zenpmd Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I watched this film on the weekend. I loved it. Defo in my top 10.What I don't understand is that, if those candlelit scenes were shot with 0.7 50mm, they didn't seem to have anywhere near the shallow depth of field that lens would imply. Any idea whats happening here? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The depth was around three inches for the medium shots (Barry and Grogan) and around one foot at the gaming table (Barry and Lady Lyndon). It's just that the shots don't aim at the usual characteristics of sDoF. Check again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richg101 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The set design will have probably have been adjusted to shorten depth and increase the amount of in focus material. I believe a large majority of the shots that made it into the edit were actually from the 50mm f0.7 but with a custom made front mounted afocal WA adaptor that changed the focal length to an equivalent 35mm f0.7. the shortening of the focal length actually increases dof. a 35mm f0.7 on 35mm film (22-24mm wide) is similar to a 50mm f1.4 on full frame (36mm wide) so therefore the 'look' isn't that crazy by todays standards. Julian 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Most of the scenes do look very soft / out of focus imo.Nowadays we would be shooting the same scene at f/5.6 without problems They used tons of candles, special 3 wick ones with a lot of light. And asa 100 film, pushed to 200.http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=3166Here's more on the lens and wide angle adapter: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenpmd Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 The set design will have probably have been adjusted to shorten depth and increase the amount of in focus material. I believe a large majority of the shots that made it into the edit were actually from the 50mm f0.7 but with a custom made front mounted afocal WA adaptor that changed the focal length to an equivalent 35mm f0.7. the shortening of the focal length actually increases dof. a 35mm f0.7 on 35mm film (22-24mm wide) is similar to a 50mm f1.4 on full frame (36mm wide) so therefore the 'look' isn't that crazy by todays standards. That explains it. There is just now way it was 50mm FF equiv at 0.7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 That explains it. There is just now way it was 50mm FF equiv at 0.7Of course, the other thing to keep in mind: 35mm motion picture film has a smaller exposure area than a "full frame" 35mm still camera. Closer to an ASP-C sensor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.