Lawrence Bansbach
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2008
- Messages
- 463
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I agree, DOF with 16 mm and 2/3" can be reasonably shallow if desired. Although it may require some experimentation, if need be, you can focus on a point a little in front of your subject, which will shorten the DOF behind the subject. The 2/3" format permits shallow DOF when desired but also allows for deeper focus where focus pulling might be a nightmare (e.g., run-and-gun action sequences, particularly in relatively low light). FF35, on the other hand, does not allow for easy deep DOF in similar shooting conditions.Why do people dismiss 2/3" as having no DOF flexibility at all? As if it is the same as the 1/4"-1/3" prosumer cams out there now. This is not the case. 16mm-2/3" format is capable of a useful and pleasant range of DOF flexibility when handled properly. Shallow DOF is possible. . . .
. . . Despite the fact that motion picture shooting formats have gone as large as 70mm/IMAX, the current popular formats, S35mm and 16mm/s16mm/2/3" have prevailed because they best fit the practical requirements of the craft. Especially with the currently popular shooting styles that involve a lot of dynamic camera movement, FF35 and larger formats become impractical because one can not get enough DOF under normal shooting conditions.
FF35 is essentially the same as the old VistaVision format, which ILM resurrected for effects work on the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones films. Why? The format had a smaller relative grain size, there was a wealth of cheap, high quality Nikkor lenses, and a still camera (often with a 100-ft. bulk film back) could be mounted to easily move within a miniature set. Inherently shallower DOF, however, was not a reason. But with a tightly controlled lighting situation (e.g., studio lights, time-lapse exposures), the requisite small apertures were more easily achievable.