Embracing Deep Focus and Telling Stories

K

Kenneth

Well-known member
This is for the filmmakers, not so much for the D.P.'s out there.

I love shallow DOF like the next guy, but that's not what digital video with a 1/3" chip produces.

Orson Welles worked hard to create deep focus instead of shallow focus. (It was a creative choice--so if you are using shallow focus for a specific purpose, I can see tricking out your HVX.)

Why are we trying to be film when we're not? It's like buying a Swiss Army knife and trying to cut down trees. (All we need to do is add a supplemental blade!)

Why don't we create great stories that utilize the deep focus--create depth in the scene by placing something in the foreground and background--and let it serve our purpose?

When is the time to embrace the new and create the new language, the new look, rather than trying to emulate the old one. The familiar one. Is it just because we think that is how we will look serious? Professional?

Can we create the respect we desire by making great films with the DV look? Or will it take a top Hollwood director to use the DV look as is to give it credibility?

Are we trying too hard to make the most perfect shot with focus that's impossible to use on cameras with inferior viewing devices, when we should be focusing on story first?

I can get caught up in the camera technology when I really know I should be writing. The story is what matters. The story is what people sit down with. The story is what will take them away. And what they pay to see.

They just care about two things: what's happening and what will happen next. They want a good yarn while sitting around the campfire. Or in front of the flickering screen. If it's in deep focus and the story's good, they'll enjoy it just the same. A shallow focus shot of nothing is not as compelling as an deep focus shot with substance.

I'm not knocking slick production value, but I wonder if we need to go to such extremes with M2s and supplemental monitors when we could be using that time to write more and shoot more.

Shouldn't we be telling more stories, making more movies from well written scripts than creating pretty pictures regardless of the subject matter?

My background is in cinematography--I believe that pretty pictures have more to do with lighting than cameras anyway.

Ed Burns told the story about shooting The Brothers McMullen (watch the DVD Extras) and how they were so worried about continuity errors and other production value problems and nobody cared. The audience watched it for the story. They didn't notice the varying hair lengths, the mismatched clothing. They were busy laughing.

I guess my point is I want to shoot more frequently and if the new language will allow me to do that, then I want to embrace it and get rolling on the next story. This new technology is supposed to simplify the process. Why strive to make it harder?

I myself have a chance at shooting a film with a stripped-down camera. I can focus it. I can carry it. Not so much with a tricked-out cam. Add the extras focus controls and lens extenders and I see a crew forming. I see the production growing longer. More time. More money. Maybe the budget won't happen now.

Less stories ultimately.

My approach to filmmaking is very different from the Hollywood model. I'm more Jarmusch and Rodriguez (and Soderbergh when he's operating his own camera) than Spielberg and Cameron and Jackson. You can read my approach at www.CharACTORfilms.com Call me crazy! (You won't be the first.)

I just want to put story first.

Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
You make some good point, Kenneth. But to use the arguements you have put forth, what was Welles doing trying to get deep DOF? It really has to do with how YOU want to tell YOUR story. Some folks feel comfortable without shallow DOF. Others don't. Like anything, it can be overdone but used well to tell a story, it makes some beautiful pictures to go along with you compelling story. It's just another to that in and of itself is neither good, nor bad. It is. It depends upon how it's used. Everyone is going to have their own take on it, and they're probably all valid...(as long as they agree with me :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) )

I'm not sure why making pretty pictures and telling good stories has to be mutually exclusive. A filmmaker should be giving attention to all facets of his filmmaking.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you, Blaine. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. I like shallow DOF for sure.

I only question how far do we go with modifying the system vs. can we make use of the system as-is as an advantage?

And if shallow DOF is a hindrance to the storytelling process, is it time to embrace the new look? And get creative with it?
 
I just see it as another "weapon" in your arsenal. To say you shouldn't add the tech to your system when you can would be like saying "should you be using filters on your (film <35mm>) camera?"

We do many things in post to enhance what we've done with the camera. Is that right or wrong? Is CGI in and of itsef bad? I think everything depends on how its used and how it serves the story.
 
Kenneth, I enjoyed your alternate view on filmmaking. There is much truth to what you say, and your fresh outlook is the type that creates change. Here is my view:

Yes someone might, (someday), change the look of film and cause deep/greater DOF to become a signature "look". Right now, the point of a 35mm adapter is to allow those who cannot buy a 16mm or 35mm camera (and film stock) the ability to be one step closer to those who can. The simulated moving grain and shallow dof certainly does give a strong 16/35 impression. Sure DV can tell great stories and make great movies, but it is limited. We are not saying small dof is what you need, but having the option to use it is!

I also think that if a lumberjack, who could not afford a chainsaw but still had the passion to cut down trees, could buy an addon blade for his swiss army knife, he should. I don't think the lumberjack should shun the new technology just for the sake of wanting to use the swiss army knife "as is".
Sure the lumberjack can still cut down the tree with the swiss army knife and perhaps just as well.... but he is still at a disadvantage. I don't think the lumberjack should defiantly try and change the logging industry because all he has is a little swiss army knife and not the same resources as other loggers. Having more tools to choose from opens the creative process.

I thought I would take your analogy and run... :)
 
Shallow or Deep DoF is a desired look, more so then trying to use a shallow DoF to acheive a "film look." Although is a trick commonly used to by people for such a case.

Was this an alternate point of view? or some spam for a personal website?

Can everyone get off their damn soapboxes and just go out and use their cameras?
 
Yes, Prodigy, but what a great whittler he could be.

Thanks. I liked your analogy.

And Sarlacc, no it wasn't spam. It was an honest question about tools and their use. My point was about storytelling and using the equipment for what it does well.

And simplifying the filmmaking process so we can go out and shoot more often.
 
Last edited:
I recently saw a short film someone made here @ dvxuser (w/o mentioning any names), and to be honest, it had next to zero production value; to put it lightly, it looked like very, very bad video...gone bad (some of the worst DP'ing I've ever witnessed with the DVX100 series). The conveyed amatuerism of the film almost made me stop watching, however, I wanted to see if the story could save it. To my surprise, the story was more enthralling than most feature length movies I've seen.

It proves the point that the content outweighs any other aspect of filmmaking. When all is said and done, the audience doesn't care about the production process and equipment involved - they invested their time to see the story unfold onscreen. So with that in mind - yes, you can argue that simulated DOF with an adapter can help 'tell the story,' but does it really? After pushing aside the distraction of the video-look presented by the film I mentioned earlier, I was engaged in the story - the deep depth of field hadn't a negative effect on the outcome of the story.

Kenneth, I'm very much in agreement with you. We should just shut-up and go make a damn movie instead of focusing (no pun intended) on emulating a particular look.
 
I've been saying this for months on the Cinematography boards. And Welles wasn't the only one. Kurosawa and Frankenhiemer used deep focus too. Shallow DoF doesn't give you the film look. That's determined by color, resolution, gamma, lattitude, and a ton of other things. I usually shoot with the deep focus possible because it allows me for much more sophisticated composition options. I don't want to force my audience to look at something by making everything else blurry. I want to guid their eye through light, composition, and movement.

And I agree it's silly to try to emulate a certain look. With my HVX, I don't shoot what I think looks like film, I shoot what I think looks good and adds to my story. Often that is closer to film than video but I don't, for instance, turn down the detail all the way to try to make things look more filmish nore do I desaturate the color just because some think that's closer to film.
 
Last edited:
Kenneth,

I agree that story is a very important part of the process. However, cinematography, is more than lighting. It is understanding the visual approach to a story and that includes lighting. It also includes blocking, angles, how a film stock performs, how a lens performs, how a long lens with no DOF can pull you into what a character is thinking, how using a certain tool or piece of equipment can impact your day, how about screen direction as well. So you get my point. If you are only concerned with lighting then you are denying yourself the other interesting elements of making a movie. Obviously, this comes with experience and working with other filmakkers. You make reference of Robert rodriquez and other "one man teams". You need to do some research on these guys. especially Rodriquez. He is known as a guy who does all and takes credit for all. He barely communicates with his on-set crew members and he doesn't even like film. as a matter of fact he does not even like to look through a viewfinder on a film camera when he has to use it. He is a monitor guy. He shoots HD and does his work in post. He is more of a tech guy than a filmakker.

I hope people use their new toys in whatever way they need to in making a good story. And I think there are stories where you can just point the camera and shoot.
And while I liked the "brothers mcmullen", there were times and scenes I was taken out of the story because it just looked horrible. Where does that fit into story telling?
 
Kenneth said:
I love shallow DOF like the next guy, but that's not what digital video with a 1/3" chip produces.
Click to expand...
It can if you either use a DOF adapter, or if without, create some distance between the camera , the subject, and the background and shoot on the tele end of the lense.

Kenneth said:
Orson Welles worked hard to create deep focus instead of shallow focus. (It was a creative choice--so if you are using shallow focus for a specific purpose, I can see tricking out your HVX.)
Click to expand...
And so that means..?

Kenneth said:
Why are we trying to be film when we're not? It's like buying a Swiss Army knife and trying to cut down trees. (All we need to do is add a supplemental blade!)
Click to expand...

Who is "we"? And what has depth of field got to do with film? Depth of fiield apllies equaly to any capturing medium.

Kenneth said:
Why don't we create great stories that utilize the deep focus--create depth in the scene by placing something in the foreground and background--and let it serve our purpose?
Click to expand...

What has the telling of great stories got to do with depth of field? Great stories are created by extremely talented people - not by any adherance to one, or any specific film technique.

Kenneth said:
When is the time to embrace the new and create the new language, the new look, rather than trying to emulate the old one. The familiar one. Is it just because we think that is how we will look serious? Professional?
Click to expand...

You used Orson Wells to put forward an example of utilising greater depth of field. Citizen Kane was made in 1941. What is new about it? Movie making has been going on for so long now that pretty much every technique has been employed at some time or other by scores of talented film makers in their attempt to create compelling cinema.

Kenneth said:
Can we create the respect we desire by making great films with the DV look? Or will it take a top Hollwood director to use the DV look as is to give it credibility?
Click to expand...

They already have. And what is "the DV look"? DV is a capturing medium, how it looks depends on the objectives and talent of those that are using it. In the hands of Anthony Dod Mantle it looks like 28 Days Later. In the hands of Nancy Schreiber it looks like November, and wins you an award or two for best cinematography. In the hands of my dad at a family gathering it looks...well...

Kenneth said:
I can get caught up in the camera technology when I really know I should be writing. The story is what matters. The story is what people sit down with. The story is what will take them away. And what they pay to see. They just care about two things: what's happening and what will happen next. They want a good yarn while sitting around the campfire. Or in front of the flickering screen. If it's in deep focus and the story's good, they'll enjoy it just the same. A shallow focus shot of nothing is not as compelling as an deep focus shot with substance.
Click to expand...

If the story is great then anything else that is added to increase the experience of that story: cinematography, music, art direction etc etc will serve to enhance it. If the story is s#@t, then nothing will save it.

Kenneth said:
I'm not knocking slick production value, but I wonder if we need to go to such extremes with M2s and supplemental monitors when we could be using that time to write more and shoot more.
Click to expand...

An M2 and a production monitor don't add production value. A talented crew with the right tools for the job do.

Kenneth said:
Shouldn't we be telling more stories, making more movies from well written scripts than creating pretty pictures regardless of the subject matter?
Click to expand...

Yep. But saying it is easy. Doing it is something entirely different.

Kenneth said:
My background is in cinematography--I believe that pretty pictures have more to do with lighting than cameras anyway.
Click to expand...

Very true, but even great lighting won't save a dud script.

Kenneth said:
Ed Burns told the story about shooting The Brothers McMullen (watch the DVD Extras) and how they were so worried about continuity errors and other production value problems and nobody cared. The audience watched it for the story. They didn't notice the varying hair lengths, the mismatched clothing. They were busy laughing.
Click to expand...

They, (the audience) would have noticed hardly any of the things that film makers go to great lengths to try and make perfect. They are the audience, we are the film makers, it is up to us to put forward the best possible effort that we can achieve within the budget/talent equation. The moment we, as film makers, stop trying to do all in our power to help put out the best work we and our team are capable of, then we may as well pack it in...imho.

Kenneth said:
I guess my point is I want to shoot more frequently and if the new language will allow me to do that, then I want to embrace it and get rolling on the next story. This new technology is supposed to simplify the process. Why strive to make it harder?
Click to expand...

Good. Get on with it.

Kenneth said:
I myself have a chance at shooting a film with a stripped-down camera. I can focus it. I can carry it. Not so much with a tricked-out cam. Add the extras focus controls and lens extenders and I see a crew forming. I see the production growing longer. More time. More money. Maybe the budget won't happen now.
Click to expand...

Good. Some like to work in teams, some don't, do whatever floats your boat.

Kenneth said:
My approach to filmmaking is very different from the Hollywood model. I'm more Jarmusch and Rodriguez (and Soderbergh when he's operating his own camera) than Spielberg and Cameron and Jackson.
Click to expand...

All of those film makers have done some brilliant and some not so brilliant work. I think that to say you are like this, and not that, is probably best left up to others to decide based on your body of work once you have created it.

Good luck.
 
Peter, I appreciate your pov. It was just a thought I wanted to share and get feedback on. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I don't claim to have any answers that are absolute. I am just asking lots of questions as the technology evolves at lightning speed. I come from a film bg and know and love that look, but wanted to hear what folks thought about using the new look as-is.

But I never want to imply that there should only be one way. When you win a bunch of cinematography awards or end up the darling of Cannes, I guess then you can talk about your approach.
 
kenneth,

i actually agree with you. I understand that your not saying that shallow DOF is stupid or doesnt look good or cant be used to help tell a story. I also understand that you dont think that deep DOF looks better than shallow DOF ..or that its the next big thing for major motion pictures. i know your not making an argument for one vs the other at all.

I may be off here, but i think that the core of what your trying to say is that people need to stop hiding behind the preface of needing more, or better gear to make a decent movie, and learn to become great storytellers with the tools they have. they need to stop thinking that the new set of arri lghts, 35mm adaptor, mic, mattebox, follow focus, ect. is going to make thier movie better, and focus on learning how to actually create a good film rather than simply LOOKING like they have what it takes to make a great film. ..and that boils down to the story, and the art of telling that story through an audio visual medium. honestly, the fact is that alot of people that want to become filmmakers are scared. they have alot of time and money invested into something that so few people actually succeed at. the last thing they want to do is blame any failure on themselves ...because it hurts .. it hurts bad. and so the grand facade is all about the gear. not about thier lack of understanding of how to move a camera or light a scene, or write a decently entertaining and compelling screenplay. there is more obsession about gear than the sincere thirst, passion, and integrity in seeking the knowledge, skill, or talent to actually use it effectively. ..and just like you are'nt saying shallow DOF is useless. im not saying that gear is useless. .. obviously, ..as i own a company which sells cinema gear. its just that a good filmmaker could make a great film without all the gear. and when you give some gear to a great filmmaker, they will make an even greater film. ..why? because they are great at making good stories, and using the language/medium of motion picture to effectively convey those stories to an audience.

bottom line.. people need to learn the art of writing great stories, and the language of motion pictures to tell that story with. great gear just adds to the vocabulary. ..speak first ..then speak fluently.
 
Thank you Neil. I think you nailed it.

And if they're scared, it's because it's hard to create (and predict) something that will have mass appeal. Hollywood doesn't even know how to do it. (See Godzilla's box office.)

And it all goes back to the writing.

Again, this is for the filmmaker/writer/director. The folks who are D.P.s can want every tool in their arsenal and that's their art and I can understand them investing in the extras.

My goal is to put story first and shoot it as well as can be to accomodate that story.
 
Last edited:
Kenneth said:
Thank you Neil. I think you nailed it.

And if they're scared, it's because it's hard to create (and predict) something that will have mass appeal. Hollywood doesn't even know how to do it. (See Godzilla's box office.)

And it all goes back to the writing.

Again, this is for the filmmaker/writer/director. The folks who are D.P.s can want every tool in their arsenal and that's their art and I can understand them investing in the extras.

My goal is to put story first and shoot it as well as can be to accomodate that story.
Click to expand...
I just watched "Shawshank Redemption" again in HD last night (caught it on DVR a while back, from HBO I think). It's pretty much acclaimed as a classic with all the right stuff: great story, great acting and great directing (by director and screenwriter Frank Darabont, based on the Stephen King novel).

While I was being blown away (again) by all of that, I couldn't help noticing that the film generally uses a very deep DOF, with only a few exceptions, and it got me thinking of this thread. Given that it was shot on film (obviously, since it was done in the early 90s) it seemed clear that this was a deliberate choice by the director and/or DP Roger Deakins (his stellar filmography can be seen at: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/p/roger_deakins/).

I never felt as though the deep DOF detracted in any way from the success of the film, although since I've been researching in places like this forum I've become much more conscious of such aspects, so I did notice it. I thought it might make an interesting addition to this thread considering that for about 90%+ of the shots, pretty much the same look could be had from the stock lens of the HVX (presumably - I haven't yet had the privilege of actually using one).

If Darabont and Deakins went that way deliberately (not to mention Welles and Citizen Kane), it's hard to argue that anyone would find stock-lens HVX footage un-"filmic" as a matter of course. On the other hand, having the option to use shallow DOF when desired is always a good thing...

Ted Spencer, NYC
 
Good post Kenneth !!!! The between director, writer and Dp gets more blurred as filmmaking becomes cheaper. New video technology is amazing and keeps getting better but we need to remember that we are end the just telling stories.
 
Glad it helped you out, Josh and Mike,

Here's something else to think about. Just when the technology makes high quality HD and feature film production available to us, the most wide-open distribution channel is actually much smaller.

Think Ipods, internet and cell phones. YouTube and Google Video. (Most of the stuff posted is crap. There're still very few filmmakers producing quality narrative or documentary work. But the potential is there.) And RSS Feeds to deliver it to the user automatically.

We all want to see our work on large HDTV displays and in theaters I'm sure, but there is an amazing potential with the small format that is being embraced by millions of people. How can we disregard that?

I guess we must shoot for both. Large format for distribution, small format for trailers and internet distribution. But it shows again that people want content and will take it even in a small format.

One of the best (my opinion) and few webisodic series out there (it's actually critical acclaimed for acting, writing and production) is Chasing Windmills.

http://chasingmills.blogspot.com/ is the link if you haven't seen it. It's a DAILY webisodic series. That's an amazing output for the quality they achieve.

It's the story of a couple and the trials and tribulations of being a couple. They call it a daily video comic strip. It challenges what is a story.

(Watch from the bottom up since they post new eps on top, but right now the bottom two eps have broken links. Start with the one titled Cleansing. You have to watch four or five episodes to get a sense of the diversity of the production.)

The Office is now posting webisodes during the summer rerun season--original webisodes to keep people connected to the show until the new season premieres in Sept.

While I want to shoot large format, I don't want to exclude the possibility of self-distribution for some of my work. I don't want to miss out on a hungry market.

With my HVX, I am shooting a feature film this fall for festivals (with the hopes of landing a distributor--I know, "Join the club"), and a weekly webisodic series that will play 320 x 240!

We have to play all the markets to our advantage, to get an audience for our work! The venues are changing. So must we!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top