Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996

class="style16"> RED and Depth of Field

Published : 13th May 2009


I am shooting a short film project on the RED and in one part of the film we want to take a wide shot and in post zoom in and travel around the shot observing various different pieces of action in the frame [if you've seen the Garth Jennings video for REM's Imitation of Life it's a similar concept].


I shot a test last week which I took into a Resolve suite today. I shot the test on a 25mm Superspeed stopped down to T16. Using pCAM set for 35mm Super HDTV 1.78:1 as the format setting it told me I had a hyperfocal distance of 5'2".


I duly used this. I zoomed into the shot today and the foreground at say 6' looked significantly sharper than the background. So I guess my first question is did I use the wrong format preset in pCAM? The HD formats in the HD database all have very small apertures - HD full 1.78 is .378" x .212, while I believe RED 16x9 4K is .87 x .49, so I assumed the 35mm Super HDTV or Super 3perf setting would be correct.


Any thoughts?


Jake Polonsky
dop London
www.jakepolonsky.com
www.polonskyfineart.com



Back focus? RED's straight from the factory are notorious for having improper back focus.
-----------------------
Art Adams | Director of Photography
San Jose, CA USA
www.artadams.net
art.provideocoalition.com
415.760.5167




Do you have subject matter close enough to warrant focusing that close - even though Hyper Focal Distance should cover it?


Shooting with a RED this weekend I was surprised to see that with an 18 mm, where I would normally just throw focus out there somewhere ... there was a definite difference in focus between 6, 10 and 20 feet ... fairly wide open. The RED seems to be extra discriminating!


I would make sure you are using an extra sharp lens ... although of course the sharper the lens the less depth of field you have ... if you are going to be pushing in on the image. It might be worth it to use one of the new Zeiss Arri Master Primes …stopped down to a 16 ... just for that shot. Stopping further down will typically start to degrade resolution.


Using the magnifier, you should be able to pan around and see exactly what your're going to get at your stop. Make sure you have a good hi-def monitor.


Mako, Makofoto, Deep Focus "Master" on "Silverado," South Pasadena, CA




>>Using pCAM set for 35mm Super HDTV 1.78:1 as the format setting it told me I had a hyperfocal >>distance of 5'2". I duly used this. I zoomed into the shot today and the foreground at say 6' looked >>significantly sharper than the background.


Over on cml-ac there's been an active discussion of digital camera resolution, circles of confusion, focusing, and hyperfocal distances. The general consensus is that focusing a digital cinema camera is a lot more critical than focusing a film camera of the same image diagonal. Some suggest that you treat a RED ONE like a 65mm camera when it comes to focus.


iSee4k (iPhone/iPod Touch app) uses a circle of confusion for 0.029" for 35mm, but only 0.020" for RED, and it also lets you use whatever CoC you prefer: http://www.isee4k.com/redeye.php


Using iSee4k to calculate hyperfocals, I get 5' 2.5" for a 25mm at T16 on 35mm, but 6' 5.9" for RED. If focused at 5' 2" on a RED, iSee4K tells me the in-focus area is from 2' 10.6" to 25' 1.2".


Adam Wilt / filmmaker, Meets The Eye / writer,
provideocoalition.com / Mt View CA USA




> treat a RED ONE like a 65mm camera when it comes to focus.


Interesting. The world's rebel indie camera will require a world-class focus puller.
-----------------------

>Art Adams | Director of Photography
San Jose, CA USA


>Art Adams wrote:

class="style17">> Interesting. The world's rebel indie camera will require a world- class focus puller.

>Oh and a 65 mm class G&E package as well. I'm looking forward to some
out of focus features in the near future.

>Mark Smith
DP NYC



Mako Koiwa writes:

class="style17">>>Shooting with a RED this weekend I was surprised to see that with an 18 mm, where I would >>normally just throw focus out there somewhere ... there was a definite difference in focus between >>6, 10 and 20 feet ... fairly wide open. The RED seems to be extra discriminating!

>Doesn't higher resolution always translate more acute focal discrimination and, subjectively, shallower DOF?

>Dan Drasin
Producer/DP
Marin County, CA


>Of course, but after 30+ years of pulling focus on everything from "big" features, 65 mm, HD, it's only with digital HD and especially the RED with it's magnifier that I've seen focus so "perfectly." You just don't see that looking at a ground glass.

>John Bailey told me (on "Silverado") to always watch dailies as far away from the screen as possible ... to see the best quality, finest grain and sharpest focus!

>Mako, Makofoto, never make matters worse if you can avoid it!, S, Pasadena, CA


>Adam Wilt wrote:

>>>.....iSee4k (iPhone/iPod Touch app) uses a circle of confusion for 0.029" for 35mm, but only 0.020" >>for RED, and it also lets you use whatever CoC you prefer: http://www.isee4k.com/redeye.php

>I seem to remember that pCam also has user adjustable settings for CoC.

>Roberto Schaefer, asc
"I use it on my Sony Ericsson P1i running Styletap for Symbian"


>iSee4k (iPhone/iPod Touch app) uses a circle of confusion for 0.029" for 35mm, but only 0.020" for RED, and it also lets you use whatever CoC you prefer: http://www.isee4k.com/redeye.php

I'm getting a little confused here. In pCAM the CoC settings are as follows -


35mm - 25.4 microns [0.001"]
16mm - 15.2 microns [0.0006"]
HD - 10.1 microns [0.0004"]

>The figures you have for iSee4k seem well off.

>Jake Polonsky
dop London


>IMHO

Objects within a given Depth of field are not of equal sharpness.


Subject to the resolution of the film or sensor, the focus point produces best focus while details get softer as they move from the focus point expanding until they reach the circle of confusion size, at which point they are on the limit of acceptable sharpness on the screen. By zooming into the image you are changing the 'screen circle of confusion' so to speak, expanding the softness.

>If it is any help, As a clapper boy I was once told that the circle of confusion is the group of people surrounding a camera.

>Peter Versey
Operator/DOP
London UK


>Peter Versey wrote:

class="style17">>>If it is any help, As a clapper boy I was once told that the circle of confusion is the group of people >>surrounding a camera.

>I thought that was the collective noun for a bunch of cinematographers

>John Brawley
Cinematographer
Sydney Australia
www.johnbrawley.com


class="style17">> I seem to remember that pCam also has user adjustable settings for CoC.

>It does... and it is the main reason I am using a palm TREO as a phone*

>I've always enjoyed watching people, once they are out of light, debating whether they can "change" the CoC in order to get a bit more focus.

>*David is testing his iPhone version of pCam now... I quiver in anticipation

>Mark H. Weingartner
LA-based VFX DP/Supervisor


>> I thought that was the collective noun for a bunch of cinematographers

>We use it to refer to the client and agency people clustered around the monitor on a commercial

>Mark H. Weingartner
LA-based VFX DP/Superviso



Look seriously guys...what CoC are people using for RED? I've asked around in London now and there seems to be no concensus on this...Went and had a deeper zoom into my footage today and could also see a lot of chromatic aberration on the edges...this was shot with a 25mm Superspeed admittedly stopped right down; not the most modern lens, but pretty good nonetheless. Interested to
put up an Ultraprime against it and see how they compare. The post guy was interested by how offset the red green and blue channels were.

>jake polonsky
dop london


class="style17">>>Went and had a deeper zoom into my footage today and could also see a lot of chromatic >>aberration on the edges...this was shot with a 25mm Superspeed admittedly stopped right down; >>not the most modern lens, but pretty good nonetheless

>Not really. The 25mm Zeiss SS T1.3 is one of the worst offenders in terms of C.A. -- especially on the edges. That's why, whenever I didn't need the speed, I'd always carry the Zeiss 28mm T2.1, which, on a good day, would resolve 200 lines/mm into the corners w/ almost no C.A. Do a shootout in projection; you'll see.

Jacques Haitkin
DP San Francisco


>jake polonsky wrote:

class="style17">> ..what CoC are people using for RED?

>Not to put too fine a point on it, but CoC choices (which are somewhat subjective) should not just be made on the basis of sensor size and resolution....you might want to consider final product display... if you are shooting RED for a webfomercial or even for HD broadcast, you can consider a very different choice from the choice you would make if you are shooting RED for filmout for theatrical release...

>I'm not sure if this muddies or clarifies the waters.

>PS for the ulimate viewing experience, watch an SD version of Lawrence
of Arabia on a clamshell some time... you will see what I mean.

>Mark H. Weingartner
LA-based VFX DP/Supervisor


>Yes that's certainly true Mark, but as I think I explained at the beginning of this thread I am wanting to zoom as far as possible into the shot to pull out actions happening within it, so I need it to be as sharp as it will ever be.

>This is beginning to feel like watching Lawrence of Arabia on a clamshell with a microscope.

>jake polonsky
dop london


>We told you ... you need to start with the BEST possible lens ... I suggested a Master Prime ... I would try to stage the action so you don't have to stop down past a 8 or 11 ... NO extra glass in front of the lens ... perhaps use a faster shutter speed to compensate exposure if necessary.

>Mako, Makofoto, Burbank, CA


class="style17">>> Yes that's certainly true Mark, but as I think I explained at the beginning of this thread I am wanting >>to zoom as far as possible into the shot to pull out actions happening within it, so I need it to be as >>sharp as it will ever be. This is beginning to feel like watching Lawrence of Arabia on a clamshell >>with a microscope

>Actually,, you asked what CoC people were using for the RED and I would respond by telling you that for your particular application, what other people are using as a CoC for the RED is irrelevant.To grossly encompass what others have said, start with a sharp lens, make sure that flange focal distance is properly set (make sure that the lens is collimated so that the focus marks bear some resemblance to reality)...

>....and I would add to that - use a very conservative CoC in order to accommodate the significant degree of magnification that you intend to apply... use 16mm CoC (based on the greater magnification) and you will end up calculating a more conservative (restrictive) DOF

>Good luck!

>Mark H. Weingartner
LA-based VFX DP/Supervisor


class="style17">> iSee4k uses a circle of confusion for 0.029" for 35mm...

>My error: I foolishly assumed inches, but there are no units listed on the iSee4k website. From looking at the app itself, it appears the units are mm, so those would be:

>35mm: CoC is 29 microns
RED: CoC is 20 microns
16mm: CoC is 12.5 microns

>Sorry,
Adam Wilt / filmmaker, Meets The Eye / writer,
provideocoalition.com / Mt View CA U


>Mark H. Weingartner wrote:

class="style17">>>We use it to refer to the client and agency people clustered around the monitor on a commercial

>I thought that was the Circus of Confusion...

>--
Kim Sargenius
cinematographer
sydney


>Doesn't higher resolution always translate more acute focal discrimination and, subjectively, shallower DOF?

>digital cameras are more persnickety when it comes to focus, and Im sure someone here can explain technically why, my theory is film is more forgiving because it actually does have more resolution and more blending, digital cameras have no overlapping pixels and this in my theory leads to sharper or softer edges overall.

>as for Depth of Field being more shallow in higher resolution: you might want to consult the camera users manual or wikipedia on depth of field this function is a product of the lens and format exclusively... bigger image area less depth of field. IE:IMAX 65mm 15 perf very shallow depth Super 8 lots and lots and lots of depth of field!!

>Jim Matlosz
DP, LA CA


>Jim Matlosz wrote:

class="style17">>>my theory is film is more forgiving because it actually does have more resolution and ore blending, >>digital cameras have no overlapping pixels and this in my theory leads to sharper or softer edges >>overall.

>The optics of film are a little messed up when it comes to focus. Typical arrangement in color film negative is to have blue layer on the top because of the natural sensitivity of the silver halide emulsion. Light  that exposes the blue layer is sharper than other layers since it has been less diffused by other light sensitive layers. But, the blue layer is the one that needs to be the least  sharp. Human eye has relatively much fewer "blue" cones due to the non-correctness of chromatic aberration. It should not be surprising that the overall response may not appear as sharp when compared to digital cameras of equal "estimated" resolution.

>DJ Joofa
Image Sensor Pipeline and HD Video
Austin, Texas


>Jim Matlosz wrote:

class="style17">>> as for Depth of Field being more shallow in higher resolution: you might want to consult the >>camera users manual or wikipedia on depth of field this function is a product of the lens and >>format exclusively...

>There are several types of discussion that people can have about depth of field. One may talk about just the DOF projected by the lens and take nothing else into account or abstract out all other factors.

>In that discussion the recording medium might only matter in that the focal length of the lens changes to keep the field of view the same. A longer focal length with the same relative aperture (f/number) results in a wider aperture and thinner DOF.

>The other end of the spectrum is to take everything into account, which includes not just the lens, but capture resolution, aliasing, intermediate processing (e.g. demosiac, sharpening), display size, viewing distance, projection resolution, viewer acuity, viewing environment, etc. All of those factors and more can affect what can be discernable by the viewer as acceptably sharp.

>For example, a 4K recording that is processed and projected at 4K, seen by a viewer sitting close, with 20/20 vision, will see a thinner DOF than a 2K recording displayed at 2K under the same conditions. In that case, resolution does affect DOF.

>However, if both recordings were only seen on DVD, both would appear sharp at the same resolution, so the DOF is the same. As it would be if the viewer acuity were poor enough, or the intermediate processing was at lower resolution, the sensor had less aliasing artifacts, less sharpening was used, the viewing angle was much smaller, etc.

>So while the DOF projected by the lens is important, all the other DOF factors merit discussion as well.

Daniel Browning
Software Engineer
Portland, OR


>There are only two major determinants of Depth of Field: f: stop, and subject size on the image plane or film plane, i.e., the actual size of the subject on the negative. If you keep your subject the same size on the image plane, focal length,format or camera type will have no effect on DOF, e.g., 8mm film does not have more DOF than Imax.

>Please see: David Samuelson's "Hands-On Manual for Cinematographers", page 218, in which Mr. S. states: "Depth of field remains the same, regardless of focal length, so long as the image size is the same. There is no point in changing to a shorter focal length lens, and then moving in closer, because if the image size remains the same, so will the DOF." (Mr. S. is assuming the same stop.)

>Given the confusion of terms and so on, it is extremely difficult to verbally discuss the intricacies of DOF without some kind of agreement on the definitions of the terms being used. There is an excellent  website that illustrates that DOF is only a function of image size and f:stop.

>Go to: http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html Scroll down to the photos of "Gromit". The accompanying diagrams and illustrations are likewise extremely helpful.

>Anyone interested in DOF as it applies to cinematography should at least refer to a copy of David Samuelson's "Hands-On Manual for Cinematographers".

>And any one obsessing about DOF should get a copy of "Applied Depth of Field", by Alfred Blaker (Focal Press, 1985). It's been out of print for quite a while, but it can sometimes be found through an internet book search.

>Brian Heller
IA 600 DP


>Brian Heller writes:

class="style17">>>"There are only two major determinants of Depth of Field:� f: stop, and subject size on the image >>plane or film plane..."

>Brian,

> I am very familiar with this argument, since I often used myself when the Focus Pullers would regularly complain that the RED did not seem to have the exact same depth of field compared to the same image area for film. After 18 months of shooting with the RED, and seeing many practical examples, I reluctantly had to agree that there is a slight difference; the RED has a little less "apparent" depth of field. As some have suggested, perhaps the differences have to do with an eletronic shutter, or the randomness of film grain compared to fixed pixels. I don't know the technical reason for the disparity between the theoretical and practical, but I have witnessed it now many times with my own eyes. The DOF with the RED sometimes seems to fall slightly short of what the charts such as Samuelson's tell us should be sharp. I have come to liken it to the difference between F- stops and T-stops; one is theoretical, and the other is based on practical measurement. Although they are usually close, it is the T-stop I rely on when setting exposure. This does seem to be in keeping with the definition on the toothwalker.org/optics/dof website you pointed us to:

>"Depth of field is defined as the range of object distances within which objects are imaged with acceptable sharpness. " This is a good definition, but I submit that, for whatever reason, there can be a very slight difference in th subjective area of "acceptable sharpness" between a single sensor digital cinema camera like the RED and film, even with all other factors the same. My apologies to the Focus Pullers who I at first did not believe.

>James Mathers
Cinematographer
Digital Cinema Society, President
Studio City, CA


Brian Heller wrote:


>> If you keep your subject the same size on the image plane, focal length, format or camera type will >>have no effect on DOF, e.g., 8mm film does not have more DOF than Imax.

>Agreed. (Bellows factor excluded of course.) Another way to look at it is like this: DOF is wholly determined by physical aperture; not focal length, f/ number, or recording size. The lens with a wider aperture, regardless of format size, will project thinner DOF. For example, all of the following have the same depth of field:

>2/3": 14mm f/0.9
4/3": 24mm f/1.6
Super35: 34mm f/2.2
Still FF35: 49mm f/3.2
645: 76mm f/5.0
617: 220mm f/14

>The reason is obvious when you see it from the perspective of physical aperture:

>2/3": 15mm aperture, 14mm focal length
4/3": 15mm aperture, 24mm focal length
Super35: 15mm aperture, 34mm focal length
Still FF35: 15mm aperture, 49mm focal length
645: 15mm aperture, 76mm focal length
617: 15mm aperture, 220mm focal length

>I think this type of explanation makes more sense than keeping f/number the same and varying subject size on the recording, because who in their right mind would change their field of view? That's a fundamental element of composition. Scaling the f/number allows the field of view to remain the same.

>The reason f/number can be scaled is that larger formats has lower reproduction ratio (or repro. magnification). The subject size on film is larger, but the f/number is narrower, so the depth of field comes out equal in the end (at equal display sizes).

>I explained that perspective in more depth here:

>http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25272

Brian Heller wrote:


>>There are only two major determinants of Depth of Field: f: stop, and subject size on the image >>plane or film plane

>Those are the first determinants of Depth of Field, but they are not the only ones. The lens sets a limit on how thin the depth of field can be, but a host of other factors the come afterwords can make the DOF deeper.

>Those factors are OLPF, recording resolution, aliasing, noise, intermediate processing (e.g. demosiac, sharpening), display size, viewing distance, projection resolution, viewer acuity, viewing environment, etc. All of those factors and more can affect what can be discernible by the viewer as acceptably sharp. Most of them make the DOF deeper than what is projected by the lens, but some, such as electronic sharpening, make it thinner.

>Most of those factors are abstracted out of the discussion of DOF by assuming that each has the same relative affect. But in reality, the effects may vary greatly by circumstance.

James Mathers:


>> After 18 months of shooting with the RED, and seeing many practical examples, I reluctantly had to >>agree that there is a slight difference; the RED has a little less "apparent" depth of field.

>The reason RED ONE has thinner DOF than other Super35 formats is resolution.  Anything that affects the resolution seen by the viewer also affects DOF.  As future cameras have more and more resolution, the recorded DOF will get thinner and thinner. Displayed at 2K, however, the DOF will remain the same; the thinner DOF will only be seen if the display resolution increases to match.

>Everything that affects the image can affect DOF. Most discussions center around just the lens. The lens tends to change based on recording format size, so the discussion often includes the size of the recording format as well. Some discussions go as far as to consider the display size, such as whether it will be a 2K cinema, direct-to-DVD, compressed broadcast 1080p, etc. But while those factors are most significant in most cases, there are many more.

>The number on the left is an example Circle of Confusion (CoC) in microns. The right side is the factor that affected it.

>3: Lens at f/2 (no softening filters)
5: OLPF, fill factor, 4K sensor resolution.
7: Quick and dirty demosiac algorithm used, 4K is unrealized.
6: Go back and use a slower, better demosiac.
9: Reduced to 2K for remaining intermediate work.
8: Bad 4K-2K resample was used, aliasing introduced.
7: Sharpening applied.
7: Displayed at 2K.
11: Displayed at 720p.
13: Viewer sitting too far away from screen.
15: Viewer does not have 20/20 vision.
18: Scene is dark, vision is even worse when pupils dilate.
20: Transferred to DVD.
80: Transferred to web.
80: Portable video player.
160: From too far away.
7: Viewer got some glasses and returned to the 2K theater.

Each factor in the chain affects the acceptably sharp CoC.


Daniel Browning
Software Engineer
Portland, OR


class="style17">>>>"Depth of field remains the same, regardless of focal length, so long as the image size is the >>same. There is no point in changing to a shorter focal length lens, and then moving in closer, >>because if the image size remains the same, so will the DOF."

>But in practical terms, when you get closer with a wider lens, the objects in the background are smaller, and thus can appear sharper.

>Mako, Makofoto, Proud of his Credit under Acknowledgments, 2nd Edition, 'Hands-On' "Manual for Cinematographers," S. Pasadena, CA


>mako Koiwai wrote:

class="style17">>>But in practical terms, when you get closer with a wider lens, the objects in the background are >>smaller, and thus can appear sharper.

Exactly. Audiences don't experience depth of field as linear measured depth of acceptable focus. They experience it as the size of boke in relationship to the screen. And that most certainly increases when
you pull back and zoom in.


Stu Maschwitz


>James Mathers writes:

class="style17"> >>I am very familiar with this argument, since I often used myself when the Focus Pullers would >>regularly complain that the RED did not seem to have the exact same depth of field compared to >>the same image area for film.

>I'm not sure I understand your point. My statement regarding the determinants of DOF was not an argument or even an opinion; it is a basic axiom of optics.

class="style17"> >> The DOF with the RED sometimes seems to fall slightly short of what the charts such as >>Samuelson's tell us should be sharp.

>Samuelson does not tell anyone what should be sharp; on the contrary, with regard to the DOF charts, Samuelson says:

>"In the final analysis, what is and what is not in acceptable focus is a subjective decision which can be made only after viewing results on the screen and will depend upon many variables. Only when the results have been seen, and compared to what the tables forecast, can a suitable circle of confusion on which to make future predictions be determined."

>The ASC Manual says virtually the same thing, with this addendum:

>"A low resolving film stock or lens may appear to have greater DOF, because the "in focus" image is already so soft, it is more difficult to determine when it goes further out of focus. Conversely, a very sharp,  high contrast lens may appear to have a more shallow DOF, because the "in focus" image has such clarity, it is much easier to notice when it slips out of range of acceptable focus."

class="style17"> >>I have come to liken it to the difference between F- stops and T-stops; one is theoretical, and the >>other is based on practical measurement.

>That is a somewhat flawed analogy in that no one should rely exclusively  on any DOF table. When it comes to focus, most Focus Pullers who wish to stay employed will err on the conservative side until they are told  otherwise by the DP. For instance instead of reading the limits for f:2.8., they may go to f2.0 instead.

>The operative word is "acceptable", and it immediately raises the questions of "to whom" and "for what". Some DPs and directors are less accepting than others ;o) and what may be acceptable for YouTube might not work when blown up to Imax.

class="style17"> >>This is a good definition, but I submit that, for whatever reason, there can be a very slight difference >>in the subjective area of "acceptable sharpness" between a single sensor digital cinema camera  >>like the RED and film, even with all other factors the same.

>Yes, what is acceptable is always subjective

>Brian Heller
IA 600 DP


class="style17">>> That is a somewhat flawed analogy in that no one should rely exclusively on any DOF table.

>Especially when playing splits, which I hate and try to avoid. Back when I was assisting in LA I remember the "B" camera first assistant telling the DP that he couldn't possibly keep both people in focus on a tight two shot, at which point the DP asked for his Kelly Wheel, spun it around, and set "If you set it here they'll both be within depth of field by at least an inch on each side." The assistant was
mortified but he did it, and although I didn't see dailies the assistant kept coming back, so it must have worked well enough.

>Once, in a similar situation where I was "B" camera first, I asked the DP who she wanted in focus on a raking three shot. "Make it commercially acceptable," she said, so I put it on the middle person and left it there.

>These days I ask my assistants never to play splits unless we talk about it first. I hate having the one point of maximum focus hanging out there in space somewhere, unless we're using a 2/3" chip camera and we're very, very wide.

>-----------------------

Art Adams | Director of Photography
San Jose, CA USA


Mako Koiwai wrote:


>>But in practical terms, when you get closer with a wider lens, the objects in the background are >>smaller, and thus can appear sharper.

Yes, of course. And there's also going to be a lot more background so why would you want to do this?

>The point is that there are many circumstances when changing to a wider lens is simply not an option,e.g., matching two shots or table top work. In extremely practical terms, if the focus is not holding on a split, and you need more DOF, what are you going to do?

>Going to a wider lens and then dollying in will get you exactly back where you started -- except that now you're seeing off the set

>Brian Heller
IA 600 DP


Brian Heller wrote:


>>I'm not sure I understand your point. My statement regarding the determinants of DOF was not an >>argument or even an opinion; it is a basic axiom of optics.

>There are a lot of electronics, software, and humanity that gets involved between the exit pupil of the lens and the entrance pupil of the viewer's eye. I'm sure that James' experience with RED is due to one of these non-optical factors.

class="style18">>> "A low resolving film stock or lens may appear to have greater DOF, because the "in focus" image >>is already so soft, it is more difficult to determine when it goes further out of focus. Conversely, a >>very sharp...

>I would add that even today's highest resolving film stock and sensors add a blur to the image. They too make it more difficult to determine when it goes further out of focus. It's about perspective; in the future we might look back on 2K in the same way we see standard definition now: a low-res format with deep DOF.

>The only time that the lens is the only contributor to DOF is when every other link in the chain has such high resolution that they don't affect the image formed by the lens. In such a future, only diffraction will affect depth of field.

>I, for one, welcome our gigapixel-camera overlords.

>--
Daniel Browning
Software Engineer
Portland, OR


NZ Panavision depth of field calculator    

                                                                                                    (http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/reference/calcFOVform.asp) gives the Genesis the standard 1/1000 inch

cheers,


antoine.

>--
Antoine Baumann
vfx artist
Studio A1
http://image.studioa1.org
http://redone.studioa1.org
mobile: +41 77 403 48 78
skype: maxikiri


>I see 4K

>hey All, I opened up the Isee4k program a few months ago and found it to have some data that seemed a bit off. Im sure Mako would be able to elaborate and either confirm or dispel my assumptions.

>best

>jim matlosz
dp, la, ca


>I just downloaded it a couple of days ago. What seems off?

>Mako, Makofoto, South Pasadena, CA


Please do not forget that the base point is, 35 mm Depth of Field (COC).


I know I am going to get flamed for this but as I understand it, 35 mm film is still 8 K Minimum.


So does the concept that you put forth still apply?

Thank you Brian...

>Tony "being the last C on COC" Magaletta


CML has just published the "Little RED Book"

This book is an edited collection of conversation's during 2009 about ways to use the RED one and how to get around any problems you may encounter.

Impress others with your knowledge!

Be the envy of your friends!

Buy it today!

Available as an A5 book or a PDF if you just can't wait!