Alan Roberts test results available.

[Kris Koster]

Originally Posted by Robin Davies-Rollinson

Well said, sir - I agree wholeheartedly!

Unfortunately, this view is all too often used by productions who can't be bothered to employ the use of shallow DoF into their filmwork. So instead, they would rather criticise others who spend the time to help tell a story through correct use of some shallow focus depth.

Any fool can point a camcorder at the action and with deep depth, hit the rec button without worrying about focus too much (or worse still, save on budget by eliminating FP crew).

I'm not saying it should be used ALL the time in a production, but shallow DoF helps me to tell my stories in the way an XF305 simply can't.

Really, a lot depends on the format, what is being shot, for which purpose. It's horses for courses. For example, I produce a lot of music videos and it's what the labels often put in as part of the brief. They specifically request shallow DoF, lens flares, film burn, etc. Unless you actually work in this aspect of the business, it's hard to understand what is actually requested of us by the industry.

Just my 2 cents!

[Brian Drysdale]

It is very much a matter of using the tool for the job.

Music videos tend to follow fashions, so you use the appropriate tools. A shallow DOF tends to make the talent look good and they become centre of attention. Ten years ago 1/3" a home video look was popular and no doubt in another few years something else will be.

DOF is one of things that you have to make a creative decision about, it's not automatically a shallow or a deep DOF I suspect the original comment was a hope that shallow DOF shouldn't become the new wobbly cam.

[Matt Ford]

I think Kris it was just a call for production values and content and not just a look. Its the one tool that is most overused at the moment and can become tiresome to watch.

I checked out your site and frankly it doesn't apply to you, you pull it off with some aplomb and many of the foetuses with 50mm 1.4 would do well to check your work out.

[Murray Christian]

I do love me some creamy boke. But Film Burn! and those funny square lens flares!
Anyone who wants to run those out of town has my axe, bow, board with a nail in it etc.

Anyway, not knowing much about this stuff, apparently the C300 sensor has a pretty big border plate around it or something covering a fair number of its pixels. This is to give it a good black reference, I think he said. That was interesting. Is that usual?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Murray Christian

Anyway, not knowing much about this stuff, apparently the C300 sensor has a pretty big border plate around it or something covering a fair number of its pixels. This is to give it a good black reference, I think he said. That was interesting. Is that usual?

It is normal to have a border of "blanked" photosites around the edge of the sensor, but not usual for there to be so many.

What we know is that the total dimensions are 4206 (H) x 2340 (V) - and the "used" photosites for the C300 are 3840x2160 - hence a surplus of 366 vertically, 180 horizontally.

Canon have made little secret that this sensor has been designed with more than the C300 (as it currently stands) in mind, and easily the most obvious conjecture to make is that it's been designed primarily to 4k dimensions, for some eventual 4k product. This method of directly reading a 3840x2160 window allows bringing a quality 1080 large format camera to market quickly, whilst using the economies of scale of utilising a new sensor primarily designed for 4k.

"4k" isn't defined precisely ( see 4K resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) but it seems highly likely that the active area is 4096x2304, which is generally seen as "16:9 4k". If so, that gives a border area of 4206-4096 (=110) horizontally, and 2340-2304 (=36) vertically - far more as would be expected than the 366 and 180 borders.

This has all been discussed before, and you may like to look at - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/new-cano...00-sensor.html .

[Robin Davies-Rollinson]

I wouldn't dream of criticising fellow professionals who choose to shoot with a narrow DOF - I was brought up on it myself as a BBC assistant cameraman decades ago when I was a focus-puller on 35mm Arris and Cameflexes, so I do know what I am talking about.
My pet hate these days however is not the over-use so much as the bad execution, ie, going back and fore through focus before settling. Even the choice of when to use it, as in some cookery programmes when only the centre of a sausage is sharp!
If a production needs it as part of the visual grammar to tell a story, all well and good, but please, not just the profligate use of it as we've all seen ad nauseum since someone realised that their DSLR could shoot video ;-)

[Steve Game]

I see that some of you understood my comment fine. I was referring to the current craze of indiscriminate use of shallow DoF, and not criticising it's use as a tool to occasionally focus (pun intended) the viewer's attention where the director wanted. It seems to me that with the advent of low-cost large sensor video that arrived with the 5DII and later SLRs, a herd of indy wannabe's decided that opressive use of shallow DoF made their low budget efforts into Hollywood big-budget quality movies.
Irrespective of any other basic techniques of good film-making, (lighting, camera movement, moire and aritfacts, etc.) it was (and still is to a degree) the unrestrained use of extreme 'romantic' (sic) bokeh that screamed out 'look at this big sensor stuff - I'm a real pro now!'
That's without mentioning the absence of any theatrical values to the storyline.

Steve

[Murray Christian]

I know what you mean, but eh, it's just kids mostly (some of them quite old kids admittedly). They'll learn. As with those guys who make spite filled xtranormal videos about people who think they're the business because they bought a 7D, I can't see it being worth the emotional energy, personally.

Exactly the same sort of stuff happens slightly further up the chain too. A couple of years ago it was "Make sure we're shooting on Red" "We're putting "shot on Red" in all the publicity" "We're changing the banner of the company web site to add "Now shooting on Red" at the bottom" "We're trying to shoehorn "Shot on Red" into the title somehow" "Production design is down to two crew members working 12hr shifts and we've cut the setups in half, but it'll look great because its Shot On Red!!!!"

People just latch on to whatever they think'll give them an edge, a bit of prestige. It's galling when people fall for it, sure, but mostly they find out or they move on to the next thing.

Anyhoo, pardon my derailing

David Heath:
This has all been discussed before, and you may like to look at - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/new-cano...00-sensor.html .

Much obliged. I guess it's just a case of that being how big the sensor is rather than a border that size conferring any particular advantage.

[Matt Ford]

Originally Posted by Robin Davies-Rollinson

I wouldn't dream of criticising fellow professionals who choose to shoot with a narrow DOF - I was brought up on it myself as a BBC assistant cameraman decades ago when I was a focus-puller on 35mm Arris and Cameflexes, so I do know what I am talking about.
My pet hate these days however is not the over-use so much as the bad execution, ie, going back and fore through focus before settling. Even the choice of when to use it, as in some cookery programmes when only the centre of a sausage is sharp!
If a production needs it as part of the visual grammar to tell a story, all well and good, but please, not just the profligate use of it as we've all seen ad nauseum since someone realised that their DSLR could shoot video ;-)

Brilliant!! The next time a 17 year old tells me he is a DP I will ask him how he would shoot a sausage (or its stand in) on C300 at F1.4, that will catch him out!

We should have a grumpy old filmmaker section. Me first!

Seriously though, I never touched a 5D but I will embrace this camera over the F3 because of its size let alone the image. I use Alan's reports as a foundation to build upon with the great contributions of posters here like Alister. All appreciated folks!

[Brian Murphy]

I loved reading the DOF comments so much I have opened a word file with some of them pasted for future reference in my work with some directors. I remember back to when "shaky" hand held camera was all the rage. I knew it was trouble when I was visiting small town Canada and the local auto dealer's 60 second shout at the camera (had to be a vhs shoot ) moved so much I went looking for a Gravol.
I find it annoying that the criteria for some projects is not your eye or experience but whether you have a 5D or not...
So all this to say it is good to find company as we all attempt to survive the misery of some much out of focus content ...