Super 8 animation: focus problem.

[opchee]

New user here, so please let me know if I am asking something that has been discussed. I am shooting some stop motion shots using my super 8 Camera (minolta xl 48). I have a problem with the focusing. Things that appear to be in focus in the viewfinder, will not be on my developed film, since then I have done some animations that are 4 feet or more from the camera and they turn out excellent, but if I want to shoot one somehting the size of an A4 paper, I dont know if I can do it.

My lens is not removable, and the focal length starts at 4 ft according to the side of the lens. Does anyone have any bright ideas?

I am looking at some other cameras that are super 8 but they all seem to have this macro/or 1.2 meters limitation.

Anyone shooting this sort of thing? run into the same problem? give me some possible solutions?..

Thanks

opchee

[Rigo]

Try to use close-up lenses as well as shooting from far away. For best results use macro and close-ups at the same time.

I filmed little bit farther than one inch from my subjet in a interior. It was carved stone and I got amazing results. It looked on screen like it was huge.... Macro lenses, close-up +3, orange filter to soften the image and a 500 halogen open ended lamp 5 feet from my subjet. I used k40.

I hope it helps.

P.S. METERING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU SHOULD TAKE CARE OF, and don?t try to run your camera as if it have PANAVISION Probe lenses.

[MovieStuff]

I suggest you check depth of field charts to find out exactly what is in focus within the 4 foot limit. Most video cameras also show 4-5 feet as the closest focusing distance, but if you stop down to f11 or so, things inches away will come into focus just fine. Remember, your normal lens for Super 8 is only 12mm. That is the equivalent of a fisheye lens to something like a Nikon 35mm camera. Therefore, close focusing should really be the last problem if you stop down to the right f stop. Check ebay for American Cinematographer Handbooks. They sell regularly for about $10 and have depth of field guides for all formats, including 8mm. The truth is that you really should only use your view finder for framing and trust the depth of field guide for determining focus. That's the way the pros do it!

Roger.

[opchee]

Bejezuz, that was all very helpful .. I am going to my local camera shop today to check out close up lenses and stripping ebay for books

Thanks.

[Matt Pacini]

Actually, 12mm in Super 8 is NOT equivalent to a fisheye in 35mm.
A 50mm lens in 35mm photography is considered normal, emulating the human eye.
So, without doing the math, you can apprximate that 12mm in 8mm, is pretty close to 50mm in 35mm.
Not wide angle at all.
Even my Bauer 715XL-S with a 6mm-90mm lens doesn't look all that wide angle, certainly not anything like a fisheye lens.
Only my Nizo Aspheric III adapter for my Nizo 6080, which brings it down to about 4mm, starts to look pretty wide, but it doesn't look as wide as a fisheye in 35mm.
I would check your depth of field tables, measure everything out with a tape measure, and then light the hell out of it to get a high F-stop, ensuring maximum depth of field.
Also, that will put your exposure into the lens's sharpest area: about f4.5 - f8
Good luck.
Matt Pacini

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Matt!

Read my response again. I never said that 12mm was fisheye to a Super 8 camera. I clearly stated:

"Remember, your normal lens for Super 8 is only 12mm."

THEN I said:

"That is the equivalent of a fisheye lens to something like a Nikon 35mm camera."

If you put a 12mm lens on a 35mm camera, it will, indeed, be a fisheye with all the depth of field advatages that a fisheye lens has (like deep focus from the front element to infinity). If you then put that lens on a Super 8 camera, the depth of field characteristics don't change at all; only the part of the circle of illumination used by the smaller super 8 format. Therefore, as I stated, depth of field should be the least of anyone's problems with super 8.

(I know I said I was gone from the forum, but I felt compelled to correct this innocent misquote by Matt, lest people think I don't know what I'm talking about)

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 08, 2001).]

[Matt Pacini]

Sorry, I did indeed think you were saying a 12mm was a fisheye on S8.

You're right about depth of field, that's one thing we have tons of, for better or for worse.
Actually, that's one of the by-products of my underexposing a stop using K-40 that I like (see my other posts ragarding this):
The depth of field gets shallower, which is harder to shoot, because you have to really watch focus more, but it resembles 16 & 35mm more, not to mention drawing more attention to your primary object of interest....
Matt

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Matt!

I'm not sure I follow you. While I agree that underexposing K40 makes the colors more saturated, it wouldn't decrease depth of field. On the contrary, it would INCREASE depth of field since you'd be using a higher f-stop to underexpose.

However, if you used ND filters to underexpose, then you would, indeed, have to open up for correct exposure, so that would decrease depth of field.

Did I misunderstand what you wrote?

Roger