Name of effect? Creating out-of-focus are _around_ a subje..

[Traveller]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

I've done some online searching and in my Vegas Video 4 manual but I'm
not getting any results. I know it must be because I'm not searching
for the right thing. It's something you see a on TV or in movies
occasionally, when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the subject and
the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that we really only see
the main subject.

What is this called, anyone know? Once I know what this is called,
I'm sure I'll find a tutorial or two on the net on how to create this
effect.

Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

"Traveller" wrote ...
> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas
> Video 4 manual but I'm not getting any results. I know
> it must be because I'm not searching for the right thing.
> It's something you see a on TV or in movies occasionally,
> when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
> of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the
> subject and the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that
> we really only see the main subject.
>
> What is this called, anyone know?

Depth-of-field or depth-of-focus.

> Once I know what this is called, I'm sure I'll find a tutorial
> or two on the net on how to create this effect.

You may be looking in the wrong place. It is produced in
the camera while shooting. You will notice that when
shooting in low light with the lens open wide, focus is
much more critical. But with lots of light and the lens
stopped down, you have a very large depth of focus.
It is rather commonplace to put neutral density filters
over the lens just so the photographer can use a larger
apeture to reduce the depth of field.

You may be able to do it in post (in editing), but once
you image has been reduced to 2-dimensions, you will
have to manually trace around the part you want to be in
focus, and the part out of focus. That is why likely 99.9%
of people do this in the camera and NOT in post.

I see it more than "occasionally" in TV/movies. If it is
done right you don't notice it, but it directs your attention
to the desired part of the image. Just because we can do
more and more things through the magic of computers in
post-production doesn't mean that *everything* is done
in post.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Traveller" <Jamboree@SpamMailNo.com> wrote in message
news:lcok5155es5k37kdoj9t9rorkt9hh3979q@4ax.com...
> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas Video 4 manual but I'm
> not getting any results. I know it must be because I'm not searching
> for the right thing. It's something you see a on TV or in movies
> occasionally, when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
> of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the subject and
> the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that we really only see
> the main subject.
>
> What is this called, anyone know? Once I know what this is called,
> I'm sure I'll find a tutorial or two on the net on how to create this
> effect.
>
> Thanks.
>

It's called "Depth of Field" and it's a function of the camera iris and
shutter speed. There might be a plug-in or effect that replicates it but
you'd have to rotoscope out the person in focus and then determine a depth
of field so that stuff closer to the person looks a little out of focus as
opposed to stuff far away that is greatly out of focus.

Or you could take it into After Effects, roto out the person or thing in
focus and then just blur the background. It might fool some people.

Tom P.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

You're bang on with that Richard!

Not specifically depth-of-field related but in a lot of cases, the time it
takes to "fix" something using technical gee-whizzery is greater than the
time it takes to go re-do the original source. (be it still photos, video,
whatever)

There was a site around where someone built a "go-between" - some kind of
bellows I think - for a DVX100 to allow for tighter depth of field. The site
had some sample movies that were fantastic demos.

I see a commercial tool: http://tinyurl.com/5adpa

I recall the "jury rigged" one though - just can't find the site.
Anyone have that?

C.



"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:115l35edlcuq47a@corp.supernews.com...
> "Traveller" wrote ...
>> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas Video 4 manual but I'm
>> not getting any results. I know it must be because I'm not searching for
>> the right thing. It's something you see a on TV or in movies
>> occasionally, when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
>> of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the subject and
>> the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that we really only see the
>> main subject.
>>
>> What is this called, anyone know?
>
> Depth-of-field or depth-of-focus.
>
>> Once I know what this is called, I'm sure I'll find a tutorial or two on
>> the net on how to create this effect.
>
> You may be looking in the wrong place. It is produced in
> the camera while shooting. You will notice that when
> shooting in low light with the lens open wide, focus is
> much more critical. But with lots of light and the lens
> stopped down, you have a very large depth of focus.
> It is rather commonplace to put neutral density filters
> over the lens just so the photographer can use a larger
> apeture to reduce the depth of field.
>
> You may be able to do it in post (in editing), but once
> you image has been reduced to 2-dimensions, you will
> have to manually trace around the part you want to be in
> focus, and the part out of focus. That is why likely 99.9%
> of people do this in the camera and NOT in post.
>
> I see it more than "occasionally" in TV/movies. If it is
> done right you don't notice it, but it directs your attention
> to the desired part of the image. Just because we can do
> more and more things through the magic of computers in
> post-production doesn't mean that *everything* is done
> in post.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:00:39 GMT, "Henry Padilla"
<padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> for the right thing. It's something you see a on TV or in movies
>> occasionally, when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
>> of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the subject and
>> the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that we really only see
>> the main subject.
>>
>> What is this called, anyone know? Once I know what this is called,
>> I'm sure I'll find a tutorial or two on the net on how to create this
>> effect.
>>

>>
>
>It's called "Depth of Field" and it's a function of the camera iris and
>shutter speed. There might be a plug-in or effect that replicates it but
>you'd have to rotoscope out the person in focus and then determine a depth
>of field so that stuff closer to the person looks a little out of focus as
>opposed to stuff far away that is greatly out of focus.

Maybe he's looking for something like they used to do with Vaseline on
a clear filter in front of the lens. A favourite trick in bridal
shots. In Photoshop you'd select a central area with a heavily
feathered edge. Invert the selection, apply blur. There must be
something similar in the advanced video editors?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:41:47 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

>"Traveller" wrote ...
>> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas
>> Video 4 manual but I'm not getting any results. I know
>> it must be because I'm not searching for the right thing.
>> It's something you see a on TV or in movies occasionally,
>> when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
>> of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the
>> subject and the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that
>> we really only see the main subject.
>>
>> What is this called, anyone know?
>
>Depth-of-field or depth-of-focus.
>
>> Once I know what this is called, I'm sure I'll find a tutorial
>> or two on the net on how to create this effect.
>
>You may be looking in the wrong place. It is produced in
>the camera while shooting. You will notice that when
>shooting in low light with the lens open wide, focus is
>much more critical. But with lots of light and the lens
>stopped down, you have a very large depth of focus.
>It is rather commonplace to put neutral density filters
>over the lens just so the photographer can use a larger
>apeture to reduce the depth of field.
>
>You may be able to do it in post (in editing), but once
>you image has been reduced to 2-dimensions, you will
>have to manually trace around the part you want to be in
>focus, and the part out of focus. That is why likely 99.9%
>of people do this in the camera and NOT in post.
>
>I see it more than "occasionally" in TV/movies. If it is
>done right you don't notice it, but it directs your attention
>to the desired part of the image. Just because we can do
>more and more things through the magic of computers in
>post-production doesn't mean that *everything* is done
>in post.

I agree with what you're saying, but I think you may have missed the
point of the question. In my mind anyway, the OP seemed to be asking
for that effect you see on the news programs where a guy is skiing on
top of an avalanche and someone is using a camcorder from the other
side of the valley, so the guy is just a tiny black speck. To keep him
visible to us, the TV viewers, they blur or darken everything except a
circular area that includes the subject in order to make sure our eyes
don't stray elsewhere. There's no way to do that at the time of the
shooting, it's 100% done in post, because these are amateur videos
shot with camcorders on the spur of the moment.

--
Bill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:40:11 -0400, Traveller
<Jamboree@SpamMailNo.com> wrote:

>I've done some online searching and in my Vegas Video 4 manual but I'm
>not getting any results. I know it must be because I'm not searching
>for the right thing. It's something you see a on TV or in movies
>occasionally, when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
>of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the subject and
>the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that we really only see
>the main subject.
>
>What is this called, anyone know? Once I know what this is called,
>I'm sure I'll find a tutorial or two on the net on how to create this
>effect.
>
>Thanks.

Others have pointed you to 'depth of field', which applies more during
the time of shooting, but since you want to do this in VV4 I would
look for something like Filter, Mask, or Video Overlay. I don't know
the actual steps, but you might be able to make a full-screen blur
mask with a circular hole in it, and then position the mask so that
your subject can be seen through the hole. If you're working with a
long video sequence, repositioning the mask might be a pain but you'd
probably only move it every X frames so that it seems to follow your
subject.

--
Bill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

"Traveller" <Jamboree@SpamMailNo.com> wrote in message
news:lcok5155es5k37kdoj9t9rorkt9hh3979q@4ax.com...
> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas Video 4 manual but I'm
> not getting any results. I know it must be because I'm not searching
> for the right thing. It's something you see a on TV or in movies
> occasionally, when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
> of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the subject and
> the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that we really only see
> the main subject.
>
> What is this called, anyone know? Once I know what this is called,
> I'm sure I'll find a tutorial or two on the net on how to create this
> effect.

Here´s how Premiere can be used to tackle this. Have a look around Vegas
controls / menus to see if its do-able.
http://www.glacierlily.com/premiere/softlens.html
Rob


> Thanks.
>

 

[Trev]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

"Bill G" <niobrara969@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:s8al51lak5b76l29e2oh8fdsrcr7osu690@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:41:47 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>
>>"Traveller" wrote ...
>>> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas
>>> Video 4 manual but I'm not getting any results. I know
>>> it must be because I'm not searching for the right thing.
>>> It's something you see a on TV or in movies occasionally,
>>> when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
>>> of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the
>>> subject and the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that
>>> we really only see the main subject.
>>>
>>> What is this called, anyone know?
>>
>>Depth-of-field or depth-of-focus.
>>
>>> Once I know what this is called, I'm sure I'll find a tutorial
>>> or two on the net on how to create this effect.
>>
>>You may be looking in the wrong place. It is produced in
>>the camera while shooting. You will notice that when
>>shooting in low light with the lens open wide, focus is
>>much more critical. But with lots of light and the lens
>>stopped down, you have a very large depth of focus.
>>It is rather commonplace to put neutral density filters
>>over the lens just so the photographer can use a larger
>>apeture to reduce the depth of field.
>>
>>You may be able to do it in post (in editing), but once
>>you image has been reduced to 2-dimensions, you will
>>have to manually trace around the part you want to be in
>>focus, and the part out of focus. That is why likely 99.9%
>>of people do this in the camera and NOT in post.
>>
>>I see it more than "occasionally" in TV/movies. If it is
>>done right you don't notice it, but it directs your attention
>>to the desired part of the image. Just because we can do
>>more and more things through the magic of computers in
>>post-production doesn't mean that *everything* is done
>>in post.
>
> I agree with what you're saying, but I think you may have missed the
> point of the question. In my mind anyway, the OP seemed to be asking
> for that effect you see on the news programs where a guy is skiing on
> top of an avalanche and someone is using a camcorder from the other
> side of the valley, so the guy is just a tiny black speck. To keep him
> visible to us, the TV viewers, they blur or darken everything except a
> circular area that includes the subject in order to make sure our eyes
> don't stray elsewhere. There's no way to do that at the time of the
> shooting, it's 100% done in post, because these are amateur videos
> shot with camcorders on the spur of the moment.
>
> --
> Bill

Yes there is or was . A Plastic holder that fits over the lens and has a 7
blade iris that can be stopped down in the same way as the Aperture . it
causes a darkened unsharp vignation around the centre area of the lens.
Lots of soft focus filters with clear centre spots in the Cokin range too

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

In message <115l35edlcuq47a@corp.supernews.com>, Richard Crowley
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> writes
>"Traveller" wrote ...
>> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas Video 4 manual but
>>I'm not getting any results. I know it must be because I'm not
>>searching for the right thing. It's something you see a on TV or in
>>movies occasionally, when the camera has a shot of the main subject
>>and lots
>> of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the subject
>>and the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that we really only
>>see the main subject.
>> What is this called, anyone know?
>
>Depth-of-field or depth-of-focus.
>
>> Once I know what this is called, I'm sure I'll find a tutorial or
>>two on the net on how to create this effect.
>
>You may be looking in the wrong place. It is produced in
>the camera while shooting. You will notice that when
>shooting in low light with the lens open wide, focus is
>much more critical. But with lots of light and the lens
>stopped down, you have a very large depth of focus.
>It is rather commonplace to put neutral density filters
>over the lens just so the photographer can use a larger
>apeture to reduce the depth of field.
>
Its also worth mentioning that the depth of field is smaller at tele
zoom settings (keeping the subject framing the same - i.e. Moving
further away from the subject).
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

In message <ceqdnd_vXM6pV8ffRVnyvg@pipex.net>, Trev
<trevbowdenATdsl.pipexDOTnet@?.?.invalid> writes

Snipped....

>> I agree with what you're saying, but I think you may have missed the
>> point of the question. In my mind anyway, the OP seemed to be asking
>> for that effect you see on the news programs where a guy is skiing on
>> top of an avalanche and someone is using a camcorder from the other
>> side of the valley, so the guy is just a tiny black speck. To keep him
>> visible to us, the TV viewers, they blur or darken everything except a
>> circular area that includes the subject in order to make sure our eyes
>> don't stray elsewhere. There's no way to do that at the time of the
>> shooting, it's 100% done in post, because these are amateur videos
>> shot with camcorders on the spur of the moment.
>>
>> --
>> Bill
>
>Yes there is or was . A Plastic holder that fits over the lens and has
>a 7 blade iris that can be stopped down in the same way as the Aperture
>. it causes a darkened unsharp vignation around the centre area of the
>lens. Lots of soft focus filters with clear centre spots in the Cokin
>range too

I'd perhaps add that the Cokin is the best solution, since the "spot"
can be moved away from the centre - especially as most camcorders have a
37mm or 30mm lens outer size. You can also change the amount of
softening by varying the tele/WA setting in conjunction with moving to
keep the framing the same.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:115l35edlcuq47a@corp.supernews.com...
> "Traveller" wrote ...
>> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas Video 4 manual but I'm
>> not getting any results. I know it must be because I'm not searching for
>> the right thing. It's something you see a on TV or in movies
>> occasionally, when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
>> of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the subject and
>> the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that we really only see the
>> main subject.
>>
>> What is this called, anyone know?
>
> Depth-of-field or depth-of-focus.
>
>> Once I know what this is called, I'm sure I'll find a tutorial or two on
>> the net on how to create this effect.
>
> You may be looking in the wrong place. It is produced in
> the camera while shooting. You will notice that when
> shooting in low light with the lens open wide, focus is
> much more critical. But with lots of light and the lens
> stopped down, you have a very large depth of focus.
> It is rather commonplace to put neutral density filters
> over the lens just so the photographer can use a larger
> apeture to reduce the depth of field.
>
> You may be able to do it in post (in editing), but once
> you image has been reduced to 2-dimensions, you will
> have to manually trace around the part you want to be in
> focus, and the part out of focus. That is why likely 99.9%
> of people do this in the camera and NOT in post.
>
> I see it more than "occasionally" in TV/movies. If it is
> done right you don't notice it, but it directs your attention
> to the desired part of the image. Just because we can do
> more and more things through the magic of computers in
> post-production doesn't mean that *everything* is done
> in post.

Depth of field effects will not isolate a subject that is at a similar
distance from camera as the parts you want to isolate it from, of course.
Regardless of this, I get the impression that the OP has already got his
material and wants to fix his problem. I would avoid "manually tracing
around the subject" at all costs unless making a Sci Fi scene or something
along those lines!

Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

Bill G wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:40:11 -0400, Traveller
> <Jamboree@SpamMailNo.com> wrote:
>
>> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas Video 4 manual but
>> I'm not getting any results. I know it must be because I'm not
>> searching for the right thing. It's something you see a on TV or in
>> movies occasionally, when the camera has a shot of the main subject
>> and lots of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the
>> subject and the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that we
>> really only see the main subject.
>>
>> What is this called, anyone know? Once I know what this is called,
>> I'm sure I'll find a tutorial or two on the net on how to create this
>> effect.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Others have pointed you to 'depth of field', which applies more during
> the time of shooting, but since you want to do this in VV4 I would
> look for something like Filter, Mask, or Video Overlay. I don't know
> the actual steps, but you might be able to make a full-screen blur
> mask with a circular hole in it, and then position the mask so that
> your subject can be seen through the hole. If you're working with a
> long video sequence, repositioning the mask might be a pain but you'd
> probably only move it every X frames so that it seems to follow your
> subject.


The effect to use is called Cookie Cutter.
Place 2 copies of your clip on the timeline, one under the other.
On the lower track, click the Event FX icon and select "Gaussian Blur".
Select "medium blur" in the Preset box. You'll go back and adjust this later
so don't worry about it being too blurry right now.
On the upper track, click the Event FX icon and select "cookie cutter".
Select "circle center" in the preset box, "circle" (or other effect as
desired) in the shape box and "cut away all but section" in the method box.
Increase the "border" size until you can see it. You'll only use this to
help with positioning. Afterwards, drop it back down to 0. Adjust the
other parameters (feather, border and center) and move the little square in
the white box to the left of the settings windows to position the circle as
required.
Now go back to the upper track and adjust the blur to the desired level. If
you want the blur effect to fade in over time, you'll need to add key frames
(the timeline at the bottom of the Video Event FX window) to the effect.
Simply set the blur amount to 0 at the beginning, move the cursor to the
point that you want the blur to be fully in, create a new keyframe and enter
the new blur amount. That should be it.

BTW, there are a number of excellent Vegas forums around to learn a lot
more.
Sony: http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowTopics.asp?ForumID=4
DMN:
http://www.dmnforums.com/cgi-bin/displaywwugindex.fcgi?forum=sonic-foundry_vegas
Creative Cow:
http://www.uemforums.com/2pop/ubbthreads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=NLE
DV Info:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=c466f0231e8507ca4804f10287c7195b&forumid=54

And also check out:
http://www.vasst.com/aboutus.htm (check out the "Resources" page here)
Excellent set of free (pdf) newsletters at
http://www.jetdv.com/vegas/forum/viewforum.php?f=5
Very comprehensive site at http://www.blue7media.com/vegas/

Happy reading.

Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:04:13 +0100, "Trev"
<trevbowdenATdsl.pipexDOTnet> wrote:

>
>"Bill G" <niobrara969@none.invalid> wrote in message
>news:s8al51lak5b76l29e2oh8fdsrcr7osu690@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:41:47 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
>> <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Traveller" wrote ...
>>>> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas
>>>> Video 4 manual but I'm not getting any results. I know
>>>> it must be because I'm not searching for the right thing.
>>>> It's something you see a on TV or in movies occasionally,
>>>> when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
>>>> of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the
>>>> subject and the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that
>>>> we really only see the main subject.
>>>>
>>>> What is this called, anyone know?
>>>
>>>Depth-of-field or depth-of-focus.
>>>
>>>> Once I know what this is called, I'm sure I'll find a tutorial
>>>> or two on the net on how to create this effect.
>>>
>>>You may be looking in the wrong place. It is produced in
>>>the camera while shooting. You will notice that when
>>>shooting in low light with the lens open wide, focus is
>>>much more critical. But with lots of light and the lens
>>>stopped down, you have a very large depth of focus.
>>>It is rather commonplace to put neutral density filters
>>>over the lens just so the photographer can use a larger
>>>apeture to reduce the depth of field.
>>>
>>>You may be able to do it in post (in editing), but once
>>>you image has been reduced to 2-dimensions, you will
>>>have to manually trace around the part you want to be in
>>>focus, and the part out of focus. That is why likely 99.9%
>>>of people do this in the camera and NOT in post.
>>>
>>>I see it more than "occasionally" in TV/movies. If it is
>>>done right you don't notice it, but it directs your attention
>>>to the desired part of the image. Just because we can do
>>>more and more things through the magic of computers in
>>>post-production doesn't mean that *everything* is done
>>>in post.
>>
>> I agree with what you're saying, but I think you may have missed the
>> point of the question. In my mind anyway, the OP seemed to be asking
>> for that effect you see on the news programs where a guy is skiing on
>> top of an avalanche and someone is using a camcorder from the other
>> side of the valley, so the guy is just a tiny black speck. To keep him
>> visible to us, the TV viewers, they blur or darken everything except a
>> circular area that includes the subject in order to make sure our eyes
>> don't stray elsewhere. There's no way to do that at the time of the
>> shooting, it's 100% done in post, because these are amateur videos
>> shot with camcorders on the spur of the moment.
>>
>> --
>> Bill
>
>Yes there is or was . A Plastic holder that fits over the lens and has a 7
>blade iris that can be stopped down in the same way as the Aperture . it
>causes a darkened unsharp vignation around the centre area of the lens.
>Lots of soft focus filters with clear centre spots in the Cokin range too

But that doesn't apply to the examples and scenarios I gave above.

--
Bill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

In message <425b918c.430876453@216.196.109.144>, SjT <NOT@yahoo.com>
writes
>Tony Morgan <tonymorgan@rhylonline.com> Kissed me, Licked me, then
>left me a note:
>
>>Its also worth mentioning that the depth of field is smaller at tele
>>zoom settings (keeping the subject framing the same - i.e. Moving
>>further away from the subject).
>
>Does this mean a tele lense would help things?
>
It would increase the degree of control, but not significantly. IMHO
it's hardly worth the investment unless you have a need for extra tele -
and under max tele settings you will need to tripod mount to get a
steady picture - in spite of 'steady-shot'.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:40:24 +0100, Tony Morgan
<tonymorgan@rhylonline.com> wrote:

>>
>>>Its also worth mentioning that the depth of field is smaller at tele
>>>zoom settings (keeping the subject framing the same - i.e. Moving
>>>further away from the subject).
>>
>>Does this mean a tele lense would help things?
>>
>It would increase the degree of control, but not significantly. IMHO
>it's hardly worth the investment unless you have a need for extra tele -
>and under max tele settings you will need to tripod mount to get a
>steady picture - in spite of 'steady-shot'.

Let's hear again from Traveller. I'm not at all sure differential
focus is what he's looking for, though 90% of this thread is
addressing that topic

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <lp@laurenceNOSPAMpaynr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q4tn519h8sjt7d4cof1dh6loilugfirg8v@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:40:24 +0100, Tony Morgan
> <tonymorgan@rhylonline.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>Its also worth mentioning that the depth of field is smaller at tele
>>>>zoom settings (keeping the subject framing the same - i.e. Moving
>>>>further away from the subject).
>>>
>>>Does this mean a tele lense would help things?
>>>
>>It would increase the degree of control, but not significantly. IMHO
>>it's hardly worth the investment unless you have a need for extra tele -
>>and under max tele settings you will need to tripod mount to get a
>>steady picture - in spite of 'steady-shot'.
>
> Let's hear again from Traveller. I'm not at all sure differential
> focus is what he's looking for, though 90% of this thread is
> addressing that topic

I think Bill G, Mike and I at least (sorry if I missed anyone else), have
him on the right track.
But he has gone rather quiet - perhaps busy trying out the suggestions!?


Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

In message <425e50a8.610872015@216.196.109.144>, SjT <NOT@yahoo.com>
writes
>Laurence Payne <lp@laurenceNOSPAMpaynr.freeserve.co.uk> Kissed me,
>Licked me, then left me a note:
>
>>>It would increase the degree of control, but not significantly. IMHO
>>>it's hardly worth the investment unless you have a need for extra tele -
>>>and under max tele settings you will need to tripod mount to get a
>>>steady picture - in spite of 'steady-shot'.
>>
>>Let's hear again from Traveller. I'm not at all sure differential
>>focus is what he's looking for, though 90% of this thread is
>>addressing that topic
>
>I was interested for myself, sod Traveller, people like him come and
>go... I'm on a constant seek for the best depth of field effects that
>i can pull off on minidv.
>
>I may get a tele lense just for the hell of it now, and some of those
>cool star filters.
>
If you are looking for a tele lens, have a look on Ebay. I fairly
recently got a new 2x one from the US for a very modest sum, and it
turns in quite good quality. And for cheaper than Cokin (look-alikes)
you might try SRB at
http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/index1.html

SRB also do relatively inexpensive circular screw-in filters.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.rhylonline.com

 

[Traveller]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:47:00 GMT, Bill G <niobrara969@none.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:41:47 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
><rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>
>>"Traveller" wrote ...
>>> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas
>>> Video 4 manual but I'm not getting any results. I know
>>> it must be because I'm not searching for the right thing.
>>> It's something you see a on TV or in movies occasionally,
>>> when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
>>> of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the
>>> subject and the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that
>>> we really only see the main subject.
>>>
>>> What is this called, anyone know?
>>
>>Depth-of-field or depth-of-focus.
>>
>>> Once I know what this is called, I'm sure I'll find a tutorial
>>> or two on the net on how to create this effect.
>>
>>You may be looking in the wrong place. It is produced in
>>the camera while shooting. You will notice that when
>>shooting in low light with the lens open wide, focus is
>>much more critical. But with lots of light and the lens
>>stopped down, you have a very large depth of focus.
>>It is rather commonplace to put neutral density filters
>>over the lens just so the photographer can use a larger
>>apeture to reduce the depth of field.
>>
>>You may be able to do it in post (in editing), but once
>>you image has been reduced to 2-dimensions, you will
>>have to manually trace around the part you want to be in
>>focus, and the part out of focus. That is why likely 99.9%
>>of people do this in the camera and NOT in post.
>>
>>I see it more than "occasionally" in TV/movies. If it is
>>done right you don't notice it, but it directs your attention
>>to the desired part of the image. Just because we can do
>>more and more things through the magic of computers in
>>post-production doesn't mean that *everything* is done
>>in post.
>
>I agree with what you're saying, but I think you may have missed the
>point of the question. In my mind anyway, the OP seemed to be asking
>for that effect you see on the news programs where a guy is skiing on
>top of an avalanche and someone is using a camcorder from the other
>side of the valley, so the guy is just a tiny black speck. To keep him
>visible to us, the TV viewers, they blur or darken everything except a
>circular area that includes the subject in order to make sure our eyes
>don't stray elsewhere. There's no way to do that at the time of the
>shooting, it's 100% done in post, because these are amateur videos
>shot with camcorders on the spur of the moment.

That would work. I had a shot in the vid that was the only shot where
the subject and guide dog were shown properly, i.e., full frontal and
clearly showing face. But it's a shot where they're coming up out of
subway and too many people around plus a person was blocking a good
part of the right-hand side of screen. I _did_ do a workaround. I
found a mask and just had the actor and dog and everything else pretty
much blacked out. Professionally, anyone seeing this on TV would say
it stunk, but for home use as an intro to a TV ep, I was happy enough
since result showed what I needed.

I'll be looking to fine-tune something like this and the above example
is an excellent description. I'd also like to see a blur rather than
black, as I had to do.

Thanks.

 

[Traveller]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:18:50 +0100, Laurence Payne
<lp@laurenceNOSPAMpaynr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:40:24 +0100, Tony Morgan
><tonymorgan@rhylonline.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>Its also worth mentioning that the depth of field is smaller at tele
>>>>zoom settings (keeping the subject framing the same - i.e. Moving
>>>>further away from the subject).
>>>
>>>Does this mean a tele lense would help things?
>>>
>>It would increase the degree of control, but not significantly. IMHO
>>it's hardly worth the investment unless you have a need for extra tele -
>>and under max tele settings you will need to tripod mount to get a
>>steady picture - in spite of 'steady-shot'.
>
>Let's hear again from Traveller. I'm not at all sure differential
>focus is what he's looking for, though 90% of this thread is
>addressing that topic

Sorry for delay in responding and thanks to eveyrone for the info in
this thread. 'course, I didn't understand half of what y'all were
talking about <lol>, but I'm just a newbie but filed a lot away in my
head for future reference.

As I just described in another msg in this thread, I ended up
figuring out how to work with one of the masks and fiddled enough so
that the subject and guide dog in the shot were what was visible.
There was too much "interference" in the particular shot I used but
was the best one showing subjects and faces and expressions at best
angle and fully. Not a very professional-looking end effect but it
still looked neat, for a beginner <g> and it did the job. No nasty
pedestrian's piece of swinging arm and leg as well as the back end of
butt in the shot anymore distracting from the main subjects!! <lol>
Got rid of all the other pedestrians, too.

The idea in one of the other msgs of the camcorders and
post-production work and adding blur was spot-on and is exactly what I
was trying to do in spirit. My black mask attempted to do that type
of thing and it did do the job. I'd be interested in knowing how a
blur could be achieved though instead of using black.

Thanks.

 

[Traveller]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:46:36 +0200, "Rob D" <robd.999@virgin.net>
wrote:

>
>"Laurence Payne" <lp@laurenceNOSPAMpaynr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:q4tn519h8sjt7d4cof1dh6loilugfirg8v@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:40:24 +0100, Tony Morgan
>> <tonymorgan@rhylonline.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>Its also worth mentioning that the depth of field is smaller at tele
>>>>>zoom settings (keeping the subject framing the same - i.e. Moving
>>>>>further away from the subject).
>>>>
>>>>Does this mean a tele lense would help things?
>>>>
>>>It would increase the degree of control, but not significantly. IMHO
>>>it's hardly worth the investment unless you have a need for extra tele -
>>>and under max tele settings you will need to tripod mount to get a
>>>steady picture - in spite of 'steady-shot'.
>>
>> Let's hear again from Traveller. I'm not at all sure differential
>> focus is what he's looking for, though 90% of this thread is
>> addressing that topic
>
>I think Bill G, Mike and I at least (sorry if I missed anyone else), have
>him on the right track.
>But he has gone rather quiet - perhaps busy trying out the suggestions!?

Yes, so sorry. RL got in the way and I did come up with a solution in
the meantime. I finally figured out how to work with masks! <g> I
used that and blacked everyone else out. It worked. But I'd be
interested in doing the same thing but trying a blur instead.
Anything would have done here just to get all the pedestrians out of
the shot esp. the one who just walked in front of the subjects and so
that all we see is a bent elbow, a leg and a butt! <lol> Very
distracting.

 

[Traveller]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:24:07 +0200, "Rob D" <robd.999@virgin.net>
wrote:

>
>"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
>news:115l35edlcuq47a@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Traveller" wrote ...
>>> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas Video 4 manual but I'm
>>> not getting any results. I know it must be because I'm not searching for
>>> the right thing. It's something you see a on TV or in movies
>>> occasionally, when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
>>> of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the subject and
>>> the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that we really only see the
>>> main subject.
>>>
>>> What is this called, anyone know?
>>
>> Depth-of-field or depth-of-focus.
>>
>>> Once I know what this is called, I'm sure I'll find a tutorial or two on
>>> the net on how to create this effect.
>>
>> You may be looking in the wrong place. It is produced in
>> the camera while shooting. You will notice that when
>> shooting in low light with the lens open wide, focus is
>> much more critical. But with lots of light and the lens
>> stopped down, you have a very large depth of focus.
>> It is rather commonplace to put neutral density filters
>> over the lens just so the photographer can use a larger
>> apeture to reduce the depth of field.
>>
>> You may be able to do it in post (in editing), but once
>> you image has been reduced to 2-dimensions, you will
>> have to manually trace around the part you want to be in
>> focus, and the part out of focus. That is why likely 99.9%
>> of people do this in the camera and NOT in post.
>>
>> I see it more than "occasionally" in TV/movies. If it is
>> done right you don't notice it, but it directs your attention
>> to the desired part of the image. Just because we can do
>> more and more things through the magic of computers in
>> post-production doesn't mean that *everything* is done
>> in post.
>
>Depth of field effects will not isolate a subject that is at a similar
>distance from camera as the parts you want to isolate it from, of course.
>Regardless of this, I get the impression that the OP has already got his
>material and wants to fix his problem. I would avoid "manually tracing
>around the subject" at all costs unless making a Sci Fi scene or something
>along those lines!

Truthfully, in this case, practically anything would have worked
because I was taking a still from the ep and using that in an intro to
the ep with details such as airdate, ep name and small synopsis.
Practically any effect would work, really. Thanks.

 

[Traveller]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:53:45 GMT, Bill G <niobrara969@none.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:40:11 -0400, Traveller
><Jamboree@SpamMailNo.com> wrote:
>
>>I've done some online searching and in my Vegas Video 4 manual but I'm
>>not getting any results. I know it must be because I'm not searching
>>for the right thing. It's something you see a on TV or in movies
>>occasionally, when the camera has a shot of the main subject and lots
>>of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the subject and
>>the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that we really only see
>>the main subject.
>>
>>What is this called, anyone know? Once I know what this is called,
>>I'm sure I'll find a tutorial or two on the net on how to create this
>>effect.
>>
>>Thanks.
>
>Others have pointed you to 'depth of field', which applies more during
>the time of shooting, but since you want to do this in VV4 I would
>look for something like Filter, Mask, or Video Overlay. I don't know
>the actual steps, but you might be able to make a full-screen blur
>mask with a circular hole in it, and then position the mask so that
>your subject can be seen through the hole. If you're working with a
>long video sequence, repositioning the mask might be a pain but you'd
>probably only move it every X frames so that it seems to follow your
>subject.

Kewl, thanks. I'll look for that. Sounds do-able though I'm still
very much a newbie in V V. But as with all things, I'm starting to
branch out bit by bit. Cheers! D

 

[Traveller]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:25:45 -0400, "Mike Kujbida"
<kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>Bill G wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:40:11 -0400, Traveller
>> <Jamboree@SpamMailNo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've done some online searching and in my Vegas Video 4 manual but
>>> I'm not getting any results. I know it must be because I'm not
>>> searching for the right thing. It's something you see a on TV or in
>>> movies occasionally, when the camera has a shot of the main subject
>>> and lots of surrounding people, etc., but the camera focuses on the
>>> subject and the rest of the screen goes out of focus so that we
>>> really only see the main subject.
>>>
>>> What is this called, anyone know? Once I know what this is called,
>>> I'm sure I'll find a tutorial or two on the net on how to create this
>>> effect.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> Others have pointed you to 'depth of field', which applies more during
>> the time of shooting, but since you want to do this in VV4 I would
>> look for something like Filter, Mask, or Video Overlay. I don't know
>> the actual steps, but you might be able to make a full-screen blur
>> mask with a circular hole in it, and then position the mask so that
>> your subject can be seen through the hole. If you're working with a
>> long video sequence, repositioning the mask might be a pain but you'd
>> probably only move it every X frames so that it seems to follow your
>> subject.
>
>
>The effect to use is called Cookie Cutter.
>Place 2 copies of your clip on the timeline, one under the other.
>On the lower track, click the Event FX icon and select "Gaussian Blur".
>Select "medium blur" in the Preset box. You'll go back and adjust this later
>so don't worry about it being too blurry right now.

YES! That sounds about right. I have a heck of a lot more experience
with graphics vs. video as I've done a lot of work in PaintShop Pro so
the terms are familiar. I'll look for this in V V.

>On the upper track, click the Event FX icon and select "cookie cutter".
>Select "circle center" in the preset box, "circle" (or other effect as
>desired) in the shape box and "cut away all but section" in the method box.
>Increase the "border" size until you can see it. You'll only use this to
>help with positioning. Afterwards, drop it back down to 0. Adjust the
>other parameters (feather, border and center) and move the little square in
>the white box to the left of the settings windows to position the circle as
>required.

Kewl.

>Now go back to the upper track and adjust the blur to the desired level. If
>you want the blur effect to fade in over time, you'll need to add key frames
>(the timeline at the bottom of the Video Event FX window) to the effect.
>Simply set the blur amount to 0 at the beginning, move the cursor to the
>point that you want the blur to be fully in, create a new keyframe and enter
>the new blur amount. That should be it.

Looks like I'm going to re-do this VCD and use a new intro! <yeay!>

>BTW, there are a number of excellent Vegas forums around to learn a lot
>more.
>Sony: http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowTopics.asp?ForumID=4
>DMN:
>http://www.dmnforums.com/cgi-bin/displaywwugindex.fcgi?forum=sonic-foundry_vegas
>Creative Cow:
>http://www.uemforums.com/2pop/ubbthreads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=NLE
>DV Info:
>http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=c466f0231e8507ca4804f10287c7195b&forumid=54

Thanks, I did do a lot of searching through the forum posts, that's
how I learned a little bit about using the masks. That one was tricky
<g>. I also searched for tutorials.

>And also check out:
>http://www.vasst.com/aboutus.htm (check out the "Resources" page here)
>Excellent set of free (pdf) newsletters at
>http://www.jetdv.com/vegas/forum/viewforum.php?f=5
>Very comprehensive site at http://www.blue7media.com/vegas/
>
>Happy reading.

Neat. Thanks loads.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.avid_editors,alt.video.dvd.software,rec.video,rec.video.desktop,uk.rec.video.digital (More info?)

In message <249l6114k5ul3c4nlh18pi696h797f56rj@4ax.com>, Traveller
<Jamboree@SpamMailNo.com> writes
>On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:46:36 +0200, "Rob D" <robd.999@virgin.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Laurence Payne" <lp@laurenceNOSPAMpaynr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:q4tn519h8sjt7d4cof1dh6loilugfirg8v@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:40:24 +0100, Tony Morgan
>>> <tonymorgan@rhylonline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Its also worth mentioning that the depth of field is smaller at tele
>>>>>>zoom settings (keeping the subject framing the same - i.e. Moving
>>>>>>further away from the subject).
>>>>>
>>>>>Does this mean a tele lense would help things?
>>>>>
>>>>It would increase the degree of control, but not significantly. IMHO
>>>>it's hardly worth the investment unless you have a need for extra tele -
>>>>and under max tele settings you will need to tripod mount to get a
>>>>steady picture - in spite of 'steady-shot'.
>>>
>>> Let's hear again from Traveller. I'm not at all sure differential
>>> focus is what he's looking for, though 90% of this thread is
>>> addressing that topic
>>
>>I think Bill G, Mike and I at least (sorry if I missed anyone else), have
>>him on the right track.
>>But he has gone rather quiet - perhaps busy trying out the suggestions!?
>
>Yes, so sorry. RL got in the way and I did come up with a solution in
>the meantime. I finally figured out how to work with masks! <g> I
>used that and blacked everyone else out. It worked. But I'd be
>interested in doing the same thing but trying a blur instead.
>Anything would have done here just to get all the pedestrians out of
>the shot esp. the one who just walked in front of the subjects and so
>that all we see is a bent elbow, a leg and a butt! <lol> Very
>distracting.
>
Vegas has this built-in, and is described in the on-screen Help.
Essentially you:
1. Duplicate the clip (sequence) into a layer above the original
2. Create a mask on the area *not* to be blurred and invert it
by selecting Path Negative (so that the original mask area
is sharp).
3. If you wish you can feather the edge of the mask.
4. If you want the mask to follow the subject, you can use
the keyframe controller (at the bottom of the Event/Crop
window) to arrange for the mask to move following the
subject.
5. Finally, it's advisable to anchor the two layers together
in case you start shifting bits to and fro along the
timeline. To limit the extent of the anchor, it's advisable
to split the video/audio immediately before and after the
masked section.

I'd hazard a guess that Premiere has a plug-in that allows this, though
it might be a "pay-for".
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info