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 :)

scarlet 2/3 vs s35 depth of field

the miniRED prime 8mm and 16mm are at f/1.5

thats pretty close to the digiprimes.
 
Yea but the difference is still going to be hard to miss... 1.5f at 8mm in S35 would still give you quite shallow dof I think, probably also at 16mm, but it might not be enough when you can't cheat your subject at all in a small set. Sure you might get a bit and that will likely suffice most the time... but I agree that a camera shouldn't limit you but the opposite... it is nice to know we are getting more freedom soon.

I am also concerned with sensitivity being that the photosensors aren't as big.

Of course there is no way the camera will be worth multiple times its retail cost and is sure to baffle all of us... and I think that with a sensor twice as big if you come from 1/3" sensors is also sure to leave us grinning hard...
 
A lot of scenes in zodiac were shot green screen. I was looking in an effects mag one day and came across stills of some of the effects shots (with the backgrounds missing). I was quite surprised. The scene on the street at night when they are around the murdered cab driver going over the crime scene was all shot green screen on a sound stage. This isn't to suggest that there is anything inadequate about the 2/3 sensor cameras, but one must take into consideration that whatever shortcomings are discovered on a large production such as zodiac, are (relatively) easily overcome with millions of dollars in the effects budget. Using a multimillion dollar production as a gauge for what can be achieved with the 2/3 sensor may leave some people (with less experience) a little deflated in their expectations.
 
Stephen Williams said:
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
Click to expand...

Just the same... having a tiny budget and/or a low-end Camera can yield wonderful results if you have talent and a great story to tell.

Now, imagine all of those people that have been out there now having access to professional tools at a price that is finally obtainable for them. (RED) ;-)
 
USlatin said:
Yea but the difference is still going to be hard to miss... 1.5f at 8mm in S35 would still give you quite shallow dof I think, probably also at 16mm, but it might not be enough when you can't cheat your subject at all in a small set. Sure you might get a bit and that will likely suffice most the time... but I agree that a camera shouldn't limit you but the opposite... it is nice to know we are getting more freedom soon.
Click to expand...

8mm lens @f1.5 will always have the same dof, whatever is the sensor size.

There is only 3 factors that mostly determine dof:

1) CoC
2) apperture of the lens
3) enlarging (1:10, 1:100...)

of course the field of view will change with the same 8mm lens if the sensor change.

ciao,
antoine.
 
night

night

David Mullen ASC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi everyone

In 2/3 sensors you can have better results if what you want is a lot depth of field in night shots, but how do you manage getting more depth of field at night with a 35 mm? increasing Asa and closing down is the only way?

Thanks

It's also certainly incorrect that a 8mm lens at 1,6 give the same depth of field with any sensor size.
 
Leaf Baimbridge said:
A lot of scenes in zodiac were shot green screen. I was looking in an effects mag one day and came across stills of some of the effects shots (with the backgrounds missing). I was quite surprised. The scene on the street at night when they are around the murdered cab driver going over the crime scene was all shot green screen on a sound stage. This isn't to suggest that there is anything inadequate about the 2/3 sensor cameras, but one must take into consideration that whatever shortcomings are discovered on a large production such as zodiac, are (relatively) easily overcome with millions of dollars in the effects budget. Using a multimillion dollar production as a gauge for what can be achieved with the 2/3 sensor may leave some people (with less experience) a little deflated in their expectations.
Click to expand...

So funny that this is the very scene that comes to mind every time the movie is mentioned :)
 
enrico parenti said:
It's also certainly incorrect that a 8mm lens at 1,6 give the same depth of field with any sensor size.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not. Changing sensor size is exactly the same as just cropping the image. The difference is in framing - the field of view of a given lens changes when the sensor size changes. The DOF does not change***

To get the same field of view with different sized sensors, you will need to change lens length accordingly. This will change your depth of field.



*** Actually, if we wish to nitpick a little, smaller sensors have a shallower depth of field with any given lens than the big ones. As the smaller sensor's "cropped" image will be enlarged more, the circle of confusion needed for acceptable sharpness is smaller, which means DOF is shallower. How much this matters in practical situations is another issue...
 
Hey newbe here.
EKi is right. A lot of people don't realize that sensor size does NOT change the DOF if the lens is not designed for THAT sensor. So if you using 35mm SLR lens's on a 2/3" scarlet, you will still have the same DOF of 35mm, only a cropped image. I know this from my DIY 35mm adapter days. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Trevor
 
Trevor Crowe said:
Hey newbe here.
So if you using 35mm SLR lens's on a 2/3" scarlet, you will still have the same DOF of 35mm, only a cropped image. I know this from my DIY 35mm adapter days. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Trevor
Click to expand...

Hi,

You are wrong.

Stephen
 
oh! So whats wrong about it?
Will the Scarlet F mount have an intermediate lens in there?
Is the focal plane distance different from a standard f mount?
My original point is that if the F stop, focal plane distance, and zoom level are all the constants, changing the sensor size will not effect DOF.
 
Trevor Crowe said:
My original point is that if the F stop, focal plane distance, and zoom level are all the constants, changing the sensor size will not effect DOF.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring two issues -- one is that since the smaller sensor crops the lens image more, you won't get the same field of view, so you'll want to compensate by changing focal length.

The other issue is that you have to change your Circle of Confusion factor if you are blowing up a smaller image to be the same size as a larger image. So the depth of field charts for a 50mm lens, for example, are different when that 50mm lens is on a 35mm camera versus a 16mm camera, because the Circle of Confusion figure is different if you are assuming the same size in final image presentation / display.

Of course, this is what Eki was saying at the top of the page.

Anyway, because you need to use shorter focal length lenses on smaller sensor cameras to get the typically desired fields of view, you can say that for practical purposes, smaller sensor cameras have deeper focus characteristics.
 
David I believe your post is saying that "effective" depth of field changes because subject distance is increased (or focal length decreased) to achieve the same field of view, which has always been my understanding.

However, I also thought that assuming a fixed focal length, aperture, and subject distance - say I have a lens on a tripod pointed at a landscape and all that changes is which camera is connected to it - DoF will be identical though FoV obviously won't, just like cropping in post production.

Some posts, ie Stephen William's enormously helpful post shortly before yours, suggest I'm wrong.

If I am, I don't understand. Can you explain?
 
Stephen Williams said:
The same can be said for shooting with RED or 35mm film, buying a camera will not help if you have no talent.
Stephen
Click to expand...

Zodiac being a case in point. Well, that's not really fair - it looked great.

But God, I was so bored. And I'm from San Francisco, and I was looking forward to the movie. I don't think it was just me. Well into the second hour, every time a new establishing shot with the title 'Location...many months later' appeared, there was an audible sigh throughout the whole theater. "Obsessed guy is obsessed" doesn't constitute a story, Mr Fincher. Incidentally, I heard from a friend of mine who acted in the film (prefer not to say who) that 30+ takes of everything was the norm.

Anyhoo, back on topic - the similar-to-16mm DOF is a plus for me, coming from a Super 16mm background; it's enough to get creative with, while forgiving enough to avoid too much stress from focus pulls (assuming, of course, that is' a nice lens to pull focus on etc. etc.). The cost savings of 16mm shooting aren't just in film stock and lab fees, but also in the reduced setup time for a smaller camera and somewhat easier operation.

By contrast, when shooting on DV or HD there's often a lot of extra time lost on trying to make up for the deficiencies of the sensor. Scarlet appears to offer enough in quality terms to allow for fairly fast shooting.
 
Lee Saxon said:
However, I also thought that assuming a fixed focal length, aperture, and subject distance - say I have a lens on a tripod pointed at a landscape and all that changes is which camera is connected to it - DoF will be identical though FoV obviously won't, just like cropping in post production.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The DoF does change slightly as said, because when you enlarge that cropped image to fill the screen, focus will be more critical as image detail is enlarged. But this is a minor point compared to everything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top