Deep depth of field appreciation
- Thread starter deadby23
- Start date
awelgraven
Well-known member
I think it's funny that I spent hundreds of dollars building a workable rig for my HVX200 out of a desperation to get shallow depth of field. Sold all of it, bought a DSLR, and now I all I want is to be able to compose a wide shot that isn't ruined by moire.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I also learned to appreciate it in the last couple of years, as I got a bit deeper in my long-time dream of making a movie
and then I found myself watching the original Pirates of the Caribbean movie and complaining about how deep the DoF was... I even checked it out on IMDB, to see if they had used some digital cameras... but, as expected, they didn't, it's all 35mm film, just not shot at f/1.2 or anything lke that
and I thought it looked great the first time I watched it
my conclusion: I've been spoiled, in a very very bad way, I now need to go back to composition and storytelling (which is awful, because I can't get better at those by buying a new lens, and can't discuss them here instead of actually going out to shoot, because, well, those discussions have the awful tendency of quickly becoming pretty boring)
and then I found myself watching the original Pirates of the Caribbean movie and complaining about how deep the DoF was... I even checked it out on IMDB, to see if they had used some digital cameras... but, as expected, they didn't, it's all 35mm film, just not shot at f/1.2 or anything lke that
and I thought it looked great the first time I watched it
my conclusion: I've been spoiled, in a very very bad way, I now need to go back to composition and storytelling (which is awful, because I can't get better at those by buying a new lens, and can't discuss them here instead of actually going out to shoot, because, well, those discussions have the awful tendency of quickly becoming pretty boring)
It happened recently, the 1.2 thing was cool for like 9 months, but when you step back, the point of shallow focus is to separate the subject from the background. I thought one day of how to do this other than using shallow depth of field.
Once you lock to over f16 or something, it becomes a game of color, art direction, and light.
The worst damage i felt I've done was truly think that i no logner needed light (artificial) cause 1.2 was here. I got off that and when the lights came back, first, I haven't shot wider than f4, but using those deep fstops makes you appreciate lighting.
I can do it with the GH13, had very good luck with deep focus shots, skylines of beirut.
One scene was really nice, I had a 3200K light, shooting in the afternoon on a bright day, f22 all the way stopped down... I wanted the skin to pop out warm, and the back to stay cool. So I set my WB in between 5600 and 3200 (4400) and slammed the light halfnhalf on the subject.
All I had to do was just very slighty push shadows to blue, highlights to porange. That was the look I was going for, I wanted to see the city in full detail, but still separate. Looking at the image, it was very close to what I wanted right off camera.
DOF is just one way to separate, to say here and there. There are other ways. It's good to go through the 1.2 thing. You will want to look somewhere else eventually, now I like to do f2.8 for my shallows when someone on screen is havin a moment, the rest are f4-8 usually, and the longs and wides are stopped the hell down even further.
The problem i think is that I thought i could substitute the need for lights with a wide aperture. The aesthetic byproduct (super thin focus) was too prominent. So I had to realize that I had to LIGHT to my desired DOF. What blur do I want, or not, as opposed to how much light can i spill on this sensor.
Lighting, is so necessary.
Once you lock to over f16 or something, it becomes a game of color, art direction, and light.
The worst damage i felt I've done was truly think that i no logner needed light (artificial) cause 1.2 was here. I got off that and when the lights came back, first, I haven't shot wider than f4, but using those deep fstops makes you appreciate lighting.
I can do it with the GH13, had very good luck with deep focus shots, skylines of beirut.
One scene was really nice, I had a 3200K light, shooting in the afternoon on a bright day, f22 all the way stopped down... I wanted the skin to pop out warm, and the back to stay cool. So I set my WB in between 5600 and 3200 (4400) and slammed the light halfnhalf on the subject.
All I had to do was just very slighty push shadows to blue, highlights to porange. That was the look I was going for, I wanted to see the city in full detail, but still separate. Looking at the image, it was very close to what I wanted right off camera.
DOF is just one way to separate, to say here and there. There are other ways. It's good to go through the 1.2 thing. You will want to look somewhere else eventually, now I like to do f2.8 for my shallows when someone on screen is havin a moment, the rest are f4-8 usually, and the longs and wides are stopped the hell down even further.
The problem i think is that I thought i could substitute the need for lights with a wide aperture. The aesthetic byproduct (super thin focus) was too prominent. So I had to realize that I had to LIGHT to my desired DOF. What blur do I want, or not, as opposed to how much light can i spill on this sensor.
Lighting, is so necessary.
Cbrianchester
Carbonite Member
Deep DOF is great and all. But I love the 24mm 1.4 on the 5D wide-open... It's like Imax. It makes everything look like the opening scene to The Dark Knight. :love4:
Jesse Brauning
Well-known member
What?
Cbrianchester
Carbonite Member
Just in the sense of FOV (not color or resolution). Usually you don't see things that wide and deep on a daily basis.