you will NOT get those limited DOF effects from any existing HDV camera without an additional adapter (Red Rock, P&S, etc).

That's because the "look" is totally contingent on the lenses and the "sensor" size. Most HDV cameras are currently using 1/3" (Z1, Panavision, Canon, JVC) - 1/4" (new Sony CMOS line V1, etc), 2/3" (more expensive "Pro" lines - HDCAM others).

The look is because the Red Rock, etc. are using full 35mm lenses to resolve a full 35mm sized image (1 1/4") which the video camera then shoots. You are actually shooting a picture of the picture you want. The still as yet unreleased "Red" (http://red.com/) camera will have a full sized image sensor and will deliver "the look" without any attachments, etc.

v

the XLH1 allows for a change of lens with teh 2 available video options.. BUT.. heres the doozy..

grab an ef adapter and bolt on your fave EF lens and make the world a different place..

the camera itself has such a small CCD comapred to DSLR lenses however, theat a crop and zoom factor of 7.2 is found when using said adapter. THis means that uif u thrw on a 50mm 1.4 L USM, and it becomes 360mm
now this is a lil over 10x zoom...
Ideally, a 24-105L IS USM would be a good number for standard work, with specialist L lenses for particular shots.

THe beauty of doing this however is the fact that as these lenses can resolve stupidly high res, they make HDV even cleaner than what it is as opposed to using a stock lense. The issue with it though, is that the lense DOESNT behave the way in which it was designed... throw on a 100-400 L IS @ f4, and u end up with 730-2880mm with at least 1 to 2 stops lost in luminance... now u might think a 20x-96x zoom lense would be good to have, however even with this, image stability is paramount. With The canon the IS makes a huge difference and teh video equivalent is much more efficient and "floaty" than the SLR offerings.. if at all...

another option is to save 4 grand and grab an A1, and a redrock adapter. This way, u can bolt on your EF lense AND use the cameras lens OIS to stabilise the shot.
I dont knwo what teh ratio for teh adapter is though

Uggg. So much more to learn. I've followed the Red a bit but no one seems to have any idea when it will ever be released. It looks more like a laser blaster than a camera. So, will lenses be directly attachable? I guess I should scoot over to their site and have another look.

UPDATE:

Okay, after cleaning up the milk that shot out of my nose, I'm back. It's gonna take a few more recycled cans (and a second mortgage) to afford the Red but it looks impressive.

what camera do u have? If u have an XLH1 u dont need the red...

I'm looking at the XH-A1 (more in my price range) as I understood it to be the same as the XL-H1 minus all the broadcast features. Are you saying I can achieve the same DOF effects as those achieved with lens adapters by using the EF adapter? All that WITHOUT the hit to available light? (I was amazed at the before and after footage in terms of light loss)

I just looked up the EF adapter and thought I'd add to this post. Is the EF compatible with the XL-A1 as well? That seems like my best option if it is.

Speaking again of the Red. Has anyone actually SEEN the Red footage? Seems odd to post it as a torrent. It's almost as if they DON'T want anyone to see it.

The RED footage is posted as a Torrent simply bacause of the HUGE file sizes. The small bits I've seen look awesome, way better than 35mm delivers to the big screen. The advantage of cameras like RED is what you shoot is what you can get on the screen with digital projection, something that celluloid cannot deliver.

No the EF adaptor is not compatible with the A1 as far as I know as there's no lens mount on the A1. You'd have to use an adaptor like the Redrock to mount 35mm still lenses.

In general lenses designed for still cameras don't work too well for moving images, that's why lenses made for 35mm movie cameras cost WAY more than the ones for 35mm still camera. Two main issues that I've heard of:

1) Still lenses breathe, change focus and it interacts with focal length.
2) They have very short travel for focus, makes follow / rack focus difficult.

So in summary if you want interchangeable glass you need the XL-H1. Realistically if you want to use 35mm lenses you need a 35mm adaptor such as the Redrock and yes even with the XL-H1 you do loose light, less using a relay lens with the XL-H1 than you would with the A1 going through the existing glass.

And just to set the record straight, a 1/3" HDV camera will create an image with less DOF than a 1/3" SD camera if both images are seen at native res. Both the size of the imager AND resolution affect perceived DOF. That's why getting focus right is so much more important with HDV. However if you down res HDV to SD the DOF you gained from shooting HDV is lost, come to think of it so it is even with 35mm. Just try watching a movie at 320x240 and you'll see what I mean.

One other thing to be careful of. These 35mm adaptors move the focussing screen to even out the 'grain' in them. Problem is you can run into issues with all that movement and HDV compression.

Bob.

Bob -

I agree with everything you state, BUT...

depth of field is strictly dependent on :
Sensor size
Iris setting
Actual focus point
Lens focal length

We old time film guys acutally have charts for every lens/film size and iris setting. They are discrete numbers and you can basically KNOW how much will be in focus in front and in back of a subject filmed with 35mm film and a 105mm lens at f2.8 - it's all fixed.

Now once you project that finished piece of media - the visual depth of field (determined by the cinematographer at the time of shooting - an NOT alterable at any time thereafter) will remain the same - no matter whether 320x240 pixels or 320 feet across on a movie screen. It's simply how much is in FOCUS - and how much is out.

The problem with DV and HDV as they exist today, is that the sensor size is tiny compared to the "standard" 35mm film frame.
1/3" video sensor vs 1 1/4" film size
Each sized sensor requires a different sized lens to cover the recording surface. Bigger sensors require longer lenses. We use HUGE lenses to cover "normal" shots when we shoot 8"x10" still film, and need to "stop down" the iris to "tiny" apertures simply to keep everything in focus. A normal shot on an 8x10 film would be with a 240mm lens at about f11. It's all a matter of sensor size.

The beauty of RED and the Red Rock adapters is that they both are creating a 35mm image size and thereby utilizing a 35mm lens - not as telephoto, but as "normal". The bigger the sensor, the less the depth of field, because the bigger the sensor, the longer the lens needed to cover.

Hope that makes sense to all.

v

depth of field is strictly dependent on :
Sensor size
Iris setting
Actual focus point
Lens focal length

WRONG!

It also assumes a given resolution for the recording medium.

The ACS changed those tables based on...the improvements in the resolution of 35mm film.

Many discussion on this elsewhere, same answers, resolution counts as much as anything, it's just that for decades 35mm film was a fixed entity. HD video changes all that to some extent.

Why do you think there's so many posts about people finding out the hard way that focus is so much more critical with HDV than it used to be with SD?

Bob.

Victor,
let me try to flesh this out a bit more for you. I know this is going to sound a bit too techie but it matters, a LOT. It matter 'cause if you're going out shooting HDV to put on a big screen you might get an unpleasant surprise if you think you can judge focus and DOF on HDV like you're used to with SD.

Those ASC charts are based on tests, 35mm projected in a typical cinema, on a typical screen at typical viewing distances. Those test showed that the viewer could resolve details that equated back to 0.002" on the neg. That figure was then plugged into some pretty nasty but standard maths to give a set of charts.

Over time, lenses got better, emulsion got better and cinema screens got larger and they filled more of the field of view. So the audience could resolve more detail and that meant the circle of confusion value used in those calcs and those charts had to be changed to 0.001" and the charts revised.

Now for ages we've had SD video. The calcs used for 35mm film can be redone for this medium. For a given sensor size, aperture and focal length the DOF is fixed.

But along comes HDV, more resolution and bigger viewing screens. Thats why it looks better than SD, the circle of confusion is smaller!
You don't see this looking at HD on a small SD screen. BUT look at it on a 24" or larger screen at native res and boy do you see it, the CoF is smaller. So the DOF charts are different, the DOF is smaller, focus is more critical.

Now please don't trust me on this, do some in depth research, ask yourself why are guys lugging 24" monitors to video shoots when they've only got a camera with 1/3" CCDs, come to think of it why am I doing that? Only because I quickly found out the truth of this.

Well you've both gone way over MY head but I figured this debate was worth a bump. I'll glean whatever I can comprehend from it!

Let me try to keep it real simple!

If you're shooting HDV for SD delivery and that's all you'll ever do with the footage please ignore everything I've been raving on about. It's irrelevant, doesn't affect you in anyway. As far as DOF and focus goes what you used to do with your PD170 or DVX100 keep doing, nothing has changed.

If at some point you intend to deliver HD to a big screen or large native 1080 displays then you may have an issue. The DOF of SD has shrunk, not to the extent that I know Victor would like, nothing like you can easily get with 35mm. It's shrunk enough where in a studio shoot you have to be careful. With SD if the face was in focus pretty much they were in focus. Shift to HDV and HD big screen delivery and you can find the issue of which part of the face is in focus becomes an issue. You need to be checking focus carefully, a 24" 1080 LCD seems to be the best bet. Probably at F4 not an issue, at F2 it gets tight and unless you've got a goodly amount of light cameras like the Z1 will easily open up to F2 in auto.

I'm really not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to alert my good fellow Vegas users to take care when shooting HDV. Getting correct focus is an issue, that it comes from the reduced DOF really doesn't matter to me one way or the other. That a shot that cannot be redone might get stuffed does worry me. What's the harm in taking along a good HD monitor, not much really. If you think I'm full of it, fine, leave it at home next shoot.

depth of field is strictly dependent on :

That is WRONG!, Bob. Depth of field is not dependent on resolution. Film speed can have an effect.

Film speed can have an effect, well I guess very high speed films might.
You know why?
The have larger grain structures, i.e. less resolution.

DOF is TOTALLY dependant on resolution!
In fact so much so that at an infinite resolution the only point in focus is at the hyperfocal distance. It's the limited resolution of the system that creates the illuson of DOF. Objects within the DOF appear in focus because we cannot see the blur circle as it's smaller than the resolution of the system.

It's not mentioned much in traditional articles because well, film stayed at pretty much the same resolution end hence the circle of confusion values used to derive DOF tables remained the same.

Try shooting HDV and you'll soon discover how much difference resolution make to DOF.

Bob.

DOF is TOTALLY dependant on resolution!

It is NOT! And you're ridiculous insistance that it is simply shows you do NOT know what you are talking about.

Really?
Then show me how DOF tables are derived or any article on DOF that doesn't mention Circle of Confusion and hence resolution.
If I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it.
So far every article that I've read says the same thing, maybe I've missed something, maybe I don't know how to use a camera.

Bob.