35mm/DOF Adapter

kene555 · Post by **kene555** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:21 pm

So to sum it up, using a DoF thing will cause shots to take much more time to frame, setup, and rehearse, but will produce a much more professional and aesthetic result?

I am now printing out the plans.

Can I use my dad's 35 mm macro lens from his SLR camera?

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:27 pm

Can I use my dad's 35 mm macro lens from his SLR camera?

I doubt it, I thought about doing that with mine, but looking through the lens you can't see anything. So I doubt your camera will see anything either.

Zacatac927 · Post by **Zacatac927** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:02 pm

kene555 wrote:So to sum it up, using a DoF thing will cause shots to take much more time to frame, setup, and rehearse, but will produce a much more professional and aesthetic result?

I am now printing out the plans.

Can I use my dad's 35 mm macro lens from his SLR camera?

yes, and for me, thats what i want, i want to have my sets as professional as possible

DAZMAN · Post by **DAZMAN** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:27 pm

Yes you can use SLR lenses. Thats what I use.

I'm sorry but this is absoloutley rediculious. People seem to be having a debaite here about the pros and cons of using a mini 35 adapter! ----- Are you joking?

There are no cons (apart from the fact that your image is rendered upsied down). Any one here who has not used one, you have no right to speak, what ever you are saying is fictishoius. Go out and rent/ buy/ steal one today!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They make your HD camera look like 16mm - it is fantastic.

http://www.redrockmicro.com/forum/viewf ... 751ef4e77f

kene555 · Post by **kene555** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:21 am

My dad thought he had a macro - but nope!

Where can I get the cheapest one?

The SLR we've got is a Konica SRT 200, don't know if that's necessary or helps...

Zacatac927 · Post by **Zacatac927** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:25 am

DAZMAN wrote:
They make your HD camera look like 16mm - it is fantastic.

is it not possible to make it look like 35mm?

DAZMAN · Post by **DAZMAN** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:34 pm

Yeah thats what it is ment to do, but when you put your footage next to 16mm and 35mm it looks more like 16mm (with slightly better DOF)

Lawriejaffa · Post by **Lawriejaffa** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:43 pm

Its all relative Zacatac - (whether it looks like 16mm or 35mm) depending on its aesthetic rather than anything black or white. Generally the resolution of most hd cameras or even SDs using mini35s has limited it usually to being compared to anything more than s16mm, but theres exceptions. Audiences ordinarily are less quick to make those distinctions for sure.

There are some limitations to using a mini 35 ironically (don't kill me for saying this Dazman as i think ur referring mostly to image 'quality' and fiction projects.)

For example a lot of made for tv stuff (particularly in the UK) aren't fussed about them, documentaries particularly if your doing anything like wildlife, social etc, will not be appropriate usually with mini 35s. There is technical considerations, and a higher level of skill required (and more time is required) to use them effectively. Plus if your not using an effective lighting set up (anyone decent should) then the loss of a few stops on some adapters could prove problematic.

So i see the min35 more as a tool effective for certain projects than a must have for everything - but I would shoot ANYTHING i wanted to look cinematic using a mini 35 adatper (which is why ive ordered one myself.) Which for us here, is relevant since most our work full stop is fiction - at least whats posted in these forums.

However we should remember also, that artistically that a very wide DoF can also be a cinematic look too (so you can achieve things without rushing to narrow your DoF with a min35 if you can't afford one yet.

ALove · Post by **ALove** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:38 am

Really I think that all the camera companies should cease immediately making chips smaller than 16mm, preferably doing 35mm sized. Then light loss becomes a non issue, its just as sharp, DOF is exactally the same as cinema, and dynamic range increases dramatically because they're not squeezing 2MP on a 1/3 inch chip. Besides, if you need deep DOF, you can always shoot at f22.

Knightly · Post by **Knightly** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:34 pm

1/3" chip = 7mm
2/3" chip = 15mm
we would need a 1.3" chip to have 35mm

with a chip that size, and the equivalent number of pixels on the chip, your subjects would start to look like pacman. The solution has been to increase the resolution of the chip as it scales up...problem then is that the individual pixels end up getting less of the light on each of them (x= amount of light in scene, y = number of pixels...as y increases and x stays defiantly the same...the light per pixel becomes lower). This ends up requiring more light to render the same picture at the same exposure.

As far as Deep DoF for 35mm goes, they went out of their way to achieve really deep DoF in Citizen Kane. Took tons of light for them to stop their cameras all the way down. We get that for free with digital as it currently stands

Of course, the opposite holds true for us...we have to jump through hoops and cheat lighting to be able to open the iris as wide as possible to get a shorter DoF, which is preferred in DV anyway due to the low resolution.

DV is considered 500 lines (525 ntsc)
super8 film is considered to be 1k lines of resoluion, about equivalent to 1080i HD
16mm would be twice that @ 2k
35mm is 4k

Can't wait to get my RED...just have to sell my house and cars...cause I need the RED Prime lens set too

I'm not getting a RED

Lawriejaffa · Post by **Lawriejaffa** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:36 pm

Perhaps super 8mm is in some technical form Knightly but ive never seen s8mm look anything like 1080HD!!!

Knightly · Post by **Knightly** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:37 pm

The main problem I have with super 8 is that it's almost always really fast film...big grain, so it's very noisy...but great in low light. It's the same as having big pixels on a chip...great in low light, but looks like cr** as it pixelates. The advantage with HD is that the chip needs lots of light due to the reduced pixel size of the format

http://www.pro8mm.com sells 35mm stock that's been sliced into super8...so you can get really good super8 film now. I requested their demo reel and am not impressed with the telecine they do, but the one moment that they failed to Color Correct on the DVD looked phenomenal.

Zacatac927 · Post by **Zacatac927** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:53 pm

i thought'd update this... for now i am building this adapter: www.jetsetmodels.info ... i am building a follow focus (Wikipedia it) and rail mounts... along with a matte box..

All this i DIY

Knightly · Post by **Knightly** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:46 pm

I made this one: http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index.htm And a rail system for it...still not working as the zoom doesn't quite fill the frame with the ... um... frame. Have to get an achromat in a 72mm thread I think

Ornsack · Post by **Ornsack** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:54 pm

Lawriejaffa wrote:Perhaps super 8mm is in some technical form Knightly but ive never seen s8mm look anything like 1080HD!!!

Yeah technically he's right. I've never thought of it like that before! Although remembering that film doesn't work in pixels, it's just an approximate equivilant.

But of course 8mm is exactly what it says on the tin, so scratches and dirt get in the way etc... and the colour quality is a lot more surreal compared to other formats. Not to mention that people seem to film with it at 15fps. I've seen S8mm look great with the right equipment however. My dads old home movies don't seem a million miles away from 16mm.

But at the end of the day, most visual effects for 35mm are rendered at 2k, and many films have been shot on HD and printed on to 35mm. I'm sure most people wouldn't notice a change in resolution, so it's all a bit over the place really.

On a side note, I find using SLR lenses with DV cameras might give a hint of gloss to your productions, but I find you get a really surreal dream-like look to everything.

Plus I gave up on a film recently 'cus it was filmed in this way and they just went completely over the top with the depth of field

In summary, I'd learn how to film like you're using film before you think about using funky gadgets and what not to shoot your stuff with.

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:17 pm

Plus I gave up on a film recently 'cus it was filmed in this way and they just went completely over the top with the depth of field

I've been noticing recently that many big budget productions don't really use shallow depth of field that much anyways.