Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 5, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 5, 2005 And what kind of a DOF would you get on 35mm with a T1.3? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Daniel, It depends on the object size you are filming, the exact 35mm format your using and the circle of confusion. (For cinema projection or for television) A head, full screen it will be under 20mm. On a person standing full height in screen over 1 meter. If shooting a wide shot in a studio, with a painted background it can be almost impossible to get the background soft. Being able to completly isolate the area of focus can be very useful tool to a DP when telling a story. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 5, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 5, 2005 With video you can film with just candlelit situations and still get a descent amount of DOF. On 35mm your limiting your DOF to such a tiny amount, personally I'd never go that far. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Daniel, Often the DP does not want a descent amount of DOF! That is a reason to shoot wide open on 35mm or even on a bigger format. Playing safe is not what being a good DP (IMHO) is all about. AFAIK you have not shot with 35mm. I would not expect shooting at T1.3 to be in your comfort zone, as DP's get more experianced they take more calculated risks. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 Daniel, It depends on the object size you are filming, the exact 35mm format your using and the circle of confusion. (For cinema projection or for television) A head, full screen it will be under 20mm. On a person standing full height in screen over 1 meter. If shooting a wide shot in a studio, with a painted background it can be almost impossible to get the background soft. Being able to completly isolate the area of focus can be very useful tool to a DP when telling a story. Stephen <{POST_SNAPBACK}> From my experience with 35mm, on a 1.8 lens shooting closeups I still couldn't get the entire subject in focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 5, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 5, 2005 From my experience with 35mm, on a 1.8 lens shooting closeups I still couldn't get the entire subject in focus. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Daniel Was that a 35mm Stills camera? If so the format is about twice the size of Super 35mm motion picture image, so DOF will be less. You don't say how close? do you mean macro? Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 Daniel Was that a 35mm Stills camera? If so the format is about twice the size of Super 35mm motion picture image, so DOF will be less. You don't say how close? do you mean macro? Stephen <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not macro, just standard close up. Yes 35mm stills, that's why I thought the DOF on my pictures were so shallow. Although I made a post awhile back saying about 35mm stills being placed horizontally on the neg and motion picture being placed vertically on the neg, although from looking at peoples posts it seemed that the DOF differences would be tiny. Unless, you think different of course. I'll listen. (And it would make a lot of sense if the DOF differences were quite large) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 Getting back to the original question regarding the look. Compared to progressive video I explain it in this non technical way 1/ 70% of the look is the motion portrayal, ie judder of 24 frames per second. 2/ 20% Depth of field, out of focus backgrounds. 3/ 10% colour pallette grain and soft look of highlights. So progressive video, SD or HD 2/3 inch cameras 1/ Achieves same motion portrayal (if 180 degree setting is used). 2/ Cannot achieve very shallow depth of field unless pro 35 adapter is used. 3/ Cannot achieve same colour pallette, grain and soft look in highlights. (althought transferring HD to film imparts a grain structure) Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 (edited) This picture was taken on F5.6. Picture on F5.6 And that JUST about get's the subjects head in focus. (Although I appreciate it's a dog, long face, but then again F5.6 isn't exactly small) (200iso Kodak HD - 50mm static lens - F5.6) Edited March 5, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 5, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 5, 2005 Unless, you think different of course. I'll listen. (And it would make a lot of sense if the DOF differences were quite large) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Daniel, There is a big difference between Vistavision 8 perf (35mm still camera) and Standard 35 Acadamy DOF wise. I have looked on Panavision's webiste as they have some very good comparison tools but not for vistavision. The best site IMHO for DOF related information is www.dofmaster.com The photo you show shows a very clever use of DOF. I think you would not be able to get such a creative effect with a small chip miniDV camera. Stephen Williams DP www.stephenw.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 There is a big difference between Vistavision 8 perf (35mm still camera) and Standard 35 Acadamy DOF wise. I have looked on Panavision's webiste as they have some very good comparison tools but not for vistavision. The best site IMHO for DOF related information is www.dofmaster.com <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah, right. Thankyou for that, that clears up a lot of the mystery I've always had, wondering how they got such high DOF with 35mm on motion picture. (Good web site, too) The photo you show shows a very clever use of DOF. I think you would not be able to get such a creative effect with a small chip miniDV camera. Probably not, but with HD and a 1.3 lens you could get similar results. (Wouldn't look as nice though I doubt, being that this picture was taken with film, not professional film but it's still film) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted March 5, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 5, 2005 Hi, > 3/ Cannot achieve same colour pallette, grain What, grain is a positive attribute now? This is getting stupid. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kai.w Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Hi, > 3/ Cannot achieve same colour pallette, grain What, grain is a positive attribute now? This is getting stupid. Phil <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know. It seemed to me like a rather neutral list of attributes. Besides it's rather easy do add that stupid grain in post. Right... there'll be probably be some people here that think this does not look right... oh well... -k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Hi, > 3/ Cannot achieve same colour pallette, grain What, grain is a positive attribute now? This is getting stupid. Phil <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't say it was positive or negative attribute, it is a list of what is different bewteen film and digital. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Walker Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 YES I had heard that, and that camera is just a step up from the one I bought supposedly. SO, my question is... HOW did he get the "film look" using a HD camera? VIdeo just looks like video to me no matter what I do. I have softened it a little and that does help, but what am I missing? THanks! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think getting a film-like result comes from a combination of lighting, filters and camera placement. If you know how to light film well and you apply those skills with HD or 24P, that's the first step. You should experiment with different filters and see which ones give you the effect you're looking for. I personally get a good result with the 1/4 black pro-mist. Finally, you can manipulate your depth of field with the way you place the camera and with what stop you chose to shoot at. I do these three things and I have gotten great results from HD and 24P. It also took me alot of practice. But since you own the camera, you'll have plenty of time to practice! Obviously nothing will ever look quite as film-like as film itself does, but with so many people trying to shoot low-budget, we're often forced to shoot 24P or HD. So we better learn to like it and learn to make it look as pleasing and un-video like as possible. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 8, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 8, 2005 Obviously nothing will ever look quite as film-like as film itself does, but with so many people trying to shoot low-budget, we're often forced to shoot 24P or HD. So we better learn to like it and learn to make it look as pleasing and un-video like as possible.Good luck! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A ringing endorsement of video, if ever there was one. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Walker Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 A ringing endorsement of video, if ever there was one. ;) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I know, I know. Obviously, I prefer to shoot film. But I shoot, so I have to learn to shoot all formats well and the way people want to see them. Everyone wants the cheap way to a "film-look". It's unfortunate, but true. There is a place for video, but the world of narrative seems to always be trying to make it something it's not. But that's not say it doesn't get the job done. If you have a great story and you know a few little tricks, HD or 24P will do the job just as well and 24P will be quite a bit cheaper. But I love film and unfortunately to my eye, there will always be some things you cannot recreate as well digitally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted March 8, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 8, 2005 Hi, >> So we better learn to like it and learn to make it look as pleasing and un-video like >> as possible.Good luck! > A ringing endorsement of video, if ever there was one Actually I think it's a ringing endorsement of bad lighting... It's not about a "film look" or "video look", it's about the right look for the production. A staggering proportion of people use those terms without really knowing what they're talking about, and frequently assume that something that is well lit, framed, exposed, and graded is film even if it's video. Plus: > If you know how to light film well and you apply those skills with HD or 24P, that's > the first step It might be a first step (don't know, never done it) but this stuff should be applied with caution. I think the vast majority of the video hatred that flies around is down to producers assuming film DPs are gods who can light anything, and said DPs then go and light and expose video like they would film, and it comes out looking like a babboon's arse. This is particularly unforgivable given the instant feedback of video, but the point is that it is a different medium and needs to be treated differently. I don't want anyone to take this personally, but I think that big Hollywood-system DPs can be very dogmatic, and annoyingly the more experienced you get the more ingrained habits become. You have a union system there reinforcing the status quo, organisations like the ASC, a currently almost entirely film trained crew base, and people trying to drop video cameras in amongst all this lot. Big Hollywood DP gets video camera, sets up his dinos and 20K HMIs like he normally would (duh), meters the exposure (duh), puts the hilights eight over (duh), takes one look at the dailies and says "Hey, video's rubbish, isn't it!" And it's also nothing to do with SD or HD or 24p or 50i or digital still cameras or whatever electrons-hitting-semiconductor technology you want to put behind the lens, I think a lot of it's about escaping dogma - both the low end dogma that "film look" is down to pressing buttons and not placing lights, and the high end dogma that you can swap the Panaflex for an F900 and absolutely nothing else has to change in the slightest degree, both of which cause people to criticise video unfairly. Can I please lobby for a new term - "production look", that being whatever imaging qualities you happen to want to achieve, irrespective of what technology you use to capture them? Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Walker Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Hi, >> So we better learn to like it and learn to make it look as pleasing and un-video like >> as possible.Good luck! > A ringing endorsement of video, if ever there was one Actually I think it's a ringing endorsement of bad lighting... Phil <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe I wasn't being clear. The bottomline is both film and video can look really amazing. I've had some really amazing looking results shooting 24P and HD and it came from a lot of trial and error. It is it's own medium that DOES need to be lit differently. Maybe I was being too simple in my reply. I'm simply saying that if you know a thing or two about lighting, you should be able to experiment till you get the effect you're looking for. If that effect happens to be a "film-look" or whatever you prefer to call it, doesn't really matter. Everything comes with practice and tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kai.w Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 A ringing endorsement of video, if ever there was one. ;) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I mean. Seriously... I don't give a .... about the medium something was shot on, if it serves it's purpose. What the hell is that stupid term "film look" nowadays....? And what is "Video" anyway? I'd assume shallow DOF is an important means of the image design (don't know a better english expression) process. It is important for narrative via image. Ok. So is this exclusive for film? Not anymore really. Of course most of the big chip HD cameras are not really there yet and the pro35 adaptors do have some issues but you see it's coming and partly available with video already. Plus you can always try to achieve small DOF with 2/3" video cameras too, though you'll rarely come close, but maybe it's enough. Progressive scan. Probably one the biggest aspects of the so called "video look". Not a real problem anymore. Ok, some people might say (and I actually belong to those) that film cameras still render motion (blur) slightly differently... but for those few who actually notice...does it look better? I'd say slightly different. That's all... Dynamic range and nicer transition to white. Now that's something, and to my opinion nowadays that's the maybe the only thing I'd really put as "film look". Hopefully with new sensors (genesis) this will become much less of a "video" problem. Color rendering. I'd say again, depends. You can't expect DV to have nice colors. Though footage from the Viper grades very well... though of course you have to grade. Resolution. Depends. As long as you don't have wide shots to show in a big cinema, I'd say HD shot with decent lenses holds up pretty well. This is especially true for digital projections. For SD TV I'd really say, there is virtually no difference, as long as the HD footage was downconverted carefully (I would not recommend taking the PAL/NTSC output of HDCAM VTRs as your downconversion for example) So all in all, I'd say that using the term "film look" is really unhelpfull. There is a wide range between the worst video and 35mm film. So I'd rather talk of what specific attribute my desired look consists of and then I can decide with which medium can achieve that (and that will in most cases be 35mm) but just calling it the the film look... better "35mm look" Of course I'm just talking about what is in a "look" and not about usability, being practical, comfort, safety, costs, etc. -k oh wait.... I forgot about the grain ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I found that HD (HDW750) actually looks like film anyway. I saw a short film made by a director I was speaking to, and I could have sworn it was made with film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riku Naskali Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 ....takes one look at the dailies and says "Hey, video's rubbish, isn't it!" Well, you sort of did the same thing with film, didn't you ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted March 9, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 9, 2005 Hi, > I found that HD (HDW750) actually looks like film anyway. No more than most other decent video cameras. > I saw a short film made by a director I was speaking to, and I could have sworn it > was made with film. No, that's exactly what I mentioned above - what you saw was decently lit video and you couldn't tell the difference. It can be tricky, especially if you're looking at a poorer-quality version (TV transmission or whatever.) This idea that video just inherently looks awful no matter what you do is just plain wrong. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted March 9, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 9, 2005 Hi, > Well, you sort of did the same thing with film, didn't you I didn't take one look at the dailies and say it was rubbish, I spent a while in a $1400/hour spirit suite tweaking, then tweaked some more in Photoshop, and concluded that it didn't offer enough over video to be worth costing hundreds of times more. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 (edited) No more than most other decent video cameras. Well, in my opinion, it was good enough for me. No, that's exactly what I mentioned above - what you saw was decently lit video and you couldn't tell the difference. It can be tricky, especially if you're looking at a poorer-quality version (TV transmission or whatever.) Actually it was a small time short. The HDW750 was about the only descent bit of kit they had. Everything else was done on a few lights and a few other bits of kit. As far as I'm concerned, video looks great. (Descent video that is I mean) Digital video IS the future if you like it or not. There will be a time where video will succeed film in ALL ways. Edited March 9, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I'd LOVE to read a post here that went "I want to shoot on video, I'm going for a techno look and I want everything in the frame in focus" :D Where is the Gregg Toland of HD hiding ? B) -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 When you get over every difference between video and film (like deph of field and frame rate) you get to that elementary difference between the look of film emulsion and video image. You can compensate for everything exept that. You can light differently, use different apertures, use 24P etc etc. and make identical coposition, deph of field, even dynamic range, but still film (specially older film) will scream "film" In my whole life I have never heard anyone really define that "look" in technical terms. It's actually very hard to define, since it is like a difference between wattercolor and oil painting. You can spot it, but it's hard to say what it is. The closes thing that describes film is "organic" this film look was strongest in the begining of color film, in the 50's, and every generation had a more subtle film "look", and the latest films are less easy to distinguish from digital photography and video (but still obvious) because they are becoming closer to reality, and the film "look" has "faded" from 50's to now. But the same "thing" that distinguishes modern film from electronic is the thing that distinguishes 60's film from modern film. I guess the only way to make your images have the real film look is to use film. Both video and film are heading to the same direction, they have the same image "ideal" so one day they could meet. And you can make an electronic system that has the quality of film and in that way it looks like film, but you can only make it look like that where film is heading, not where it came from. And this look from which it came from in the past is what really makes film still look like film. To really simulate the chemical look of film, you would have to go into extremes and try to simulate the look of 50's or 60's negative film, and then drasticly reduce the effect of that to get to the way modern film looks like. And I'm not talking about things like saturation and contrast. both a highly saturated E6 reversal from 90's and a low con negative from 70's have something in common, they both have the film look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now