Why are so many scared of focus?

times change. people don't dress the way they did 40 years ago or even 20, they don't drive the same cars, they don't listen to the same music. they don't watch the same movies.

its wrong of you to ask someone to post good movies that were shot entirely with shallow DOF....

that's like saying....find me a great movie that only uses wide shots...or medium CU's...or cowboy's. it doenst happen...there is a time and a place.

even what you might call bad modern films are not shot entirely with shallow dof.

anyway, i think your insulting many people with your posts.

i consider myself to be a shallow DOF nut...i also think that i have a fairly good understanding of composition...but by the way you post, you make it sound like anyone who uses shallow dof has no sense of composition and that they are hiding the fact that they are poor cinematographers.

tell conrad hall he was a poor dp.
 
pmark23 said:
My film-school projects were all deep-focus (deliberately), and when I get around to shooting a narrative again, you can bet that it'll also be deep-focus.
Click to expand...

So let me see if I understand this correctly. Prior to even knowing what it is you're story is about you have preordained that using "deep-focus" throughout will best serve the story??? What are you going to be serving at the craft services table?


pmark23 said:
Then why bother at all with shallow DOF shots if you can't see them?
Click to expand...

Maybe the reason for the shot selection could be to help isolate the character, giving the audience a more subjective level of identification with that character.


pmark23 said:
To get back to the original topic: there is nothing inherently "professional" about Shallow DOF, and thinking that you have to use Shallow DOF in your production to look "professional" or add production value is wrong. There are lots of other things which are more effective (like proper framing, blocking, and composition.)
Click to expand...


I would hope that all of the film maker's choices and selections of shots would be used "with thought". But saying that a blurred BG is any less professional than a deep-focus BG is completely ridiculous. Just because a BG uses deep-focus doesn't immediately make it worth looking at any more than a blurred BG. I absolutely agree that if properly composed, deep focus adds tremendous texture and meaning to the frame. I haven't heard anyone on this thread say otherwise. I also agree that like a good magician, a well composed frame and clever cutting can lead the eye while imparting a ton of subtext to the audience. But to categorize using a shot that employs a shallow DOF as "a poor tool", isn't really very accurate.



I'm done.




dmc
 
I just painfully read through this entire thread.

Pmark isn't trying to crap on shallow focus. He said several times that it can be used as a tool, but it's over used. I think a few things he said overlapped each other and gave birth to new issues he never intended.

Shallow depth of field in relation to the DVX/Prosumer cameras
Shallow depth of field in relation to the film industry etc. etc.

A better analogy instead of "vowels" to what he's speaking of is; how about losing the punctuation? You can still understand me pretty well can't you

I dig shallow DOF shots myself. I also get what Pmark is getting at. Using SDOF on a prosumer camera is kind of like souping up a Chevy S10. It's always going to be a Chevy S10 no matter how many ground effects, nifty paint jobs, and whatever else you do to it. It'll still get you from point A to point B, and hell, it gets pretty damned good gas mileage. But it's no Ferarri.

Pmark also said something about the DVX100 being able to do shallow depth of field? or "Shallow enough" DOF. I'll have to agree here. The main reason to use a 35mm adapter isn't just for SDOF. If you creatively use different focal lengths you can get different looks which would be an arsenal of tools beyond SDOF.
 
Then why bother at all with shallow DOF shots if you can't see them?

This is exactly why long ago filmmakers didn't use shallow DOF -- because the eye automatically does it, and doing it for the audience was considered BAD. The audience knows where they want to look, and a skillful director (Welles is a great example -- Spielberg is also great) can force your eye through a deliberate path so that in a shot of a few seconds meaning can be disseminated in a deliberate and controlled manner. This is done by using lighting (to create shadows), blocking, camera movements, and all of the other tricks (Shallow DOF included.)
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Do you have any clue how depth perception works? Your eye does not automatically do this for a 2D plane. Hence why filmmakers do it for you. And the reason they don't notice this is cause they are meant to connect with the story, not the out of focus background.

Why the hell would I want to (going back to my street example) show the background when it doesn't convey any meaning to the scene other than spacial context? For a minute, assume that I don't want people "delving" deep into that scene, and want them for instance to be locked on the performance of the actor, and not searching the frame... I can't see your point... it just sounds like your being lazy and then later on saying "but people interpret it this way blah blah.."

Even better, different people will follow different eye-paths, and interpret the story differently.
Click to expand...

well, not true actually. In the western world, the eye follows left to right, the same way we read text. I am sure if you spent some time researching this you would find print media, and generally all forms of media adhere to this in one form or another.

Use Shallow DOF constantly and you vastly decrease the story-telling ability of filmmaking. For an excellent example, look at the screen captures posted above. What narrow, pointless story. **Yawn**.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance here is what limits story telling.

Another reason none of you can come up with a list of movies that are composed with many shallow DOF shots is that for the reason you outlined above, you THINK the shots are shallow DOF, but when you look at them critically you realize they weren't -- you saw it as shallow DOF because you were only playing attention to the foreground -- your brain filtered out the background the way it was supposed to.
Click to expand...

well no actually.. you keep saying that you agree with us at times.. but then say we can't provide examples, when we have. And I have repeatedly asked you to give me an example of Shallow DOF to you, and you have not. (Saying "blurring" the background doesn't count, since that implies many focal lengths.)


Yeah, you're right, Loki. The lights just came on. All this time I was worrying about stupid things like composition, framing, telling a good story. poo poo all that! I'm just going to blur everything I don't understand. poo poo learning how to use the camera properly. poo poo the audience, and their stupid expectations.

Is that what you're trying to say?
Click to expand...

my god.. your right... my backgrounds are blurry because I don't understand anything.. the connection between those two things is monumental...


So many people here have tried to explain things to you, but it is like you have put up your ignorance shield and are not listening to fact. Nobody is saying that Deep Focus is bad, but everybody is saying it isn't used in films like you think it is, which is actually a fact.

I am done trying to get you to see this, with this many people against you I am sure your trying to come up with something brilliant to bring us into your illogical world of ridiculous... where I suppose everything is in focus.

As another point, if you use "Shallow" DOF in your work as you say, what are you posting about then?
 
Last edited:
Noct said:
I just painfully read through this entire thread.

Pmark isn't trying to crap on shallow focus. He said several times that it can be used as a tool, but it's over used. I think a few things he said overlapped each other and gave birth to new issues he never intended.

Shallow depth of field in relation to the DVX/Prosumer cameras
Shallow depth of field in relation to the film industry etc. etc.

A better analogy instead of "vowels" to what he's speaking of is; how about losing the punctuation? You can still understand me pretty well can't you

I dig shallow DOF shots myself. I also get what Pmark is getting at. Using SDOF on a prosumer camera is kind of like souping up a Chevy S10. It's always going to be a Chevy S10 no matter how many ground effects, nifty paint jobs, and whatever else you do to it. It'll still get you from point A to point B, and hell, it gets pretty damned good gas mileage. But it's no Ferarri.

Pmark also said something about the DVX100 being able to do shallow depth of field? or "Shallow enough" DOF. I'll have to agree here. The main reason to use a 35mm adapter isn't just for SDOF. If you creatively use different focal lengths you can get different looks which would be an arsenal of tools beyond SDOF.
Click to expand...

scoffing at the film exaples provided which were made by very talented directors and DP's and calling them incompetent and saying that he uses only Deep Focus for narrative work before he's ever read the script tell me all I need to know.

CRAZY.

Demanding to be shown GOOD films that use SDOF?

Come on Noct. Read the thread again. He may say that he isn't saying he's not knocking all SDOF but then he goes right ahead and says something so stupidly over the top that belies such radical and unsuportable position

like
"I said [examples] from good films"
"come on can't anyone show me any exammples"
"those examples suck"

right ... no good films shot with any SDOF ... right.
And Speilberg (andmittedly lots of uneven work lately) but to say his DP is incompetent (he didn't say this specifically, but said all of the examples provided were crap) .... right.

Defend that Noct.
 
Yes, I agree it got out of hand. I think he just got on a ranting kick, though. I try to read between the lines. I think he had a lot of good things to say. He just may have gotten too passionate. :)

I don't agree about shallow depth of field being awful. I don't think it equates bad composition if you use it. I do find some of Pmark's cynical views funny and on the mark of newbs thinking SDOF is the cure all.
 
you're too nice :)

I do however agree that there can be a newb problem of thinking that you stick a 35mm adaptor on and that takes care of everything

Doesn't mean a lot of other people that use them don't know what the hell they are doing.
 
I already gave up on this thread. It makes no sense whatsoever. I have no idea what homeboy is even talking about. I fail to even see why it is an issue ? This is totally bizarre and annoying at the same time.

Damn film students.
 
This thread made my day.

Pmark23..... Are you kidding?

Your posts in this thread are ridiculous.

April fools day was over a month ago. You missed the boat.
 
***sigh***

Okay, who let all the functionally illiterate children in? (and just when the discussion started becoming interesting.)

PM me if anyone actually comes up with this list us supposedly "good" movies shot in Shallow DOF. Otherwise I'm crowning myself winner of the Great 2006 Shallow DOF Debate. :dankk2:

See you next year!
 
emoticon-13.gif
 
Heh heh Cally

Beating it is an understatement.

pmark23

What in the name of the heavenly father are you talking about ?


pmark23 said:
***sigh***

Okay, who let all the functionally illiterate children in? (and just when the discussion started becoming interesting.)

PM me if anyone actually comes up with this list us supposedly "good" movies shot in Shallow DOF. Otherwise I'm crowning myself winner of the Great 2006 Shallow DOF Debate. :dankk2:

See you next year!
Click to expand...

There isnt any debate. It's you -vs- The Volcano. It's kind of like that saying when everyone is telling you that you are drunk ....You probably are.

-

You win by forfeit baby. I mean does anyone have a clue what is going on right now ? I don't even know what the question is even after you asked it.

It's like asking 'Show me some good films that show good steadicam work. It just is such a bizarre and annoying thread.

'I win! I win!'

Yeah you do.
 
John_Hudson said:
'I win! I win!'

Yeah you do.
Click to expand...
swingers_guybehind.jpg


"You're a big winner. I'm gonna ask you a simple question and I want you to listen to me: who's the big winner here tonight at dvxuser? Huh? pmark23, that's who. pmark's the big winner. pmark wins!"​
 
I watched a few days ago and enjoyed tremenduously:
http://www.tristanandisoldemovie.com/
One beauty shoot after another, using all lenses available as apropriatte to tell the story.The ECU's are so beautifull........ and equally beautiful were the wides and medium shoots..... (as apropriate) and the movie has them all!. The timing was just a touch (OK 1/4 touch) less saturated (color wise) than I would have, but other than that, KUDOS to the whole crew. Time well spent.
 
Hi dan!

I just finished Malick's The New World and was thinking exactly that same thought on the timing. It was shot all over Virginia and I just cannot believe the color palette was so bland in this film.

On the contrary, The Thin Red Line is gorgeous (Right up my alley gradingwise)

-

Both films do suffer however from the use of Shallow DOF. That Malick character is always throwing that amatuerish trick in there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top