-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
FOCUS
- Thread starter jshahin
- Start date
I think you are talking about Depth-Of-Field. Its a tecnique, not feature. There should be a lot of information about it online.. Here is one example..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfOC_Msb1dI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfOC_Msb1dI
What you are talking about is having a shallow depth of field (shallow means that very little is in focus, whereas a wide depth of field means more is in focus).
Currently, DSLR cameras are pretty much your only option for getting a really shallow depth of field. I've heard about people building conversion kits that they can put on their HDV cameras, that will mimic this effect -- I have no idea how it works, and since DSLR is less expensive, I don't understand why you would take the more complicated route.
Currently, DSLR cameras are pretty much your only option for getting a really shallow depth of field. I've heard about people building conversion kits that they can put on their HDV cameras, that will mimic this effect -- I have no idea how it works, and since DSLR is less expensive, I don't understand why you would take the more complicated route.
He's talking about racking focus.
EDIT: @OP, just change the focus of the lens from one point to another. those 2 points being whatever u like.
EDIT: @OP, just change the focus of the lens from one point to another. those 2 points being whatever u like.
Last edited:
This… shallow depth of field makes racking focus more obvious (and perhaps more useful as a tool), but shallow depth of field itself is a characteristic of an image, not a technique.
jshahin,
Ernest and chilipie's corrections are indeed correct -- the focusing method you're talking about is called rack focus. The reason I brought up depth of field is because you can't rack focus if you don't understand how depth of field works. So, you gotta learn both (which is easy to do).
Ernest and chilipie's corrections are indeed correct -- the focusing method you're talking about is called rack focus. The reason I brought up depth of field is because you can't rack focus if you don't understand how depth of field works. So, you gotta learn both (which is easy to do).
I have a rack focus in my new film (Shot on HVX200A with redrock adapter and Nikon Prime lenses). As noted it only works if your DOF is shallow enough that there is an obviously out of focus part of the frame. I used mine with one character's face in the forground, and the person he was talking to (with his back to her) in the background over his right shoulder then I racked between them as each delivered their line. This would be a pretty common application.
When you are using a fixed lens video camera you
can get a shallow DOF by moving the camera as far
away as you can and zooming in on the subject.
That will allow you to do a rack focus.
can get a shallow DOF by moving the camera as far
away as you can and zooming in on the subject.
That will allow you to do a rack focus.
Ah, man, those robots must have changed something in The Matrix, cuz this is some serious deja-vu. I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation. Yes, that is how you get shallow depth of field. But "shallow" is a relative term. The technique is not much different for DSLR -- we also need to slap on a macro lens. Only difference is that we are able to drop our f-stop way lower than on the traditional "fixed lens" cameras. So, the technique is basically the same, but a DSLR produces far greater results, when looking for a shallow depth of field (and rack focus) -- this is one of the primary reasons that people are jumping on this bandwagon.
Gonzo, I'm curious to hear more about your redrock adapter. In an earlier post in this thread, I mentioned that I'm aware of such an adapter's existence, but I know nothing of how they work. If the OP already owns a fixed lens camera, perhaps he/she would really like to hear about your experiences with it?
Honestly, I feel like I'm the only person on this thread who has accurately answered the OP's entire question, and I've caught flak for doing so, from two different people now. It was a two-part question, half of which was the age-old question of which camera will get this desired effect. I answered that question.
Last edited:
I think you're wrong. Three of us answered the entire
question. I, too, answered the second part of the two part
question. So did Gonzo.
I also believe you are wrong about catching flack. I simply
offered one method to use with any camera. Gonzo did not
give you any flack - he offered the lens adaptor method.
Why do think that offering a solution different than buying
a DSLR camera is giving you flack?
This post started as something a whole lot more than "nevermind".
And no, I don't think Gonzo gave me flak, but someone else did,
in a different thread.
EDIT: Perhaps the reason you edited your post is for the same reason I'm now
editing my post -- because we're definitely way off-topic. And to that end, my
answer to the OP's question isn't some blind loyalty to DSLR's. It's just an
honest answer to the question of which camera. The OP might really want
to hear about the conversion kit that Gonzo and others use, but that's not a
straight-forward answer to the question of which camera.
Last edited:
Preface:
I'm not a gearhead, I'm a writer/director. I couldn't even turn the camera on most likely, so I am giving this just as what I have picked up by osmosis.
There's a wide range of "DOF Adapters" out there. Generally they get better the higher you go in price. They work by sitting between the fixed lens on your camera and a mount for one brand of 35mm still camera lens (Nikon, Canon, whatever). They have a lens inside that takes the image from the 35mm lens and refocuses it on the fixed lens of your camera. You set the focus on your cameras fixed lens then lock it down, and now you are focusing with the camera lens you have mounted at the front. On the cheapest (sub $200) ones the lens inside the adapter is static, it just sits there. This tends to produce some grain and dust particles on the final image, the next step up the lens vibrates, and eliminates a lot of that, the next step up from that the lens spins and eliminates virtually all that grain and dust. The ones made by Redrock Micro spin, and are the best type I have ever had any experience with. A full rig with support rods (for the big gizmo you have now slapped on the front of your camera) is in the $1000 to $1500 range (plus the cost of camera lenses). It gives you the shallow DOF and ability to use different lenses that you get from a DSLR with the improved image quality (IMO) of 3CCD sensors.
I'm not a gearhead, I'm a writer/director. I couldn't even turn the camera on most likely, so I am giving this just as what I have picked up by osmosis.
There's a wide range of "DOF Adapters" out there. Generally they get better the higher you go in price. They work by sitting between the fixed lens on your camera and a mount for one brand of 35mm still camera lens (Nikon, Canon, whatever). They have a lens inside that takes the image from the 35mm lens and refocuses it on the fixed lens of your camera. You set the focus on your cameras fixed lens then lock it down, and now you are focusing with the camera lens you have mounted at the front. On the cheapest (sub $200) ones the lens inside the adapter is static, it just sits there. This tends to produce some grain and dust particles on the final image, the next step up the lens vibrates, and eliminates a lot of that, the next step up from that the lens spins and eliminates virtually all that grain and dust. The ones made by Redrock Micro spin, and are the best type I have ever had any experience with. A full rig with support rods (for the big gizmo you have now slapped on the front of your camera) is in the $1000 to $1500 range (plus the cost of camera lenses). It gives you the shallow DOF and ability to use different lenses that you get from a DSLR with the improved image quality (IMO) of 3CCD sensors.
that was more the speed of my original application.
so i hear some saying its a characteristic of an image not a technique, i guess my new question would be, is there any technical necessity to achieve this shot (rack focus). or is it just a matter of aperture change/ subject focus.
The technical necessity is a shallow depth of field. But like I said, "shallow" is a relative term. The method directorik mentioned will get you as shallow as you can go, with a standard fixed lens camera. You should play with that and see if it works for you, if not -- a DSLR camera or the kind of 35mm adapter Gonzo mentioned will get you the desired look. Once you've acheived the shallow depth of field you're looking for, rack focus is simply a matter of adjusting your focus from one subject to another.