darwinandpaine
Well-known member
H. G. Welles is one of my favorite directors. So, if he used deep focus, so will I!
Embracing Deep Focus and Telling Stories
- Thread starter Kenneth
- Start date
DavidBeier
Veteran
Blaine said:I'm not sure where you got that quote from my post.
Talk about having a serious bug...rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Well I have had a sore throat so that might be it.
When I made a thread very similar to this one on the cinematography forum, several people said, "But I want shallow DoF because it gives me X effect that helps me tell the story" and I was fine with that. If your style of filmmaking requires a shallow DoF and you're actually using it for an artistic purpose other than, "I don't feel like composing the whole frame," then more power to you. But I've heard so many people at my film school say, "Lets put on some more ND filters. The background is badly lit/ugly/poorly composed and I don't want the audience to see it." Or, on these boards, I hear, "you need shallow DoF to give you the film look." The second argument is particularly silly since it's not accurate. It's like people who always want to add a film grain filter to their video. Most professional film DPs do their best to get as little grain as possible. Why would you want something to look like bad film. Don't get me wrong, I like that the HVX's noise looks more like film grain since I think film grain (softer) looks better than regular video noise but, unless I'm trying to make an artistic choice and give an effect by having a lot of grain, the less the better.
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
I'm sure you have. It doesn't justify purposely misquoting me.DavidBeier said:
We could just as easliy be arguing that we should be shooting in B&W because that's what the "masters" used. It's all nonsense. People will use what's at their disposal to make the best film they can.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Shallow DOF just really lends itself to a filmic quality; it is automatic.
We can talk about Welles and the many eras in fimmaking but the filmic look so many seem to be after is todays filmic look. So why are we talking about 1941 ?
I have never gotten that angle on this subject matter.
-
I also have never gotten these types of posts where the thread starter wants to question everyones elses motivation and endgoal? Does he not think we already know that content is king ?
Of course we know that. Why confuse entry-level filmmaking with anything but that ?
-
We all have our own unique style and vision; one is not better than the next.
Whycan't that be accepted ?
We can talk about Welles and the many eras in fimmaking but the filmic look so many seem to be after is todays filmic look. So why are we talking about 1941 ?
I have never gotten that angle on this subject matter.
-
I also have never gotten these types of posts where the thread starter wants to question everyones elses motivation and endgoal? Does he not think we already know that content is king ?
Of course we know that. Why confuse entry-level filmmaking with anything but that ?
-
We all have our own unique style and vision; one is not better than the next.
Whycan't that be accepted ?
DavidBeier
Veteran
"Purosely misquoting [you]?" Come now. What I did was paraphrase what you and Kholi were so obviously implying. He clearly implied that if people like me had the money for an M2, then we'd use one which isn't the case.
And many people often do shoot black and white (I've used it in several of my short films). Didn't see Schindler's List? Ed Wood? There are also plenty of people who will tell you why they find black and white cinematography much more powerful than color cinematography. I personally like color too much to lose it (and I think it brings a lot more to the table than shallow DoF) but I don't question anyone who prefers black and white. And yeah, modern films usually don't use it since the average joe whines about it but they're usually the same people who whine about the black bars in widescreen DVDs.
Red Beard was 1965, Ran 1985, and people have mentioned other films with a shallow DoF in the last decade, all of which I consider to be gorgeous and very filmish.
And to be fair, I'm not just arguing I'm against this obsession with shallow DoF amongst digital guys, I also think the industry as a whole would do well to use less shallow DoF. Just as the whole approach to screen writing is so un-inspired (use the formula, three actor structure, you'll be great!) and results in a lot of terrible scripts, the do-what-everyone-else-is-doing approach to directing/cinematography leads to a lot of boring looking films.
I don't just want to do what everyone else is doing. Go watch some of the Sci Fi channel TV movies. They've got the standard shallow DoF, three point lighting, and hollywood approved scripts that everyone else does and they're still ****. I wanna blow people away. Welles, Kurosawa, and Frankehiemer still do that to me visually.
Yeah, i get kind of tired of that too. Especially when someone comes into a very technical thread and says, "none of this matters unless you have a good story" and seems to think it's profound.
I am with John on this one... I venture to guess that 99% of the people on these forums that dont have day jobs are not making money making their own "movies" but rather working on broadcast, corporate, etc. work. Given that... who cares what they want to shoot with? They are doing it for fun, maybe with the pipedream of meaningful distribution or even recouping what they have in it.
Maybe for professional work a 35mm adapter doesnt make sense, I have never used one to make money but I have one for fun. If I want that "look" for a paid shoot, I budget for a Vari with a Cine-setup.
ash =o)
Maybe for professional work a 35mm adapter doesnt make sense, I have never used one to make money but I have one for fun. If I want that "look" for a paid shoot, I budget for a Vari with a Cine-setup.
ash =o)
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
Perhaps they are no longer teaching the difference between quoting and paraphrasing. When I put quotation marks around a statement, that says: this is what the person said. If I paraphrase, I don't use the quotation marks. It is fine you feel Kholi was implying you aren't using an M2 because you don't have the money. Speak to that. I spoke for myself only.DavidBeier said:
Last edited:
peter orland
Well-known member
John_Hudson said:
Exactly. And the end result of these types of threads is always the same...:violent5:
I started this thread with the first sentence being "this is more for filmmakers than D.P.'s."
I only wanted to see what filmmakers thought of using stock HVXs to keep the weight/size and production time down. To shoot more and use the equipment for what it's good for, as-is.
It somehow sounds like it's getting everyone very heated and I didn't start it for that reason. More to say, hey if this is all we have, let's not feel like we can't produce features, because maybe we can.
If you love your 35mm adapters and they work for you, excellent. If you don't want to use one, that's fine too.
It was a commentary on equipment--using the HVX as-is--while emphasizing the need for good stories. It wasn't trying to suggest you don't know "content is king."
What was my endgoal? I didn't really have one. I just wanted to see the result of the proposition. And I saw the result!
HEAT!
I only wanted to see what filmmakers thought of using stock HVXs to keep the weight/size and production time down. To shoot more and use the equipment for what it's good for, as-is.
It somehow sounds like it's getting everyone very heated and I didn't start it for that reason. More to say, hey if this is all we have, let's not feel like we can't produce features, because maybe we can.
If you love your 35mm adapters and they work for you, excellent. If you don't want to use one, that's fine too.
It was a commentary on equipment--using the HVX as-is--while emphasizing the need for good stories. It wasn't trying to suggest you don't know "content is king."
What was my endgoal? I didn't really have one. I just wanted to see the result of the proposition. And I saw the result!
HEAT!
My brother and I were discussing this a couple months ago. I should preface this by saying we probably don't have the skills to pull this off.
If you need shallow focus for your story and there is a method of getting it, then that's great. If you just like the look of it, that's great too.
However, there is a big difference between being resigned to using deep focus and making it a part of your story. Deep focus is what these cameras give us. To use a horrible cliche, if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Any filmmaker who makes a great film with a $5000 camera gets a lot of respect from me. Any filmmaker who turns the *limitations* of that $5000 camera into a crucial story telling technique would be godlike.
Yes, we can trick out these cameras to get shallow focus, and shallow focus is sometimes what we need. Deep focus can be just as powerful of a story telling device and is probably harder to use. If given a toolset with a certain set of limitations, by taken advantage of these limitations and turning them into advantages, your subtlety and mastery of the craft greatly increase.
Like I said, I'm pretty sure I'm not at this level. My work will probably end up being deep focus for no other reason than that's what the camera gives me and I'm too poor to buy a Mini35. But I'm going to try my damndest to *use* deep focus as a technique to enhance the story, rather than treating it as an annoyance.
Blair Witch Project did something similar. They used shitty cameras and no other camera would have worked. They turned a negative into a positive. I wonder if they would have filmed it differently if they had access to a big budget?
If you need shallow focus for your story and there is a method of getting it, then that's great. If you just like the look of it, that's great too.
However, there is a big difference between being resigned to using deep focus and making it a part of your story. Deep focus is what these cameras give us. To use a horrible cliche, if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Any filmmaker who makes a great film with a $5000 camera gets a lot of respect from me. Any filmmaker who turns the *limitations* of that $5000 camera into a crucial story telling technique would be godlike.
Yes, we can trick out these cameras to get shallow focus, and shallow focus is sometimes what we need. Deep focus can be just as powerful of a story telling device and is probably harder to use. If given a toolset with a certain set of limitations, by taken advantage of these limitations and turning them into advantages, your subtlety and mastery of the craft greatly increase.
Like I said, I'm pretty sure I'm not at this level. My work will probably end up being deep focus for no other reason than that's what the camera gives me and I'm too poor to buy a Mini35. But I'm going to try my damndest to *use* deep focus as a technique to enhance the story, rather than treating it as an annoyance.
Blair Witch Project did something similar. They used shitty cameras and no other camera would have worked. They turned a negative into a positive. I wonder if they would have filmed it differently if they had access to a big budget?
Last edited:
DavidBeier said:
This is enough to dub your "opinions" self-serving. Which, I suppose, is the purpose of the opinion card.
For a more sophisticated audience.......
.....
Right.
And I think you're still as misguided as you were in the H1 / HVX Comparison thread. It's not about making it look like film--
It's about achieving the standard cinematic feeling and you can say whatever you want about it... but the technique is part of that cinematic feel. And, well, I'm just saying what Hudson said all over again.
DavidBeier
Veteran
Kholi said:
The fact that you continue to be dismissive without putting forth any real argument seems to me just to validate that you really don't have a good reason wanting shallow DoF and you're one of the very people I'm talking about. It actually kind of suprises me that you're so skeptical. I'd hope that most people who have a passion for filmmaking would do a little homework and look at films by Welles, Kurosawa, and Frankenhiemer and awknowladge that there are a great many people who find the deep focus of those films more sophisticated than most modern films. I'm sorry this is such a shock to you.
"Cinematic feel?" I don't think that some of the greatest masters of cinema lack a cinematic feel. I think the bottom line is that you want your stuff to look like everyone elses. If the current trend in 35mm productions wasn't a shallow DoF you probably wouldn't give a damn. That's fine but some of us want to try to do something different, there are those of us who are even arrogaunt enough to think we might be able to come up with something better.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Here's my opinion, and I am sure some others share it. If it feels like a movie, and looks like a movie, it is a movie. Shallow DOF or Deep DOF... a movie is a movie... so much more goes into it that the amount of blur in the background.
You're entire defense revolves around creating a sophisticated image for an audience member.
Talking about Welles, Kurosawa and those similar doesn't save you from such an outlandish creed.
And what more evidence do I need to put forth other than what you've just stated: It's used!!!
You call it a trend, there-in degrading it and contradicting yourself in the same freaking sentence. "It's okay if you guys use it for a purpose...".... but yet it's a trend to separate a subject from the background during a moment of clarity. Everything you ever say is self-serving and one-sided.
Kinda like how you start a thread about the HVX's noise looking more like film-grain. Yeah... no. It looks like macro-blocking. Why do you need to get everyone else on your steamboat? Is this how you validate your choices in life?
You're bass-ackwards.
I don't know, man. It seems that every time you make an attempt to separate yourself from the "boys" you end up in a dress.
You're not arrogant for attempting something "different"... which isn't EVEN different because your freaking references have already used the technique you're defending. Hell, you're not even arrogant-- You're just dim-witted for telling the other people in this thread that they're using an adapter because they're too lazy to compose a shot, or because it's a trend, or because they don't know any better.
Talking about Welles, Kurosawa and those similar doesn't save you from such an outlandish creed.
And what more evidence do I need to put forth other than what you've just stated: It's used!!!
You call it a trend, there-in degrading it and contradicting yourself in the same freaking sentence. "It's okay if you guys use it for a purpose...".... but yet it's a trend to separate a subject from the background during a moment of clarity. Everything you ever say is self-serving and one-sided.
Kinda like how you start a thread about the HVX's noise looking more like film-grain. Yeah... no. It looks like macro-blocking. Why do you need to get everyone else on your steamboat? Is this how you validate your choices in life?
You're bass-ackwards.
I don't know, man. It seems that every time you make an attempt to separate yourself from the "boys" you end up in a dress.
You're not arrogant for attempting something "different"... which isn't EVEN different because your freaking references have already used the technique you're defending. Hell, you're not even arrogant-- You're just dim-witted for telling the other people in this thread that they're using an adapter because they're too lazy to compose a shot, or because it's a trend, or because they don't know any better.
Last edited:
John, it's not automatic.John_Hudson said:
The only "push of a button" solution for getting a more filmic quality might be shooting 24P vs. anything interlaced.
The post that started this thread just went a little to far. A reaction I think to the idea so prevelant that you MUST go out and get a 35mm adapter rig to do any serious work.
It's very true that the large depth-of-field can be turned to an advantage if you choose to take on that challenge. You have alot more compositional and blocking problems to deal with but then using a 35mm adapter has it's own set of tradeoffs such as loss of light in an already compromised CCD size.
Sure there are perhaps too many references to old films, but plenty of newer films use wide DOF.
A good piece of commentary on wide DOF can be heard on the director's commentary track of John Frankenheimer's "Ronin".
The challenge for filmmakers is how to be original in your own work and not blatantly derivative. I mean, in order to be considered pro, does everybody have to do the overused blue/green transfer look? I guess in the 90's you weren't pro unless you used swing and tilt lenses!
Buying a 35mm adapter will certainly give you some options the stock setup doesn't but it won't buy you any more talent or taste than you already have. Likewise, not having an adapter will not prevent you from creating a great piece.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Sproketz said:
Precisely.
DavidBeier
Veteran
Outlandish? Just because something is apparently over your head doesn't make it outlandish and I'll take work of Greg Tolland, Kazuo Miyagawa, and Lionel Lindon over yours any day.
Great defense. "Uhhhh......Everyone else does it so the it must be the right thing to do!" Why do you have such issues with thinking for yourself?
No speak English? Read my origional post. I say that if you're using it as an artistic choice and for some purpose then I respect that. If you're just doing it because everyone else does or you can't compose worth a **** and want to blur everything out then I don't give much credence to you. It's not contradictory and it's not hard to understand. I guess if two differen thoughts in the same sentence confuse as such, I shouldn't be surprised if you can't handle more than one plane being in focus.
Kholi, I'm sorry you have trouble reading. I assume that with so many posts you'd have mastered the English language at this point. Once again, go back and actually READ my thread. My noise thread was an actual question as to why the HVX200 looks more like film grain than that of other cameras to my eyes (and I'm not the only person who's noticed this). I found this interesting when looking at blow ups from my own footage and found other people commenting on the same thing. I was curious since it actually didn't make sense why one noise would look closer to grain than another and even mentioned it may well be that I'm just HVX bias and seeing what I want to see. I'm sorry you can't come up with anything but lame personal attacks. Does thinking just hurt to much?
Yay! Back in 4rth grade. You're totally not invited to my birthday party after that one.
Once again, you can't read. I said many do it for these reason. I didn't actually point any fingers untill your initial assinine response which indicated that you are of the mind set who apparently doesn't have the attention span to actually compost a shot and who wants a shortcut to looking like film.
Well said and I completely agree.
I think the original poster is getting at the lack of compositional skills, moreso than anything else, IMO, whether that be a directorial choice, or difference in production design technique. Some see the deep focus (well composed) shot as less "realistic".
In the 70's filmmakers embraced diffusion and filters, as a reaction to the traditional compositions. Instead, it has almost become a routine decision instead of applying the intellectual reasons for the choice. So, whether they know it or not, they are breaking formal composition without knowing why they are doing it. My main concern is when filmmakers don't apply an intellectual rigour to their decisions, whether it be shallow focus, deep focus, push processing, colour correction choices, and so forth. The STORY should make the decision for you, not the technology. Yet, I don't feel that you can make a sweeping generalization on the subject.
Personally, I love deep focus shots, although I feel they work better in black & white for technical reasons. And if you're composing deep, then you have to make the adjustments to the production design + allocation of budget. Classic deep focus movies had the luxury of building the set to accomplish amazing composition, and deep focus perspective. Along with Matte paintings, in camera processing, they took advantage of production design from page 1. In other words, deep focus takes different challenges than shallow, but by no means is inherently superior. Like I said, it's the intellectual justifications behind the decisions that are more important, and a knowledge of "why" as much as the "what".
The funny thing is, Kurosawa is one of my favorite directos and I hope to shoot deep, like him, with formal compositions. The thing is, i'll do it because it suits the story, and not just to suit the camera. Dude, if you wanted to say "look folks, think about putting some more money into mis en scene and prod. design, taking advantage of the cameras deep focus, instead of concentrating too much on obviating it (without a good artistic reason)", then I might agree with ya. But, there is no blanket rule or superiority of aesthetic. Just the artist behind the camera, and the choices that he/she makes.
Here's a shot from "Notorious" :
You decide if it should be deeper focus.
It couldn't hurt for all of us to understand why the shallow focus look was been embraced, and when it might not be applicable to the Story. Just make the best e'ffin movie you can with your abilities and $ at the time. And know the why of the shot, IMHO.:beer:
EDIT : I think a lot more filmmakers here think of the "why" of the shot, and not just are trying to replicate an orthodoxy. That's why there here. That and the cute chicks.
RED # wish I was higher
In the 70's filmmakers embraced diffusion and filters, as a reaction to the traditional compositions. Instead, it has almost become a routine decision instead of applying the intellectual reasons for the choice. So, whether they know it or not, they are breaking formal composition without knowing why they are doing it. My main concern is when filmmakers don't apply an intellectual rigour to their decisions, whether it be shallow focus, deep focus, push processing, colour correction choices, and so forth. The STORY should make the decision for you, not the technology. Yet, I don't feel that you can make a sweeping generalization on the subject.
Personally, I love deep focus shots, although I feel they work better in black & white for technical reasons. And if you're composing deep, then you have to make the adjustments to the production design + allocation of budget. Classic deep focus movies had the luxury of building the set to accomplish amazing composition, and deep focus perspective. Along with Matte paintings, in camera processing, they took advantage of production design from page 1. In other words, deep focus takes different challenges than shallow, but by no means is inherently superior. Like I said, it's the intellectual justifications behind the decisions that are more important, and a knowledge of "why" as much as the "what".
The funny thing is, Kurosawa is one of my favorite directos and I hope to shoot deep, like him, with formal compositions. The thing is, i'll do it because it suits the story, and not just to suit the camera. Dude, if you wanted to say "look folks, think about putting some more money into mis en scene and prod. design, taking advantage of the cameras deep focus, instead of concentrating too much on obviating it (without a good artistic reason)", then I might agree with ya. But, there is no blanket rule or superiority of aesthetic. Just the artist behind the camera, and the choices that he/she makes.
Here's a shot from "Notorious" :
You decide if it should be deeper focus.
It couldn't hurt for all of us to understand why the shallow focus look was been embraced, and when it might not be applicable to the Story. Just make the best e'ffin movie you can with your abilities and $ at the time. And know the why of the shot, IMHO.:beer:
EDIT : I think a lot more filmmakers here think of the "why" of the shot, and not just are trying to replicate an orthodoxy. That's why there here. That and the cute chicks.
RED # wish I was higher
Last edited: