More Letus Footage

[Marty Hudzik]

Originally Posted by John Hudson

This footage is awesome looking and any sharper and I'd start to not like it probably as Steven says, it would somehow remind me of the videoyimage.

John,

In all fairness I caught about 5 minutes of LOST the other evening (I don't watch this, I just was flipping) and the footage of the guy talking to the girl on the beach was amazing crisp and clear, looking like amazing HD but not feeling video-like. The ocean and trees behind him were blurry as heck. This looked like some stunning footage and it was. I doubt you would have not liked it because it was so sharp.

My point is I think we need to clarify sharpness is not necesarilly a bad thing. Maybe it is the wrong word. Clarity perhaps?

I don't know. The bottom line is you can't pigeon hole these things. Shallow DOF and an overall softer image doesn't absolutely mean it's more filmlike any more than sharp and crystal clear is exclusive to video.

A good combination of both is good.

Peace to all and keep up the great work. I wish I had more time to contribute some footage. Maybe next week? :)

[Steven Dempsey]

I know only too well that at $900 adapter and a few cheap Nikon lenses is not going to match up to something shot with a full 35mm rig. Just like 24p is only going to approximate the cadence of film, the adapters will give a very good representation of something shot on 35mm if you don't sit there and do an A/B comparison between the two.

I'm actually agreeing with you Marty and I again will state that I do not expect a McGyver HD setup to look like a 35mm production but the fact that my eyes and mind are fooled when I look at my own footage independently is what is so exciting.

As we all know, there are many tricks that can be employed by using creative lighting and atmosphere to create even more depth and it would be fun to have access to this kind of set up and see how my little adapter setup would hold up :) Oh yeah, I'd also like a crew of 100 to achieve that effect also :)

In the meantime, I'm thrilled with the stuff I'm shooting and how it looks. Ain't nobody gonna tell me I don't own a Panavision setup :) Let me wallow in the confines of my own fantasy.

[Marty Hudzik]

Originally Posted by Steven Dempsey

In the meantime, I'm thrilled with the stuff I'm shooting and how it looks. Ain't nobody gonna tell me I don't own a Panavision setup :) Let me wallow in the confines of my own fantasy.

I only wish I was wallowing in that same world. I love the DOF you are getting. Any comments on my question about "too shallow" DOF? I mean....it looks great but in my mind, I don't recall seeing these extremes used that often other than for effect. Can you get a nice shot that has all of your daughter in perfect focus and retain the bokeh in the background?

I remember reading at some point that the area on the ground glass that the 35mm lens projects an image onto is actually larger than a 35mm sensor would be and therefore it is possible that the DOF is even more shallow than on an actual 35mm camera. Is this true?

[Steven Dempsey]

Seems to me that what you are asking for is illustrated in the still I posted earlier, is it not?

Yes, I used extremely narrow depth of field effects for this piece because I wanted to achieve an intimacy in the shots and just demonstrate the extremity the adapter can to to.

I don't know the answer to your last question but I suspect it's no.

[Marty Hudzik]

Originally Posted by Steven Dempsey

Seems to me that what you are asking for is illustrated in the still I posted earlier, is it not?

I am looking at right now and her right ear and hair and shoulder are all soft. They are just outside of the range of focus. I am guessing the focal depth is less than 8 inches. What I am wondering is if you stopped down could you expand the usable focus are and get all of her in focus in that shot? I am guessing this is the 50mm lens based on my limited experience with 35mm photography a few years back. Is that right? It definitely doesn'y look like your 28mm.

Peace!

[Steven Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Marty Hudzik

I am looking at right now and her right ear and hair and shoulder are all soft. They are just outside of the range of focus. I am guessing the focal depth is less than 8 inches. What I am wondering is if you stopped down could you expand the usable focus are and get all of her in focus in that shot? I am guessing this is the 50mm lens based on my limited experience with 35mm photography a few years back. Is that right? It definitely doesn'y look like your 28mm.

Peace!

Yes, absolutely the depth of field would be dramatically increased as I close the iris down on the Nikon lens. Just didn't do it for this particular session.

[Marty Hudzik]

Originally Posted by Steven Dempsey

I don't know the answer to your last question but I suspect it's no.

Can you physically see the area on the ground glass that has an image projected on it from the front lens? Does it look around the size of a 35mm negative? If so then it would be pretty accurate to a 35mm DOF. If it is much larger then the DOF could be even more shallow than even 35mm.

Can you just look at it and ballpark if it is in the 35mm range?

Marty

[Marty Hudzik]

Originally Posted by Steven Dempsey

Yes, absolutely the depth of field would be dramatically increased as I close the iris down on the Nikon lens. Just didn't do it for this particular session.

Can you recall what fstop you were at for this shot? Approximately? Is this a wide open type of look or is the DOF this shallow in the f5.6 range?

[Steven Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Marty Hudzik

Can you physically see the area on the ground glass that has an image projected on it from the front lens? Does it look around the size of a 35mm negative? If so then it would be pretty accurate to a 35mm DOF. If it is much larger then the DOF could be even more shallow than even 35mm.

Can you just look at it and ballpark if it is in the 35mm range?

Marty

Yes, I believe it is totally within that range.

[Steven Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Marty Hudzik

Can you recall what fstop you were at for this shot? Approximately? Is this a wide open type of look or is the DOF this shallow in the f5.6 range?

Most of the shots were wide open on the Nikons and I adjusted A1's iris. Again, this test was for the purpose of demonstrating a narrow depth of field, not showing the range of the lenses.

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Marty Hudzik

Any comments on my question about "too shallow" DOF? I mean....it looks great but in my mind, I don't recall seeing these extremes used that often other than for effect. Can you get a nice shot that has all of your daughter in perfect focus and retain the bokeh in the background?

I remember reading at some point that the area on the ground glass that the 35mm lens projects an image onto is actually larger than a 35mm sensor would be and therefore it is possible that the DOF is even more shallow than on an actual 35mm camera. Is this true?

Marty:

From my experience, you cannot expect an image size any larger than a 35mm image. You start running into vignetting issues, and in fact, your effective image size might be slightly smaller.

As far as increasing depth of field, I think you do hit on something that happens a lot. We tend to shoot adapters wide open, because of light issues. Also, in closing down the lense, vignetting starts creeping in on a lot of lenses. I think shooting at a f4 or 5.6 will give you a better chance of getting the full face/head in the field of focus. I got a hold of Nikon F 1.4 that does not have the vignetting issues for some reason going into the higher F stops, and it gives you more control of that zone of focus.

[Marty Hudzik]

Thanks everyone. Just to be clear I do not desire a larger ground glass area. I just recall reading that so many of the 35mm adapter have a softer more shallow DOF than even 35mm camea because the area that they project onto is larger than a 35mm sensor would be. Oh well.

But, I need to get my hands on one of these soon. Thinking about all of this I cannot imagine how far I need to zoom to get a 35mm size little area directly in from of my lens to fill the frame. In doing this the aperture of the camera decrease significantly I would imagine. It doesn't seem plausible....yet it is.

On the bright side, if you can use the iris inside the camera to set your exposure properly and you have enough light then you should be able to use just about any fstop you desire with the external lens. In other word, iris on it would simply be used for setting DOF and not necesarrily for exposure. right?

[Steven Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Marty Hudzik

On the bright side, if you can use the iris inside the camera to set your exposure properly and you have enough light then you should be able to use just about any fstop you desire with the external lens. In other word, iris on it would simply be used for setting DOF and not necesarrily for exposure. right?

Assuming you have adequate light in your scene, you are correct.

[Ing Poh Hii]

Thanks for sharing Steve, very nice & sweet work :D.

[Steven Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Ing Poh Hii

Thanks for sharing Steve, very nice & sweet work :D.

:)


Thanks for all the input everyone. There's never a dull moment in my threads :)