XL Series Question

[Craig Bellaire]

Why would one need to get a P&S Adapter for the XL series cameras IF The XL Series will take the 35mm SLR Camera Lenses. Wouldn't you get the dept of field with the 35mm SLR Camera Lenses. Just wondered... Thanks

[Robin Davies-Rollinson]

Craig,
It's not to do with the lenses, it's the size of the CCD chips. The native chips in the XL2 are too small to give anything other than a wide depth of field. The P+S adapter provides an image from the 35mm lenses on a ground glass screen which is much bigger. The camera then shoots this screen, making it a sort of surrogate extra large CCD.

Robin

[Rob Lohman]

Just to clarify it a bit. 35mm film has a much larger surface than
the current CCD offerings (due to price etc.). So due to the very
small size compared to 35mm the DoF increases (a lot).

[Craig Bellaire]

So even though the Xl series has interchangable lenses then it's has no better DOF then any other DV camera...OK , that kinda what I thought...thanks for the help....

[Rob Lohman]

That is true. But there are only 2 pro-sumer camera's that even
offer support to get "true" DoF (keep in mind that this is not
film look or the holy grail that everybody seems to be after!)
without the use of homebuild equipement. Those two camera's
are the XL range and the DVX100 range of camera's.

With those two ranges you have the choice of shooting through
extra glass (DVX) or mount it instead of your normal lens (the
XL series). And with the XL2 it is the only camera with true 16:9
and progressive.

With those options pick what works best for you. Keep in mind:

- such adapters are EXPENSIVE
- there is NO native 35mm DoF DV camera (or any video camera for that matter except the latest digital Hollywood offerings)
- it has a VERY SHALLOW depth of field requiring lots of skill, extra equipment and personnel

etc.

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

So even though the Xl series has interchangable lenses then it's has no better DOF then any other DV camera

Better?!? In fact, for equal focal lenght, it has the same DOF of any other 1/3 CCDs cameras. But it can acheive a shorter DOF then other camcorders with smaller CCDs.

[Stefan Scherperel]

Confused here. Why is there "better or worse" DoF? It just is. Is shallow Dof better than a greater DoF? Lets just try to call it what it is, shall we. There really is no "better" DoF. Sure it can be nice to have a "portrait" type shot where everything is out of focus except for the subject. however, does that make it better. I have to say, that as a photographer for many years now, shooting mostly 35mm and more recently shooting 120 (medium format) Dof is what it is. It is inherint to the medium. With 120 film it is possible to get some extremely shallow Dof, however, I don't always want that. Look at a photographer like Ansel Adams, who was known for using lenses at F64 to get the most unnoticable Dof possible. I know that everyone associates Dof with the "film look" but we need to remember that there are plenty of films out there that never have one shot that has a remotly shallow Dof "portrait shot" and still get away with being called "films" hmmmmmm, go figure.

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

Stefan,


That's exactly what I was refering to in my post. Thanks to have made things clearer.

[Rob Lohman]

So true!

[Charles Papert]

I'm in on that one, gents. Although here are my thoughts on why a shallow depth-of-field may possibly be "better" when it comes to small-format video:

This is nothing that I can qualify nor quantify, but my experience over the years is that video in general has a hard time resolving all the small details of an infinitely sharp background compared to film. Objects do not fade off into the distance, they either mush out or become sharp little lines. It's something akin to the decay pattern of an analog delay vs digital delay in the audio world. It's not just due to resolution, although this probably has the most to do with it.

In any event, the effect of blurring the background alleviates this issue and creates a layering effect within a DV frame. I personally find it more appealing to the eye. The fact that it is being endlessly touted as a "film look" is to me a bit oversimplified in this sense--as Stefan points out, a good-looking deep focus film image can be a beautiful thing.

If one were to compare apples to apples, say Super 16mm vs 2/3" video, which have imilar size imaging planes and thus depth-of-field characteristics, it's fairly easy to compare this effect. I certainly prefer 16mm to Betacam, for instance; but standard lenses on a Cinealta deliver exactly the same depth-of-field at a given focal lens, and the image quality is very different than the Betacam. Is it as "nice" as the 16mm? That's a personal choice. I would say that playing field becomes a lot more leveled with HD, not necessarily due to latitude or image processing, but probably because of the resolution increase.

So that's my theory of why a soft background tends to make DV look better. Although I agree that you can still tell a multitude of great stories with a stock DV setup and all of the world in focus, and it can look good too.

Finally: Rob, the Mini35 also accomodates the Sony PD150 and 170, as well as the DVX and the XL's.

[Marty Hudzik]

Shallow depth of field in a movie closely emulates the way our eyes and brain work. It may be hard to perceive because we are looking at a particular subject and can't really see that everything is out of focus. If we move our eyes off of the subject and look into the background our brains "auto focus" kicks in. The fact is this is how we are wired naturally. So that is is naturally going to look more natural to our eyes.....naturally. :)

But really....just like 16x9 seems to fit to our perception of the world (Wider field of vision horizontally than vertically) shallow DOF fits right in there too. Not saying we have to have it in every film, movie or commercial. But the facts are it most closely emulates what we see with our own eyes!

Now can someone expain why I have such a shallow DOF in my eyes when I know my CCDs are defintely smaller than 1/3 inch?

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

depends of the focal length of your eyes! :)

[Rob Lohman]

I knew about the PD150/170 Charles, but I somehow thought
it was in the higher price range. Silly me. I assume you can't
remove the stock lens on these models either, right?

[Charles Papert]

righty right. It's the same deal as with the DVX, requires a specific relay lens. Some good pix on the zgc.com site.