Depth of Field in Post: Free Plugin or Technique?

farss wrote on 6/1/2010, 8:21 PM

There's another technique that uses light levels to create the mask / control the FX. Would require some control of your lighting of the shot. Don't know if the plugin that does this runs in Vegas or not. Not that hard to build the same thing in Vegas anyway.

Bob.

richard-amirault wrote on 6/1/2010, 8:22 PM

Is there a way to do add depth of field to a vid clip that doesn't have any ...

You need to be more specific. I have no idea what you are asking. EVERY shot has "depth of field"

In some shots everything in the field of view is within the "depth of field" In other shots some elements are either at the edge or completely out of the "depth of field" while others are within. But in both cases there is "depth of field"

At one end there is wide "depth of field" and at the other end there is shallow "depth of field", but every shot has "depth of field"

Maybe you meant to ask Is there a way to do
==================================
Addtional edit on 6/2/10
Or .. maybe you meant to ask Is there a way to do

DGates wrote on 6/1/2010, 8:51 PM

In pics, this is easy, but not so much in video.

Rory Cooper wrote on 6/1/2010, 10:28 PM

Boris has a z focus if you have it, uses the method that Bob described

NewBlue has a rack focus/follow focus which i have useed a few times works ok on some shots

Grazie wrote on 6/1/2010, 11:34 PM

> wide "depth of field"

Actually I'd have called this DEEP Depth of Field. I kinda reserve WIDE for wide-angle - not you huh? We could all get very confuzznicated?

Shallow or Deep what we are all trying to achieve are layers. Why Layers? Layers give the viewer a set specific visual reference. And what does that given? That allows the viewer to "focus" their attention on THAT specific part of the narrative. The trouble with any post application means that at times the effect will . . er . . not be, at best, effective and at worse make a mess of what is there.

Deep subject this! - Think layers and you wont go wrong. After all it worked for Cezanne and then most of the 19th Century water colourists too.

Grazie

Byron K wrote on 6/1/2010, 11:53 PM

BTW, Hafa adai.. from Guam.. Here on business.

I've done a poorman's DOF in this video snip of a orchid show project for a family member using mask w/ feathering, Gaussian blur and/or defocus on a 2nd track of the same clip.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDb3JZwatR4

It probably won't pass for the "pros" here but the family member who this was for really liked it.

If more time was spent outlining some of the arrangements I used this effect on, it would have come out really nice imho, but I didn't have that kind of time to spend on it. (;

Grazie wrote on 6/1/2010, 11:59 PM

Nicely done BK! Thanks for posting your work - I liked it.

Grazie

Serena wrote on 6/2/2010, 12:35 AM

I think that worked very well for the close ups and less so for the wider shots. A different effect to shallow DOF and very suitable for the subject.

PeterWright wrote on 6/2/2010, 12:39 AM

Yes Byron, nice, and as you say, using a Bezier mask to outline the foreground flowers, along with a slightly feathered edge, can make this quite a convincing effect.

Incidentally, I know this effect as NARROW, or SHALLOW depth of field, in other words, having a very narrow range from foreground to back ground which is in focus.

DGates wrote on 6/2/2010, 2:10 AM

Byron, that's not depth-of-field. That's simply blurring.

Soniclight wrote on 6/2/2010, 7:14 AM

Thanks for responses.

In terms of one poster's comment on not having any idea what I was asking for and that every shot has some kind of depth of field, true to the latter. However, it is a fact that video vs. film has a distinctly different look camera settings and focus aside, even though, yes, I can set focus on the HV30.

But most of the free clips I've been hogging down from Artbeats (they're stopping that June 13, BTW :) and others I have - don't. I guess I'm wanting to mimick the "film look" for more subtle differences than shown in the wedding clip above but still adding some punch to the scenes.

I'll play around with masks incl. the suggested related layer thing. And sure, it's faux DOF via blur and such made in post, but as long as it's effective, that's all that matters.

farss wrote on 6/2/2010, 7:29 AM

"However, it is a fact that video vs. film has a distinctly different look camera settings and focus aside, even though, yes, I can set focus on the HV30. "

It has nothing to do with film V video. All else being the same a video camera and a film camera will have the same DOF. Admittedly there's an aweful lot to that "all else" :)
In your case the thing that makes the difference is the size of the sensor in the HV30.

Bob.

Soniclight wrote on 6/2/2010, 7:53 AM

Perhaps to clarify why I'm asking this Q is that I got blown away by the elegant and dramatic use of DOF in "The Third & Seventh" in an older thread here -- which was entire CGI yet doesn't look it. From the author's description:

"A FULL-CG animated piece that tries to illustrate architecture art across a photographic point of view where main subjects are already-built spaces. Sometimes in an abstract way. Sometimes surreal."

That mentioned thread had the not-posted-by-original-author YouTube version. I'm a bit a-retentive about copyrights, so below is the author's page of said video. If you haven't seen this, get a cup of Java, sit back and be somewhat amazed, including at its mastery of "faux DOF" :)

And if you're interested, there is even a compositing version at the referred Vimeo page menu where you can see how he made certain scenes.

~ Philip

http://www.thirdseventh.com/index.php?/4thdimension/film/"The Third & The Seventh" by Alex Roman[/link]

goshep wrote on 6/2/2010, 7:58 AM

Going forward, there are ways to "cheat" a shallow DOF without the use of expensive adaptors or even expensive cameras for that matter. I think your time would be better spent learning how to do it in production rather than post. http://www.dvcreators.net/4-secret-of-shooting-video-to-look-like-film-use-shallow-depth-of-field/Here's the first hit[/link] I found on Google for starters. Cheating a shallow DOF isn't always practical but I'd rather work a little harder up front than tinker with some cheesy post effect any day.

EDIT--
I watched the video you mentioned but those shots are all composited CG. The author has unlimited flexibility. Until they invent a video camera that shoots in layers, you're going to have to cheat DOF and pull focus.

Soniclight wrote on 6/2/2010, 8:37 AM

True, CGI offers unlimited flexibility unlike 2D video. Nonetheless rather breathtaking and inspiring, IMO.

richard-amirault wrote on 6/2/2010, 9:54 AM

To get the minimum depth of field with any camcorder .. shoot with the lens wide open .. with maximum aperture (smallest f-stop number).

Obviously, a camcorder with manual control is needed. Set aperture to maximum, then adjust shutter speed to achieve proper exposure. Often this does not make it and you still need to adjust exposure. Adding the camera's built-in neutral density filter (if it has one) and/or adding ND filters to the front of the lens helps.

If you can do it .. zoom in as much as you can (even if it means moving the camera farther back) also helps.

Cliff Etzel wrote on 6/2/2010, 10:40 AM

DGates wrote on 6/2/2010, 10:53 AM

Sorry, but too many amateurs think they can solve all their creative concerns in post. Rack focus is ONLY going to look good when applied to shooting.

Serena wrote on 6/2/2010, 7:51 PM

NewBlueFX Video Essentials II Rack Focus is easy to use and gives a blur that is proportional to distance from the set point, so it looks a bit like optically restricted DOF. Useful where the optical option is absent and lighting and composition don't focus attention.
Incidentally, zooming in doesn't give you shallower DOF if you step back to frame the same area; image magnification is the factor there. Also many cameras reduce aperture when zoomed out to longer focal lengths, which deepens DOF.

musicvid10 wrote on 6/2/2010, 10:22 PM

The video you posted is about focus shift with a shallow DOF, a time-honored shooting technique going back to the early 1930's. From your question, I wasn't able to determine if you understood that it was not about post-production, nor about deep DOF, the compositing notwithstanding.

Soniclight wrote on 6/3/2010, 8:28 AM

"To get the minimum depth of field with any camcorder .. shoot with the lens wide open .. with maximum aperture (smallest f-stop number).

Thanks for that, Brighterside. Dovetails with the link about basics of DOF and such.

Serena wrote on 6/3/2010, 8:55 PM

SonicLight, since you quote the "zoom in" advice, I'll refer you back to my post. There may be something more you need to understand about DOF.

Grazie wrote on 6/3/2010, 9:40 PM

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/attachments/canon-gl-series-dv-camcorders/16853d1268084069-shallow-d-o-f-gl2-shallow-dof1.wmvHere's a sample of my Shallow DoF I posted on the DVInfo site.[/link] These are actual Frame Grabs (apologies for the interlace - but that does confirm that they ARE straight from the tape!)straight from my SD Canon XM2. But I really feel it demonstrates just what IS possible even with a lowly SD 3 chip camera - plus NDs and a mattbox! - Hope you like it.

And here is a favourite http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htmof mine tutorial on the subject.[/link]

Grazie

farss wrote on 6/3/2010, 10:24 PM

I know whose got a 5 blade iris ha, ha :)

Great shots there matey.

I know I've mentioned this before but....

Rather than buy a bunch of NDs get a FaderND from LightCraft Workshop via eBay. I bought one and now we've bought another 4 in various diameters. For the smaller cameras around USD 50. No need for a matte box and you get 2 to 9 stops of ND and they do seem very neutral.

One trick I discovered rather by accident is these NDs also work as a polariser. Rotate the front element to get the desired exposure and then rotate the whole filter to kill the glare off a shiny object in shot.

Bob.