Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996
>Published : 8th Nov. 2006
>Tabletop, Slow Motion (200 FPS) Fruit, falling bouncing, Commercial.
>Q #1) Deep or Shallow DOF
>Q #2) HD or Film, Best for Slow Motion (Better to Insure Success than Hope for it)
>Q #3) HD or Film, Best for Deepest DOF
>I am thinking its a Wash on the DOF as the Cinespeed uses 35 mm chip size and Film Lenses. Same as Film, so its a matter of a Camera & Film & Light Combination (Lots of Light ether way) that translates to ASA Framerate and Speed.
>Thanks in advance for the suggestions that will help make this decision the difference between Success with Great Effort
and Failure with Great Effort.
>B. Sean Fairburn
Role Model Productions LLC
818 621 3912
>B. Sean Fairburn wrote:-
class="style16">>>Tabletop, Slow Motion (200 FPS) Fruit, falling bouncing, Commercial.
>I don't know what 35mm camera you were intending to use. I have used a Photosonics 4ER. Its very large, heavy and requires oiling every roll. Maximum shutter angle is 120 degrees. It's a very different game to shooting 150 FPS on an Arri 435.
Stephen Williams DoP
>Sean Fairburn writes :
class="style16">>>Tabletop, Slow Motion (200 FPS) Fruit, falling bouncing, >>Commercial.
>I used some month ago a cine speed camera for a box fight sequence. It worked very well up to 1000 fps. I liked to check the results on the set and you are able to redo the movement as long as it is all right for everybody, then you push the button and the computer will read out the last 1000 frames captured on a board in the camera.
>So if you want to shoot with 200 fps you can cover 5 seconds. If you aren't need the full resolution of the camera, I think you can captured up to 2000 frames.
>Christoph Lerch DoP
>REPLY : to B. Sean Fairburn
>A difficult set of ideas proposed here firstly as this message sits in the [2k-444] list so it leads to a predisposition to 'video'.
class="style16">>Tabletop, Slow Motion (200 FPS) Fruit, falling bouncing, Commercial.
class="style17">>Q #1) Deep or Shallow DOF
class="style17">>Q #2) HD or Film, Best for Slow Motion (Better to Insure Success >than Hope for it)
class="style17">>Q #3) HD or Film, Best for Deepest DOF
>A #1) DoF well that is purely an aesthetic choice: What the ad is for? What the client wants? What Fruit is falling?
>I would aim for a mid-range DoF (T5.6 on 35mm) - then again I have seen some fantastic Slow-Mo with a really shallow depth of field (then again that could have been perpetuated by a lack of light in the first place).
>A #2) Well, the next issue comes down to length and amount of takes versus image resolution, obviously this is an endless argument, but again it becomes an open discussion, the Cinespeed has a resolution of 1536 x 1024 pixels at up to 1000 fps (depending on release it could be sufficient) whereas film has the colour space and exposure latitude advantage, but a Photosonic 4ER (360fps) will run through a thousand foot roll in around 45 seconds - so the cost implication is obviously much higher. (Although a Super Actionmaster will do 360fps with normal super-16mm film stock, so that might also be an option with the new Super16mm SK4 lenses from Cooke.)
>Digital is definitely cheaper, but film is film. (Rhetoric, I know – I apologize)
>A #3) Well, in the Deepest DoF query, I cannot vouch for the Cinespeed but as a rule, the digital cameras will tend to have a deeper depth of field, even with 35mm lenses. The question will always come back to stop though; if you are shooting on high speed film stock i.e. 500 ASA with one of the monster lights available from Photosonics (58K - 58 small tungsten bubbles) well shooting at T22 shouldn't be a problem, although cooking the fruit might be an issue.
>To round up, the number of issues involved in getting a commercial to the finish-line always abound, obviously there is always agency issues and a million possible problems, out of a million questions one decision needs to be made, the main thing is to comfortable with your decision without the pressures getting to you.
>Digital is definitely cheaper and allows for more options (read as footage), it does lack in resolution and colour space (but will this effect you), as I said previously I have no experience with the Cinespeed, but I know with some of the other high speed systems on the market you have instant frame accurate playback (you know what's in the proverbial can - which can make or break the commercial).
>In my experience 360fps works very well for dropped items, it's slow enough to capture the classic water droplet, but fast enough for falling items.
>In the end my advice is, if you have the time and budget go film.
>In case you need this information :
>A Photosonic 4ER (Shutter @ 120º):
>@ 360fps has an exposure time of 1/1080 of a second with stop compensation from 24fps of 4.9 stops (with the beamsplitter) is necessary and like I said before 1000' run time is 44 seconds.
>@ 200fps exposure time is 1/600 of a second with stop compensation from 24fps of 4 stops (with the beamsplitter) and runtime on a 1000' roll is 1minute 20 seconds.
>A Super-16mm Actionmaster (Shutter @ 144º):
>@ 360fps has an exposure time of 1/900 of a second with stop compensation from 24fps of 4.5 stops (with the beamsplitter) is necessary and 400' load run time is 44 seconds.
>@ 200fps exposure time is 1/500 of a second with stop compensation from 24fps of 3.8 stops (with the beamsplitter) and runtime on a 400' roll is 1 minute 20 seconds.
>OH, ALWAYS REMEMBER RECIPROCITY FAILURE!
>Dean Slotar | One8Six Cape Town
t +27-21-555-1780 | f +27-21-555-1828 | m +27-82-895-2620
>At the risk of starting this discussion all over again ;o) Keep in mind that the primary determinants of DOF are f-stop and subject size at the image plane.
>There is a great deal of difference in apparent DOF with various formats 65mm film to Handicam due to the differing sensor/film sizes, that is, smaller sensors/film appear to have more DOF.
>That is only because the subject size on a smaller sensor is, well, smaller. When corrected for subject size, at the film plane or wherever the image is formed, then the DOF will be identical for any format, provided the f-stop is the same.
IA 600 DP
>Great things to consider
Brian the other factor is distance from Lens to Subject as DOF on a Given lens/Format will increase as the distance gets farther away.
As dean mentioned its all boils down to working Stop for DOF and Exposure and Light.
>I have worked with the Cinespeed shooting Golf ball hits at 1,000 FPS using 2 4x4 Mirrors to expose the Grass.
>I posted the recipe couple years back on CML to give ya'll all my Tricks.
>I have also worked with 435
>But Interested in knowing what is the part of the decision that the most Gravity gets placed. What one decision gets the most amount priority that all the other decisions must revolve around. I am weighing DOF first and Feel the need to have as Much as I can Get to put a 50 mm lens up at 4 ft
>Lets say MORE DOF is the most important decision.
>Film 50 mm Lens at 5 ft @ f-5.6 Yields 4'7" to 5'5" (10 inches)
HD (Same FOV Lens) 23 mm at 5 ft @ f-5.6 Yields 4'4" to 5'11' (19 inches)
HD (Same FOV Lens) 23 mm at 5 ft @ f-4 Yields 4'6" to 5'8" (14 inches) One Stop Less Light
Quick Comparison thanks to pCAM at 1.85 FOV HD and 35 mm www.davideubank.com
B. Sean Fairburn
Role Model Productions LLC
818 621 3912
>Sean Fairburn wrote :
class="style17">>> Brian the other factor is distance from Lens to Subject as DOF on a >>Given lens/Format will increase as the distance gets farther away.
>For any and all formats, if the subject is the same size on the imaging device -- film or chip -- and the f-stop is the same, for all intents and purposes, the DOF will be identical.
>Of course, if the subject to film/sensor plane increases the subject will be correspondingly smaller and the DOF will increase accordingly.
>The determinants are still subject size and f-Stop.
IA 600 DP