Hi to everyone:

I'm new to the forum, I sent hours last night trawling through some threads, and this is truly an incredible site. I spent a while looking for message boards like this, and now that I've found it I feel a little embarrassed to post. My knowledge is so far behind what everyone talks about here, it's a little intimidating.

That said, I'm going to risk what could be a completely reiculous question...

Having read up on the 35mm adapter for DV cameras, the homemade contraption that projects through a 35mm lens onto a piece of glass which the DV camera is focused on, therefore allowing you to achieve a shallow depth of field. (I saw Ben Winters test footage and was very impressed)

It occured to me that it might be possible to achieve a similar look by artificially blurring sections of the image. While to do this for an entire movie would be painstaking... I can't think of a quicker way than doctoring each individual frame... if you're talking a 5 minute movie... that's not necessarily too long a task.

Has anyone ever tried doing this?

Am I out of my mind considering it?

I myself have considered doing this. It's much less overwhelming doing it on a single image in Photoshop with duplicate layers, lense and gaussian blur, and masks.

I can't imagine doing it for a movie but with the cost of 35mm lenses it might be my only option!

Maybe you could try shooting the whole thing green/bluescreen, and adding DOF in post.

It would be easier to buy/rent/beg/borrow a 35mm adapter. Some of them are around a thousand dollars or less, but the image recorded is flipped. You have to workaround that problem, like turning the viewfinder and shooting backwards.

You could potentially rotoscope relevant shots (so that might be 3 minutes), but isn't your time worth something? It may also be easier to find a cameraperson in your city with the adapter and convince him/her to work for little/no pay if it's an independent/art/not really commercial film.

The Letus35 is only $300.
There is a tutorial online on how to create artificial DOF.
Personally, I think artificial DOF looks terrible.
But basically you use masks to blur the image except for what you want "in focus"

It would be easier to buy/rent/beg/borrow a 35mm adapter. Some of them are around a thousand dollars or less, but the image recorded is flipped. You have to workaround that problem, like turning the viewfinder and shooting backwards.

...

but isn't your time worth something?


Ive seen homemade 35mm adapters offered for about 250-300, but its just persuading my department at uni to buy one, and they are a sponsored department, so they can only get certain a brand of equipment... and there's no way they'd allow any modifications in the way I've seen some 35mm adapters attached. I will by using their camera unfortunately as I dont have one, and so there's little point me buying an adapter. And being in the UK, I'm not sure if it's possible to rent one from anywhere, or even borrow one.

but then my time should be worth something. You'd think if I spent all the time it woul take to manually alter each frame of a short movie. (I tried out the artificial dof on some photoshop images and it would take 1 hour to do 1 second, roughly, thats 60 hours per minute. at say 5UKP per hour. thats 300UKP, about $500... you know, on minimum wage, I could buy one inside 2 weeks, much less time than it would take to manually do each image, and that way I can do longer films.

I think I was out of my mind for considering it!

Alex,

Yes, I've done a gaussian blur on the background in interview shots to simulate a shallow DOF. Works fine for short stuff, and talking heads. Good for industrial, spots and the like. It's SOP for that sort of work.

Alex,

Glad you came to your senses...! I just spent two hours rotoscoping 42 frames and I was looking around for something to shoot myself with (and it didn't even work that well). Not worth it, especially if the end result is only shallow depth of field. Good luck with your adaptor search, though!

I can't think of a quicker way than doctoring each individual frame... if you're talking a 5 minute movie... that's not necessarily too long a task.

Has anyone ever tried doing this?

Am I out of my mind considering it?

I can think of a quicker way: build a 35mm adapter and use that, LOL.

Seriously, you can build an adapter a hell of a lot faster than doctoring each frame of a five minute movie.

There's also a company that sells an actual screen you hold up behind the subject which blurs out the background. The examples on the website looked promising, but I've never heard anybody discuss it. Perhaps it's totally cheesy. It might work for head shots though. Sorry I can't post a link. Try a google search.

There's some software called "Final Focus" from a Japanese company that seems to work pretty well from the examples I've seen. Check it out:
http://www.reiji.net/ff-e/

There's also a company that sells an actual screen you hold up behind the subject which blurs out the background. The examples on the website looked promising, but I've never heard anybody discuss it. Perhaps it's totally cheesy. It might work for head shots though. Sorry I can't post a link. Try a google search.

I believe this was a technique that Michel Gondry used in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

I think it was in some tracking shots! he used crew to carry the screen behind the actor. They (or the) shot(s) were obviously quite close up as the screen was very big (like a screen door to keep flies out, I think) any wider and it would have been impractical I guess.

So I agree it might work for talking heads, where you only want them in focus and theres no out of focus foreground elements. But it would require either a massive screen for any wider shots, or a movie consisting of close-ups. Otherwise I'd be stuck with an artificial DoF for the close-ups and then infinite DoF for all the wide shots. (Unless did all the wideshots with no kinetic elements. No pans, zooms, dollies, or moving cast. That way I could do a Photoshop job that was consistent to the entire shot, and quickly too, I'd guess it'd only take a half hour to do 5 or 6 seconds.

Speaking of crazy ways to avoid just getting a job and buying an adapter, I could make tiny versions of what I want in the foreground (to be out of focus) reeds, or branches, whatever, and then put them right up next to the lens (in a kind of false perspective artificial DoF)!

It looks like I either fork out for the adapter, persuade my department to, or shoot documentary style.

I looked at rental costs, forget that! It seems cheaper to buy them (except for the lenses)

Alex

Otherwise I'd be stuck with an artificial DoF for the close-ups and then infinite DoF for all the wide shots.

You kind of are stuck that way anyway. Ever seen a really wide shot, non-closeup, with a 35mm lens, that had a shallow DOF? Me neither. That's because even the few big aperture, short focal length 35mm lenses that do exist, don't really do a heck of a lot for blurring the out of focus portions of the image, because the depth of field is still pretty deep and doesn't "fall off" significantly outside the field of focus.

For example a 20mm F1.8 lens is still about the same DOF as a 50mm lens at F4.5. Not very shallow. That big aperture does make things bright, though.

What you can do, however, is use a wider angle lens and then move in closer. Naturally, the closer you get, the more out of focus the background will be, and the wider angle lens helps counteract how much your subject fills the frame due to being so close.

I know how you could do the tricks in After Effects, Photoshop, etc., but how does software like Final Focus perform this trick? How does it seperate what you want and then soften it?

I know how you could do the tricks in After Effects, Photoshop, etc., but how does software like Final Focus perform this trick? How does it seperate what you want and then soften it?

I've gathered from their website that it's really intended for animaters to use when compsiting layered images. This would work I assume if you were using live-action with a greenscreen. But I don't think that their software would work for regular film-makers.

You kind of are stuck that way anyway. Ever seen a really wide shot, non-closeup, with a 35mm lens, that had a shallow DOF? Me neither. That's because even the few big aperture, short focal length 35mm lenses that do exist, don't really do a heck of a lot for blurring the out of focus portions of the image, because the depth of field is still pretty deep and doesn't "fall off" significantly outside the field of focus.

For example a 20mm F1.8 lens is still about the same DOF as a 50mm lens at F4.5. Not very shallow. That big aperture does make things bright, though.

What you can do, however, is use a wider angle lens and then move in closer. Naturally, the closer you get, the more out of focus the background will be, and the wider angle lens helps counteract how much your subject fills the frame due to being so close.

Thanks, Bill:

I don't knwo too much about lenses, so would youmind if I ask you this then:

How do you create a feeling of depth in an image without utilising focus (DoF)?

In films there appears to be a clear z-axis visible in long shots. Wheras Video somehow shortens this into a more 2-dimensional image. Does a wide angle lens create a more clearly defined perspective? And is this the answer?

Thanks.

Alex.

I think there are probably more ways than shallow DOF to achieve the end result of DOF, if that makes sense.
Obviously, shallow DOF helps to draw our eyes to a particular subject within the frame by isolating that subject by its sharper focus.
But, for me at least, the thing that stands out the most in this equation is the "draws the eye" part.
Aside from shallow DOF there are other ways to achieve isolating your subject that are related more to lighting, color palette and composition.
Remember, cool colors recede in an image and warm colors pop forward.
(I think this ties into the 3D eye-wear stuff for 3D movies, perhaps?).
You can isolate your subject this way if the story or moment allows.
Strong compositions can also be utilized to move our eyes to a particular point on the screen, same with lighting.
Shallow DOF is a very powerful device,I use it myself and who wouldn't if they could, but it's not the only tool in the tool box to achieve the desired effect in question in cinematic storytelling.

How do you create a feeling of depth in an image without utilising focus (DoF)?

In films there appears to be a clear z-axis visible in long shots. Wheras Video somehow shortens this into a more 2-dimensional image. Does a wide angle lens create a more clearly defined perspective? And is this the answer?

As far as the wide angle, no. A wide angle up close is one way to try to create an out of focus background. The other way which give the appearance of an out-of-focus background is zoom in as much as possible, moving the camera back as necessary.

But as far as creating a feeling of depth in an image without utilizing focus, Eric Brown said it great.



I know how you could do the tricks in After Effects, Photoshop, etc., but how does software like Final Focus perform this trick? How does it seperate what you want and then soften it?

I haven't seen that software. Can you provide a link to it?
But without seeing it I would assume you'd have to mask off the parts you wanted to separate.

I don't use any of that software but I wish I knew how. Here is a link to some demos of what I am talking about but with still images.

Post with demos
www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=358169&postcount=7

Thread
www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=46901

I haven't seen that software. Can you provide a link to it?
But without seeing it I would assume you'd have to mask off the parts you wanted to separate.
I posted this earlier when I mentioned the software.
http://www.reiji.net/ff-e/

Ooops. I thought he was talking about After Effects and Photoshop. Oh well, those demos show how it can be done with these tools.

Here's a video where we did all the DOF in post production, in After Effects. The video is all greenscreen, shoth with Sony HDR-FX1, and the BG's are 3D. In some shots, we used hand drawn masks for the DOF areas.

http://www.poetsofthefall.com/videos/lift/

Eki, that's extraordinary work. Can you give some more info about the production? And ALL of the backgrounds were green-screen, so you tracked them when the camera moved (some closups of the singer seemed fairly complicated)?

you do not need green screen.
use Mokey to have background and subject separated, then recomposite using the mask+blurr.
with mokey you can track a full scene with 5 mouse clicks.

Eki, that's extraordinary work. Can you give some more info about the production? And ALL of the backgrounds were green-screen, so you tracked them when the camera moved (some closups of the singer seemed fairly complicated)?

Thanks for the compliments!

There were four kinds of camera motions in the video:

1. Real camera moves with track / dolly / steadicam, tracked in 3D, with the 3D camera matched to the real camera move (most moving wide shots).

2. Real camera moves with track / dolly / steadicam, with a single frame of the BG rendered in 3D, tracked to match camera moves in 2D in after effects.

3. Full 3D animation camera moves, with the talents shot with locked off camera as separate elements and used as "cards" in 3D environment.

4. 2D moves in AE, shot with locked off camera. Motion parallax makes even these look pretty much like real camera moves.

Wow. Very nice.

Sean McHenry

Erik, can you tell us the original setting used on the FX1 while shooting?

Be as detailed as you can.

Thanks in advance!!

Erik, can you tell us the original setting used on the FX1 while shooting?

Be as detailed as you can.

Thanks in advance!!

It's Eki, or Erkki - Erik is a Swedish name, i'm a Finn ;-)

Settings (as far as i can remember):

HDV 50i
Cineframe OFF
Cinegamma OFF
Black stretch ON
Gain OFF
Tungsten preset WB
Shutter 1/50
Skin detail etc. OFF (We did heavy smoothing on esp. the female face in post though)
Detail 5 (i was overly conservative, 8 would have been better it seems, after doing more testing - i was overly afraid of sharpening artifacts)

The iris was wide open, we adjusted the lights to match...

Lighting was done with one big (roughly 7mX7m) butterfly diffuser on top of the stage on all shots, lit from above. No additional lights i recall. This was half artistic and half logistic decision: we only had one day to shoot the vid, this worked well enough on all shots, from all angles.

We used green screen - due to the way mpg2 compression works, it's MUCH better than blue. See this:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/erkki.halkka/HDVKeying/Compression_and_keying.html

Yo Eki,

I think you're following me.

Anywho, you were using a HVR-Z1. The FX1 doesn't have black stretch.

Isn't being Swedish and being Finnish basically the same thing?

:ducking:

Isn't being Swedish and being Finnish basically the same thing?

:ducking:

Grrrmblblbbbll....

Yo Eki,

I think you're following me.

Anywho, you were using a HVR-Z1. The FX1 doesn't have black stretch.

;-)

...yep, it was HVR-Z1. I always get those two mixed up in my head...

edit: sent too soon, forgoth the 2nd quote...

Kidding aside, I forgot to mention, BEAUTIFUL work. Nice job by all the performers, too. I saved it locally to my hard drive just so it wouldn't slip through my fingers, though I wonder if it was Flash to keep people from doing this or just to make it easier and faster to load?

Kidding aside, I forgot to mention, BEAUTIFUL work. Nice job by all the performers, too. I saved it locally to my hard drive just so it wouldn't slip through my fingers, though I wonder if it was Flash to keep people from doing this or just to make it easier and faster to load?

I think it was flash just to make it look cool ;-)

Thanks for the compliments -

To make one thing clear, i didn't direct this one, Tuomas "Stobe" Harju did. I was director of photography, TD and one of three animators/compositors working on this - the jail scenes were "mine" the two other rooms were done by Mare Ollinkari and Cofi Hudson at Nitro FX (the production company for this vid). Our steadicam operator/gaffer was Antti Hacklin.

I'll pass the compliments on to the director and the rest of the crew.