SCARLET 2/3 + 35mm Adapter (Letus etc...)

[David Mullen ASC]

So if you are on a sub 10k budget indi film and you have a shot planned at f2.8
(I dunno, some candlelight romance where actors can't move) then neither scarlet 2/3 can do it.

I don't think you understand, or maybe I don't understand... you can shoot at f/2.8 on an f/2.8 lens, it doesn't make a difference whether you are shooting on a 2/3" camera or a 35mm camera in terms of exposure, only depth of field.

So you can shoot your candlelight scene just fine on a 2/3" camera at f/2.8, it's just going to have more depth of field to it than if you were using a 35mm camera, the equivalent look of stopping down by 2.5-stops. But how noticeable that extra depth of field is just depends on the shots -- close-ups, you'll probably not notice that the focus is deeper than usual.

So you can see it as an advantage, not a disadvantage - now you can shoot candlelight scenes at wide apertures on your 2/3" camera and have a greater chance of getting it in focus.

Yes, if a super shallow-focus look is part of the overall design of the movie, then you'd need DoF adaptors if you are using a 2/3" camera, except for the tight close-ups. But there's no law that you need a "35mm at f/2.8 look" for a movie, and besides, that look is shot-dependent. DoF falls off so quickly in close-focusing situations, and looks more shallow in long-lensed shots, that it's mainly medium-distance shots on short lenses where you have a problem getting more fall-off in focus. And in wide shots, generally everything is farther away from camera and look in-focus even in a 35mm movie shot at wide apertures (for example, a lot of people think of Kubrick movies as being deep-focus when they actually aren't, because of the use of wide shots + wide-angle lenses. It's just harder to tell that the DoF is shallow in those situations.)

In the big, long list of what makes a movie look "professional", shallow-focus is much further down the list, unless you are talking about the naturally deep-focus look of 1/3" video, which is a bit distinctive and thus may be desirable to disguise. But 2/3" DoF just looks like 35mm DoF slightly more stopped down than normal.

 

[J Davis]

Yes, if a super shallow-focus look is part of the overall design of the movie ...

Yes this is what I was referring to ... but not as an overall movie look, only specific to a certain shot.

For the life of me I can only think of one scenario that I would opt to use it and that would be soft, dreamy love scene , you know .. lips in focus as they kiss and other parts of the face aren't.

It seems crazy having this discussion - because 99.99% of the time you never have need for dof beyond the capabilities of the mini primes!

I hope you don't see me as being counter constructive. Everything you are saying in this thread is something I believe in as well as practice (in limited kind of way with my 7D and AIS primes)

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Perhaps there would be a way of getting ahold of a lensbaby for those dreamy shots, if you can figure out the mount issues.

 

[soren k jensen]

dreamy

dreamy

I have the lensbaby and use it with a Brevis adapter at times, but find that I get more interesting results using a couple of cannibalised zuiko lenses that I just handhold in front of the adapter. Mostly I'll project 'normal' footage and reshoot a projection on a screen or other surface. Sometimes I'll do a makeshift bellows with black plastic or black wrap, sometimes I just let the false light mess things up. Rare but nice effect.:blink: Actually AE is more flexible, doing it in post, but in-camera experiments are fun to do.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

By the way, thank you for this link, I hope I'm never in the situation where I must resort to using it.


Just to summarize, and since most of us scarlet hopefuls are on 7d's

2/3 with mini prime at T1.5 equivalent to asp-c at f3.3
2/3 fixed wide open at f2.4 T2.5 equivalent to asp-c at f5.6

So if you are on a sub 10k budget indi film and you have a shot planned at f2.8
(I dunno, some candlelight romance where actors can't move) then neither scarlet 2/3 can do it.
So you're options are

1) vDSLR like 7d, 2ti, 5dm2 and put up with moire and aliasing
2) hvx200 and dof adapter
3) interchangeable 2/3 and dof adapter
4) rent a scarlet s35

Did I miss anything? Please let me know if the math is wrong or I forgot something

Rent a Red at a favor price - often rental places give great deals if they know you are doing an art project. The thing is, you don't need super thin DOF everyday.

I've tried the P+S - I prefer the new Redrock encore. Sharper - no "shower curtain look".

In my opinion...

DSLR - worst option - it's light, saving you pain, but awful moire ruining great shots is greater pain than heavy equipment
EX1 or other cam + Redrock Encore = much better
2/3 camera with good, fast lens = better still - except if doing tilt-shift or some other specialty-act thing I can only get for the adapter
RED = optimal.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I don't think you understand, or maybe I don't understand... you can shoot at f/2.8 on an f/2.8 lens, it doesn't make a difference whether you are shooting on a 2/3" camera or a 35mm camera in terms of exposure, only depth of field.

So you can shoot your candlelight scene just fine on a 2/3" camera at f/2.8, it's just going to have more depth of field to it than if you were using a 35mm camera, the equivalent look of stopping down by 2.5-stops. But how noticeable that extra depth of field is just depends on the shots -- close-ups, you'll probably not notice that the focus is deeper than usual.

So you can see it as an advantage, not a disadvantage - now you can shoot candlelight scenes at wide apertures on your 2/3" camera and have a greater chance of getting it in focus.

Yes, if a super shallow-focus look is part of the overall design of the movie, then you'd need DoF adaptors if you are using a 2/3" camera, except for the tight close-ups. But there's no law that you need a "35mm at f/2.8 look" for a movie, and besides, that look is shot-dependent. DoF falls off so quickly in close-focusing situations, and looks more shallow in long-lensed shots, that it's mainly medium-distance shots on short lenses where you have a problem getting more fall-off in focus. And in wide shots, generally everything is farther away from camera and look in-focus even in a 35mm movie shot at wide apertures (for example, a lot of people think of Kubrick movies as being deep-focus when they actually aren't, because of the use of wide shots + wide-angle lenses. It's just harder to tell that the DoF is shallow in those situations.)

In the big, long list of what makes a movie look "professional", shallow-focus is much further down the list, unless you are talking about the naturally deep-focus look of 1/3" video, which is a bit distinctive and thus may be desirable to disguise. But 2/3" DoF just looks like 35mm DoF slightly more stopped down than normal.

I agree - an entire feature lit and shot well with good acting and makeup and sets on even a 1/2 inch camera will look far higher budget and "filmic"
than one shot on an Imax-sized theoretical sensor but where everything else is shoddy.

 

[Sean Finnegan]

I agree - an entire feature lit and shot well with good acting and makeup and sets on even a 1/2 inch camera will look far higher budget and "filmic"
than one shot on an Imax-sized theoretical sensor but where everything else is shoddy.

And we come full circle! Debates rage on about the technical aspects of cameras, formats, and lenses, but ultimately it is good lighting and good composition that contribute most to the "cinematic look" that everyone strives so hard to achieve in their films.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

And we come full circle! Debates rage on about the technical aspects of cameras, formats, and lenses, but ultimately it is good lighting and good composition that contribute most to the "cinematic look" that everyone strives so hard to achieve in their films.

And it does get a little tedious to have to come back around and reaffirm, here in public, for everybody to see, that we all agree, "it's about story, and lighting and acting, and directing and talent and skill and ...NOT about the camera." BUT - I think there is no argument here about that, and I think it would behoove us, since we are here to talk about camera technology, specifically RED, that those things are assumed as given and they are always going to be more important than any technology. NOW - can we just discuss what we came here to discuss?

Maybe the forum should automatically attached to every post a footnote that says...

* Every discussion of the technology of these cameras in this forum assumes that the writers, producers, directors, actors and production crew know what they hell they are doing.

 

[Ethan Lane]

Agreed. Every thread becomes the same thing. Someone asks about what the camera can do and then eventually it turns into "it doesn't matter what the camera can do if everything else sucks." ..which is true, but not entirely helpful.

 

[Philip Allister Anderson]

I personally find super-shallow depth of field to be very annoying, especially in close-ups. It's distracting to see the one in focus eyeball moving in and out of focus as the actor moves. This idea of shallow focus is an aesthetic and in my opinion a bit of a marketing ploy for larger sensors. Add to that the increased difficulty it creates for focus-pullers with actors who aren't trained to nail marks and shallow focus becomes a nightmare. If you are still unconvinced go watch some big budget films and see how often they use uber-shallow depth of field. Less then you think.

 

[Cid J Salcido Uyarra]

DOF is not a crutch for your images. It's a tool and effect that should be used only when NECESSARY. If you can't compose an image because you can't get the right exposure or it "doesn't look right" maybe you should try another profession.

Do you wanna deal with a horrible looking rig and give your 1stAC a hell of a time? Not to mention more time consuming to get the darn thing tweaked right.

If you're shooting with an adapter your better off shooting film in my opinion. Video looks great with out an adapter if you know what you're doing.