Scarlet Cinema DOF?

[Solomon Nero]

Now let me first state, I know little about lens optics. But I have been stressing out a little about this for a while, so I thought I would ask to see if anyone from RED can fill me in!

I am not sure where I read it, it was a while ago, I dont remember who stated it exactly, but I remember it being from a reliable person, that the scarlet fixed lens has an aperture of t2.6/ f2.4 in comparison to a full frame sensor on a canon, the depth of field of the scarlet fixed wide open at f2.4 would be equal to a FF canon lens being at 5.0 on a FF sensor.

I am not sure if this was intentional, or if there are limits when using a small sensor, I really dont know the science behind it. but my question is...Will the Scarlet Cinema , with say the 16mm T1.5 red mini prime, will the DOF be drastically less then say a t1.5 FFlens on a FF Sensor? Will the DOF equate to something similar to like a f 3? Cause me, I looooooove my DOF, and I don't want to sacrifice that much DOF.

Anyone know?

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Look up DOF charts for various lenses at various stops. I'm not looking it up for you Solomon:wink5:
This DOF question just refuses to die....:beatdeadhorse5:

 

[Sam Eilertsen]

If I recall correctly Scarlet has 2.5 stops more DOF than a Super 35-sized sensor, and 4 stops more DOF than a full frame sensor. So at f/1.4, the Scarlet would be equivalent to a REDONE at f/3.5 or a 5D at f/5.6.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Now let me first state, I know little about lens optics. But I have been stressing out a little about this for a while, so I thought I would ask to see if anyone from RED can fill me in!

I am not sure where I read it, it was a while ago, I dont remember who stated it exactly, but I remember it being from a reliable person, that the scarlet fixed lens has an aperture of t2.6/ f2.4 in comparison to a full frame sensor on a canon, the depth of field of the scarlet fixed wide open at f2.4 would be equal to a FF canon lens being at 5.0 on a FF sensor.

I am not sure if this was intentional, or if there are limits when using a small sensor, I really dont know the science behind it. but my question is...Will the Scarlet Cinema , with say the 16mm T1.5 red mini prime, will the DOF be drastically less then say a t1.5 FFlens on a FF Sensor? Will the DOF equate to something similar to like a f 3? Cause me, I looooooove my DOF, and I don't want to sacrifice that much DOF.

Anyone know?

If you mean FF35 sensor, as in a Canon 5D or a VistaVision movie camera, that's bigger than a Super-35 sensor like in the Red One. As Sam says, a 2/3" sensor has 2.5-stops more DOF than a 35mm cine / Super-35 / APS-C sensor, which in turn has 1.5-stops more DOF than a FF35 sensor (Canon 5D, VistaVision). So a 4-stop difference between 2/3" and FF35. However, most movies are shot in 35mm cine / Super-35, not FF35, and that difference is an effective 2.5-stops once you match field of view and f-stop by using shorter focal lengths on the smaller sensor camera.

Yes, this is the upteenth time this same post has been made, with the same answers...

The reason for the difference in DOF is the focal lengths needed in each format to achieve the same FOV. So your 16mm lens on a 2/3" camera would have to be switched to a 40mm lens on your Super-35 camera and a 60mm lens on your FF35 camera to achieve the same view. And if they are all set to the same f-stop, at the same distance to subject, then the 16mm is going to have more DOF than the 40mm, which in turn has more DOF than the 60mm.

 

[Solomon Nero]

Look up DOF charts for various lenses at various stops. I'm not looking it up for you Solomon:wink5:
This DOF question just refuses to die....:beatdeadhorse5:

I dont know the calculation of difference between the scarlet sensor and a full frame sensor. I have found how to calculate for standard 35mm sensors, thats about it...

Excuse my ignorance, but DOF is more of the reason why I want the scarlet cinema as opposed to the fixed scarlet. So I thought this was worth a post...

If I recall correctly Scarlet has 2.5 stops less DOF than a Super 35-sized sensor, and 4 stops less DOF than a full frame sensor. So at f/1.4, the Scarlet would be equivalent to a REDONE at f/3.5 or a 5D at f/5.6.

And if this is true...thats not what I was hoping for. :/

 

[Solomon Nero]

If you mean FF35 sensor, as in a Canon 5D or a VistaVision movie camera, that's bigger than a Super-35 sensor like in the Red One. As Sam says, a 2/3" sensor has 2.5-stops more DOF than a 35mm cine / Super-35 / APS-C sensor, which in turn has 1.5-stops more DOF than a FF35 sensor (Canon 5D, VistaVision). So a 4-stop difference between 2/3" and FF35. However, most movies are shot in 35mm cine / Super-35, not FF35, and that difference is an effective 2.5-stops once you match field of view and f-stop by using shorter focal lengths on the smaller sensor camera.

Yes, this is the upteenth time this same post has been made, with the same answers...

Apologies...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

And if this is true...thats not what I was hoping for. :/

I think that's the reason why the question keeps coming up... people seem to want a different answer than the one they keep getting.

But DOF is not just a numerical figure, it is also a perception, and the question is whether with a T/1.5 lens on a 2/3" camera, can you create the effect of a shallow-focus image -- I think most of the time, like 90% of the time, it's not going to be a problem.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

This notion to compare is wrong on so many levels. Why not just rent (or buy) a cheap 2/3" camera and try it out? I bought an old Sony DXC 3000 with 11x zoom on craigslist for $60. Perfect to play with 2/3" format ....

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Or just take a Canon T2i Rebel (APS-C sensor) and shoot various shots at T/3 and that will tell you the DOF effect you'll get on a 2/3" camera at T/1.5. Some kid posted recently about shooting his first video on his Canon T2i at T/2.8 and he couldn't believe how hard to was to keep things in focus due to the shallow depth of field -- he suddenly was surprised that so many movies shoot at that stop.

Honestly, when I shoot in 35mm I try to get things up to T/3 in general, I'm even happier at T/4. On a tight schedule, I don't have a lot of time to repeat takes just for focus, nor do I like having to ask actors to repeat a take for focus.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Likewise, you can also shoot a DSLR (or even a P&S) camera at a variety of focal lengths and then just crop your image to 2/3" sensor dimensions. That will show you exactly what you will get in terms of FOV/AOV and DOF with that focal length and f-stop on the 2/3" Scarlet. Of course, this will be difficult for the really short focal lengths as it's hard to shoot 6 or 8mm or similar on a DSLR without going to a fisheye lens.

Generally speaking the 2.5 stops difference between S35/APS-C and 2/3" is pretty close. In many cases on the 2/3" camera, you may find that to replicate S35 with a 50mm lens at F2.0, you will have to go to a longer focal length (relatively speaking), and position the camera further back.

We can't expect to bend the laws of our universe, capabilities of a 2/3" imager are just going to differ from a 35mm one, just as it differs from a 6x45 medium format imager, etc.. On the other hand, I think a lot of people are completely ignoring some of the advantages that come with the smaller sensor size. Shallow DOF is only one of many tools in your cinematographer's tool box. People get too hung up on it most of the time. Plenty of other ways to draw a viewer's attention within your frame or to isolate elements in your composition. Believe it or not, there are times when shallow DOF on S35 and larger sensors can be a problem. Repeat takes for focus being just one of those problems.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Here's the problem I have with the obsession over super shallow-focus images -- it's mainly an exercise in style. In narrative work, shallow focus is useful in directing the eye to the subject, like a face, but that's possible without resorting to such shallow effects that even in a near frontal close-up, you can't hold both eyes in focus, let alone the nose. That goes way beyond directing the eye, it creates a distinctive look, which certainly can be pretty -- don't get me wrong, having big chunks of the frame blurry is often pretty -- but it doesn't usually serve any more narrative purpose than a normal semi-shallow focus image -- let's say a close-up of a person shot at f/2.8 rather than f/1.4.

So you combine the fact that you can generally direct the eye with focus if it is just moderately shallow, not super-shallow, but also that this being cinema, not still photography, generally the camera and the actors are moving, and it can be annoying when the eye is distracted from the actor's performance by focus problems rather than directed to it. In other words, often super-shallow focus is a stylistic trick that calls attention to itself and away from the subject in the scene. It is certainly useful in commercials where the look is everything (assuming the product can be seen), but in narrative cinema, there are fewer examples where a super-swimmy focus effect actually makes a story point or creates the proper mood -- they certainly exist (I did it for drunken POV shots in "Big Sur") but it is not the norm.

The other issue is that using shallow focus in general as a narrative device is fine but often it leads to a rather cutty style since only one object is in focus at a time, forcing either focus racks or cuts to new subjects. Deep focus staging, when done correctly, allows an interesting dynamic to be created where you have the visual tension of two subjects or actions in focus at the same time, creating a more complex shot with more complicated implications sometimes, and also reducing the need to make cuts all the time. So it's too bad when people don't think of the advantages of deeper focus in narrative because, more or less, they think shallow-focus looks "pretty". Moviemaking is more than creating pretty pictures.

 

[Sam Eilertsen]

Solomon, obviously its an artistic choice that has to be made, but speaking as someone who typically has to work fast with minimal crew, none of whom are professionals, and I know you are in a similar boat, I generally want deeper, not shallower focus. When I use a DSLR I have an f/4 lens and shoot a f/5.6 or f/8, because I don't have time to take tape measurements or rehearse enough to be able to do more than a couple rack focuses. Even then, in close-ups I have to tell actors not to lean forward too much or I'll lose them. Can't you instantly recognize an amateur DSLR video when the focus is constantly going wonky? Heck, when I have to pull focus by hand I've screwed focus on plenty of shots on super-16, and even on a 1/3" camcorder if I'm moving the camera or the actors are moving around a lot. So personally, I think that 2/3" is the perfect size for the kind of low-budget, run-and-gun productions that are the camera's target audience.

 

[Nuka Wølk]

@Solomon - I can understand why anyone would be curious(almost to a frustrating point) to know (see) how shallow DOF the Scarlet can produce - especially when all we have seen up till now from the Scarlet-F, wasn't shot with the lowest aperture setting. Maybe it's best if you just wait and see what others eventually will post that they have shot with their Scarlet camera, before you make a final decision to invest in one. ... Or maybe what YOU really need, is in fact the EPIC (M/X/S).

A lot of people can tell you a lot of things (not meant to diminish anybody's statements or comments), but in the end it all comes down to personal preference - what YOU feel is right. I'm also one of those guys who loves to shoot with very shallow DOF in some situations - but most of the time I shoot with a good amount of DOF (I like long shots with more than one actor in them). It comes down to your artistic taste (or the individual assignment and the logistics and practicality of it), and that's very specific, subjective and personal.

I recently saw "The Adjustment Bureau" and almost every shot in that film was with very deep depth of field - some might say to a distracting point. I personally loved the visuals in that film - I completely understand and appreciate why they went with that style. I also recently saw Lars Von Triers "Melancholia". Besides the extremely beautiful and obviously intricately planned shots that was in that film, technically, most of the time the focus pulling was all over the place, and it seemed to me (objectively) that the aperture on the camera wasn't set to a more "appropriate" amount when shooting handheld with a lot of panning, framing and zooms. But I loved that it was so "chaotic" and "random", happening NOW-kinda-feel - I totally understand why they went with that style on that film. It served the actors and story well.

What I think I'm trying to say is that, doing things "by the book" isn't always the right way to do things. Also buying a camera and generally setting the limitations of the visuals more in stone isn't perhaps the right thing for you. These filmmakers obviously picked the right tool for the job - doens't mean they will pick the same exact tool for their next film! They knew what they wanted and they went for it and it worked. Maybe what you need is the right tool for you - and not what you can afford to buy and own right now. Maybe you really need to rent a specific camera for the job at hand instead of buying one and use it for almost every job? Or maybe you need to supplement with a big sensored device to cover those shallow DOF shots that you want? Or maybe, as I wrote before, you just need to get one of the EPIC's - problem solved, TAHDAHHH! ;D

Hope I in some way put your mind at more ease.

 

[Franck De Togni]

Dof is not everything, and as David and Jeff said, there are other tricks to give the impression of deph or avoid using it.
I'll tell you what, you can watch the movie "Benjamin Button"( that was shot on 2/3") if you haven't seen it. Some plans are stunning with superb images.

 

[Solomon Nero]

Well everyone here is right really. The reason why it is important to me is, I really do like that shallow depth "look" sometimes . But I like to have the option to do so because I really enjoy the look of it. But the wider you get the harder it is to get that effect. I like having some wide shots with nice shallow DOF. I just bought a 20mm 1.8 and even wide open on a 5D or a t2i, there is some decent depth, but its not as noticeable as it would be on a 50mm or an 85mm but obviously so! so I wonder at a 20 or 24mm equivalent on a scarlet, will there be an noticeable DOF on a wide mini prime lens? Im sure there will be a little.

And really its not a huge deal to me. Because David is right! it is hard to keep things in focus on an actor. And it is not always something that should be used, I just like utilizing those opportunities to use it when its there! But either way, I will weigh my options once all these wonderful cameras come out. Its either the epic or the scarlet...no other camera on the market has this price/performance. But I was just asking originally because...well...honestly im getting really excited. I have been waiting a long time as many others have. So I am just a little hungry for knowledge about it. I cant wait to see the full specs on it

 

[gabrielB]

Here's the problem I have with the obsession over super shallow-focus images -- it's mainly an exercise in style. In narrative work, shallow focus is useful in directing the eye to the subject, like a face, but that's possible without resorting to such shallow effects that even in a near frontal close-up, you can't hold both eyes in focus, let alone the nose. That goes way beyond directing the eye, it creates a distinctive look, which certainly can be pretty -- don't get me wrong, having big chunks of the frame blurry is often pretty -- but it doesn't usually serve any more narrative purpose than a normal semi-shallow focus image -- let's say a close-up of a person shot at f/2.8 rather than f/1.4.

[...]In other words, often super-shallow focus is a stylistic trick that calls attention to itself and away from the subject in the scene.

The other issue is that using shallow focus in general as a narrative device is fine but often it leads to a rather cutty style since only one object is in focus at a time, forcing either focus racks or cuts to new subjects. Deep focus staging, when done correctly, allows an interesting dynamic to be created where you have the visual tension of two subjects or actions in focus at the same time, creating a more complex shot with more complicated implications sometimes, and also reducing the need to make cuts all the time. So it's too bad when people don't think of the advantages of deeper focus in narrative because, more or less, they think shallow-focus looks "pretty". Moviemaking is more than creating pretty pictures.

Wow..... Greatest post. Thank your for writing this.
Everything you said is gold.
I hope a lot of people are recognizing the importance of what you shared.


Also, may I add, shallow focus has become so present with the advent of DSLRs that for me this look gives away a kind of prosumer or amateur feeling and is starting to saturate the market very much now.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

Solomon, obviously its an artistic choice that has to be made, but speaking as someone who typically has to work fast with minimal crew, none of whom are professionals, and I know you are in a similar boat, I generally want deeper, not shallower focus. When I use a DSLR I have an f/4 lens and shoot a f/5.6 or f/8, because I don't have time to take tape measurements or rehearse enough to be able to do more than a couple rack focuses. Even then, in close-ups I have to tell actors not to lean forward too much or I'll lose them. Can't you instantly recognize an amateur DSLR video when the focus is constantly going wonky? Heck, when I have to pull focus by hand I've screwed focus on plenty of shots on super-16, and even on a 1/3" camcorder if I'm moving the camera or the actors are moving around a lot. So personally, I think that 2/3" is the perfect size for the kind of low-budget, run-and-gun productions that are the camera's target audience.

Using available light during the day like golden hour, that's fine. But if you're lighting everything, getting to 8 or even 5.6 can be very time consuming as well. That can be a lot of lights to set up.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Here's the problem I have with the obsession over super shallow-focus images -- it's mainly an exercise in style. In narrative work, shallow focus is useful in directing the eye to the subject, like a face, but that's possible without resorting to such shallow effects that even in a near frontal close-up, you can't hold both eyes in focus, let alone the nose. That goes way beyond directing the eye, it creates a distinctive look, which certainly can be pretty -- don't get me wrong, having big chunks of the frame blurry is often pretty -- but it doesn't usually serve any more narrative purpose than a normal semi-shallow focus image -- let's say a close-up of a person shot at f/2.8 rather than f/1.4.

So you combine the fact that you can generally direct the eye with focus if it is just moderately shallow, not super-shallow, but also that this being cinema, not still photography, generally the camera and the actors are moving, and it can be annoying when the eye is distracted from the actor's performance by focus problems rather than directed to it. In other words, often super-shallow focus is a stylistic trick that calls attention to itself and away from the subject in the scene. It is certainly useful in commercials where the look is everything (assuming the product can be seen), but in narrative cinema, there are fewer examples where a super-swimmy focus effect actually makes a story point or creates the proper mood -- they certainly exist (I did it for drunken POV shots in "Big Sur") but it is not the norm.

The other issue is that using shallow focus in general as a narrative device is fine but often it leads to a rather cutty style since only one object is in focus at a time, forcing either focus racks or cuts to new subjects. Deep focus staging, when done correctly, allows an interesting dynamic to be created where you have the visual tension of two subjects or actions in focus at the same time, creating a more complex shot with more complicated implications sometimes, and also reducing the need to make cuts all the time. So it's too bad when people don't think of the advantages of deeper focus in narrative because, more or less, they think shallow-focus looks "pretty". Moviemaking is more than creating pretty pictures.

This why I have to pay $25 & eat rubber eggs to see Matthew Libatique speak at the ASC and you can just walk through the door, LOL!

 

[Erik Vanlenten]

Thank you David, wonderfully explained.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

To end the questions about DOF why not take the 7D and shoot something to show it?

Before I can I need to ask about something that I'm too tired to wrap my head around just now.
The 7D is 1.6 crop of a 5D FF sensor. Now, the canon lenses equals the number on the FF sensors and 18mm on a FF sensor is 18mm.
On the 7D with a 1.6x sensor it equals to 28mm. This is the number that is the widest on the Scarlet fixed.

Now, what does 28mm T2.4 on a 2/3 sensor equals to on a canon 7D? Is it correct to shoot 18mm (FF sensor) at 5.0? Will that give the correct image; 28mm 2/3 sensor at T2.4?

If I'm to test how the image will look (in terms of DOF and focal length) how should I set up my 7D?