Frage von Blackeagle123:
Hello,
I film very much in the manual mode, especially in interviews, if you want to have something very specific sharp.
I s.meiner Panasonic NV-MX300 put in manual mode, unlike professional equipment, but unfortunately not possible to determine the aperture and adjust the exposure time only! I would actually like to change only the brightness and the depth of field is not.
I can adjust the exposure time, but will then automatically set optimally by the aperture, the picture (of the brightness of her!).
The mode may well be very nice if a windmill, which turns quickly, or a moving car, photographed, which has been a sharp and not blurred Picture! But I would prefer to set both manual, because I may be synonymous manual aperture setting so that the image brightness is optimal!
So I can now set the exposure time to, say, 1 / 200, or to 1 / 125 (perhaps better) and then through the aperture, the picture brighter and darker! (For effects, for example, or to just overexpose intentionally low-light!).
One notices the difference in the depth range where a very bright point of me going to a very dark point (and the aperture very strong) alters, or is it geradzu unknowable?
2. As the camera is in automatic mode, the one? With aperture or shutter speed? If the automatic mode, maybe better? (If you notice a big difference)
3. One notices the effect, if one makes the whole aperture and shutter speed down regulates s.dem camcorder to shoot much much? (So very little depth of field -> emphasis on one thing!)
And: If one uses the effect often times when in a church, the bride enters, etc., or you take the only major shooting when in "Bully" Schuh des Manitu enters the Cowboay out of the hut?)
Or you work rather then by going away and it zooms much pure? (Though there is then the disadvantage that changing the background ...)
So completely neutral asked gibts the possibility of high depth to have little to see from the background and the picture is set perfectly (of the brightness wise)?
Hope you can help me (Much, much, much more text:)
Viele liebe Grüße
Constantin
Antwort von Kiara Borini:
Hello,
I film very much in the manual mode, especially in interviews, if you want to have something very specific sharp.
So, to focus in interviews würdeich principle to the interviewteperson or ;-)
No, joking aside, I think what you need is a neutral density filter. or maybe even two ... Thus one can force the camera to open the aperture, even with lots of light.
Antwort von Forrest:
First of all: The camera is in automatic mode with a probability bordering s.Sicherheit of anything s.der shutter speed, because the effects can lead to unsightly.
So completely neutral asked gibts the possibility of high depth to have little to see from the background and the picture is set perfectly (of the brightness wise)?
Have grown from the rest of your post does not really smart, so I try's views with this paragraph.
If you want to see some of the background, you need to work with high-Focal, that's true. Thus, of course, decreases the depth of field. When mastered your camera progressive scan, you can shorten the shutter speed of 1/25s, so that more light and you can think of pinching the Aperture more. Alternately, you can build additional light.
What I'm wondering: Do you really think that you get a problem with too * low * Depth? DV cameras have because of their design course a very large depth of field.
Maybe I did, however, synonymous understood something incorrectly?
Antwort von winnievw:
Simply trying to describe your problem again anew.
I've been thinking for some time about what you actually mean.
I would rather be able to help you!
;-)
Antwort von Jan:
Hello,
Although I'm more from the photo tray, but I think it's similar.
The CCD always requires a certain amount of light to achieve a Picture. There are 2 factors - the shutter speed and Aperture
Small aperture 2.8 (wide opening) is little depth to the words! And behind the person leaves the sharpness stark.
Large aperture value eg 22 (small opening) is very much front and behind the person in focus is sharp. In good portrait is one more 2.8 one gets a blurred background and the person singles out sodas. In the same light conditions but I can not simply
1 / 250 s with aperture 22 (A really sunny day) in 1 / 250 s Aperture change with 2.8. Then the correct exposure is closer to 1 / 8000 with Aperture 2.8 (approximately) One way is with the previously described neutral density filter (ND) a little light to take. When the camera but can not regulate it more difficult. Often there are problems with the High aperture values (much depth of field) with fast shutter speeds. As must be a Bright Lens strengthened her will or by gain.
January
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Hey, that's it really exactly what I wanted to know ... Also wenns really little ... or was written very seltsma * g *
Erstmal Danke, if there are questions, I'll describe glecih again (hopefully) obvious:)
Viele liebe Grüße
Constantin
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
What I'm wondering: Do you really think that you get a problem with too * low * Depth? DV cameras have because of their design course a very large depth of field.
So, hab ich nich really scared that I get a very small depth of field. I am only afraid that if the Tiefenschärfenbreich (if minimal synonymous changes), by going of a dark object at a bright object, you notice a difference by then that is the background is slightly blurred. (Because I will only adjust the brightness of the aperture, not by the exposure time, wodruch decreases the depth of field!)
Therefore, the question of whether there is a difference noted ...!?
Love Greetings and thank you again!
Constantin [/ quote]
Antwort von Jan:
Hello,
naja is not simply synonymous. The depth of field with aperture is selected, only indirectly with the shutter speed. In the case of a semi-automatic to assume if one selects only the shutter speed eg 1 / 4000 s changes the camcorder of the Aperture, ie with decreasing light (Dark House) Large Aperture less depth, in good light (bright house more depth) Small Aperture. If the lighting is, however, are not terribly unlike the Focus range but very similar.
It is therefore important for the professional halt in order to have a lichstarkes lens in low light is still able to use fast shutter speeds and depth of as much as possible to have auser's portrait, of course.
January
Antwort von Debonnaire:
@ Blackeagle123: with our DV cameras, we have seltenst the problem of the small depth of field (so that means ding, not tiefenschärfe, nota bene)! but, as ambitious and creative filmer, we are trying constantly to reduce the depth of field. it is (alas) in the nature of the small lot to CCDs that our objective having a huge depth of field (except perhaps in a macro setting) and thus permanently everything before and behind the main motive is amateurish sharp. the look of kinofilm but lives an essential part of zb detach from the blurry background of people that join us in our video production hardly ever succeed.
The correlations were generally of focal length, aperture and shutter time (which is anyway in most cases just 1 / 50'') at the depth described above and can be easily in any good book about photography and / or read about film (the purchase of a such a book I highly recommend you!).
Antwort von Forrest:
Tangy deep (so that means ding, not tiefenschärfe, nota bene) If the terms standardized by the International Technology Institute that? ;)
Seriously, both are okay, no one has ever agreed on one of the two terms, both are used.
Christian
Antwort von Debonnaire:
@ Forrest: yes and no ... it simply pushes the notion of logic here on these conceptual "call depth" and not to "Depth of".
It is the deep (expansion) of sharpness (ie the area of sufficient sharpness) and not the sharpness of the deep.
Thus:
depth of field. ;-)
Antwort von GhostDog:
@ Forrest: yes and no ... it simply pushes the notion of logic here on these conceptual "call depth" and not to "Depth of".
It is the deep (expansion) of sharpness (ie the area of sufficient sharpness) and not the sharpness of the deep.
Thus: depth of field. ;-) perhaps the sharpness of the depth of space?
Sorry that I auchnoch interfering, but both terms
properly and are synonymous as used in the teaching / practice.
In practice-why-is always synonymous, the term "depth"
However, more frequently used.
Perhaps because depth can easily become a tongue twister, especially when you think down s.das word depth.
Usually it comes out a term like "Terfenschiefe, which in my
Students is always good for a laugh.
LG
Antwort von winnievw:
sorry was not logged well!
Because it lacks
LG
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Today I've spoken with my brother and times intentionally say veruscht depth of field. So neee ... I say depth. Just the word Terfenschiefe came out. Wir ham one quick son some important settings durchgesprochen. And since Trefenschiefe came not only once before:)
So Schiefenterfe or Terfenschiefe it all is no preference ^ ^ thing we know, what is meant!
:)
Lieben Gruß
Constantin
Antwort von Jan:
Hello,
Of me, given the shutter speed as eg 1 / 4000 are not used so often, more 1 / 50 or 1 / 60. Maybe your camera has indeed Tele Macro where one of next ranzoomt away and a portrait with little Tiefenschäfe better achieved and without the drop shadow or stop trying to work a lot with Tele.
January
Antwort von Markus:
Hi All,
Interestingly, the term
depth of field is faster on the lips, but
depth is correct (=) image depth. Often, however, synonymous know the "real professionals" is not exactly - at least in terms of nomenclature.
See synonymous:
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Hello,
Of me, given the shutter speed as eg 1 / 4000 are not used so often, more 1 / 50 or 1 / 60. Maybe your camera has indeed Tele Macro where one of next ranzoomt away and a portrait with little Tiefenschäfe better achieved and without the drop shadow or stop trying to work a lot with Tele.
January What does it mean Tele Macro? So I can zoom in, right. But that does not mean that I have Macro function? So I would fully open the aperture, zoom in shutter speed to 1 / 4000, for example, and of far away. Smaller depth of field, I do not get out with the cam! (Without paper, etc.)
Lieben Gruß
Constantin
Antwort von Jan:
Hello,
in photography, it is not overly difficult with an SLR Camera with a telephoto lens to create.
With video cameras, it is has a little heavier than it Debonnaire described.
Tele Macro will not have any camera and be activated in the menu. Whether your ideas work better so I can not promise synonymous. Or buy time an ND filter to take away the light. But some in the forum must have a "Recognized" an idea like Blackeagle123 it better or easier riff?
January
Antwort von Markus:
Hi Constantin,
hereinafter referred to could help you. interested Since we are concerned with reducing the depth of field by changing the exposure time, then to the use of gray filters to influence the Aperture (nautomatik) to.
Link:
Wegen offener Aperture Aufnahmen with z.B. 1/500 sec. => Probleme?
Falls Money keine Rolle spielt:
Depth of field without strong ranzoomen?
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Hey, thanks! That has helped me finally next ... Could I borrow a tripod now so that is another question! * g * As you have already written, if money does not matter ...
Love Greetings
Constantin
