Soft background for film look

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Daniel Cegla

So would that be pretty tricky for a fast action running shot on a steadicam?

To answer this question specifically, chances are that this would actually be more forgiving than other types of moving shots, in that you would likely be using a fairly wide angle lens which helps with increasing depth of field, plus with all of the frantic motion critical focus would not be as much of an issue. Where you would start to have problems if you weren't planning to follow focus would be on slower moving shots with longer lenses, where the eye has time to identify buzzed (out of focus) sections.

With the higher resolution of cameras like the HVX200 plus future large-chip systems like RED, there will be an increased need for the formerly-DV world to have to start paying attention to the demands of shallow depth of field focusing, and this is going to be a toughie that isn't likely to be solved with technology the way 24p and DoF has in recent years. The skill of focus pulling for the 35mm format takes years to master--that is, if you like things in focus...!

[Gunleik Groven]

Sorry, but that really made me laugh!

Just put op ANY nonreflective translucent material behind your subject, and you'll be there!

Goodone, though -;)

Gunleik

[Ken Willinger]

Charles is correct. Also keep in mind that you can control DoP with your iris (the higher your F stop, the more DoP you'll have)...and of course you will need the proper amount of light for whatever setting you go for. Open your lens all the way up and you'll get a shallower DoP but you also may get unwanted softness. Many lenses focus optimally when in the F4 to 5.6 range.

[Tony Tibbetts]

Originally Posted by Vince Curtis

Yeah, expensive, but clever - if you have the money. ..

... not to mention limited to locked off close ups. But still a very good idea.

[Leonard Levy]

A lot of what i see on these boards from 35mm adapters just looks like terrible focus pulling is going on, and sometimes the short DOF feels inappropriate, so i think you need to use these lenses with care.
I would ask why you would need low DOF on a steadicam tracking shot in general? Not all real 35mm is shot with low DOF, sometimes you want deep focus. I just watched a beautiful old film noir that was all deep focus - gorgeous photography.

I have a Redrock BTW so i do like the adapters.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Imagine shooting IMAX...

[Vince Curtis]

Originally Posted by Leonard Levy

A lot of what i see on these boards from 35mm adapters just looks like terrible focus pulling is going on, and sometimes the short DOF feels inappropriate, so i think you need to use these lenses with care.
I would ask why you would need low DOF on a steadicam tracking shot in general? Not all real 35mm is shot with low DOF, sometimes you want deep focus. I just watched a beautiful old film noir that was all deep focus - gorgeous photography.

I have a Redrock BTW so i do like the adapters.

I agree. Shallow DOF is intended to keep the 'focus' (literally) on the Subject, and its only part of the storytelling. In your story telling, many times you want the 'focus' to be of a general nature, ie. greater DOF. If you use a shallow DOF too much it loses its purpose.

Using angles is another way to put FOCUS on the Subject, ie.

http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_01_img0327.jpg

Capra used it wonderfully in this scene in 'Mr Smith goes to Washington'.

Other ways are through lighting, movement, etc. . . But you dont want it all of the time or it loses its importance. . .

[Gunleik Groven]

Just to clearify:

My laughing was @ the softscreen, NOT @ charles, who of course is right all the way.

gunleik