Which One?

ussinners

ussinners

When we start over again I'd like to shoot using the DSLR (T5 I think). The DP tells me it's going to be much harder to shoot lighting wise using this. Since for the most part we're shooting in small rooms, the only DOF we'll be able to get is with CUs and possibly some MED shots. If we used both his Panasonic and DSLR you think they could be blended in the Final Cut.

I've attached a short video of the two cameras. Can you see a clear difference? I personally can't. But, that doesn't mean much.

Would the difference show up when I really try to export the completed movie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSGAuSRhIIc

Thanks.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
You'll always have dof whether it's shallow or deep. I think u probably meant shallow dof.

Anyway, about blending them together, i would recommend using the same camera but it doesnt look too different in ur clip. Ill hazhard a guess and say the brunette closeups were shot with a different camera than the blonde ones.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ooh, a guessing-game! Always fun. I'll take a stab at it:

Shot 1: Panasonic
Shot 2: Panasonic
Shot 3: Panasonic
Shot 4: Panasonic
Shot 5: DSLR

What do I win?

BTW -- I think you made a typo. I don't think you'll be shooting video on the T5.

Can I be completely frank? I don't like your DP. What's up with all those zooms and tilts? Fire him/her, and get a new one. See what they want to do. Not what you asked, I'm sorry, but that's my two cents.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The clips didn't look too bad, but it's hard to really analyze with such compressed SD footage. The difference might be more glaring in HD.

Also, the T5 thing is obviously a mistake.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker, sorry you'd lose. 1 - 3 - 5 is the Canon 5DMKII HD (I got the 5 correct)

2 - 4 is a Panasonic HVX200 HD (he also has a Panasonic DVX100 SD) Whichever is the newer camera is the one he used.

I'm pretty sure (what the hell do I know) that this is all HD not SD. Though I wouldn't mind it being SD.

20 seconds / 73.7 MB / 720x480 / DV/DVCPRO - NTSC Interger (Big Endian)

I'm talking about blurring the BG for DOF. We'd only be able to do that with the Canon in CUs. The rooms don't allow us to go back far enough otherwise. The Panasonic supposedly can't create that blurry bg.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ussinners said:
I'm pretty sure (what the hell do I know) that this is all HD not SD. Though I wouldn't mind it being SD.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the clips are HD, you just uploaded to youtube in SD. The clips seem to cut fine together from what you posted to youtube, I'm just worried that the actual full quality footage will have a more noticeable difference.

I'm talking about blurring the BG for DOF. We'd only be able to do that with the Canon in CUs. The rooms don't allow us to go back far enough otherwise. The Panasonic supposedly can't create that blurry bg.
Click to expand...

Having only the subject in focus with the background out of focus is called having a shallow depth of field. If everything is in focus it's a deep depth of field. Depth of Field is directly related to the sensor size of the camera. Since the Panasonic has a much smaller sensor than the Canon 5D it's much more difficult to get a shallow depth of field with it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
ussinners said:
I'm talking about blurring the BG for DOF. We'd only be able to do that with the Canon in CUs. The rooms don't allow us to go back far enough otherwise. The Panasonic supposedly can't create that blurry bg.
Click to expand...

That's called shallow dof. And it depends on the max aperture of ur lens. If you have a fast one, you can get your "blur" inches away from what is in focus. Ofcourse you would have to light appropriately or use ND filters to be able to use such a large aperture.

I recommend you research and read about aperture and depth of field. Type that into google and im sure u'll get some sites explaining the basics.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What is the final product output format?
DVD or other?
Unless someone has a computer processing limitation issue I'd never advocate allowing SD anymore.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ussinners said:
Cracker, sorry you'd lose. 1 - 3 - 5 is the Canon 5DMKII HD (I got the 5 correct)

2 - 4 is a Panasonic HVX200 HD (he also has a Panasonic DVX100 SD) Whichever is the newer camera is the one he used.

I'm pretty sure (what the hell do I know) that this is all HD not SD. Though I wouldn't mind it being SD.

20 seconds / 73.7 MB / 720x480 / DV/DVCPRO - NTSC Interger (Big Endian)

I'm talking about blurring the BG for DOF. We'd only be able to do that with the Canon in CUs. The rooms don't allow us to go back far enough otherwise. The Panasonic supposedly can't create that blurry bg.
Click to expand...

60% is a passing grade! :woohoo:

And yes, your DP, shitty though they be, is correct about creating a shallow depth of field, in a small space. That is, if you're not using prime lenses. A prime lens, with a low f-stop, in any space, will create a shallow depth of field.

BTW, I have to be honest -- that first shot is from the 5D? I'm not buying it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
BTW, I have to be honest -- that first shot is from the 5D? I'm not buying it.
Click to expand...

It's all from the same shoot. That was a TINY room. The camera wasn't more then a foot or so behind the red head. When Jane claps in the third shot the camera's a couple of feet from her. That was shot for her reel. I kind of figured she wasn't going to make it back to the states when we started up again. I liked her, so we shot her monologue. God, how she wanted to do that. Plus we got to drink Georgian wine and chocolates. Good night.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rayw said:
What is the final product output format?
DVD or other?
Unless someone has a computer processing limitation issue I'd never advocate allowing SD anymore.
Click to expand...

DVD. Though I'm aiming for some festivals, since this is such a straight forward narrative.

I know HD is the norm. But, make-up is not perfected. Actors in HD on TV look awful. If they can't get it right yet, the little guys sure can't.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
A prime lens, with a low f-stop, in any space, will create a shallow depth of field.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have to correct something, cause that statement isn't strictly accurate. A 12mm lens set to focus at 200 feet will not have a "shallow" field at any f-stop. I know that's not something that would happen indoors, but no sense in giving people info that is inaccurate. Also, that doesn't owe to the effect that sensor size has on percieved field. You can't get there easily with the HVX without using a letus/redrock/etc.

According to my calc, a 12mm lens at 200 feet set to f1.7 still renders 10'8" to inf as "acceptable focus. I find this calc to be a little generous and that focus falls out of acceptability before the numbers it indicates, but not by much. In fact, it's not until you get within 10 feet that the field starts to narrow severely at that focal length.

The choice of prime or zoom doesn't technically matter. If anything, zooms are a little softer owing to their design. It's just that most zooms in the consumer range are so slow (f4.0-5.6) that getting a field similar to a lens that can open up to 1.7 is very difficult. A 25mm prime at 2.8 should be pretty similar in DoF as a zoom set to 25mm at 2.8, given that subject distance remains the same between the two shots.

Subject Distance.
Focal Length.
F-Stop.

Those variables are what determine DoF. That list is in decreasing order of how much impact they have on the math.

Sorry CF, I know this is another of my "pedantic jerk" posts. I figure that we get enough newbies here that someone might read that sentence and think all they need is any prime lens and magically they will have the DoF they seek. Just wanted to avoid that for future reference. ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
David.rhsc said:
Sorry, but I have to correct something, cause that statement isn't strictly accurate. A 12mm lens set to focus at 200 feet will not have a "shallow" field at any f-stop. I know that's not something that would happen indoors, but no sense in giving people info that is inaccurate. Also, that doesn't owe to the effect that sensor size has on percieved field. You can't get there easily with the HVX without using a letus/redrock/etc.

According to my calc, a 12mm lens at 200 feet set to f1.7 still renders 10'8" to inf as "acceptable focus. I find this calc to be a little generous and that focus falls out of acceptability before the numbers it indicates, but not by much. In fact, it's not until you get within 10 feet that the field starts to narrow severely at that focal length.

The choice of prime or zoom doesn't technically matter. If anything, zooms are a little softer owing to their design. It's just that most zooms in the consumer range are so slow (f4.0-5.6) that getting a field similar to a lens that can open up to 1.7 is very difficult. A 25mm prime at 2.8 should be pretty similar in DoF as a zoom set to 25mm at 2.8, given that subject distance remains the same between the two shots.

Subject Distance.
Focal Length.
F-Stop.

Those variables are what determine DoF. That list is in decreasing order of how much impact they have on the math.

Sorry CF, I know this is another of my "pedantic jerk" posts. I figure that we get enough newbies here that someone might read that sentence and think all they need is any prime lens and magically they will have the DoF they seek. Just wanted to avoid that for future reference. ;)
Click to expand...

That's not pedantic. Just good clarification. Cheers. :)

I should've been more specific. I didn't have a wide lens in mind, when I posted that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dreadylocks said:
Have you tried calibrating your television? The out-of-the-box settings are great for sports but are terrible for pretty much everything else.
Click to expand...

I am holding out getting a HD TV. Every one I've ever seen looks awful, including the really expensive ones. I've calibrated all my friends so people look semi-human, but it's just terrible. I have an old-fashioned TV, which means I get weird ratios. All the Thursday night NBC shows are widescreen formatted for widescreen TVs. But, TV sucks now anyways, so I'm in no rush.

With all the technology at everyone's controls, what do we have? Music on the radio rarely played by musicians. Reality TV where any type of artform is completely lacking, and action movies where things blow up every two minutes. The actor is slowly fading with the exception of theatre. God Bless Broadway!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dang, HD on my TV looks AWESOME!

But yeah, I hear you on content quality. The good stuff is out there, just gotta look for it. Explosion movies are fun though from time to time. And there are still stellar movies with amazing scripts and performances released each year.

Not every movie is a classic, and even in the 30's, 40's, 50's etc where we have Casablanca and Psycho, there's a lot of crap from that era you don't hear about. Only the good stuff lives on, as I'm sure people will still be enjoying King's Speech and The Social Network in 30 years.

But yeah, no reason not to shoot in at least 1080p.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I actually just upgraded to an HD tv out of necessity a couple weeks ago (my old TV died on me). Not really watching HD content, but with a bit of futzing it did look better than my old one. Which was, of course, really old, so that is to be expected. That said, the imperfections in older stuff (my girlfriend is watching Star Trek TNG on Netflix right now) are really highlighted.

That said, I think there's been some GREAT tv in the past 5 years or so. There's tons of crap to wade through, but there always was. My tastes are very geeky, so anything I like tends not to last amidst the flood of reality shows and tired sitcoms, but there are some great things if you look for them. Pushing Daisies, The Walking Dead, Supernatural and Game of Thrones all come to mind as shows I've absolutely loved (Pushing Daisies in particular...I can't say a bad thing about that show).

Like music, there's some great stuff being done, but you have to look for it. And, as you say, there's always Broadway!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've heard so many people rave about HD TVs and I've yet to see one I would watch anything on. Every one I've ever seen gives distinct outlines to everything which you don't get on regular TVs. Which for some reason no one notices till it's pointed out to them.

Maybe it is that old movies hide imperfections. But, I don't care to see the pimples all over an actor's face.

The thing I find amazing is HD give such brilliant color, excellent picture quality, and everyone that I've seen in my friend's homes are never calibrated correctly. Faces are orange, pictures flicker from oversaturation, and they say "Isn't the picture incredible?" "Yeah, incredibly bad." Of course their old fashion TVs didn't look that great either.

HD is technology that brings very little if anything to the average consumer. With the exception of room. Hanging a TV on the wall is pretty gool. But, they gotta have it. Like cell phones. Oh God how did civilization get along before cell phones?

Pushing Daisies was a really good show. But, there's hundreds of channels and very little worthwhile on. When there was just 2 - 4 -5 - 7 - 9 - 11 (13 & 21 Public Access) You missed shows because every night there was quality entertainment. If we got rid of cable all together and just got a converter we'd barely miss anything.

Let's not forget the fabulous invention of channel watermarks, and pop-up promos. Gotta love those. The worst thing to come out of 9/11, the scrolling text of useless news. Some of those have more errors then my posts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My favorite part about my HDTV is the VGA input. I don't have cable or a DVD player so I use my computer to watch Netflix, Hulu and DVDs. For some reason, without any need for calibration, everything looks perfect when on PC input. Even DVDs (which are SD) look amazing and HD-like. Seriously, it's the best picture I've seen.

On the other hand, I've needed to tweak a few things so that the TV shows I do watch don't all look like soap operas.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top