Overused Shallow Depth of Field?

[sy22]

Im just wondering that if some of you agree....

A long time ago there was 35mm 16mm. Both formats could achive any kind of depth of field. Some people intentionally made everything in focus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_focus

However, a shallower depth of field you bring attention to a subject so therefore cenimatographers began to rack focuses. However, now when you are looking around, everyone has their dof adapters. They can achieve any dof the want just like 16 or 35.

However, ive noticed that some people start using terms such as good an or great dof. Usually good or great means shallow.

Then people start thinking that the shallower the better so then nothing besides the subject is in focus with overused nonsensicle racks. I was thinking that then there wouldnt be a real purpose for art direction and set dressing and even location scouting. (you might be able to film a street scene in a bathroom at f1.4)

While watching some mainstream films ive noticed that the backgrounds are usually slightly blured but not beyond what a 1/2 in camera can do.

All in all with the advent of dof i fell that many people begin to see a tunnel vision by creating a picture that satisfies themselves but neither the audience or script.

... and im not against shallow dof for the right situation but not the whole movie

[Casalen]

I try to correct people when they say "good" depth of field. I try to attain what's right for that shot, as should most people. A lot of people seem to think that's the difference between cinematic and home video, ignoring the many more important factors. So no, you're not the only one to notice. It should be considered just one more tool for a cinematographer.

[bwwd]

Its not that simple you know ,you can stop down but you will starting to see ground glass ,and you will loose some big amounts of light.
But yes,too shallow DOF is quite ugly.
Did you had adapter ? Cause you would see that for yourself with one.
Lack of knowledge also is main reason why we see most DOF adapter tests with such shallow DOF.It takes time to figure it out,its better if somebody will tell you that its too shallow but most peoples wont tell,they just prefere to not comment and others with equal knowledge will just leave comment "awesome".
Ahh. and deep focus in video looks not really good(i mean it depends but most of the time it doesnt look good lets say outside of the house compared to film footage outside of the house), deep focus shoot on film looks like it was...shoot on film.Even red one with deep focus looks like regular video camera,see for yourself.

[sy22]

its true that even something digital on deep focus especially interiors looks like a handycam, but then what about landscapes. But how about landscapes with a subject. Ive seen some people do a rack but then it ruins the composition.

And its true that noone uses deep focus these days after the 70s when people started using camera angles for dialouge.

And its kinda ironic how people using film try to get it as close to hd while people shooting digital try to make it more like film. So im thinking there just might be a magical middle ground.... or 20 years from now kodak vision 3 will look like b/w reversal

[bwwd]

I dont know,maybe some guys want deep focus with film.I want shallow ,but not extreme 5cm in focus vimeo style tests.But if this only would be that simple... i feel that when you stop down on adapter it wont make focus as deep as stopping down during shooting on film.