ANAMORPHIC VS 35MM ADAPTER (TO GET NARROW DOF)

J

josecunhacoutinho

Hi guys, I'm quite new to this things and right now I was looking for a way to get a narrower DOF from my 2/3" camera (JVC gy-HD110u).

I know both things don't really do the same thing nor are used for the same purpose, ok. But as I am trying to get a little bit of a cinema look and reduce the DOF of the camera, maybe each one could manage that in its way, the 35mm adapter by getting the 35mm DOF and the anamorphic because of its shallow DOF.

So if anyone could help me understand how I can solve this problem and the pros and cons of each methode, I would be very thankful! :)
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Depth of field is a function of aperture to distance from object versus shutter speed. There any number of good DoF calculators available online (and posted on this forum). The simple answer is that, in order to get shallower DoF, you need faster glass (wider/lower numerically aperture) and a fast shutter speed. You didn't say what lens you have on your GY-HD110u. If it's the one that is installed from the factory, it has an f1.6 maximum aperture which is plenty. You also have a maximum shutter speed of 1/10,000. You will need to take advantage of the manual controls that camera offers. You should have a third party user's guide for that camera like one of the lightbooks. Try this, set up a shot in bright day light (not noon) and set your aperture at f1.6 and your shutter to 1/10,000. Start with the iso at 160 and adjust up or down to get the shot exposed properly. Now see how much DoF you have. Change the settings and start over. Repeat as needed. And remember, have fun!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The thing that's killing you on that camera is your sensor size.

Maybe look into some digi primes - they'll be cropped in somewhat as they're designed for 2/3" cameras and yours is a 1/3", but they may help with that 35mm look.

To help maximise your DOF, zoom in and open up your aperture and you'll start to get closer to what you want.

If you really want an adapter, I see no reason going for anamorphic over 35mm, especially as the lenses cost so much btu I suppose it's up to your personal needs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks for the insights guys, I'll try out opening up and zooming, I guess I was missing the shutter speed to balance exposure.
But if you can do that; why all the fuzz about the 35mm adapter? Does it give more resolution or more size with same resolution?
I'm asking because I read somehing about getting bigger width size without reducing the resolution with an anamorphic lens... And I couldn't really understand how...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You are confusing separate aspects of image capture. For some things anamorphic lenses are the way to go, as long as you have the money. The big fuss about 35mm and anamorphic adapters is for use on cameras that don't have interchangeable lenses. Since your camera has separate body and lens, you can get away with a straight adapter if you want to use 35mm or anamorphic glass. If there is anyplace that you can rent lenses, I would suggest renting glass before you invest the cash in a lens that may not give you look that you're after. Changing the lens has no effect on resolution, that is a function of the camera's sensor. Where the confusion comes in is that some lenses don't use the whole sensor on certain cameras and using a different lens will allow you to make use of the entire surface of the sensor. This is more common on cameras with larger sensor sizes. Anamorphic lenses usually give you greater width for the same height. If you have a square sensor, a spherical lens will fill the entire sensor to the same amount on all sides If the sensor is bigger than the lens projected image the picture will be round. Conversely, if the sensor size is smaller than the projected image, the whole sensor will be filled with picture with the rounded edges cut off square. Assuming the same square sensor, using an animorphic lens will project a roughly rectangular image onto the sensor and the areas above and below the image won't have any information to record. Where this is really useful is when you are using a camera with a really wide sensor or when you want the visual width of a wider lens with the vertical height of a more telephoto length lens (35mm horizontal equivalent with a 70mm vertical giving you 2:1 aspect ratio for example).

I'm guessing that this explanation is just confusing you more. Try going to cinematography.com for more in depth discussions on the topic of anamorphic lenses (and everything cinematography related).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Honestly, I'd look into a 2/3" to 1/3" adapter and using some digi primes.

Most of what L_H says is true, however your camera is a broadcast type camera, so you may struggle to find a B4 bayonet adapter to use something like Canon EF lenses. The whole point is to put high quality broadcast lenses on a B4 mount, rather than any still/cinema glass.

Yes, changing the lens doesn't change resolution, however using lots of adapters can significantly degrade the quality of your image.

The reason you'd use a 35mm adapter is to essentially turn your lens into the sensor area, so that you can then use 35mm lenses and get the nice shallow DOF etc. etc.
The issue is you then have to pony up for a rail system to mount the adapter and extra lens on (or risk breaking your lens, the new lens, and the adapter), plys the cost of the adapter, plus the cost of the new lens(es) to put on the adapter.

TBH, the lens that comes with that camera is pretty decent, and if anything I'd look into getting digi primes onto it if you wanted that DOF, or a workflow similar to cinema.

Otherwise, zoom in and open up - you can still get the same framing simply by stepping back, it's just the old school kinda tricks we used to use before we even had large sensor digital cameras, or 35mm adapters.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lucky Hardwood said:
B4 to EF is available...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/854164-REG/MTF_Services_Ltd_MTB4CANEF_B4_2_3_to_CANON.html

...but it ain't cheap!
Click to expand...

Probably costs about as much as a rail system, 35mm adapter, a lens or two and a good FF... and you'd get better image quality out of a straight adapter.
You'd still have sensor issues though, a 2/3" sensor is about a 3.6x crop, but then the OPs camera is a 1/3" sensor, so you'd end up with a 6ishx crop.. Plus I think you'd potentially need a 1/3" to 2/3" B4 converter
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I still think that he can get the DoF that he's after with the lens that's already on his camera. That opinion is based in photographic theory and not actual practice with the system that the OP is using.

Sticking some random figures into the DoF calculator below, you can get a DoF of just 1/10 of a foot (1.2 inches) with a focal length of 100mm, fstop of 1.6 and a distance to subject of 10 feet. Play around with the calculator, which factors for sensor, and see what you can come up with.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This may be of interest:

This film was shot on a Panasonic Varicam (2/3" broadcast type sensor) with a Pro35 adapter and Nikkor and Panavision glass:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STIir0d-0PM
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pro35 adapter is not a simple lens mount adapter, its has its own focusing screen that the 35mm SLR lens projects onto, the camera is then set to focus on that screen, not the actual subjects.

Look into letus 35mm adapters. There are relay lenses and all kinds of goodies..
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top