series of dimensions in millimeters: the actual focal lengths of the lens (often accompanied by their "full-frame 35mm equivalents") as well as the filter thread size necessary to fit any screw-on optical accessories. "35mm adapter" isn't particularly evocative of what these devices actually do and in fact encourages 'common sense' misinterpretation as "XXmm-35mm step-ring."
"Depth of Field adapter" avoids all of these pitfalls, while being one letter shorter to abbreviate and four syllables shorter to say. Works for me!
Good wrap up.I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, SnazzyFlapper: "35mm" can already mean so many different things depending upon who's using it and in what context — Full frame still, aka "Lazy 8" or VistaVision? Academy aperture (sometimes also called "full frame" by motion picture types, to add to the confusion)? Super35? 3-perf, 4-perf, or even 2-perf Techniscope?
Plus it relates to lens dimensions only insofar as specifying that the size of the image circle projected by the lens be large enough to cover the (somewhat arbitrary, see above) full dimensions of whatever you're calling "35mm" — you might just as well call it a "43.27mm adapter," as that at least describes the diameter of the image circle the lens must provide to fully illuminate a full-frame (still) 35mm focusing screen.
But I think the primary reason it continues to confound the uninitiated is simply that camcorder lenses like those found on the HV series are marked with a series of dimensions in millimeters: the actual focal lengths of the lens (often accompanied by their "full-frame 35mm equivalents") as well as the filter thread size necessary to fit any screw-on optical accessories. "35mm adapter" isn't particularly evocative of what these devices actually do and in fact encourages 'common sense' misinterpretation as "XXmm-35mm step-ring."
"Depth of Field adapter" avoids all of these pitfalls, while being one letter shorter to abbreviate and four syllables shorter to say. Works for me!
back to the original post, I agree that you can get cinematic look with smaller sensor cameras. It's just harder because you need to color grade, have good sets design, compositions, lighting, and props since you can't hide bad situations with shallow DOF.
What annoys me the most are ex1 users(not all of them), who probably have the best camcorders under 7k, yet don't take advantage of it. They keep putting out lousey raw footage that looks like crap next to a 7d or hvx. They don't realize that the ex1 puts out flat footage with a pretty solid dynamic range that's perfect for color grading. Just please, at least crush some blacks when you throw it out there... the minimum...
The EX1 has amazing capabilities, and your right, some people don't fully use it, which is sad.
....but the same thing goes for 95% of these 7D (DSLR) users out there. I am tired of scraping through Vimeo to find..."the" footage. How many "test" footage can one take?
No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life...Albert Einstein
Also true, i would say people just need to make short films and such, but knowing myself, it'd be hypocritical. I hardly ever get a short film out with my HV20. I need to though. Well i mean i want to, but time is not my friend lately.
Hate to break your ego-centric notion that you're perfectly right but the term Depth Of Field Adapter has now gone mainstream:
http://www.zeiss.com/cln
The editor uses the term DOF adapter as opposed to the so-called technically accurate term, 35mm adapter in an article from the Carl Zeiss website (who are clearly one of the world leaders in Optics). So I'm sorry Snazzy Flapper... it isn't a new invented term to please the noobs. It's widely recognized and obviously avoids a lot of confusion as pointed out by Eric Bien.
Hope you're convinced now. Lol
There's nothing to be convinced of. And honestly it doesn't affect me one way or another. It does, however, make people that use the term appear pretty ignorant and lazy in my opinion.
Lets start calling ND filter's "magic light removers". And use the terms gizmo and doohdad as much as possible, since it might be confusing if we call something by their actual names.
And stop calling your camera a video camera. It's a frame grabber, damn it!
You forgot about our trusty 'sound picker-uppers'! Some also come with 'dead cats'! Hmm... Not sure if i want one now...
that video sucked, it was just a blank black box... no wonder everyone here uses "DOF Adapters"
Sorry, couldn't help myself plus I'm a true noob, I have placed an order for my jagDOFpro but it hasn't even shipped yet!
I HEART HVdub.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
