Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

scarlet 2/3 vs s35 depth of field

A

Alexdmanning@gmail.com

New member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sorry newbie question. How big a difference will be the depth of field between a scarlet 2/3 vs a scarlet s35. Specifically, I'm thinking indie filmmaking. Would a scarlet 2/3 depth of field feel filmic?

Thanks...
 
Practically speaking, at the same f-stop compared to S35, 2/3" is the equivalent depth of field of stopping down by 2.5 stops -- in other words, if you shoot at f/2.0 on a 2/3" camera, it's the same depth of field as shooting at a f/4.0-f/5.6 split in S35, assuming you match field of view and distance.

Super-16/16mm has the same issue -- doesn't something shot in 16mm look "filmic"? How about a 35mm movie with a deep-focus look, like "Citizen Kane"?

Plenty of 35mm photography is shot in the middle f-stop range, especially outdoors.

It's really only in night photography where the extra depth of field of 2/3" sensors is a bit uncharacteristic of 35mm night photography, which tends to be super shallow-focus.

Now if you like the look of 35mm shot at an f/2.8-f/4 split, it's a bit harder to do that on a 2/3" camera since you'd need an f/1.4 lens -- not impossible for a single-sensor camera that can use cine lenses, but the fastest 3-CCD HD lenses made tend to be f/1.6 (like a Zeiss Digi-Prime), which is probably close enough.

Fincher's "Zodiak" and the upcoming "Benjamin Button" were shot on the Viper, which has 2/3" sensors -- they seem fairly "filmic" to me...
 
a 2/3" chip camera can more easily attain shallow depth of field than prosumer cameras most people might be familiar with, like the smaller HVX (3 x 1/3" chip). use lots of light to stay open, keep a little distance between the subject and the background (cheating if necessary) and you can get "that look," no question.
 
oops, brainographical error... i'll let the cinematographer do the talking :)
 
Hey David, nice post, thanks for putting it so clearly.

I can't wait to see how sensitive the 2/3 is cause an other factor will be that the photosensors are much smaller. Should be plenty that's for sure but still that is the other thing killing me with curiosity.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Fincher's "Zodiak" and the upcoming "Benjamin Button" were shot on the Viper, which has 2/3" sensors -- they seem fairly "filmic" to me...
Click to expand...

These two examples have been mentioned before, but there seem to be other 'elements' to get that DOF with the Viper. If i look at footage from a HPX500, then the DOF looks different. The lenses and sensor-type must play a big part.
 
Obviously you have to know what you are doing in order to control depth of field and not let it get deeper than you want, since you don't have an easy way of getting, let's say, the look of shooting at f/2.0 on 35mm when using a 2/3" camera. So I can't say that it makes no difference, the size of the sensor, just that it's a difference that can be dealt with to some varying degrees of success. A 2.5-stop difference in effective depth of field is manageable.

However, I just finished a TV show on a 35mm-sensor digital camera, when we had contemplated using a 2/3" camera... and I was glad we went with the 35mm-sensor camera in the end because we didn't shoot many close-ups on the show, lots of medium shots in small houses, at an f/2.8 generally, usually on a 35mm prime lens. So it was helpful to have the fall-off in focus since I couldn't get the walls farther away from the subject and we weren't pushing in tighter either to make the focus drop off faster.
 
Emiel Labree said:
These two examples have been mentioned before, but there seem to be other 'elements' to get that DOF with the Viper. If i look at footage from a HPX500, then the DOF looks different. The lenses and sensor-type must play a big part.
Click to expand...

2/3" is 2/3", and for most purposes, focal length, f-stop, and subject distance is all that matters for DOF.

That said, on an xx million dollar budget, you have much more room for complete control (ie, f1.6 DigiPrimes, appropriate lighting and locations). I don't think people in the xx million range use an up-rezzing SD camcorder...

That's probably what you're seeing...
 
Thanks David! and everyone. I'm not a shooter yet (more backgrounds editorial) so i appreciate the context and examples. My girlfriend's a photographer, so i'm gonna get her to flesh out all the f stop stuff for me. Thanks again.
 
"the good enough for zodiac" argument works for me. the look of that movie was stunning! that's the first digitally shot film i saw that made me think 'ok, digital is good.'
 
REDneck said:
"the good enough for zodiac" argument works for me. the look of that movie was stunning! that's the first digitally shot film i saw that made me think 'ok, digital is good.'
Click to expand...

It's worth mentioning, the sensor size is only part of the equation. Walking out with a 2/3" chip camera wont give you the look of Zodiac; you'll need a couple of truck loads of lighting equipment, a team of burly lads and a fair bit of talent.
 
Liam Hall said:
It's worth mentioning, the sensor size is only part of the equation. Walking out with a 2/3" chip camera wont give you the look of Zodiac; you'll need a couple of truck loads of lighting equipment, a team of burly lads and a fair bit of talent.
Click to expand...

Hi,

The same can be said for shooting with RED or 35mm film, buying a camera will not help if you have no talent.

Stephen
 
Emiel Labree said:
These two examples have been mentioned before, but there seem to be other 'elements' to get that DOF with the Viper. If i look at footage from a HPX500, then the DOF looks different. The lenses and sensor-type must play a big part.
Click to expand...

Hi,

The Viper (3 x 9,2000,000 ccd's or 27,600,000 pixels) with digiprimes has a great deal of resolution. Often with video nothing is actually in focus, it's sharpened to make everything appear sharp. Always using a wide angle lens and not bothering with focus does not help either.

Stephen
 
I never understand the requirement for 35mm DOF, 16mm can look very good, Viper too. All just tools of course.
Click to expand...
It's not about a requirement, it's about flexibility. 16mm can look good if you want deep focus. But a larger sensor would just give you more flexibility when you don't want it. A camera shouldn't make the decision for you. That's why I was a proponent of 4/3. It's the best compromise really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top