Hello all,

Forgive me for my concentration of posts. After investigating several cameras to use for independent film production, I've settled on the XL2. I'll be picking up one in the next month or so and I want to get a feel for some of the accessories I'll need.

Back to the topic...

Is the stock DOF on the Canon with the 20X really that bad? I read of people trying to overcome DOF issues with Mini35 contraptions, etc. and I wonder exactly how little DOF they are trying to achieve.

To make my shorts (films, not underwear) look like film, I'm obviously going to want to limit DOF somewhat. For instance, if I want to shoot a conversation between two people, as one is talking, the camera will shoot over the shoulder or across the face of the other in the foreground. I'll want to have that foreground somewhat out of focus when the actors are anywhere between 4 and 6 feet apart. Some of these shots will be indoors, so I won't be able to back away and zoom all the way in. I'll imagine I'll have to use the other method of getting very close to the actor that is not speaking. Additionally, I'll try to get the background (walls, furniture, etc.) as far away as possible to also get them out of focus. They will probably be another 7 to 10 feet behind the actor that is speaking.

My question is: will the stock Canon XL2 with the 20X be able to accomplish what I want? Or...

Will I need to get a diopter lens to get closer to the foreground?
Will I need to rig up a makeshift mini35?

My gut feeling is that the stock XL2 is good enough to do what I want and the others are using special equipment to really press the limit of DOF.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks,

Kelly

Hi Kelly

The DOF from the XL2 will be the same as on any other 1/3 prosumer camera, exept for the 4/3 modus, because then you actually use 1/4 of the chips.
But if you want to make short movies, I think you'll use the 16/9 anyway.

Is it any good? I have an XL1s, and if I put my iris on 1.8 I have a nice DOF. For me enough to work with.
Maybe it isn't 35mm DOF, but it's definately enough I think for what you want to do.

You can buy the mini 35, but that's 10.000 dollars for a more limited DOF... I think you can spend that money in a better way for maybe audio, lightning, actors...


Good luck!

Hi Kelly

The DOF from the XL2 will be the same as on any other 1/3 prosumer camera, exept for the 4/3 modus, because then you actually use 1/4 of the chips.
But if you want to make short movies, I think you'll use the 16/9 anyway.


Thanks Mathieu.

I've never had a 1/3 prosumer camera before. Could you expand a bit on you DOF. For instance, in the shots I illustrate above, would you be able to get the foreground and background easily out of focus?

Thanks,

Kelly

Mathieu is referring to the aspect ratio of the camera. The XL2 is a native 16x9 camera. You are using all of the frame and all of the pixels when you shoot 16x9. When you switch to 4:3, you are using about three quarters of the usable picture area, so your focal length gets slightly longer. Here is an explanation of the XL2 Chip block:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php

If you do a search for depth of field, you will see many discusions about it. I suggest you read, that will help.

Generally, if you can zoom to the tele end of the lens and shoot at the widest aperture, that will help limit your depth of field. If you can scout your locations and do some tests, that will help. You can always rent a Mini35 and some Zeiss Super Speed primes, you don't necessarily have to go and buy one. Depending on what you want to accomplish in your film, do some tests and see what you like.

Mark, thanks for your response. Yes, I've extensively researched the depth of field issue on the XL2 along with how it applies to general digital videography in general. I've been able to understand the techniques and I'm confident I'll be able to put them in motion once I start shooting.

However, I'm not really asking about DOF in general. I'm wondering how bad the issue is with the XL2 specifically.

This is basically a pre-purchase question. Without buying anything extra, can someone give me examples of how shallow the stock XL2 is with the 20X lens?

I've given some examples of shots I'll probably be doing. As a pre-purchase question, I'm wondering if the stock XL2 can do them.

To sum up a typical shot:

In order of distance from camera: subject one, 4-6 foot space, subject two, 7-10 foot space, background imagery/wall. The entire shot would be a mid close up of dialogue.

Question: I would like to keep the camera stationary and shift focus back and forth from subject one to subject two while keeping the background slightly out of focus. Can this be done with a stock XL2 with a 20X?

Note: I did not specify the distance between the camera and subject one on purpose as I imagine you'd have to play around with either being very close to subject one or as far away as possible and zooming in to get the DOF shallow. However, I couldn't be more than about 8 feet away from subject one.

Also, I don't need to know HOW to do this...I already basically know how to try this (distance away and zooming vs getting close, opening up the aperture, etc.). The question is whether the stock XL2 DOF can be made this shallow under these conditions.

I have to imagine that anyone with an XL2 and a 20X who has spent any time at all working with DOF should be able to answer this question on this hypothetic shot.

Thanks,

Kelly

Run, don't walk, to http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/optics/dofskinny.php

Run, don't walk, to http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/optics/dofskinny.php

Excellent link. I'll plug in some figures and see what I come up with.

Thanks,

Kelly

I have to imagine that anyone with an XL2 and a 20X who has spent any time at all working with DOF should be able to answer this question on this hypothetic shot.

I don't have an answer because I don't have any information. What is your focal length? What is your subject distance? What is your f/stop? Without knowing all of these things it's impossible to say and it's different in every situation. That's stuff you'll have to figure out for yourself using the depth of field calculations. Be far away and like I said before, stay towards the tele end. If you are at the wide end, you'll have deep depth of field. That's what you get with MiniDV and video in general.

The 20x does not lend itself to accurate focus pulls, unless you do it at exactly the same speed in both directions. Even then it'll probably drift, I did some tests and posted about it in January, or December. Use the 16x.

Do some tests.

The 20x does not lend itself to accurate focus pulls, unless you do it at exactly the same speed in both directions. Even then it'll probably drift, I did some tests and posted about it in January, or December. Use the 16x.

Do some tests.

I'll try to work with the DOF calculations although some of it is still abstract to me. I guess you are right. I'm probably going to have to wait until I get the camera and experiment with this myself. Ultimately, I imagine I would want to open the lens as much as possible and zoom in as much as possible. How much I can zoom in will be balanced with how far I can move back away from the subject and still be able to frame the shot properly. Lots of things to balance.

As far as the focus pulls, is it that hard to do it by sight, especially if you don't have to pull that fast? I don't want to use the 16X because of the issue with the frame drifting.

Is this why people are rigging up "follow focus" rigs? I always wondered why they didn't just focus during a shot by what they saw in the viewfinder. I may end up posting this as another thread, but is the purpose of a "follow focus" just to mark specific focus marks that can be repeatable without having to rely on your eye?

Thanks,

Kelly

http://www.cinetechonline.com/ Look at the picture, it shows the follow focus attached to the XL2. Not enthused about the 20x as the lens. I have a Cinetech Titanium II follow focus which was about $1500, but a great deal and will work on any 15mm rods. It includes a short whip and knob.

The follow focus rig is helpful because it isolates the movements of the camera asistant so that the camera is not jerked during focus pulls. A flexible extension, or "whip" can also be used if the camera is handheld, or moving. This allows focus pulls without interfering with the free movement of the camera. The white disk can be written on with erasable pen to mark the focus point, or points, allowing you to repeatedly hit the same mark(s) with accuracy.

Usually the 1st AC measures the distance from the camera to the subject and then sets the lens to the appropriate distance. The operator may look through the camera to double check. It sounds wierd, but it's very accurate. With film cameras, and even with some video viewfinders measuring is sometimes more accurate than eye focus. The best AC's know the distance and can estimate very accurately the distance and then turn the knob appropriately and achieve sharp focus without looking through the camera. Cine lenses are also marked with the distances more frequently, every foot or so.

When I have to pull focus myself, I use white 1/8" Chartpak tape and stick it on the focus ring and make the marks there. I am left eyed, so while looking through the viewfinder, I can simlutaneously pull focus, but I am still using the follow focus, it just makes it easier.

Having someone else pull focus makes it easier for the camera operator to concentrate on following the subject or making sure that certain compositions/frames are hit during a take. Though I think the NFL Films guys all operate and pull their own focus. (Sound byte of Paris Hilton) That's hott.

You will probably find yourself in the corner, or out in the hallway. Somehow I am always doing this, tryng to get as far back as possible. Sometimes it helps if there are just blank walls behind the subject.

Depth of field calculations help to determine your near point and far point of focus, or acceptable sharpness. Outside of those distances, the subject begins to go out of focus. Not sure what the circle of confusion for a 1/3" chip is. Not sure anyone has ever bothered to find out.

You may want to check out the micro35 Cinema Lens Adapter. It gives you mini35 style adapting of 35mm lenses, but at a fraction of the price - intro price is $500.

www.micro35.com

Cheers

Brian

Getting back to your original question, Kelly...

The XL2 20x zoom on the XL2 is okay for DOF at a max f-stop of 3.5 at the tele end of the lens - not the best. Because the focal length has to be so long to get a decent DOF, you need to get distance from your actors, so when filming in tight spaces, you won't get what you want. I was a little disappointed because the lens really does just compress the z-axis without blurring it (must be because of the higher-res CCDs). While I have yet to use the Canon 3x Zoom XL lens (f/2.2 at full zoom), I've heard that the DOF is phenomenal when shooting medium and close-up shots.

My research as a student of digital cinematography has led me to think people want DOF to be too complicated to explain. It is when you get into the physics of light and lenses, but all you need to know is that the larger the f/stop, the shallower the depth of field.

Here's what I believe to be the best "cinema-like" DOF for SD video cameras to pull focus for scenes like you are describing (assuming you're using 1/60 sec shutter speed): 1/4" = f/1.8; 1/3" = f/2.0; 1/2" = f/2.2; 2/3" = f/2.4. The closer the lens can get to these f-stops at full telephoto, the shallower your depth-of-field.

Not many camcorders can achieve these fast lens speeds at full telephoto (usually max iris is 2.8 or higher). What I do to achieve the best DOF, is to always shoot with the largest f/stop through out a camera's zoom range, use ND or controlled lighting to control exposure, and shoot around the middle of the lens for most shots. (XL2 20x zoom = f/3.5, shutter 1/60, 55mm for most shots)

If you want some serious DOF, give a look to Canon's Optura Xi. Its lens at full telephoto is f/1.9. Yes, it's a 1-chipper and the exposure controls are not fully manual, but the quality of this camera is on par with the GL2. The Optura XI shoots native 16:9 and the image doesn't suffer from the 'softness' of the GL2 and XL1s because there is no pixel-shifting.

Hope this helps.

For instance, if I want to shoot a conversation between two people, as one is talking, the camera will shoot over the shoulder or across the face of the other in the foreground. I'll want to have that foreground somewhat out of focus when the actors are anywhere between 4 and 6 feet apart.

Unless I am mistaken, this is your real question. The truth is, this is going be almost (but not entirely) impossible to accomplish with your interior shots using the stock lens. And to be sure, this is not an issue limited to the XL series of cameras!

If you want your movie to look like it was shot on film, why not shoot it on film?

Jay

"If you want your movie to look like it was shot on film, why not shoot it on film?"

This is a real easy question to answer: time, money and expertise.

1.) Video setups are significantly easier to accomplish with less people.
2.) You can use less lighting.
3.) Video cameras are smaller than film cameras (less attention getting).
4.) Video cameras are less intimidating to on-camera talent.
5.) Light meters are built-in to the video camera; don't have to know exposure real well, since you can preview on monitor (WYSIWYG).
6.) 12-min roll of film + processing + color timing + telecine to DV = $$$$ vs. $4 for a 60-min mini DV tape. Think about how much money per minute you spend for usable footage on film (for every 12 minutes, probably 2 or 3 min is usable). Rewind the tape if you must and rerecord. It's still only $4.
7.) Edit immediately - no waiting.
8.) Video can now shoot 24 fps for that telecined-look.

Also, ask someone who isn't familiar with the film/video world to spot the difference between the two formats and chances are, they can't.

Another thing that I find interesting is digital projection in movie theaters. I went to see Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe in digital, and some of the previews and commercials shown before the film were obviously done in video. I was rather amazed at the quality of the video being projected that large. Also, more features are being shot in HD (i.e. Star Wars)... you'd never know it wasn't on film. Think about this too - most visual effects are recorded to film at a 2K resolution. HD is basically 1K - almost there.

The only thing film has to it, is the elusive ease at which to achieve DOF. Every other quality of film can be mimmicked with video.

Let the flame wars begin :)

I don't entirely agree or disagree.

1.) Video setups are significantly easier to accomplish with less people.
Not related to achieving "film-look."

2.) You can use less lighting.
Not related to achieving "film-look." In fact, this will only contribute to the problem!

3.) Video cameras are smaller than film cameras (less attention getting).
Not related to achieving "film-look."

4.) Video cameras are less intimidating to on-camera talent.
Not related to achieving "film-look." If the on-camera talent is intimidated by the camera, then they need to look for work elsewhere!

5.) Light meters are built-in to the video camera; don't have to know exposure real well, since you can preview on monitor (WYSIWYG).
Not related to achieving "film-look." Can be and is done with video assist in film.

6.) 12-min roll of film + processing + color timing + telecine to DV = $$$$ vs. $4 for a 60-min mini DV tape. Think about how much money per minute you spend for usable footage on film (for every 12 minutes, probably 2 or 3 min is usable). Rewind the tape if you must and rerecord. It's still only $4.
Not related to achieving "film-look."

7.) Edit immediately - no waiting.
Although true... Not related to achieving "film-look."

8.) Video can now shoot 24 fps for that telecined-look.
Not entirely.

Also, ask someone who isn't familiar with the film/video world to spot the difference between the two formats and chances are, they can't.
Most can, although they can't explain why.

Moot points to the real question of achieving a film-look.

Jay

Moot points to the real question of achieving a film-look.

Jay

It seems like semantics are being debated. Xander's entire post was answering "If you want your movie to look like it was shot on film, why not shoot it on film?"

I think he answered many of the reasons why I wouldn't shoot on film. I'm a first-timer with about $10K total to spend. Money, expertise and ease are the main issues.

I'm an audio engineer and the film vs. film-simulated-video is a lot like analog tape vs. digitally-simulated-analog-tape. People still like what analog tape gives them and digital will never 100% achieve that because it is what it is...digital. However, first-timers will always go digital because of lack of money and expertise and ease. At the same time, they may always try to simulate that warm analog tape feel.

I don't think anyone is saying video is better than film. I think we are just saying that video is cheaper and easier than film, but we are still going to want to try to emulate film.

Kelly

I don't think anyone is saying video is better than film. I think we are just saying that video is cheaper and easier than film, but we are still going to want to try to emulate film.

No, Kelly, I didn't imply that you were saying that video is better than film. (And by-the-way, thank you for using the correct word "than" instead of "then." This is a clear indicator of your intelligence!)

Yes, I agree that video is cheaper. Yes, certain aspects of it are easier, but capturing a beautiful image, whether it looks like film or not, is not necessarily easier. It takes just as much talent and knowledge to shoot beautiful video as it does beautiful film! My point, perhaps not well stated, is that video is video and film is film. Why can't we simply embrace video and appreciate it for what it is? It has come such a long way since it's introduction, which was long before most of you were born!

Here are some quotes from another post on cinematography.com on this very issue, which I think are very pertinent to this topic:

"I don't think it is like this in any other art form. A sculptor doesn't say: 'How do I make marble look like bronze?' A painter doesn't say: 'How do I make watercolor look like oil?' We are simply talking about a medium here, and in all other arts people choose their medium carefully. People come to this forum constantly and ask about video looking like film, because they are naive and don't know the right question to ask, much less how to make anything of any quality." (Josh Hill)

"I believe far to many people are concerned with getting a film look - but what really separates what many people CALL the *film look* from the video look is all that makes a cinematographer an expert in his craft: Lighting, composition, camera movement - the elements and principles of design." (Mike Donis)

"People should pick the medium that best suits their piece. Some people unfortunately are stuck using certain mediums because of cost. Nice oil paints will cost you a heck of a lot more than acrylics. Is one better than the other? I would say not. It is simply a matter of how you use it to express yourself." (Robert Gvildys)

Personally, I wish more of those who aspire to filmmaking would concern themselves with the other, more important, elements of cinema, those being:

Story -- A good script cannot be over emphasized!
Actors -- If your actors are incapable of carrying it off, all else is pointless.
Cinematography -- As in Joseph Mascelli's book "The Five C's of Cinematography": 1-Camera angles, 2-Composition, 3-Close-ups, 4-Continuity, 5-Cutting. Of course, lighting is another aspect that cannot be over emphasized. There is far too much focus on the "low-light" capability of cameras in video. If anything screams VIDEO and AMATEUR more loudly, it's poorly exposed video. Properly exposed images will do more than anything else to elevate the quality of your video image!
Sound -- Sound is too often overlooked. Some suggest that sound accounts for 80% of the quality of the image.
Editing -- This goes beyond simply splicing shots together. Owing an NLE does not an editor make!

These are just the basics, but with some level of understanding and mastery over these elements your video project can and will be improved immeasurably and neither you nor your audience will worry if it was shot on video or if looks like film.

Jay

"If you want your movie to look like it was shot on film, why not shoot it on film?"

"This is a real easy question to answer: time, money and expertise."

Without expertise, your image will look bad. That's why it's a good idea to learn how to do it properly, if you don't have the money to hire an expert. There is never enough time so it's always a compromise, expert or not. Knowing what you are doing at least prevents it from looking like complete crap.

Obviously it's nice to have all three, but often you only have one. There's never enough time, or money, so you have to rely on your expertise and the expertise of the crew around you. You can't just turn on the camera and expect everything to look like it was a "real live Hollywood movie".

There are a lot of caveats to your ten points/answers below. The main thing is knowing what you are doing and how to do it quickly and efficiently. Pre-planning and having a back-up are also necessities. That means time taken to gain expertise by working in the real world. Your simplistic and misguided points/answers show that you have little or no real world experience or knowledge, or that your parents are producers and you made the mistake of listening to them:~). Your arguments simply do not hold up.


"1.) Video setups are significantly easier to accomplish with less people."

Yes, if you want the project to look like crap. You still need a full crew to set up and move a camera, light the scene and make it look good. If you are doing documentary, then maybe, but you still have to be very aware of your lighting and exposure. You have to know what you are doing. There is no substitute for knowledge and experience. With those you can do more with less. People have gotten used to seeing a lot of crappy video on TV and it is making it harder for us because people like you have no idea what it takes to make a video production look good.


"2.) You can use less lighting."

Yes, if you want your project to look like crap. Light still needs to be shaped and sculpted, if you want your actors to look like humans. Video's shorter dynamic range requires MORE lighting.


"3.) Video cameras are smaller than film cameras (less attention getting)."

Depending on what you are trying to do, this is not an issue. If it is, use an Aaton A-Minima, it looks like a camcorder, or the new Arri 235. Have you seen the size of most ENG cameras? They are still quite large and most "man on the street" type interviews do not intimidate people.



"4.) Video cameras are less intimidating to on-camera talent."

Not necessarily. If you are shooting actors, it's not a problem. When shooting interviews, work with the interviewee and provide a "safe" atmosphere. Put them at ease. Also the majority of people are used to the idea that there are video cameras and ENG crews out and about. How the crew acts and interacts with the subject can go a long way to ease jittery nerves.


"5.) Light meters are built-in to the video camera; don't have to know
exposure real well, since you can preview on monitor (WYSIWYG)."

A non issue. You can light by eye and use the production monitor & waveform, or a good onboard color monitor. You can judge the exposure through the camera's viewfinder. I still use my light meter with my video camera. Some film cameras have built in light meters, but you have to know what you are doing. Same with video


"6.) 12-min roll of film + processing + color timing + telecine to DV = $$$$ vs. $4 for a 60-min mini DV tape. Think about how much money per minute you spend for usable footage on film (for every 12 minutes, probably 2 or 3 min is usable). Rewind the tape if you must and rerecord. It's still only $4."

You are comparing apples and oranges. Video is cheaper, sort of. There are a lot of ways that video can be cheaper, absolutely. But you still have to spend a lot of $$$ if you are doing a film out, even from MiniDV. But I wouldn't want to do a film out from MiniDV, I'd want to do it from DVCPRO50 or better quality video format. And besides, if you are going from video to film out you still have to shoot and light properly. If you transfer film to tape yes it is expensive, but the original film image will still be a much better image than MiniDV or video in general. Pretty much anything will be better than MiniDV. I own a very expensive MiniDV camera package, but let's face it MiniDV is a sh*tty format, it has too many limitations. MiniDV has 4:1:1 colors, film gives you millions of colors, better resolution and better low light capabilities. Film is going to be a better image than MiniDV and most video formats. The video vs film really depends on your needs and budget. Save it for another post. Beta SP is better than MiniDV. At least it's 4:2:2!


(more)

(cont'd)

"7.) Edit immediately - no waiting."

True. You can do the same on set. Go into "video village" and the playback operator is recording everything being shot. I think there are systems where you can create EDL's from video taken off the tap.


"8.) Video can now shoot 24 fps for that telecined-look."


Yes and no. If the image looks like sh*t, it's going to need more help in post whether it's film or video. Video especially. 24P emulates film and has motion blur similar to film. There are other things that go towards a film look, highlights that don't clip, color reproduction, dynamic range, etc. That's where knowledge and experience come in and yes, lighting. It is possible to make film look like video and video look like film. I'm not really arguing those points.


"Also, ask someone who isn't familiar with the film/video world to spot the difference between the two formats and chances are, they can't."

Maybe, maybe not. That's a more general argument of tech stuff over story. People will overlook bad technical stuff in video and film, if the story is good. That's the main thing. All the technical BS is in service of a good story. I'm not excusing bad technical mistakes, but it's about the story.

People will have a "feeling" often when they see something that's "different". They may not know what it is, or have language for it like we do, but they will notice it and sense something is "different".


"Another thing that I find interesting is digital projection in movie theaters. I went to see Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe in digital, and some of the previews and commercials shown before the film were obviously done in video. I was rather amazed at the quality of the video being projected that large. Also, more features are being shot in HD (i.e. Star Wars)... you'd never know it wasn't on film. Think about this too - most visual effects are recorded to film at a 2K resolution. HD is basically 1K - almost there."

But Lucas isn't doing it with one person and a couple of actors in his basement. They're still using large crews following normal production procedures and using the latest technology in the camera, and in post production. With a couple of ten ton trucks and a production crew I can make may video look like film too. CGI is starting to bump up to 4K, it's getting cheaper and easier. Before there wasn't the technolgy or infrastructure to support 4K outputs, now there are. 4K is a better resolution. 2K was the max that the post production systems could handle back in the 80's, but now they're starting to go to 4K. Film may be higher than 4K. Anyone? And they're still outputting to film


"The only thing film has to it, is the elusive ease at which to achieve DOF. Every other quality of film can be mimmicked with video."

Silly boy. The focus of film goes much deeper. There are a lot of economic issues involved, that's why it's called "show business". If it were that simple we'd have switched a long time ago.

Shooting on film makes your image "future proof". When you want to re-master your film project in twenty years, you can re-master film onto whatever the newest digital format will be and not loose anything in the process. Some people have transferred film to HD and saw things that they never saw in previous iterations. Film can still capture color and dynamic range much better than video. Archiving is a big issue. I may be wrong, but I think film lasts longer than tape when stored properly.

It's easier to rent film equipment around the world than video gear. Film is film, no compatability issues. I don't know for sure but I would think that repair and upkeep of mechanical film cameras, is cheaper. Also a Mitchell 35mm film camera from the 1940 can still shoot film. The upgrade is in the film stock, not the camera. There are now problems with finding playback systems for older tape formats and it will only get worse as time progresses.

One of the biggest reasons film is still around is distribution. Almost all of the theater chains are set up for film. Converting an entire chain from film to digital would require millions (billions?) of dollars and then who knows about the technology? Will it be upgradeable? Will it work? Can a video this week be played on the same equipment in ten years? Twenty years? What about storage of the tapes or files? Downloading a movie from an FTP site would be great, but there are security issues and file size, encoding and storage issues. The theory is there but the execution is a ways off. There are other things I may have missed. Talk to the studios and theater chains. They have a lot invested in film technology.

It would be pretty nifty to have a feature film exist as data, but the longer term issues of storage, future retrieval, playback and distribution are major hurdles to clear. A film projected on a large screen is still a very wonderful experience and the way film reproduces our world is still a thing of great beauty and subtlety. Video is close, but it still has several flesh tones to go, before it's palate reaches the level of film.

Other things: at the moment it's easier to under and over crank film. There are high speed video cams but they're quite expensive and not that easy to rent yet. Yes video is catching up but film isn't dead yet. It'll be quite a wile before film goes away.


Question for you: Can you make your video look like film? What is your level of experience? Have you ever shot film? Shot video? More power to you if you can, good on you.


"Let the flame wars begin :)"

Eh, whatever.

Just a little remark to Kelly:

Have you already tried the XL2 out?
Maybe just try it out, put it on a open iris, and look if you can achieve your effect.
Good luck, tell us what you thought!

Oy! Why did I even bother?

Just a little remark to Kelly:

Have you already tried the XL2 out?
Maybe just try it out, put it on a open iris, and look if you can achieve your effect.
Good luck, tell us what you thought!

Thanks Mathieu, that is the next step. The only place that sells these in Indianapolis is closed until Monday. Hopefully they'll let me take one out of the box and try it out.

Kelly

Oy! Why did I even bother?

LOL! You know, there really isn't anything like coming into a forum as a newbie and getting the regulars to slug it out with each other in a flame war!

Seriously though, I'm really glad you guys had that discussion. It helps educate everyone as to both sides of the issues involved.

Thanks to all for your responses and your continued discussion.

Kelly

It's frustrating when you have people say stupid sh*t and they haven't a clue what they're talking about, or what it all means. "Xander" is obviously not a film or video professional, because it's clear he has no idea what he's talking about, or the meaning of what he's regurgitating. I think he read a bunch of posts and then cobbled something together that sounded like he knew what he was talking about.

It's like when a little kid learns a swear word. He has this thing, he says it and the grown ups get all upset. But he really doesn't know what to do with it, or how to use it, because he doesn't know what it means.

The statements Xander made were just meant to incite people, not inform them.

Mark, try to be more patient and understanding. Not everyone here is at the same level of knowledge, talent, and/or experience. It's a place where everyone can learn something from someone else.

Sure, some will try to flex their muscles or try to impress the rest of us, but it's not worth getting our shorts in a knot over it.

Jay

All,
I considered whether to start editing the recent posts, or just address it head on...I've obviously chosen the latter so briefly bear with me, read and heed:

There ain't gonna be no flame wars here. Spirited discussions relating to the XL2, and use thereof, are most welcome, given that at least the appearance of mutual respect and courtesy is maintained. So for Mark and Xander and Jay -- and anyone else -- if you all disagree about film vs. video, you're welcome to politely duke out the merits of your positions, but please, in a new thread in another forum.

Mark,
Speaking of kids learning swear words...before you go demeaning too many more people with thinly veiled profanity-laced insults, please tone it down a notch. Even if Directors of Photography do that elsewhere, they don't do it here. I gather that you come from a full-time pro FILM-maker mindset, so it is laudable that you've spent significant time and effort helping Kelly in this and other threads before this one started going off track. Let's bring it down to the new-user level and stick to that here.

Kelly,
If you don't mind, give us a little more info about your experience level and what your near-term video goals are...hobby-level short films, or part of your job, or going full time indie, or...? The thread veered off-track toward film and high dollar professional gear. If this unruly mob has a better sense of your vision of yourself in 3 or 6 months, they can probably help more constructively.

Thanks, everyone.

Kelly,
If you don't mind, give us a little more info about your experience level and what your near-term video goals are...hobby-level short films, or part of your job, or going full time indie, or...? The thread veered off-track toward film and high dollar professional gear. If this unruly mob has a better sense of your vision of yourself in 3 or 6 months, they can probably help more constructively.
Thanks, everyone.

Pete, thanks for your comments. Honestly, I think everyone has been on the right track with their answers to my questions. Much of what I'm trying to do will probably have to be accomplished through trial and error.

My background is that of a musician/audio engineer. On a completely unrelated note, I'm a molecular biologist. I only bring all of that up to show that I'm very technically proficient. If you will, I'm a student of science and technology and learning new technical things comes fairly easy.

I'm only used lower level consumer video cameras and NLE programs and that was in the past. I've recently decided to change my focus from audio engineering to independent film.

My plan is to spend about $10,000 on a camera, a mac and a more pro NLE, lights and other accessories. I've done research on the equipment, cinematography, etc. I'm a creative person and I feel I have an eye for this. I can critically evaluate the work of others and I've found that I'm able to think of improvements and changes that fit what I feel will be my style.

Ultimately, I'm working with others to write two to five short films (2 minutes to 5 minutes each) that I can short with little resources and few actors in order to evaluate my talent (or lack thereof). It is an expensive experiment, but if it is successful, I don't want to lock myself into equipment that I will grow out of very quickly.

One of the things that inspired me was John Gulager's submissions to the contest Project Greenlight. You can find them at:

http://www.wantmymusic.com/50_top_directors/mbr_voighthead_wm9.asx

and

http://www.wantmymusic.com/10_top_directors/mbr_voighthead_wm9.asx

This is why I am so interested in DOF. Gulager's work seems to have plenty of depth to it. There is almost always something in the foreground and the background of the subject. Of everything I've seen, this seems to be the style I'd like to emulate. It seems much more interesting than other independent film I've seen.

I understand the DOF limitations of video and the methods by which we attempt to overcome them. Unfortunately, I don't completely have a grip as to how limited the XL2 is. I know it will have DOF limitations, but I'm not sure how to translate those limitations into problems with actual shots. For instance, I know if will be difficult to impossible to limit the DOF to a few inches in most cases. However, I don't know how difficult it is to limit DOF to a few feet.

Right now, I'm looking into the Micro35 type of system. Although the pic will be reversed and upside down, I'll probably have an LCD monitor I can turn upside down and compensate. This should give me good control over DOF. I kind of wonder how it might affect the quality of the picture, but that is probably for another thread.

Anyhow, that is probably way too much information, but you asked. I believe I'm just going to have to look at a local XL2 and see if I can get that 2-3 foot DOF in a small room (without having to get way back and zoom in).

We'll see.

Thanks for all of your help. I'm still open to comments.

Thanks,

Kelly

Peter, please point out to me what I said that was not polite, so I'll know what not to do.

Jay

OK everybody...group hug!

Hi Pete,

I apologize for the profanity.

Best,

-M

P.S. Erm...Not sure about the hug, I've only just met you :~)

Thanks Pete for restoring some order around here!

Jay, if Pete thought you had said anything that was impolite, I'm sure he would have pointed it out already.

Mark, I'm definitely glad that you bothered, as your extensive two-part post will make a wonderful article for our content side of DV Info Net. I read every word and thought it was right on the mark. Very much appreciated!

Kelly, this is kind of an interesting time to be buying gear. HDV is in it's infancy, Panasonic's version will be coming around December, so we're just not sure what's going to happen or how much demand there will be for HDV. I personally am not a fan of HDV, but you have to keep an eye on what's going on in the marketplace.

I do prefer Panasonic's version of HDV, even though it's vaporware at the moment. I did see Jan Crittenden Livingston the other day at the Panasonic demo held at Abel Cine Tech in NYC. I like what they have planned for HD and their version of HDV. The HVX200 mock up costs twice as much as the proposed camera. The mock up costs about $20K. I would like to get my hands on one and play, I really like the idea of the P2 cards, or a big tank to dump the info into. No more digitizing!

I don't have much experience with the Z1U, but I'm not sure that early adoption is a good thing right now. I'm curious to hear what other folks say. I know there is a thread about XL2 vs Z1U. Screech. Sorry, starting to veer.

Do you need to buy a camera? Maybe you get your NLE system and rent a camera? I'm a DP shooter, so me owning a MiniDV rig helps get me some smaller gigs. If you want to direct, maybe it would be better to hire a DP and put the money towards your short films. But hey, if ya gotta shoot, ya gotta shoot.

Oh, Hi Chris! Thanks. The one thing I forgot to say is that film and video are tools and each has their own use.

Yes, I've worked in production departments (preproduction and production) for serveral Hollywood features, and several independent films/videos (pre-, pro- and post-production), so my knowledge of camera operations and lighting setups come from cinematographers (Walt Lloyd, anyone?) and on-the-job training. I've just finally completed my degree in digital cinematography (and no, my parents didn't pay for it, I did). I've professionally DP'd four short films (1 film, 2 SD video and 1 HDV). I'm a professional photographer and graphic designer. BUT, most importantly, I used to do 60i-to-24p conversions at a post house, with 'film-like' color correction to boot. The company dictated a protocol for DP's using video to maximize the 24p conversion.

You won't believe how many people do telecine film to miniDV, because it's easier to edit. Most independents won't fork over the cash to rent Betacam or even DVCPro decks because those can be several hundred bucks a week, then they need a RAID and a relatively expensive "non-compressed" capture card for component analog video, or rent an edit suite. Again, expense.

One thing about this whole thread is that Kelly is going to shoot on video, not film. He also said he's doing "independent film production", so this typically means low budget. So, the question that I tried to answer was how to best achieve a "film-like" atmosphere without the expense of film. I have debated the "if you want a film look, shoot on film" argument for almost four years with film purists, and then it's almost like attacking a religion, or Apple Computer (a cult... hehehe!). The only thing I ask the film purists to do is to at least try video with a film-like mentality.

I've only had one cinematographer take my challenge, and guess what? After the first day of his shoot, he let go of almost half his crew, returned two-thirds of his lighting gear, used three and five point light setups (outputs were 500w or less; lights were sculpted with reflectors, scrims, flags, gels) and his footage was freakin' unbelievable (both at 480/60i and when converted to 480/24p - Sony PD-150 was the camera). He was able to compose his shots after about 2 minutes of camera setup... checking the gate, measuring focal distances, etc: gone. His was able to do a planned 14 day shoot in 5 days, and he told me he slashed his $20K budget to about $8K. And again, the footage didn't look like video, even at 60i. It was beautiful. It was kinda like seeing HD for the first time, but this was SD!

I will admit that I'm a bit of a technologist. I'm willing to give technology a chance to replace old school stuff. Applying the same care and attention to detail to video as you would film will increase the perceived production value without the expense of film. This is absolutely critical when you have no/low budget. I've been to Kodak's seminars where they proclaim that if you want true HD, use film... just another company trying to protect its core business. I wonder why Kodak now makes digital cameras? Evolution?

Oh, "Xander" is another nickname of "Alexander". So please don't put my name in quotes.

Have a happy day!

Xander

The only thing I ask the film purists to do is to at least try video with a film-like mentality.
That makes sense, and I can agree with that!

I've only had one cinematographer take my challenge, and guess what? After the first day of his shoot, he let go of almost half his crew, returned two-thirds of his lighting gear, used three and five point light setups (outputs were 500w or less; lights were sculpted with reflectors, scrims, flags, gels) and his footage was freakin' unbelievable (both at 480/60i and when converted to 480/24p - Sony PD-150 was the camera). He was able to compose his shots after about 2 minutes of camera setup... checking the gate, measuring focal distances, etc: gone. His was able to do a planned 14 day shoot in 5 days, and he told me he slashed his $20K budget to about $8K. And again, the footage didn't look like video, even at 60i. It was beautiful. It was kinda like seeing HD for the first time, but this was SD!
That qualifies what you were saying earlier (and which I evidently misunderstood), so now I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from.

Thanks for the clarification.

Jay

Well, I worried last night that I may have been too harsh. But whether I was or wasn't...ahhhhh, the tone is better here already! Looks like we might be ready to resume discussion of the XL2, its capabilities and limitations.

Kelly, I'll try to do a quick test shoot this week along the lines of what you were originally asking about. Between returning from back-to-back business trips, my wife's birthday, going to a preview showing of the new Star Wars movie, and catching up at DVinfo, I just didn't have time this weekend to do that.

And now, sadly, I see it is time for me to go to my Monday morning meeting -- sighhhh ---- :-(

More later!

Buy a used video camera with 2/3" chips. This will greatly improve your DOF.

Kelly et al,

It's no masterpiece but I did a "quick n dirty" Depth of Field demo with the XL2 and stock 20x lens:

http://www.geosynchrony.com/scratchpad.htm

Hope y'all find it useful.

Thanks for taking the time to put that all together, Pete. I took a quick look around and there's a lot of good stuff there. I'll take a closer look when I get a chance next week.

Best,

-M

Xander:

I've been essentially taking on the challenge you describe for about 4 years now, since I was asked to shoot a short on DV rather than film for budgetary reasons, but with a film look. I've done a few projects with minimal gear, but then again I've shot film with minimal gear also. Basically I light both mediums nearly identically, with the same equipment. Video requires more attention to highlights as we all know, which means more grip gear to balance anything that involves daylight.

In the example you described, it is my guess that the DP was experimenting with different approach to the two mediums, not that he was able to achieve the SAME results on DV with less gear and crew than he would have needed on film (less the obvious camera loader and probably 2nd assistant).

Hello,

I find the XL2 DOF workable for most circumstances. We use the tools that we have, the best way we know. The limitations of the tool foster creativity... at least that's what we say until we get money :-)

I think the bottom line is with a little work (not much) you can get enough of a shallow dof with the XL2 to point your audience to what they should be paying attention to.

If you want more arty, super-shallow "Lost in Translation" dof, use a different cam.

Kelly et al,

It's no masterpiece but I did a "quick n dirty" Depth of Field demo with the XL2 and stock 20x lens:

http://www.geosynchrony.com/scratchpad.htm

Hope y'all find it useful.

Pete,

I'd like to personally thank you for putting that together on your site. You really answered the specific questions for me in a way no words could.

Thank you for taking your time out and doing that. It really makes the capabilities of the stock camera less abstract.

Thanks again,

Kelly

If you want more arty, super-shallow "Lost in Translation" dof, use a different cam.

Wouldn't a $500 micro35 (whenever it is available) achieve this effect much more cheaply than a stock camera that would?

This is an honest question, not sarcasm. I've been looking at the micro35 and although it has limitations, it looks like it could raise the XL2 DOF to that higher level at a very low price.

By the way, I'm in no way associated with that company.

Thanks,

Kelly

I just ordered one for my current GL2. And I'll be able to switch it to an XL2 when I make that purchase. From the footage I've seen in various forums, the DOF looks great, and seems to be capable of shooting what I'm looking for.

DOF is not really something that varies much on cameras IF they have the same size CCD's. The best way to get a shallow depth of field that is more film-like is basic: move as far back as possible and zoom in. This is singularly the best way to do selective focus.

Remember that "film look" is a WAY over-used term and I agree with the posts above about using the medium you're working in for the best picture possible. If you have a deep DOF, use it! Ever watch Citizen Kane where everything is in focus? Incorporate the tools you have (video & deep DOF) into your planning for your shoot.

That said, if I must give away some of my class pointers on achieving a film-look, I shall:

7 key areas to work on: 1-Motion Characteristics, 2-Production Techniques, 3-Grey scale/contrast, 4-Saturation, 5-Grain patterns, 6-Depth of Field, 7-Aspect Ratios

Okay, use the XL2 and you right away can nail 2 of these: Work in 24p or 30p to get a more stuttered, filmic look to your picture. Use 16 x 9 to have a more theatrical widescreen look.

Now, #2 Production Techniques is the next biggest one to achieving a filmic look: USE A TRIPOD! Light like FILM! Compose standard filmic shots, etc. etc. etc.

My quick tips recipe for making video look MORE like film:
1-Shoot 24 or 30p and 16 x 9 (or 4 x 3 & letterbox)
2-Use high production values (NO handheld! A 5 lb camera doesn't move like the big film cameras when on a shoulder)
3-Light like film which means contrast. Don't high-key light it where everything is lit. Have a dark and light area in every frame, if possible to imitate the dynamic range of film.
4-Shallower DOF-Move camera as far back as possible, zoom in
5-Color correct every shot-Experiment with more or less saturation depending on the look you want. Add contrast.

Hope that helps or gives some fuel to the film-look fires out there.

Kevin

This whole idea that you need a 2/3" or film camera or even 35mm adapter to get a decent DOF is silly. If you can learn to use your camera at a partial zoom and not in the full wide mode, you can get a very small DOF. While it will not equal or be as easy as a 2/3" chip or film cam/adapter it certainly will work for most applications. FYI, the XL2 has a shallower DOF than most 1/3" cams because of its longer lens.

When I log tapes I always do some grabs so I will know what the footage on the tape looks like. Here are some grabs taken by a stock XL1s with a stock lens with natural light (which was at times almost ZERO). These are RAW interlaced video grabs with no color correction or anything from a documentary I have just wrapped up shooting. Click around on a few and you will find some with a very small DOF.... I can get an even smaller DOF with the XL2...

http://members.aol.com/ashvid/Grabs/



ash =o)

Ash, nice work! Where did the "grain" come from? Sometimes it looks like it was shot on old Tri-X. I'd love to see this when it's finished!

Jay

If you want more arty, super-shallow "Lost in Translation" dof, use a different cam.

What kind of camera? The kind I would have to sell my car to buy? Or the kind I would have to sell my house to buy?

This whole idea that you need a 2/3" or film camera or even 35mm adapter to get a decent DOF is silly. If you can learn to use your camera at a partial zoom and not in the full wide mode, you can get a very small DOF. While it will not equal or be as easy as a 2/3" chip or film cam/adapter it certainly will work for most applications. FYI, the XL2 has a shallower DOF than most 1/3" cams because of its longer lens.

There are specific reasons to shoot a given shot at a given focal length. It's not really about "learning" to shoot everything on a long lens if that isn't appropriate to the shot. I prefer to prioritize the composition of elements within a frame over getting shallow focus, except for very specific moments where I feel that the foreground must be emphasized and I cannot do it with lighting alone.

Take a two-person conversation shot in over-the-shoulder shots, for example. To get a shallow DoF you have to get the camera a considerable distance back, perhaps 15+ feet. This is good for isolating the characters from the background, but sometimes you don't want that. To include more of their world, you can shoot it at 6 feet, keeping the same image size but on a wider lens which brings in more of the surroundings. In certain ways this becomes more intimate, you feel closer to the action. Either can work, but it is a choice to make that I feel requires weighing against the hard-and-fast rule of using long lenses simply for shallow focus.

Regarding the XL2 comment: all 1/3" cameras have the same DoF, but yes, a longer focal length will inherently deliver less DoF. In the 4:3 mode of the XL2, you will actually see greater DoF than most comparable cameras since it is essentially using a smaller chip size.

I agree Charles, I am not saying that you can just sub a 1/3" camera in all cases. I am just saying that creatively, you can use one when needed.

You hit on something most people overlook, the compostion of a shot. So many people become obsessed with 24P and DOF they forget to compose interesting, diverse and appropriate frames. Composition is the number one thing for a true film-look.


Jay, as far as the grain in some of the images... that is a result of having almost NO light. What I did to combat that, is create a "look" for situations with little to no light. In the XL1s I turned the sharpness way down and the gain up to 30db, this creates a TON of noise but with the sharpness down it more closely similates old film grain. I also crushed the blacks as much as possible. Some of those scenes were lit mainly with Xmas lights. Also, where there was so little light, there was almost no color information so I went with B&W which ended up working perfect with my story.

I have a rough submitted to Toronto which will screen for the committee on July 4th... wish me luck!




ash =o)