The camera of the future...

[Simon Smith]

With the Epic Lite, a new market will take off. 35mm DOF adapters for Scarlet 2/3.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

With the Epic Lite, a new market will take off. 35mm DOF adapters for Scarlet 2/3.

I think 2/3 dof, or great dof will make a come back. In the 40's movie like Citizen Kane and others used this approach.

35mm DOF will be great in Epic Lite, no need for adapters IMHO.

Patrick

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I agree that a 4K delivery system will make deep focus photography the next big trend, all over again. You will be able to see so deeply into the image and everyone will want to take advantage....

 

[Liam Hall]

No it wont. It it would be pointless since DOF adapters cant resolve enough detail for digital cinema and there are already lots of options for DOF adapters with cameras using 2/3rd sensors.

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

Maybe a high-res 2/3 DOF adaptor is the future...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I can understand the need for DOF adaptors for 1/3" cameras, which is something like stopping-down a 35mm cine camera by 5-stops, pretty extreme increase in DOF, but I don't really see the need for 2/3" cameras, which is just like stopping down by 2.5-stops.

So if you can shoot at f/2.0, for example, it looks like you are shooting at f/4.0-5.6 split, which is hardly deep focus... particularly in close-ups. I've shot eight features on 2/3" cameras and they don't look unusually deep in focus. How many audience members noticed the extra DOF in 2/3" movies like "Zodiac" and "Benjamin Button"?

Which is the reason why DOF adaptors for current 2/3" cameras have hardly taken off, though they exist.

 

[Scott Brown]

I sometimes think people are getting obsessed with the whole shallow depth of field thing...it's like this has become the cool look and is perhaps why the HDSLR scene has exploded.

While shallow DOF has its place and can look stunning in the right situation, there are equally many many more time when I want the background in focus.

I think the 2/3 RED camera will be extremely versatile and we'll be using it as often as the Epic.

Best wishes

Scott

 

[brian hanson]

I sometimes think people are getting obsessed with the whole shallow depth of field thing...it's like this has become the cool look and is perhaps why the HDSLR scene has exploded.

While shallow DOF has its place and can look stunning in the right situation, there are equally many many more time when I want the background in focus.

I think the 2/3 RED camera will be extremely versatile and we'll be using it as often as the Epic.

Best wishes

Scott

agree 100%. the 2/3" scarlet is a dream camera for me. I understand that a lot of people want/need that shallow DOF but personally I do not need that for the majority of things i shoot.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I sometimes think people are getting obsessed with the whole shallow depth of field thing...it's like this has become the cool look and is perhaps why the HDSLR scene has exploded.

I've posted this 50 times, but I'm gonna do it again.

Control over DoF is not a gimmick/trend like bleach bypass in action movies or something.

I realize that before HDSLRs shallow DoF was, for financial reasons, simply not available to a great majority of motion photographers, so that contributes to the "don't need it" mindset...

But ask a still photographer and you'll hear that it's a real tool in the toolkit, just as important as control over shutter speed or focus, a tool they're not eager to give up.

...there are equally many many more time when I want the background in focus.

Agreed. But buy a big sensor you can always just use a smaller aperture (these cameras go to ISO three jillion, you'll have the light) but you buy a small sensor you're stuck with it.

 

[Michael Olsen]

I've been watching a lot of films starring Cary Grant recently - something about the season, I suppose. But the first couple shocked me with their almost constant deep focus. What would be considered, now, extremely deep focus.

Funny how things change with the times.

 

[Lee Saxon]

With the Epic Lite, a new market will take off. 35mm DOF adapters for Scarlet 2/3.

I think there's still gonna be a Scarlet S35. I'm not worried yet.

I think they realized they couldn't deliver 'old' Scarlet S35 at the promised price. If they'd reduced features or just increased price, the internet would have EXPLODED. So instead, they'll probably increase both, but moreso price (otherwise it wouldn't solve the problem).

And I expect Jim's promised upcoming exciting Scarlet news includes a new, lesser-featured, Scarlet S35 at that original ~$8k price point.

This is totally my out-of-nowhere speculation, no inside info or special insight claimed, except the fact that the official "Scarlet and Epic were too close in price/features so we're moving them even closer and even making the names more similar" explanation doesn't really make sense to me.

 

[Shane Betts]

Wide angle lenses are more of an issue.

Wide angle lenses are more of an issue.

Whilst I agree with Lee here - the point is to have the choice over DoF - 2/3 sensors aren't so small as to make it impossible. And remember the whole philosophy behind the modular approach - buy the camera you can afford, build your kit and hire in a body when you need extra capabilities (like a bigger sensor).

For me, the 2/3 Scarlet looks featured enough to fill the void nicely while I wait (and save) for the Epic 645 and will take any Nikon or Canon glass I want to throw at it - so long as I don't want to go too wide.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

David, I'm curious what you think about the way Inception was shot. In my view -- it seemed to use a decent number of scenes with shallow depth of field.

(I'm no expert, but I guestimate DOF by the extent to which the background is blurred/out of focus while the subject is sharply in focus.)

Obviously, there were many scenes with deeper focus, but I found the use shallow DOF in Inception to be very powerful -- a tool used in the right way. It really kept all my attention acutely on the subject, thus controlling my attention/focus as a viewer to what was important. Because of this, I often found myself noticing more about the a character's face, their expressions, the emotion coming from them -- and my bond with the character became stronger.

As -- I have to say that the skill of whoever shot the film seemed to be very high. I've viewed some other recent, critically acclaimed films and noticed points where the focus seemed to be ever so slightly off, the rack focus was a little late, and so on. But with Inception, the quality of the shots, focus, etc seemed to be flawless.

I guess that's what you get with a $200 million budget! :biggrinjester:

 

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

Which is the reason why DOF adaptors for current 2/3" cameras have hardly taken off, though they exist.

Well that is not entirely correct, at least in the EU, where a huge amount of P+S adapters attached to 2/3" cameras, have roamed the features and TVseries world. That is one reason RED was such a relief.

 

[Erich Roland]

I've posted this 50 times, but I'm gonna do it again.

Control over DoF is not a gimmick/trend like bleach bypass in action movies or something.

I realize that before HDSLRs shallow DoF was, for financial reasons, simply not available to a great majority of motion photographers, so that contributes to the "don't need it" mindset...

But ask a still photographer and you'll hear that it's a real tool in the toolkit, just as important as control over shutter speed or focus, a tool they're not eager to give up.



Agreed. But buy a big sensor you can always just use a smaller aperture (these cameras go to ISO three jillion, you'll have the light) but you buy a small sensor you're stuck with it.

But the same can be said for a larger sensor camera, "if you buy it your stuck with" a few things that might not fit the style of your work. With a larger sensor your certainly "stuck with" the (more) limited depth of field. If you'd rather not live with the noise (usually) associated with increased (underexposure) then "just dial in more stop" idea only works when you have lots of light available.

The other very important consideration in having the choice for a 2/3" sized sensor camera is lens choices. With the Super 35 size sensor for "real" cinema glass (including zooms) the choices are often very expensive, and can be very large as well. Of coarse still lenses can work but they have other issues. In 2/3" we have a wealth of zoom lenses out there potentially ready to do "run and gun" style shooting with many pluses, little downside, and they tend to be very fast also. Then we have 16mm lenses of many styles that will probably have an easy adaptation to a 2/3" sensor. You can but a great 16mm zoom these days for very cheap.

There is a ton of these lenses out there in circulation and many people own them already, as opposed to the tres' expensive PL glass. These issues are huge, so its not "all about" depth of field. I believe 2/3" has its place, its a very large slice of the market now, and will continue to be for many good reasons.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Well, let me weigh in here...

I love shallow DOF, but I try to use it as little as possible as opposed to whenever possible. And although I admit that it is an important tool in the film making arsenal, and one that can be used to great effect, it is abused and misused ad nauseum, especially by by the up and coming, amateur crowd. Achieving a "cinematic" look does not make your project any better, it's just that, a look, and a look does not always contribute to achieving a feeling or mood. But assuming you will be judicious in using your shallow DOF shots and that you absolutely have to have them, then there are a few misconceptions that should be addressed. The thing to never forget is that:

WITH A LONG ENOUGH LENS, ENOUGH SEPARATION BETWEEN CAMERA AND SUBJECT AND ENOUGH SEPARATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND BACKGROUND, ANY CAMERA WILL ACHIEVE SHALLOW DEPTH OF FIELD. COUNT ON IT!

DOF adapters do not change the one factor that single handedly determines your DOF, and that is, the size of your sensor. They simply allow you to use different lenses with the same sensor. Namely, long lenses, since wide lenses do not yield shallow DOF images. The use of an adapter is perfectly understandable then with small sensor camcorders, and in particular, with fixed lens cameras, since you can only go so long with a stock lens. There is a HUGE variety of excellent lenses for 2/3" cameras out there, from super wide 3mm to 400mm telephoto, so you can reproduce almost ANY look, especially at the long end, with a 2/3" sensor as you can with a S35 sensor. It might require a bit more work, the tweaking and repositioning of sets, props and actors, the use of certain lenses, but then, the same applies to S35 cinematography, or any image acquisition process, where attaining a desired look means certain compromises must be made, rules respected and principles followed. But, at the end of all that, I', still surprised at how relatively easy it is to achieve shallow DOF with a myriad cameras that are deemed "incapable" of that look, even with their stock lenses. All you gotta do is try before you say "This shot cannot be achieved with this gear". I dug into my Test Folder, and here are some examples of shallow DOF with some of those "inadequate" cameras"

This is shot with an F900 and a Fujinon lens, typical 2/3" combination. There's not only extremely shallow DOF there, but even focus fall off right at the image plane. I realize I made these crops a little too small and low quality and they may look soft, but believe me, the areas in focus are pretty sharp in the originals.

Now, this is shot with a Canon HF-S10 camcorder and stock lens, a 1/3" sensor. No need for an adapter here obviously. Again, everything looks soft, which is not the case with the original files, although it should be noted that the smaller the sensors get, the less sharpness you're going to have and the more artifacts and aberrations will become apparent, although this is a function of the sensor, so a DOF adapter would not solve this.

Taking things further, this is shot with a Canon HG20, a camcorder with a tiny 1/4" sensor, again, with the stock lens. Now, I don't think sensors come any smaller than this, and although I would not recommend this set up for shooting faces, etc, the fact remains that it can be done.

And finally, these are two shots from a job I did with the EX-1 a while back, a 1/2" sensor camera, where not only did I achieve shallow DOF but racked focus from one subject to the other as I was rolling, shoulder mounted mind you, while using the camera's stock lens yet again. I was about 20 ft from these two ladies and setting up the shot was not all that difficult, just zoom in, adjust focus manually, rack focus, refocus, repeat the shot, now while recording. And yes, focus was checked with the onboard 2.5" monitor. My point is, you don't need a S35 sensor to achieve the shallow DOF look, all you need is an understanding of whatever gear you have, know how lenses and sensors interact with each other and light, and a willingness to experiment. Is a RED much better at achieving this than any of these cameras? Certainly. Is a large sensor the only way to do it? Certainly not.

My two cents...

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Rudi - Thanks for adding your comments. Not only several good points, well articulated, but it also shows that "a picture is worth a thousand words." I couldn't agree more with your analysis.

Personally, I have been anxiously awaiting my move up from those horribly inadequate 1/3" sensors...

:sarcasm:

...to the Scarlet Fixed, ever since it was announced.:thumbsup:

 

[JD Holloway]

Tilt shift lens or system.

Diopters....play with them.

 

[Peter Moretti]

...
WITH A LONG ENOUGH LENS, ENOUGH SEPARATION BETWEEN CAMERA AND SUBJECT AND ENOUGH SEPARATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND BACKGROUND, ANY CAMERA WILL ACHIEVE SHALLOW DEPTH OF FIELD. COUNT ON IT! ...

The issue with this is that sometimes you can't compose a shot with the bg far enough away, esp. when it comes to interior shots. And the perspective can start to look very wonky when you use a lens much longer than you normally would, just to get thin DoF.

...
DOF adapters do not change the one factor that single handedly determines your DOF, and that is, the size of your sensor. They simply allow you to use different lenses with the same sensor. Namely, long lenses, since wide lenses do not yield shallow DOF images. ...

FWIU, all 35mm adapters work on the same general principle. The full-frame lens mounted to the front of the adapter focuses onto a spinning/vibrating translucent material inside the adapter. This material is the focal plane for the full frame lens and its image size is usually 36mm X 24mm (thus having the same DoF characteristics of a FF sensor/35mm still camera/Vista Vision). The camera the adapter is mounted to focuses its own lens on to the backside of that very same screen (this is why 35mm adapters record a flipped image).

So the camera is filming the full frame image that the lens has focused on to the screen. Essentially taking a picture of a picture. And the picture the camera is taking a picture of has the DoF characteristics of full frame 35mm.

I don't think it would be all that inaccurate to think of it as a using the camera as a baby, on set, telecine machine.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Terry,

I too, am waiting for the 2/3" Scarlet with great anticipation, especially the fixed lens model which promises to be a great tool for 3D. For the record, I own 6 of those inadequate 1/3" cameras and 3 of the 1/2" and I use them quite regularly, on paying jobs no less. And although I've learned to squeeze their performance to the proverbial absolute maximum, I hate their limitations. Then the RED proved too bulky so I sold it hopping that Scarlet would arrive about 18 months ago and here I've been in this limbo of waiting for Scarlet ever since. And you're absolutely right Peter, I was trying to prove the point that if you cannot absolutely live without your shallow DOF, then that can be achieved with a small sensor too, and learning to cope with the limitations of those sensors is probably better than not shooting or creating at all. I am at an infuriated loss for words with all these film makers that have sprouted like diet soy beans since the arrival of the DSLR's, for apparently these people deemed their dreams and projects not worthy of being put into existence unless they had "full retard" shallow DOF...