Extreme DOF: Too much to handle?

K

Kholi

Section Moderator
Since I've gotten my M2 setup, I've been trying really hard to control the DOF in a way that represents something more cinematic. I don't mean throwing the entire background into a muddy, horrific mess... but having detail in the background while isolating subjects or "important" items.

It's really hard to do, much harder than I expected. One thing I'm noticing more and more: extreme DOF.

A good example of adapter usage, IMO, is Vahe Papaz' work in the HVX200 forum. The exterior shots had details and represented a common cinematic image. To me, it looked very cinematic and was acceptable enough for a large scale production. And this was just one guy doing everything.

A good deal of the footage being show with adapters comes out EXTREMELY shallow. To the point where it A) Looks like someone is trying way too hard or B) Being shot for a still photo and not moving images.

For still photos with a DSLR or something, headshots, portraits, etc that's cool. But "Photographic DOF" doesn't real -feel- right in moving images.

Does anyone else see the extreme DOF as a bad thing? Or is it just I?
 
Anything can be overdone, for sure. A big part of the problem is that people are buying these adapters because they're an affordable alternative to shooting real film. Small budgets also mean you probably don't have enough lighting to fill your whole room to an f/5.6. So the less light you have, the more exaggerated the effect is going to be.
 
I seem to be in the minority in my thinking that deep DOF can be a very beautiful thing. (Must I bring up Citizen Kane yet again?)

There is a correct time to use shallow DOF, but it needs to be treated as a tool that serves the story. Not something that when seen immediately lends legitimacy to your work.

And no matter how you slice it, this:
Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_80655.jpg


Is far more interesting than this:
23117967.jpg
 
Absolutely TC. That's pretty much what I mean. That second guitar looks rather annoying, and makes me not want to even HEAR a guitar.

The first, I want to hear what it sounds like.

Even when used outside, I've noticed a lot of hyper shallow shots from people that really don't have any motivation behind them. Makes it look too much like picture number two: an attempt at being super artsy with no real dictation from an established means.

It actually makes me really mad when I flip on the M2 and attempt to focus two objects that are just barely six inches away from each other. The Shallowness shouldn't be that extreme, IMO.

I guess to an extent, it's a preference as well.

Doug's also got a good point about light, which goes hand in hand with taking on a new level or production. But, if you're outside... you have a heap of light to use to help bring up background details.
 
Around here it seems like every other question is "which adapter should I use?" and I'm always telling people that there are a LOT of other production issues that go hand-in-hand with these adapters besides the quality of the image.

Personally, I like things a little bit shallow, and occasionally hyper-shallow. It's a storytelling tool, and nice to have. Most of the time I don't want infinite depth of field. But I also don't want one inch of depth of field, and the rest totally unintelligible.
 
Don't get me wrong: I bought an M2 for that specific reason. To be able to isolate and compose.

Maybe someone needs to hold a 35mm Adapter Seminar like Barry does for the HVX? To really inform more people about how/why/when/ and what? I'd attend probably.

Then again, I guess that's called Cinematography. =PPP
 
use the right tool for the right job. when i'm doing it (and have license to), I look at "why." If you want to have the background out of focus, why? What will I say with the shot? The background is a character, just like any of the actors, so putting that out of focus just for the sake of cinema visuals is going to take away from your shot as much as anything else. There's right times for things to be out of focus, and wrong times. I think, due to the video movement and the rise of the one-piece camcorder has left a lot of people yearning for a DOF they were never capable of before. So they're overdoing it, thinking that one particular thing will make their film look "better," when in reality a good-looking film happens because multiple different talents are at an apex, and that all comes together.

Citizen Kane is great for Deep Focus, but it isn't just having everything in focus because they suddenly could, the idea (IMO) was to constantly remind the audience that Kane is a part of something bigger, an entire world happening around him. With many films, you want to direct the audience's focus to make a point about what's happening on screen, but deep focus does a great job telling us that Kane is only part of a bigger world and that his narrow focus (hello shallow DOF) will come back to haunt him. The theme is communicated visually.

To be honest, I'm not so big a fan of DOF as I am texture, and I love the texture that grain gives me. With my last short film, we shot outdoors in natural light, but I had the DP open up the lens and add 6db of gain. I unfortunately tried to use the shutter too much to control the light (thus making the movement very video), but when I walked outside after the premiere, I got a few questions about how I managed to get film developed so fast.

I get kind of annoyed sometimes when a friend who wants me to shoot a music video for him starts asking about the lens adaptors. Not just because I can't afford them yet, but also because he hasn't seen what the camera can do, but is already trying to get add-ons. I tell him to slow down and think of what can be done with the stock camera. With enough prep and smarts, you can get just about any kind of shot you want as-is, so why even worry about pushing the limits when you haven't got a video done yet? That's what I want to know.

I'm rambling now, so I'll just go ahead and end with that I think it's because the ability to GET super shallow DOF has just recently become available, and people are so concerned with using it to get a good "look" that they haven't thought about appropriate uses yet.
 
mrWr0ng said:
Citizen Kane is great for Deep Focus, but it isn't just having everything in focus because they suddenly could, the idea (IMO) was to constantly remind the audience that Kane is a part of something bigger, an entire world happening around him.
Click to expand...
Crap, this was a fantastic post and I really want to reply to more of it but I have to run.

I do just want to mention that this is a great way to read the focus in Citizen Kane. The deep focus also really helped Welles show Kane's relationships with people, as well as his inner pysche through the juxtaposition of his placement in the scene. His proximity to other characters as well as his positioning in the overall frame.
 
Sick post, MrWr0ng and totally indicative to the kind of thought that needs to be put behind everything.
 
More and more I'm finding that the films I enjoy the most are the films where the story is being told not through noticable cinematography tricks but rather through the use of well blocked out action. The Shining is a great example of how deep DOF can really add to your sence of story, on a counter point Clean, Shaven is an great example of how shallow DOF can pull you into a world. I think that the longer you take to work your story out in pictures and have the two complement each other rather than going out of your way to get a "look" the better your end product will be.
 
mrWr0ng said:
Citizen Kane is great for Deep Focus, but it isn't just having everything in focus because they suddenly could, the idea (IMO) was to constantly remind the audience that Kane is a part of something bigger, an entire world happening around him. With many films, you want to direct the audience's focus to make a point about what's happening on screen, but deep focus does a great job telling us that Kane is only part of a bigger world and that his narrow focus (hello shallow DOF) will come back to haunt him. The theme is communicated visually.
Click to expand...

Good point and totally agree. DOF is a tool and one that generally should be used to influence the audience. Of course there are a number of ways to do this one being as mentioned by Mr Wrong. Another good one is The Truman Show. When they show the cameras on him - where others are watching they use a shallow depth of field - the focus is really on him and it delivers the viewers perspective. When Truman is talking about what he wants - to travel - they emphasis the point with deep focus.

I think the most important reasoning in DOF as mentioned is the motivation - like the above examples. Another good example would be something like a hard criminal going on a journey wherby we find out in actual fact he is soft. That analargy seems pretty simple to me - Hard criminal - therefor he would always be 100% in focus - most likely uncomfortable CU framing. T0 - we learn he is soft - move away from the CUs to MCU and have a softer focus on him. This is a great story telling tool.

Now Ive moved to framing which can be as useful as DOF and guess what - its almost free. Ill use Lumet (Im a fan) as an example. 12 Angry men - havent seen it then take a look and then keep this principle in mind and you will see it there in all its glory - extremely well executed. In this case Lumet chose to frame everything initially in the movie shooting characters at eye level. As the movie progresses and that little room becomes a pressure cooker and it seems like were never going to get out - the framing has moved completly. Now hes shooting very low, the ceiling iscoming into the frame. This is one great way (thank you Mr Lumet) for showing a world, a room closing in and a sense of entrapment.
 
Cool shot TC, but the fact is, your subject is in focus and your background is obscurred. Shoot that same shot with a busy background and it's a different matter.

One of the keys to DOF is how far the camera is from the subject. The closer it is, the shallower the DOF.

Another factor of course is the focal length of the lens, with telephotos having shallower DOF and wides, great DOF.

There's a DOF guide on most lenses that will give you a pretty good idea of what the near and far distances are that will be in focus at a given F-stop. Sometimes, you'll want to cheat the focus - to control foreground or background clarity.

These are the tools that still photographers use to control DOF. A 35mm adapter gives us access to those same tools. We then need to learn to use them.
 
Conversation like this brings a tear to my eye. I love it.

Gotta go prep for sunday shoot but will be back to discuss!

By the way, Pcasio and NCJE very good points!
 
Conversation like this brings a tear to my eye. I love it.
Click to expand...

Same here, man.

I totally agree that 35mm adapters should be used with purpose. The motivation needs to be there for every single focus-shift as well as whether or not one should be used at all.
 
Kholi said:
Since I've gotten my M2 setup, I've been trying really hard to control the DOF in a way that represents something more cinematic. I don't mean throwing the entire background into a muddy, horrific mess... but having detail in the background while isolating subjects or "important" items.

It's really hard to do, much harder than I expected. One thing I'm noticing more and more: extreme DOF.

A good example of adapter usage, IMO, is Vahe Papaz' work in the HVX200 forum. The exterior shots had details and represented a common cinematic image. To me, it looked very cinematic and was acceptable enough for a large scale production. And this was just one guy doing everything.

A good deal of the footage being show with adapters comes out EXTREMELY shallow. To the point where it A) Looks like someone is trying way too hard or B) Being shot for a still photo and not moving images.

For still photos with a DSLR or something, headshots, portraits, etc that's cool. But "Photographic DOF" doesn't real -feel- right in moving images.

Does anyone else see the extreme DOF as a bad thing? Or is it just I?
Click to expand...

Kohli,

I've read you saying "It's like a still photograph rather than video" before in the forum. I don't agree with this analogy at all. All you have to do to get more depth is close down the iris on a still. A still camera isn't exclusively shallow depth of field. It has the capability of having far more depth integrity than a video camera. A still frame isn't worried about time constraints rattling off at whatever FPS you dial in on a motion camera.

On a still, I could set a lens aperture at f28 with a shutter speed of oh say 2 sec with an iso of 200. I'm not sure what kind of light situation I'd need for that shot off the top of my head, but it would turn out one hell of a lot better than an HVX, adapter or not.

I get sick of shallow depth of field shots honestly. It's way over used in shows like CSI: ::insert arbitrary city here::. It's almost like an amateur singer putting way too much reverb on their voice because they can't sing very well to start with.

The Shallow DOF shots can look great with the proper motivation. It's just like reverb can sound great in a mix, just not over the top. If every instrument had reverb and was set at the exact sound stage you would lose any kind of depth you were initially trying to create. Contrast between differing elements, and motivation are the keys in both cases to create true depth within the story.
 
Aaron Marshall said:
Kohli,

I've read you saying "It's like a still photograph rather than video" before in the forum. I don't agree with this analogy at all. All you have to do to get more depth is close down the iris on a still. A still camera isn't exclusively shallow depth of field. It has the capability of having far more depth integrity than a video camera. A still frame isn't worried about time constraints rattling off at whatever FPS you dial in on a motion camera.

On a still, I could set a lens aperture at f28 with a shutter speed of oh say 2 sec with an iso of 200. I'm not sure what kind of light situation I'd need for that shot off the top of my head, but it would turn out one hell of a lot better than an HVX, adapter or not.

I get sick of shallow depth of field shots honestly. It's way over used in shows like CSI: ::insert arbitrary city here::. It's almost like an amateur singer putting way too much reverb on their voice because they can't sing very well to start with.

The Shallow DOF shots can look great with the proper motivation. It's just like reverb can sound great in a mix, just not over the top. If every instrument had reverb and was set at the exact sound stage you would lose any kind of depth you were initially trying to create. Contrast between differing elements, and motivation are the keys in both cases to create true depth within the story.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I'm coining it as. And not to say that Still Cameras/DSLRs are limited to super shallow DOF, because they're not. Similar to amateur cinematography, throwing every single shot through DOF hades isn't necessary.

I do believe that Shallow is great when used properly, methodically. If I didn't, I surely wouldn't have bought an M2. =P That's an entire ten minute short thrown on equipment!

My thought, in a nutshell, is that the way that it's used around town is cheap and uneffective. Inhibiting, actually. I find myself looking more-so at the super shallow wasteland behind a character's form more-so than the character itself, or object being focused on.

The singer's analogy is a good one, as well.

Pretty much: use with responsibility.

By the way, your short was nice. I need to get my own short out!
 
Most likely, the guitar pic was shot with a view camera; not a DSLR. View cameras have incredible control over DOF by using tilt on the front lens standard. In addition, they often use lenses that can stop down to f64.
 
Well, the problem with these adapters in general is that many 35mm film cinematographers seem to like to shoot at around an f/2.8 or f/4. That gives a reasonable/workable depth of field that explains Kholi's initial question, as in: why are the 35mm adapters so hyper-super-shallow? It's because people using these 35mm adapters tend to run with their lenses wide open, at f/1.4 or so. That's two to three stops more wide open than a film cinematographer may typically choose, hence the exaggeratedly shallow DOF. But the video shooters are doing this because the light loss is so drastic with the adapters that they can't afford to give up another 2 to 3 stops!

The adapters have their place, and can definitely add a great look to the shoot, but you should be prepared to adequately flood a scene with light if you want to get a look that truly simulates what many (most?) film cinematographers are aiming for.
 
There's another video floating around where the user was testing natural daylight. He ended up stopping down to about 11 and the footage looked stellar.

One thing I can't figure out is if it's okay to use the HVX's Iris to help take out some light? Should the HVX always be wide OPEN?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top