Wide vs. Tele at DVinfo.net

Pietro Jona · November 29th, 2004, 09:55 AM

Hi all,
while reading an interwiew with Ellen Kuras about how "Pesonal Velocity" was shot (ok, they used a PD 150 and not a XM2..) I came to this:

"I didn't want to shoot very many wide shots. If we were going to shoot wide shots, we would have to move the camera far away and shoot on the longer part of the lens. This is because the lines on Mini-DV cameras resolve much better when shooting with the longer part of the lens that is slightly zoomed in. There's better resolution and it feels more visceral. One can see how wide angle shots do not resolve very well, one can't even see that it's in focus. The focus may be sharp but the image seems soft because the lens can't resolve the detail that well."

I definitely like the images that I shoot with my XM2 when in tele too. Still, I don't understand why.
Do you guys have an opinion on this?

Thanks
pietro

Ken Tanaka · November 29th, 2004, 12:11 PM

Hello Pietro,
It is true that standard definition video simply does not have the recording resolution to do justice to wide shots that feature fine details, such as expansive landscapes. It just gets too mushy. High-definition is much better in this category, although even HD pales in comparison to film (or even higher-res digital still pro cameras) in this category. It is not so much the focal length of the lens, but rather the fineness of detail in the shot.

Pietro Jona · November 30th, 2004, 03:24 AM

Ken,
I should have written "I definitely like BETTER the images that I shoot with my XM2 when in tele", but I see that you understood what I meant anyway.
Shooting in tele also gives me the possibility of playing with depth of field.. I'll keep in mind what you said.
Thanks!
pietro

Tom Hardwick · December 3rd, 2004, 05:00 AM

Not quite sure I agree with Ellen Kuras on this one. In fact I'd go so far as to say I do not agree. Here's a simple test to prove that the Sony (or canon) lens is very well matched at both ends of the zoom range. Pin a sheet of newspapar to a wall and have your camera perpendicular to it on a decent tripod. Move the camera real close and film at max wide-angle, or better yet, up the shutter speed and capture to memory card.

Now move the camera a lot further away and film the same shot on full telephoto, making sure the v/finder shows the same image. Or take another still.

Now look at the join between these two scenes on your best TV monitor or open the files in Photoshop. There will be minor perspective differences and you'll see the barrel distortion down the wide end, but sharpness differences? You'll be very hard pushed to spot those.

tom.

Alex Ratson · December 4th, 2004, 12:09 AM

Most lenses are going to perform the best in the middle as far as the zoom setting and aperture setting’s are concerned (regardless of format) although sometimes you have to use the extremes for the look you are after if it be the perspective or depth of field.

November 29th, 2004, 09:55 AM	#1
Pietro Jona Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: italy Posts: 172	Wide vs. Tele Hi all, while reading an interwiew with Ellen Kuras about how "Pesonal Velocity" was shot (ok, they used a PD 150 and not a XM2..) I came to this: "I didn't want to shoot very many wide shots. If we were going to shoot wide shots, we would have to move the camera far away and shoot on the longer part of the lens. This is because the lines on Mini-DV cameras resolve much better when shooting with the longer part of the lens that is slightly zoomed in. There's better resolution and it feels more visceral. One can see how wide angle shots do not resolve very well, one can't even see that it's in focus. The focus may be sharp but the image seems soft because the lens can't resolve the detail that well." I definitely like the images that I shoot with my XM2 when in tele too. Still, I don't understand why. Do you guys have an opinion on this? Thanks pietro

November 29th, 2004, 12:11 PM	#2
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Hello Pietro, It is true that standard definition video simply does not have the recording resolution to do justice to wide shots that feature fine details, such as expansive landscapes. It just gets too mushy. High-definition is much better in this category, although even HD pales in comparison to film (or even higher-res digital still pro cameras) in this category. It is not so much the focal length of the lens, but rather the fineness of detail in the shot. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

November 30th, 2004, 03:24 AM	#3
Pietro Jona Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: italy Posts: 172	Ken, I should have written "I definitely like BETTER the images that I shoot with my XM2 when in tele", but I see that you understood what I meant anyway. Shooting in tele also gives me the possibility of playing with depth of field.. I'll keep in mind what you said. Thanks! pietro

December 3rd, 2004, 05:00 AM	#4
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Not quite sure I agree with Ellen Kuras on this one. In fact I'd go so far as to say I do not agree. Here's a simple test to prove that the Sony (or canon) lens is very well matched at both ends of the zoom range. Pin a sheet of newspapar to a wall and have your camera perpendicular to it on a decent tripod. Move the camera real close and film at max wide-angle, or better yet, up the shutter speed and capture to memory card. Now move the camera a lot further away and film the same shot on full telephoto, making sure the v/finder shows the same image. Or take another still. Now look at the join between these two scenes on your best TV monitor or open the files in Photoshop. There will be minor perspective differences and you'll see the barrel distortion down the wide end, but sharpness differences? You'll be very hard pushed to spot those. tom.

December 4th, 2004, 12:09 AM	#5
Alex Ratson Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Squamish, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 149	Most lenses are going to perform the best in the middle as far as the zoom setting and aperture setting’s are concerned (regardless of format) although sometimes you have to use the extremes for the look you are after if it be the perspective or depth of field.