Jump to content

Deep dof with fast lenses


Recommended Posts

If a shot had to use natural light, meaning the lens had to be wide open but shallow dof is not required what could be done to correct this? Apart from raising iso on digital medium cameras, is it possible to have a reasonable iso, wide open aperture on a large sensor while keeping deep depth of field?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wide angle lens - get closer

 

 

Chris, that wouldn't work; if you got closer on a wider lens you'd be focusing closer thus reducing DoF....

you

'r only real option would be to back away, the further you are from your subject the more DoF you'd've had.

 

 

Actually neither. If the field of view remains the same, at the same stop, on the same size imager then both would have the same DoF. The only way to change DoF is by varying the stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Sorry Stuart, I didn't phrase myself properly, I meant "reducing the Dof [normally associated with wider lenses]" And "move away," implied keeping the same lens on, not changing over to a longer lens for the same FoV.

This is why I have 2 cups of coffee in the morning.. 1 only get's 1/2 of the sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, sure, if you leave the same lens on and move back, the resulting longer focal distance with have greater DoF, but that doesn't help if you then cannot get the shot you want. If you need a Medium shot, then it doesn't matter whether you are close on a wide lens or backed off on a long lens - DoF remains the same and the only way to change that is to alter your stop.

 

If the shot absolutely cannot be lit and must be at a low ASA and therefore requires shooting wide open, I would suggest shooting on a wider lens. It won't give you any more DoF, but because objects in the background are smaller in frame, they appear sharper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the shot absolutely cannot be lit and must be at a low ASA and therefore requires shooting wide open, I would suggest shooting on a wider lens. It won't give you any more DoF, but because objects in the background are smaller in frame, they appear sharper.

 

;)

 

When I said get closer I didn't specify 'all things being equal' (which it wouldn't be anyway). Character blocking could be changed if need be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original question was about achieving deep depth of field in a shot that needed to be shot wide open, at a low ASA, and on a large sensor camera. You can change the blocking all you like, but you cannot change the laws of optical physics. This has been covered so many times before, and considering that we're in the student section of the forums, perhaps we should try to be accurate.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies. My question was just something i was wondering about. I normally light everything unless natural light is strong and can be bounced etc. I just see so many dslr videos where people open their lenses as wide as possible which results in focus being lost with the slightest movement. Just thought i would see if anyone had ever worked out some solution to my original question. I couldnt think up anything logical apart from lighting the shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the best thing to do is use a camera with a smaller sensor. Because here is what I can see that will work against you

 

1. You are using natural light, so you need to close the aperture down and increase the ASA - Here you face adding noise (depending on the ASA) which you may disike.

2. Using a wide lens may affect how you frame the shot, once you start getting the camera closer you'll be right back with your DOF problem.

 

So like I said get a camera with a smaller sensor which has a deeper DOF so it will give you what you want.

 

DSLR's aren't KING to every single project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never even said dslrs were ok. Was just using them as an example because of the millions of videos on the internet filmed on them in comparrison to any other new age hd digital cinema camera. But dslr's arent too bad. But i would much prefer to shoot on red or film etc if i could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never even said dslrs were ok. Was just using them as an example because of the millions of videos on the internet filmed on them in comparrison to any other new age hd digital cinema camera. But dslr's arent too bad. But i would much prefer to shoot on red or film etc if i could.

 

 

RED and 35mm film are large sensors just like the DSLR, so you would still have the same issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RED and 35mm film are large sensors just like the DSLR, so you would still have the same issues.

I know they have large sensors. Saying to swap to a smaller sensor doesnt seem like a good solution. The reply above mine about cine lenses makes sense. My question was just stupid really. Using natural light only when its dark seems useless. But i guess darkness might help some focus issues. Maybe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Premium Member

Just light the scene. I don't see why it's so hard to grasp that movies need to be lit to look good in 99.99% of locations. If you can't light it to a decent stop, I hope you're smart enough to spend the money to hire a good focus puller. He/she may be able to give you enough of it sharp to cut the scene.

Edited by Chris Keth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto what Chris said.

 

They managed to get great DOF, exposure shooting everything on stocks 3-1/3 stops slower in the '60s. WHy could they light to 50T film with, in general, slower primes and slower zooms?

 

And their lights weren't cheaper. They were hotter, had shorter lifespans. The film wasn't the most expensive part of production, even back then with 35mm color neg costing I think 3-4 times as much as it does today.

 

 

 

It was and is the lights and talent that operates the camera sets up the lights that gives you good-looking results, not what model DSLR you have or a Platinum with Carl Zeiss glass.

 

I've heard an aweful lot of positive things said about DSLRs. Not just in cinematography, but in still photography I had and still do find the quality of the images they produce to be abyssmal. The same garbage that they had to deal with in the '50s with video cameras we STILL have to deal with 60 years later?

 

Surely this must be some kind of sad joke!

 

 

Does anyone know, BTW, if the Starz cancelled series "Gravity" was shot on a DSLR?

 

 

 

Personally, if this were my problem, and I couldn't find the light (I'd be shooting S16 or better, of course), I'd try to cheat with lower framerates. Obviously this isn't' doable with dialogue, stunts.

 

Despite the trend to want to shoot everything wide-open, I tend to try to stop down 2-1/2 stops to the sweet spot of a lens whenever I'm shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just light the scene. I don't see why it's so hard to grasp that movies need to be lit to look good in 99.99% of locations. If you can't light it to a decent stop, I hope you're smart enough to spend the money to hire a good focus puller. He/she may be able to give you enough of it sharp to cut the scene.

Guess i should clarify. I am not trying to find a way of not using light. It was just a random question that popped into my head. Im all for lighting scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...