Embracing Deep Focus and Telling Stories

D_and_G said:
EDIT: Mann also wanted Deep focus (not exclusively) for Miami Vice especially to see the subtleties of the night - how the sodium lights bounced into the atmosphere and lent the clouds a glow. But again, he used shallow focus when applicable for the story. With Mann all his choices, whether we think they work or not, have an intellectual reason behind them, predicated on the story (which is what my point has been all along) ...


Cheers. :beer:
Click to expand...


I agree totally, were on the same page here
 
D_and_G said:
LMFAO!

You're one in a million John. :beer::grin:

Edit : I agree with you Kenneth - Depending on the story, and the choices that the artist wants to make to support it. It's been an interesting converstaion anyhow. Since you know where I stand, Luck to ya' :beer:
Click to expand...

:beer: :cool: :cheesy:

Now onto the next subject:

It's cool too see Mann just representing Digital Filmmaking.

I love the look he is achieving; gritty, grainy, noisy, green floro hues .....

Maybe not appropriate for a period piece but definate modern and with the times.

FILM IS DYING ! DEAL WITH IT BIZATCHES ! :kali: :kali: :nads:
 
An adapter is not just about shallow DOF. In meeting with the director of our local film school (a gentleman with extensive credits working with film) to discuss the Brevis, his first reaction was not related to DOF at all. He was actually quite excited about using the tool to create different and unique looks when shooting film footage...as odd as that sounds. It was his input that started the thought process and eventual release of interchangeable diffusers.

After viewing Bob's ("bgundu") recent HVX footage, my first thought had nothing to do with DOF, use of the tool or otherwise. I was simply impressed with his artwork. This painter has a few extra colours on his palette :-)
 
..wow. such debate. As much as i am personally planning on purchasing a commercial adaptor for my next feature, i understand that it is neither a stumbling block which will make my film contrived, nor a magic wand which will make my film an instant classic. it will not necessarily make it look more like it was shot on film (but most likely will), or make a better looking image overall. that after all is up to the DP (a live decision making person) who decides when and how to .. or to not implement the tool to the benefit of the production, and decides on even more important image charachteristics such as lighting, framing, and compositcion as i personally believe they lend far more to the "look" of an image than does the plane of focus. and in the very LIKEKY event that it DOES make for a more film like appearance, i recognize that the audience does not: A. notice B. give a crap. and yet i understand that the viewing of what is generally accepted to be "filmic" in nature has a certain effect on the audience subconsciously. .. however, every other "look" also affects the audience subconciously. i understand that when concerned about how i am subconciously affetcing the audience must be a conscious choice freom scene to scene.. shot to shot. .. not all just shallow DOF under the blanket premise of trying to look more filmic, and not all wide stock lense under the blanket of trying to be orson wells. ..every shot with motivation, every line with purpose, every scene moving the story closer to its final destination. what i understand is that the choice of lense, framing, lighting, composition, camera movement, ect. all needs to be chosen with motivation from within the central story. if i light a certain scene a certain way just because i though it would be a cool way to light a restroom , but did not have the story in mind.. its very very likely not helping the story.. if i move the camera a certain way just cause i thought it would be cool and did not stop to think about why im doing it as it pertains to the story.. its very very likely not helping the film. i understand that if i derive my motivation for doing anything within any given shot soley from the cool equipment i have available to use, or the neat thing i happen to just be imagining at the time that ive got it all backwards. i understand that the story .. the content.. the king ( Hudson :) ) needs to give orders to the subjects.. not the other way around. The king demands certain things and we get the subjects available to do those things. I know i should never let those things determine what happens to the king.

my synopsys.. Ive seen way too many technically pretty films that stink, and way too many great films with bad technical production. which is why the originator of this thread alludes that we shouldnt be trying to "crutch" our broken butt films by with a 35mm adaptor and the premise of looking more like film, and instead focus on the story and worry about that more than what gear we would otherwise make a crappy film with.. because if the story is great, and you know how to turn that story into a film.. it will still be a great film shot for less money with less crew ect with just a stock camera. granted once the story is in place.. give that story what it deserves.. and if thats a 35mm adaptor.. then you had better use one. crane.. dolly.. all that jazz. of course it makes sense to use the things.. but only after the story has asked for one.. and to know when thats happening, we need to understand the language of cinema. not to say that its all conclusive, or some sort of unbreakable code that cannot tolerate experimentaion or diversity. but people have studied these things for years, and there is a general knowledge and understanding out there on what we are subconsciously saying when we do certain thing in the medium of motion pictures. its a language.. you dont just start spitting out words because they sound cool .. it wont make sense. just another cool shot that doesnt really fit in or help the story.

for some real basic references on learning this voodoo like cinema language we can all check out:

http://www.hollywoodcamerawork.us/

http://www.cybercollege.com/indexall.htm

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0941188736/002-6590260-7400801?v=glance&n=283155

blah blah list goes on includiung things like cinema language seminars and such, it all helps turn a story (good or bad.. you need to know how to write a good story.. and screenplay as well).. into a good motion picture. it helps tell us how and when our story can beg for or demand certan types of shots and helps dictate things like lighting and camera movement and on and on till your film is done. a good story comes first. then we run it through the helpful translator of cinema launguage and, should end up with a film that not just us and our sometimes equally blindfolded cast and crew can get, but one the whole world can understand and appreciate.

i dont assume to be an expert on these things, i just know what i need to do, and know i can always be learning something to improve my skills and abilities no matter how bad or halfway decent they are.
 
John_Hudson said:
FILM IS DYING ! DEAL WITH IT BIZATCHES ! :kali: :kali: :nads:
Click to expand...


Maybe it is, Maybe it isnt. But its not going without a fight.

Super 16 has had a massive comeback. My last three shows including one feature were all super 16. With a Super 35 show on the side. I just had to turn down another show on Super 35

I just got back from Miami Vice, and I like the look Mann is acheving. I loved it a lot more in Collateral because it was a lot fresher. Miami Vice was the same thing with more flourescent lights, and I think very little or no celluloid shot. Just a damn shame the movie was boring as hell.

Everything has a look, a place, and a use. Its at the filmmakers discretion to use said looks to help further, tell, and motivate the story...which is the most important element anyway. End of story.
 
Film will never die, ever. Like 2" tape and like still photography, there will always be those who embrace it. It will slowly taper off, that is for certain. You have to realize that there are lots of players and economics involved that will certainly bottleneck the transition. It is happening but a lot slower than most think...

Also, let us clear up one thing... even when Hollywood goes 100% digital, it doesnt change the system. You will still need marketable stories or marketable talent to get a film shown. With digital theatrical distribution, you will see MORE indie films but they will be showcase events, not traditional releases for the most part and most all will still go thru a studio.


ash =o)
 
Kenneth began this thread with "why not define the new looks" ?
Q: What kinds of looks can we get from the camera that can't be gotten from 60i video or from film? How might these be used to tell a story?

Anyone had "fortunate accidents" that we could try to replicate to push the envelope?

Andy
 
Maybe a quick example. I was shooting a contest short using a 35mm adapter, but I suddenly wanted a handheld look and rapid transitions. So I cut directly from a 35mm rack focus to a native HVX shot. Two characters are chasing each other. One jumps out into a hall thinking that he will catch the other one by surprise, only to slowly realize that the guy he is chasing is standing behind him and has caught him by surprise instead.

To catch that action in a long master shot using autofocus. I followed the actor's jump into the hallway, raising the camera over his back into an OTS. At 24P (with its slow autofocus) that caused the camera to be in sharp focus on his face and then, as the OTS was framed, to rack down the hallway showing there is nothing there. Then I rotated around the actor back to his face to get a reaction shot, creating a motion blur around him, with his face in sharply defined detail but the background just a smear. Then I backed up to reveal the other actor standing behind him in a deep focus shot. All done by choreographing the camera to the autofocus.

I'm sure bouncing back and forth between 35mm shots and native video shots must be on somebody's list of things not to do. But I kind of liked the range of control that mixing the two offers. And I think that in-camera coloring can be used to kind of bridge the different looks by providing other strong visual elements between the shots.
 
Last edited:
AshG said:
Film will never die, ever. Like 2" tape and like still photography, there will always be those who embrace it.
Click to expand...
Haha, just wait until Eastman Kodak stops making the film stock, (like they are doing right now with photography film line). Eventually those clinging onto the medium will have to make thier own film stock! :cry:

Or it will become a more rare specialty item and will cost more than it does today!
 
I dont think film or shooting on film is dead and I dont think it will ever "die"

I get perturbed when people say that. Film might eventually be marginalized by HD (in Hollywood) but it will never die.... artists and filmmakers will continue to use it for its storytelling purposes, just as HD

HD is a different storytelling language than film.... doesnt mean film ALWAYS sucked as a medium and now deserves the death penalty, hell no.
 
=Prodigy= said:
Haha, just wait until Eastman Kodak stops making the film stock, (like they are doing right now with photography film line). Eventually those clinging onto the medium will have to make thier own film stock! :cry:

Or it will become a more rare specialty item and will cost more than it does today!
Click to expand...


When will this happen? 50 years? 100 years? If they completely stop making film, it will be an environmental reason. There will always be some demand, it will diminish for sure. They still make vinyl records and tapes!


ash =o)
 
I'm not saying film is going to vanish completely tomorrow or in 100 years, but many classic films for still photography are no longer made. More and more are disappearing everyday. If there is a demand for it, it will still be produced, but I'm sure if and when Hollywood moves over to video big time, then a lot of film stocks will become unavailable. There will always be some niche artists who will insist on using it for artistic reasons, but Kodak produces film for economic reasons. When the money goes, the film will go. Hopefully some smaller companies can pick up production of some film stocks and try to cultivate a niche market.
 
The Sarlacc said:
Yes well both Kodak and Fuji are selling tons of their new stocks like hot cakes.
Click to expand...

Let me quote myself.

kidtexas said:
I'm not saying film is going to vanish completely tomorrow or in 100 years
Click to expand...

Things are changing and I don't think anyone is saying it's something that's going to happen tomorrow, but it does look like that's the way the biz will go at some point. I mean, in still photography, Nikon has almost ceased production of still film cameras.

We all love to talk about how digital enables the indy film maker, but in the truth of the matter, for big productions, film is easier, faster, and more flexible. But that won't remain true forever...
 
kidtexas said:
Let me quote myself.



Things are changing and I don't think anyone is saying it's something that's going to happen tomorrow, but it does look like that's the way the biz will go at some point. I mean, in still photography, Nikon has almost ceased production of still film cameras.

We all love to talk about how digital enables the indy film maker, but in the truth of the matter, for big productions, film is easier, faster, and more flexible. But that won't remain true forever...
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you at all.

If fact, the second half of your last sentence...I wish some people on this board...a certain member in particular, would clue in and realize the truth in that. Maybe not always faster...but no slower. He thinks a camera that is 5 lbs heavier makes it take twice as long to move and set up HAHAHAHA.
 
hoofandmouf said:
a sculpture professor of mine once said that when you over-se an effect or a cool trick, an intriguing form, a unique design element, etc.... well, it becomes a gimmick
Click to expand...

I assume you meant to type "over-use"...

That's how I feel about the TV show "24"'s excessive (IMHO) use of shallow DOF. When you take it to the point where one of Kiefer's nostrils is in focus and the other isn't (ok maybe I'm exaggerating...but only a little), it can take the viewer out of the story and into the camerawork. This is almost never a good thing, because it crosses the style-over-substance line that marks the wrong neighborhood in any artistic medium.

Done artfully, shallow DOF can be gorgeous and can greatly enhance the scene's effectiveness, but it like any other technical consideration, it should never seem to say "Hey! Look at me! Isn't this cool?".

I do a lot of music scoring work on features as a recording engineer, and it's an interesting parallel. Unlike music intended to stand alone, music scoring for films works best when it draws almost no attention to itself per se, but rather subconciously manipulates the viewer's emotional state in an effective way. Even though I work on movie music all the time, it never ceases to surpise me how often I am unable to remember the nature of the score after I've watched a film just for enjoyment. That's how it's supposed to be.

Same with DOF...

Ted Spencer, NYC
 
It seems from my short time here on the forums that the dof argument is one of those never ending debates (and sometimes a hot button one) . There is and always will be valid arguments on both sides of the coin. If you have a sears handycam, you make the blair witch project. if you have a 300 million dollar budget, you make the lotr trilogy. If you've got an hvx a good story, and a reasonable amount of common sense/knowledge about your medium and equipment, you can lean in either of these directions or fall somewhere inbetween, and (as far as i can tell from these forums) find success. Both artistically and financially. No matter what you use, you will always be bound by some external limitations. However, the greater limitation seems to be what is between the ears. It ain't what you have, it's how you use it. and how you market it probably most importantly :)
Jason
 
Personally, if I'm making a romance, I want shallow depth of field - and some softening filters to boot. I want it to look beautiful and dreamlike. If I'm making a tough, gritty film, like Shawshank Redemption, a deep range of focus is better. Nothing is soft. Everything is hard and in your face.

In any case one thing we want to do with technology is to elliminate distractions. My son once shot a quickie that included a kitchen counter. And it had crumbs on it. My mind raced away from the story and started thinking about how they should have wiped the counter. Another time he shot through some glass that wasn't clean. It's not that I'm a neat freak. I just don't want the audience looking at the crud on the glass instead of watching the actors.

DOF can be used to make the main character stand out from the background. That's great! I've also seen it used to the point of distraction, which is not so great.

Distractions are the enemy of story.

-JF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top