Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Is 2/3" going to be enough?

Last we heard, Scarlet fixed is T2.4, probably f2.2 or so. It is f-stop that determines DOF.
 
To clarify, I did mean to ask what f stop Steve's lenses were at.
Most films shot on s35 are at 2.8-4, and so for achieving that look, f1.4-2 is ideal when dealing with 2/3, but s35 lenses fully open may not resolve the 3k to your satisfaction. I wish you the best of luck in your choice, but I do think s35 would be a wise investment for you.
 
Alex Mack said:
To clarify, I did mean to ask what f stop Steve's lenses were at.
Most films shot on s35 are at 2.8-4, and so for achieving that look, f1.4-2 is ideal when dealing with 2/3, but s35 lenses fully open may not resolve the 3k to your satisfaction. I wish you the best of luck in your choice, but I do think s35 would be a wise investment for you.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't almost triple the money, I'd agree. I have lenses from F1.4 (50mm) to F2 (200mm), and the rest are F2.8, including a macro lens, and with the macro, I'm betting I can still get some crazy DOF, as it's designed to deliver just that, despite the fact that it's also just F2.8.
 
Steve_Cox said:
If it wasn't almost triple the money, I'd agree. I have lenses from F1.4 (50mm) to F2 (200mm), and the rest are F2.8, including a macro lens, and with the macro, I'm betting I can still get some crazy DOF, as it's designed to deliver just that, despite the fact that it's also just F2.8.
Click to expand...

Ah, surprise. In this case, you will actually be much better off with the fixed version. At f2.4, it will be more concise, and consistently high quality than using your other lenses. It is cinema glass with a very large range, after all (they are practically giving it away with the price of the kit). The interchangeable 2/3 is really intended for those that already have an investment in that type of glass (talking tens of thousands) and don't want to let go, or who intend to purchase red's mini-primes (which will make quite a package).
Go fixed! You'll be glad you did.
 
Alex Mack said:
Ah, surprise. In this case, you will actually be much better off with the fixed version. At f2.4, it will be more concise, and consistently high quality than using your other lenses. It is cinema glass with a very large range, after all (they are practically giving it away with the price of the kit). The interchangeable 2/3 is really intended for those that already have an investment in that type of glass (talking tens of thousands) and don't want to let go, or who intend to purchase red's mini-primes (which will make quite a package).
Go fixed! You'll be glad you did.
Click to expand...
What are the specs on the fixed lens?
 
Steve_Cox said:
And it will still have the same look as far as DOF and whatnot? And you can do manual focus or autofocus?

If so, then I think you guys are right that I need that camera for what I do...
Click to expand...

It has autofocus, and according to Jannard the autofocus works like no autofocus on the planet.

The DOF won't be as good as using T1.5 primes, but I think that people will find it suits their needs just fine. I mean, I can get decent shallow focus on an XH-A1 with a 1/3" sensor if I zoom to medium telephoto and open all the way. The Scarlet's DOF will be substantially better.

Also, does anyone know whether it's T stops or f stops that determine DOF? I would suspect f stops because it's the actual width of the aperture, not the quantity of light, that makes the circle of confusion.
 
Steve_Cox said:
And it will still have the same look as far as DOF and whatnot? And you can do manual focus or autofocus?
Click to expand...

At full open aperture, it should be close to S35 (or APS-C still cameras) at f5.6-f8 split, as said. And yep, it's supposed to do both manual and autofocus.
 
Sam Eilertsen said:
It has autofocus, and according to Jannard the autofocus works like no autofocus on the planet.

The DOF won't be as good as using T1.5 primes, but I think that people will find it suits their needs just fine. I mean, I can get decent shallow focus on an XH-A1 with a 1/3" sensor if I zoom to medium telephoto and open all the way. The Scarlet's DOF will be substantially better.

Also, does anyone know whether it's T stops or f stops that determine DOF? I would suspect f stops because it's the actual width of the aperture, not the quantity of light, that makes the circle of confusion.
Click to expand...
It can't JUST be f-stop, because as I pointed out already, I have a macro 105mm f2.8 and it has way more dramatic depth of field than any of my other f2.8 lenses, regardless of focal length.

It has something to do with the construction of the lens, too.
 
Steve_Cox said:
It can't JUST be f-stop, because as I pointed out already, I have a macro 105mm f2.8 and it has way more dramatic depth of field than any of my other f2.8 lenses, regardless of focal length.

It has something to do with the construction of the lens, too.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, your 105mm f2.8 has the exact same DoF as an 18mm f2.8 lens, or any other focal length at f2.8. However, the background appears blurrier in the 105mm lens because it magnifies what's out of focus, compared to a wider lens.

Imagine you take a still photo with an 18mm f2.8 lens, and then swap out the lens with the 105mm f2.8. The 105mm photo has a very blurry background, and the 18mm does not. However, if you then take the 18mm photo and blow it up so the background is the same size as the background of the 105mm photo, the blurriness should look identical (even though you will have lost resolution in the process due to blowing up the image that much.)

Telephoto lenses make the shallow DoF more apparent, but they really have the same DoF as wide lenses of the same f-stop.
 
Jaime Vallés said:
If I'm not mistaken, your 105mm f2.8 has the exact same DoF as an 18mm f2.8 lens, or any other focal length at f2.8. However, the background appears blurrier in the 105mm lens because it magnifies what's out of focus, compared to a wider lens.

Imagine you take a still photo with an 18mm f2.8 lens, and then swap out the lens with the 105mm f2.8. The 105mm photo has a very blurry background, and the 18mm does not. However, if you then take the 18mm photo and blow it up so the background is the same size as the background of the 105mm photo, the blurriness should look identical (even though you will have lost resolution in the process due to blowing up the image that much.)

Telephoto lenses make the shallow DoF more apparent, but they really have the same DoF as wide lenses of the same f-stop.
Click to expand...
That makes sense, but having never taken apart a lens, the person I bought the lens from at the camera store said it had something to do with... Dang, I forget the name of it, but it's something like "rowes" or something? Basically, the size or design of the area the light enters the lens through?

I hate having only a partial photographic (pun?) memory...
 
You know, it sounds like your preference is for as shallow a dof as you can get. In that case, you may find anything other than those 1.5 miniprimes insufficient on 2/3. To know exactly what you are getting with 2.4, watch the Quiet, shot by our very own David Mullen:

http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Camilla-Belle/dp/B000KX0IP4

The whole thing is 2/3, at that same aperture (for the most part). It'll give you a sense of the dof at a variety of focal lengths. Or you can set your lenses to 5.6 and shoot many pictures at different focal lengths (that is if you are using a s35 sized sensor).

If you find the dof in that movie sufficient for your applications, then you are safe! I should note that too shallow a dof is considered aesthetically tacky, and that most viewers will be pleased at 2.8-4 on an s35. 5.6 (or 2.4 on 2/3) will be a little more in focus than might be preferred by most, but still retains that cinematic potential (as opposed to traditional video cameras). Miniprimes, of course, will put you right in that sexy zone!
 
Alex Mack said:
You know, it sounds like your preference is for as shallow a dof as you can get. In that case, you may find anything other than those 1.5 miniprimes insufficient on 2/3. To know exactly what you are getting with 2.4, watch the Quiet, shot by our very own David Mullen:

http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Camilla-Belle/dp/B000KX0IP4

The whole thing is 2/3, at that same aperture (for the most part). It'll give you a sense of the dof at a variety of focal lengths. Or you can set your lenses to 5.6 and shoot many pictures at different focal lengths (that is if you are using a s35 sized sensor).

If you find the dof in that movie sufficient for your applications, then you are safe! I should note that too shallow a dof is considered aesthetically tacky, and that most viewers will be pleased at 2.8-4 on an s35. 5.6 (or 2.4 on 2/3) will be a little more in focus than might be preferred by most, but still retains that cinematic potential (as opposed to traditional video cameras). Miniprimes, of course, will put you right in that sexy zone!
Click to expand...
So, if I bought the 2/3 (brain only) and built my ideal camera, the mini primes that Red will be selling for the camera will do the job all the way down to the most shallow DOF?
 
Steve_Cox said:
That makes sense, but having never taken apart a lens, the person I bought the lens from at the camera store said it had something to do with... Dang, I forget the name of it, but it's something like "rowes" or something? Basically, the size or design of the area the light enters the lens through?

I hate having only a partial photographic (pun?) memory...
Click to expand...

Could he have been referring to the number of blades on the diaphragm? More blades give a more rounded aperture which in turn is generally accepted to give a more pleasing bokeh, a smoother look to the out of focus area.
 
GLap said:
Could he have been referring to the number of blades on the diaphragm? More blades give a more rounded aperture which in turn is generally accepted to give a more pleasing bokeh, a smoother look to the out of focus area.
Click to expand...
Yes! That's exactly what it was. Thanks!
 
Steve_Cox said:
So, if I bought the 2/3 (brain only) and built my ideal camera, the mini primes that Red will be selling for the camera will do the job all the way down to the most shallow DOF?
Click to expand...

The miniprimes solution will get you the standard dof look of hollywood films, a 2.8-4 split (on s35).

It won't be the most shallow dof possible. Though this is not a problem. Dp's in fact often struggle to shoot f4, because they want more dof to make focusing easier on the puller.

To be sure, the miniprimes are as good as it gets with shallow dof on 2/3. (there is a c mount schneider optic which is 17mm f.95 for about 1300$) Otherwise to get shallower you will need s35. But consider a unique advantage on the 2/3 miniprime route is that you will have the same dof as a typical film - with two and a half stops more light! Thats 6 times the amount of light, leading to interesting focusing possibilities in darkly lit scenes. And supposedly there will be kit pricing on the 2/3 brain. I am personally interested in this brain for achieving the lightest weight 3d cam around (these things get heavy).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top