Shallow DOF by using a Softscreen

Korhan20 · February 7, 2005

Has anyone ever used the Softscreen from http://indietoolbox.com to get a shallow DOF. The pics on the site look pretty good. I was considering buying it to use w/ my dvx. Anyone here ever try it? Is it worth it?

Brent J. Craig · February 7, 2005

Gee. It looks like they are selling a sheet of blurry plexi for $547 USD!

From what I can tell from the website, this is a large 'diffuser' that you put behind your subject. You would be limited to shooting foreground subjects that fit within the 4'x3' softscreen. Reflections and dust would be a nightmare.

I suspect you could get the same result by unrolling a sheet of Hampshire frost between your subject and background (for $100 USD).

Marco Leavitt · February 7, 2005

Personally, I think that thing looks really, really bad. I've seen a number of screenshots where people have used it, and they always look fairly bizarre to me.

Ryan Puckett · February 7, 2005

I'd rather see the creepy model lady behind the screen....

I wonder what the background would look like on a breezy day.

Elhanan Matos · February 8, 2005

I think I saw something like that used in Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, I think there was a scene where Jim Carrey was running down the streets and everything about a foot behind him was out of focus, it was a really neat gimmick.

Eric LeVasseur · February 8, 2005

You have to be joking.... I would never buy stuff from people that can't even get their web site working, have a look the this page: http://www.indietoolbox.com/softscreen/SoftScreenClips.html Allot of pictures and not working.

You would buy stuff from them? I would not, if you want my opinion....

John Ealer · February 9, 2005

It's a lot cheaper and more effective to buy clear visqueen (usually around 2 or 3 mil thick works best) and stretch it on a frame way in the background. It's cheap, can cover a huge area (clip it to the eaves of a building and pull it down in front of the windows if you want) and when you're done you can use it as a drop cloth next time you paint your house.

J

Mark Sasahara · February 9, 2005

I'd rather see the creepy model lady behind the screen....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dunno, I'm into the whole MILF thing >;~)

I agree with Brent and the others, it would be a nightmare for dust and reflections, not to mention time in setting it up and screwing around with it. Total rip-off.

Move towards the tele end of the zoom, or use tele primes and shoot wide open.

Rik Andino · February 9, 2005

Hey Korhan...

Why would you want to buy this softscreen thingie...?

I mean well...obviously for shallow depth of field (I hate the DOF abbreviation )

So my real question is why do you want depth of field?

Does the particular project need it?

Or are you just thinking ahead if you ever need it?

Personally I hate the fact that many directors often want

A shallow depth of field but don't know the reason why.

Actually I have a problem with directors

who don't have a reason for asking for a particular look

other than they think it looks cool, "And it's just like Hollywood does it!" :lol:

Shallow depth of field is a particular tool in cinematography

It is use to place or take away emphasis on a subject

Not just because it looks cool.

(If used properly it'll look cool, if used out of context it might be distracting.)

Anyways I recommend if you want to have a shallow depth of field with your DVX

Use longer lenses and keep the f-stop low... (around F2 or F2.8)

You can also use some soft FX filters but that'll make the whole image softer

Try a Black Pro Mist filter or maybe an Ultra Contrast

They can help soften the image a bit.

But remember always have a reason for the look you're using

Always have a reason for a rack or a zoom or any other effect.

It'll help your films look better on the whole.

Alvin Pingol · February 10, 2005

Also keep in mind that you won't be getting the traditional, defined out-of-focus circles (or whatever shape your iris makes when set to whichever stop) of light sources, but rather big, ugly blurs. But if that's what you want, go for it...

March 6, 2005

I found this thread while surfing, and needed to reply.

We had a new site put up database driven and then had a major server crash and we lost everything...What you see is the very first orriginal site that was quickly put up; I have not updated the website in sometime as I have been VERY busy with various projects; I aplogize for this...however

Here are some points about the softscreen to address the varios comments put forth:

1. The soft screen is rigid and is not effected by movement of things like a light breeze that would cause somthing thin and pliable.

2. It does not just defuse - IT IS OPTICALLY CORRECT - The further distance an object is from the screen the more out of blurry it becomes.

3. Dust is repelled by the antistatic cleaner that comes with the sofscreen.

4. Reflections - The surface of the camera side of the screen is made to reduce reflections; any additional refelections can be minimized by simply rotateing the screen up or down on the mounting spuds. Directions are provided with the screen for camera, talent, and screen placements.

5. You can not achieve a shalow depth of field on with out being fully zoomed in an wide open for 1/3" chip cameras and extreme shallow depth of field is not possible on the 2/3" cameras without doing the same....we all know this it is not possible to always back the camera up 25' to get the shot we want with shallow depth (walls and various obstructions)

6. We have sold many screens and have not had one complaint regarding the performance of the softscreen. To the contrary we have recieved many great testimonials like this:

"I really enjoyed using it. It had just the effect you'd advertised and I was totally pleased with my shots! It was very useful for the interviews and even worked well for some b-roll shots I did around the studio. I'm definitely going to get my money's worth out of this piece of grip." Milwaukee, WI

As a DP/Engineer specializing in video, who purchased his first 1/3" DV camera in 1997, I can tell u softscreen may not be the perfect solution for all shallow depth field shots, but it does what we state VERY well.

Regarding pricing, there are two factors that lift the retail price over cost of of goods. The first being is they're individually made one at a time; current demand does not afford mass production. The second is pricing made for dealers to have a margin for reasale (Sugested Reatail Price), however at this time there are no dealers. If volume increases the price would drop....but hey, it's not even in the ball park of buying a P+S adapter and a set of primes.

Regards,

Sean Dinwoodie

DP/Engineer

Indietoolbox.com

Josh Hill · March 6, 2005

I still wouldn't buy the softscreen, for the simple fact that it is so artistically limiting. I would much rather set the camera further away and use a zoom (and I don't have to be 25' away to get a shallow depth of field with my XL1s) than have to deal with a screen.

And what if I want something in the FOREGROUND out of focus rather than the background? Or what if I want to rack focus? I've done all of these things on my XL1s (thanks to my handy manual lens), and in fact, I quite like the telephoto look.

I think the screen plays to amateurs who want a "film look" on video and only have an assumption of what a film look is.

And yes, your screen may be cheaper than a P+S Technik adapter, but I would much rather own the adapter and rent the primes than have to lug around a large, stiff board. And the adapter allows for more than just depth of field, but for better quality lenses as well.

I don't like anything that forces my camera to stay in one place.

Phil Rhodes · March 6, 2005

Hi,

I don't particularly have a problem with the idea, but it's a horse for a very specific course - mainly shooting sit-downs where you don't have a lot of control over the backdrop.

Could be subtler.

Phil

March 6, 2005

Shoot me for saying this, but wouldn't it be possible to create a shallow DOF look in post? :unsure:

March 6, 2005

I still wouldn't buy the softscreen, for the simple fact that it is so artistically limiting. I would much rather set the camera further away and use a zoom (and I don't have to be 25' away to get a shallow depth of field with my XL1s) than have to deal with a screen.

And what if I want something in the FOREGROUND out of focus rather than the background? Or what if I want to rack focus? I've done all of these things on my XL1s (thanks to my handy manual lens), and in fact, I quite like the telephoto look.

I think the screen plays to amateurs who want a "film look" on video and only have an assumption of what a film look is.

And yes, your screen may be cheaper than a P+S Technik adapter, but I would much rather own the adapter and rent the primes than have to lug around a large, stiff board. And the adapter allows for more than just depth of field, but for better quality lenses as well.

I don't like anything that forces my camera to stay in one place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, you can get a shallow depth by being wide open and at the longest of your zoom. To get a medium shot with shallow depth you will need to back up some 20+ feet with your XL-1, try that shooting on location in a 12'X12' bedroom... Yes it does have limitations, but it also serves it's purpose. I too would rather have P+S Technik and a set of primes, however at over $10,000 that's more than twice the price of a XL-2. Well, you may say you can rent it, but for the rental you could also rent a beter camera stepping up to 2/3" chips.....no it does not play for an amatuer; I've sold to many professionals and use it myslef....the panel acts as a planer lens, not every lens is right for every shot..they're just tools...

Regards,

Sean Dinwoodie

DP/Engineer

Indietoolbox.com

oh and Joshua.....as stated by another reply you would do a feathered masked and just blur the rest of the image....but that is not shallow depth of field....the softscreen is optically correct - objects closer to the screen are less blurry than those further away.

March 6, 2005

oh and Joshua.....as stated by another reply you would do a feathered masked and just blur the rest of the image....but that is not shallow depth of field....the softscreen is optically correct - objects closer to the screen are less blurry than those further away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, I dunno. A good rotoscoper could create a "fall out" DOF effect by painting in the blurring by hand. Depending on the complexity of the seen, it could be hard, but you'd ultimately have more control. Worth a try, I'd say.

I'm not dissing your screen, but it does have it's limitations and I see rotoscoping as possibly a more viable alternative; I have to do some tests though.

Edited March 6, 2005 by JoshuaNitschke

Bob Hayes · March 6, 2005

I?ve done this effect with Hamster frost. It worked great but a it was little heavy. I clipped ito an open frame and flagged direct sun off of it. Soft screen looks pretty cool, seems a little small, and sound a little expensive. At $500 that is 20% the cost of buying you camera package if you are doing a DV sort of shoot. I?ll keep my eyes open or it.

Laurent Andrieux · March 6, 2005

Say... What about matching different shots in a sequence with that system, how can they cut ? Just as you can't put your camera 25' away from the subject, can you make the DOF follow the change of lens ? What about a very wide shot, what about a dolly shot combined with pans, etc... Sure, it's not pretenting to be the universal tool, but since a sequence is cut in different shots, I don't see much of use for it my self...