Shallow Depth of Field without adapter?

Bill Ravens · January 18th, 2009, 01:01 PM

Except that Charles is right. Circles of Confusion are, in reality, 3-D volumes, wherein the point of focus is differing by the wavelength of the light. So, the point of perfect focus shifts from front to back in the space of angstroms, well withing the emulsion depth of halide on acetate.

Brian Luce · January 18th, 2009, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

Bob:

Having used nearly all of the high-end 35mm sensor cameras (Genesis, F35, Red, D21), I can report that contrary to your theory (if I understand it properly), these deliver a very sharp image with LESS depth of field than the 35mm film equivalent,.

But isn't that what Bob's saying? That focus is more critical on video? He said with video the nose is in focus and the eyelashes are softer and the film is more forgiving.

Bob Grant · January 19th, 2009, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

But isn't that what Bob's saying? That focus is more critical on video? He said with video the nose is in focus and the eyelashes are softer and the film is more forgiving.

Yes,
that's what I'm saying. In all fairness though the best film stocks I'm told can deliver 4K resolution. You do not see anything like that in a release print though, more around 700 lines according to SMPTE's tests.
I wouldn't say though this is a film Vs video argument. I think you'll notice a difference in DOF between a PD170 and a Z1.

January 18th, 2009, 01:01 PM	#76
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Except that Charles is right. Circles of Confusion are, in reality, 3-D volumes, wherein the point of focus is differing by the wavelength of the light. So, the point of perfect focus shifts from front to back in the space of angstroms, well withing the emulsion depth of halide on acetate.