DOF plug in?

Brad Madison · February 26th, 2010, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Sorry Brad, the Letus 35mini will not work with the XH-A1 that Michael owns.
Which puts him back into 7D territory as far as cost goes.
For what it's worth, I have used many of the DOF adapters out there, and own a couple, but I have not used them in some time since there are so many other viable options out there now.

All the Best!

You are indeed correct about the letus35 mini. didn't realize it didn't go up to 72mm. that puts you in the letus35 extreme range which is around $1100. still cheaper than a 7D, but I see your point. if your almost there go for the extra bang and get a 7D. however the Jag35 Pro comes with a 72mm acromat and is only $400. again, be prepared to flip in post, or shoot upside down.

one other benefit is that if you have a DOF adapter you can use it on any camera, and any lens, so if you have multiple cameras it is interchangable. with the 7D you are always using the same sensor regardless of changing lenses etc.

anyway, I just wantedto throw out there that there are cheap alternatives that would do what he wants.

b

Sean Nordeen · February 27th, 2010, 01:59 AM

For more information on that NewBlueFX plugin, they have an article on how it works.

NewBlueFX Video Essentials II - Create a faux depth of field using Rack Focus

And here is their quick video showcase on how to use it:
Creating Depth of Field using Rack Focus in Adobe Premiere Pro

I have it for Sony Vegas Pro. It isn't the same as filming something with proper DOF, but its not bad either.

Ron Little · March 5th, 2010, 07:22 AM

Sean, have you used the noise reducer filter from New Blue?
I think that would be of great use for low light footage.

Sean Nordeen · March 10th, 2010, 03:19 PM

I've used the noise filter in a few situations. It works fine for minor noise but don't expect miracles. I find the settings useless above Light as too much detail is lost. But if the footage is noisy as low light often is, applying a light filtering does clean it up a little.

Rob Morse · March 10th, 2010, 04:01 PM

Neatvideo is a miracle worker for noise. Try it. Slow render but worth the wait.

Ron Little · March 10th, 2010, 04:05 PM

Thank you. I was going to ask about Neatvideo. Is it a plugin or a stand alone application.

Sean Nordeen · March 11th, 2010, 11:10 PM

NeatVideo is a plug-in. It does work well IF you have a large uniform spot in your footage that it can do its analysis on (non-texture wall, blue sky, etc). The larger the better. Unfortunately, not all scenes have such a large spot and the results aren't as good on smaller ones (I'm not saying it still doesn't help). In the future I may hold up a white posterboard or something at the beginning of a shot so that it has such a place if I think I may need to filter it latter.

However, for some reason, when the rendering timeline hits a scene where I've added NeatVideo filtering, my CPU utilization drops dramatically from 98-100% down to 60% and sometimes down to 38% on all 4 cores until that scene is over. This means my renders take longer. I'm not sure whats going on as if it needs to think it should be using more of the CPU's time, not less.

Rob Morse · March 12th, 2010, 10:46 AM

Like I said, the thing is a pig as far as rendering but the results are great. I have had no issues like your mentioning, Sean. I saved the filter with different settings and apply it as needed. For example, I have labeled, low noise, mod noise and high noise. I just drag the filter to the clip and that works fine. I had a client who wanted me to use footage from their camera to act as the 3rd camera (don't ask why I agreed to that). Anyway, they must have had auto gain on and it was extremely noisy. Before I trashed the footage and told them I couldn't do it, I tried Neatvideo. It was the difference between having usable footage or not. Do all your work, add all your transitions and then add the Neatvideo and go to bed when you wake up it should be good to go. It could save your butt some time.

Sean Nordeen · March 12th, 2010, 02:12 PM

So you are saying that you don't create a new noise profile for each scene? Instead you use a noise profile from before but with different settings saved as presets that you apply to all you scenes?

This implies that the noise in most of your footage is similar enough that you don't need to adapt the filter to new noise. Is this correct? I have been operating under the assumption that if I using the filter on a scene shot in different lighting conditions or different time or location that I need to readapt the profile to get good results.

Rob Morse · March 13th, 2010, 04:28 PM

Sean, I really don't use it very much with my own footage. However, I occasionally use it on other people's footage including VHS. To answer your question, yes, I've used it with success just from a created filter I used on another scene from some other footage. I don't even go into the program anymore. If I remember correctly, it has presets, you can make your own presets and it also has an auto feature. Doing it the way I've done it works for me so far.

February 27th, 2010, 01:59 AM	#17
Sean Nordeen New Boot Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cerritos, CA Posts: 14	For more information on that NewBlueFX plugin, they have an article on how it works. NewBlueFX Video Essentials II - Create a faux depth of field using Rack Focus And here is their quick video showcase on how to use it: Creating Depth of Field using Rack Focus in Adobe Premiere Pro I have it for Sony Vegas Pro. It isn't the same as filming something with proper DOF, but its not bad either.

March 5th, 2010, 07:22 AM	#18
Ron Little Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pensacola Fl. Posts: 627	Sean, have you used the noise reducer filter from New Blue? I think that would be of great use for low light footage.

March 10th, 2010, 03:19 PM	#19
Sean Nordeen New Boot Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cerritos, CA Posts: 14	I've used the noise filter in a few situations. It works fine for minor noise but don't expect miracles. I find the settings useless above Light as too much detail is lost. But if the footage is noisy as low light often is, applying a light filtering does clean it up a little.

March 10th, 2010, 04:01 PM	#20
Rob Morse Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 427	Neatvideo is a miracle worker for noise. Try it. Slow render but worth the wait.

March 10th, 2010, 04:05 PM	#21
Ron Little Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pensacola Fl. Posts: 627	Thank you. I was going to ask about Neatvideo. Is it a plugin or a stand alone application.

March 11th, 2010, 11:10 PM	#22
Sean Nordeen New Boot Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cerritos, CA Posts: 14	NeatVideo is a plug-in. It does work well IF you have a large uniform spot in your footage that it can do its analysis on (non-texture wall, blue sky, etc). The larger the better. Unfortunately, not all scenes have such a large spot and the results aren't as good on smaller ones (I'm not saying it still doesn't help). In the future I may hold up a white posterboard or something at the beginning of a shot so that it has such a place if I think I may need to filter it latter. However, for some reason, when the rendering timeline hits a scene where I've added NeatVideo filtering, my CPU utilization drops dramatically from 98-100% down to 60% and sometimes down to 38% on all 4 cores until that scene is over. This means my renders take longer. I'm not sure whats going on as if it needs to think it should be using more of the CPU's time, not less.

March 12th, 2010, 10:46 AM	#23
Rob Morse Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 427	Like I said, the thing is a pig as far as rendering but the results are great. I have had no issues like your mentioning, Sean. I saved the filter with different settings and apply it as needed. For example, I have labeled, low noise, mod noise and high noise. I just drag the filter to the clip and that works fine. I had a client who wanted me to use footage from their camera to act as the 3rd camera (don't ask why I agreed to that). Anyway, they must have had auto gain on and it was extremely noisy. Before I trashed the footage and told them I couldn't do it, I tried Neatvideo. It was the difference between having usable footage or not. Do all your work, add all your transitions and then add the Neatvideo and go to bed when you wake up it should be good to go. It could save your butt some time.

March 12th, 2010, 02:12 PM	#24
Sean Nordeen New Boot Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cerritos, CA Posts: 14	So you are saying that you don't create a new noise profile for each scene? Instead you use a noise profile from before but with different settings saved as presets that you apply to all you scenes? This implies that the noise in most of your footage is similar enough that you don't need to adapt the filter to new noise. Is this correct? I have been operating under the assumption that if I using the filter on a scene shot in different lighting conditions or different time or location that I need to readapt the profile to get good results.

March 13th, 2010, 04:28 PM	#25
Rob Morse Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 427	Sean, I really don't use it very much with my own footage. However, I occasionally use it on other people's footage including VHS. To answer your question, yes, I've used it with success just from a created filter I used on another scene from some other footage. I don't even go into the program anymore. If I remember correctly, it has presets, you can make your own presets and it also has an auto feature. Doing it the way I've done it works for me so far.