Embracing Deep Focus and Telling Stories

[Kholi]

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.

Thanks for proving my point, mister. You're saying it once more, in a passive fashion:

People use adapters because they can not compose a deep-focused shot.

I'm assuming you meant "compose" as well, not compost...

That's just me attempting to understand the English language, David.

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?

Quite hilarious how you condemn yourself. So wait...

Just... let me attempt to comprehend the almighty opinion that is yours:

It's great that the HVX's image produces noise that looks like film grain... right? I mean, you weren't complaining about the noise looking more like "film"... that was okay.

But, it's not okay to go for a shallow DOF as an artistic choice, because if you do then you mustn't have a clue as to how to compose a shot or anything else. Why, you're downright LAZY.

You're insane. I'm done with this thread.

D_and_G, John_Hudson, and the rest summed it up pretty well: It's a choice.

 

[joe 1008]

It seems to me nobody in this thread made this point, yet: Filmmaking is not only about composition, arts, philosophy and therefore - between many other things - about the artistic choice between deep focus or shallow DOF. Filmmaking is also - and in my opinion in the first place - about creating illusion and therefore is very closely connected to how the human eye works.

Just focus right now an object in the room you are sitting and concentrate on the areas that are out of focus in your personal perception. You will see, that the DOF of your eyes is very similar to the DOF of 35mm.

In my opinion the best way to tell a story is mostly to make the audience forget that they are watching a movie. Yo have to drag them virtually inside the projection.

35mm with its shallow DOF is closer to the proportions of the human eye and therefore suits better for the fusion between the individual perception of each of the audience and what they are watching altogether: the movie.

 

[kidtexas]

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.

This was kind of the point that I was making. Shallow focus, deep focus, and many other techniques are all just tools that we can use to enhance our story. We should be thinking of ways to use the best tool for the job.

I know I have fallen into the trap of getting caught up in the technology especially on these forums because it's really easy to. I've inferred from reading others' posts that they have too. It's a shame that this (and other) site(s) are so tech oriented because in reality the tech doesn't do our job for us. This post is the perfect example. This should be a really stimulating discussion in the cinematography forum, not some pissing match in the HVX forum.

With regards to making the best film with the $ at the time, I am in agreement. I just think you can really take to the next level if you make the film and turn your limitations into advantages instead of making the best film you can make despite your limitations.

We all say that we only use deep focus when it's called for and that we know the why, but I'm betting the reality is that most of us would overuse the hell out of it until the novelty wore off.

 

[kidtexas]

It seems to me nobody in this thread made this point, yet: Filmmaking is not only about composition, arts, philosophy and therefore - between many other things - about the artistic choice between deep focus or shallow DOF. Filmmaking is also - and in my opinion in the first place - about creating illusion and therefore is very closely connected to how the human eye works.

Interesting point, but I don't know how much I agree. Otherwise we'd all be shooting at 30 or 60 fps, because that is closer to how the eye sees. Many times when I see a shallow DOF used in a film, it works for me because it is VERY noticeable. The classic rack focus between a speaker in the foreground and the one in the background always makes me sit up and recognize it for what it is. It does impose a view point on me that makes me feel like I am there, but not because it replicates what I see in the real world, but because it forces me to change my center of attention. Thus I'm watching through the eyes of an observer who is really there.

 

[Kenneth]

Some observations as the person who started the thread:

1. The point of starting this thread was specifically targeted toward filmmakers, not D.P.s. (Though as a DP, I think it's okay to have a 35mm adapter in your arsenal. I also think it's okay for the director to choose whether his/her production will use it based on story need, budget, time, etc.)

2. The point was about using stock HVXs to their advantage.

A. Without the cost of a 35mm adapter.
B. Without the time to setup and work with the 35mm adapter.
C. To maximize its positive aspects. And incorporate its limitations.

3. The reason for these three suggestions is that it would allow us to shoot more stories more often. Crew size would be reduced as would cost.

4. The point was about debating the apparent need for these additional accessories vs. actual or perceived story needs, i.e. shallow DOF. (That's why it's in the HVX forum, not the cinematography forum.)

5. This topic seemed to raise the ire of a lot of people here.

6. This debate is as much about the filmmakers as the issue.

7. Comparisons to filters and other simple accessories are not comparable to the 35mm adapters. Filters do not require additional operators and setup time.

8. Orson Wells was an example, but it's true, he worked a long time ago. November might be a better example, though I thought the story was kinda lame. Liked the lighting but don't know if they used a 35mm adapter. I thought I read she used a stock DVX.

9. Perhaps none of this matters. Clerks was on Comedy Central the other night and was still funny despite its sh**ty production value. (It was a 16mm shoot, I know.)

10. I wanted to see how many people would embrace the idea and choose to quell the burning desire to get "all the accessories". That money might be better spent on a P2 store or additional P2 cards.

11. Interesting how I was personally attacked, suggesting I was spamming the board.

12. Interesting how other people were personally attacked. And juvenile name-calling was used.

13. This is obviously an important issue for a lot of people here.

14. This is obviously not an issue with a conclusion.

15. My conclusion. Do what you want. Do it a lot. Write great stories and make great films. Get famous. Go to Cannes. I'll see you there! (My film will be the one getting the Palm d'Or and was made with a stock HVX!)

AMEN.

 

[Sproketz]

35mm with its shallow DOF is closer to the proportions of the human eye and therefore suits better for the fusion between the individual perception of each of the audience and what they are watching altogether: the movie.

I would have to disagree here. Short DOF is an artistic choice, not a replication of the function of the human eye.

The eye (the brain is also part of the system) is a fixed focal length optical system with a very small lens.

It has a wide field of view with no apparent barrel distortion.

It has a very wide dynamic range.

It can't "zoom" and thus force a change in the DOF.

It can only "zoom" as a function of selective attention in the brain, there is no optical support for focal length change but the built-in dolly system can get the eye closer to or further from the oject of attention if the dolly system has had a good cup-a-joe.

The eye leans more toward a deep DOF system than a shallow one.

The eye is an analogue system that is constantly on meaning that there is no inherent frame rate. There are however inherent limitations involving "persistence of vision" and "strobing" when these things fall below certain speeds on film and video displays. 24P is a deliberate creative choice that steps out of the eye's reality and creates a sort of proscenium to frame a story. 24P does not recreate reality as the eye sees it but does make it look nicer.

The eye cannot cut to different angles. Thus if you are listening to a conversation between two people, you will generally be on a wide or medium 2 shot and will not be cutting between over-the-shoulder views of whoever is talking at any particular moment.

A 35mm lens and camera system will be able to get the close ups but will not be able to determine that the guy on the left side of the conversation is completely full of crap.

All of which is not to say at all that shallow DOF is not a desirable and usefull look for creatives to have in their arsenal.

 

[hoofandmouf]

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

so true for 35mm adapters.... now read CAREFULLY and dont mis-understand what I'm about to say

as another person said earlier in this thread, a 35mm adapter is nice to have in the arsenal.... and no doubt some extreme shallow DOF could be useful, anoher tool in the kit.... but if you are clinging to the notion that the M2, Brevis, etc legitimizes and makes your sh*t look more like the big boys, you are (to put it quite bluntly) a fool

Micheal Mann shot Miami Vice with the viper cam SPECIFICALLY for the deep DOF that you get with HD... he also used the cameras ability to shoot in extreme lowlight to tell the story.... he said that he specifically wouldnt have been able to tell the story he wanted to shooting film..... he embraced the cameras "so-called" weaknesses (according to non-progressive thinkers) and used them to create something he wouldnt have been able to create with film

that is the whole f**king point IMO..... use this new technology and be PRO-ACTIVE in your filmmaking.... use its strengths and limitations to do what hasnt been done yet... be innovative.... quit trying to copy what you were brought up on as "what a movie should look like"

the ability to do extreme shallow DOF is a nice tool to have but for gods sake it isnt the only tool..... quit being insecure and start taking chances

quite honestly almost all of the footage I see shot with the M2 and the Brevis and the G35 is gimmicky as hell.... and thats not to say that shallow DOF sucks but when its just used for no other purpose than to create a pretty "film-like" picture, I cant help but laugh... and when I see everyone praising a certain digital film as great because its so "film-like" I laugh even harder

quit chasing the establishment/tradition

 

[KennyJay]

Kenneth the most important point you make is that most filmmakers don't know how to tell a story because we spend to much time on equipment. Oct. 19th -22nd the Screenwriting Expo will be held in L.A. Some of the best writers in the busines will be there. So will I.

 

[dvpixl]

right. if a story inspires you enough, I bet you will try something different with it. all it takes is a little push to try something new. I'm pretty sure no one here is naive enough to think that 35mm is THE way to go. just gotta realize the possibilities..

 

[J.R. Hudson]

John, it's not automatic.
The only "push of a button" solution for getting a more filmic quality might be shooting 24P vs. anything interlaced.

I agree. The Number 1 ingredient is 24p.

I'd then gather that a shallow DOF would be next in line followed super closely by proper lighting. But we're already assuming we're shooting in 24p right ? I mean, who shoots 60i for narrative filmmaking these days ?

I find it automatic. Just looking at the 35mm Adapter Clips on this site support this idea.

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.

I like to think everyone already is aware of this. Going back to the original point of content is king; yes, we know.

It is like using a dolly or steadicam or a crane ... It is another tool to get the shot and hopefully we know why we are choosing at that moment to use it and not just because it is there.

-

All things being equal; I find a shallow DOF lends itself to creating the illusion of depth in the frame. For every mention of Kurasawa or Welles we negate to mention Spieleberg, Tarantino or Scorsese who emplore a shallow DOF with regularity.

Me ? I'd prefer to have a longer lens in my arsenal. I'd also like to think that every shot is motivated and there is a method for the madness.

Kenneth ? Well, I can't speak for him nor do I understand the motivation for disecting the thread.

SIDE NOTE:

I'm not sure of the use of Deep Focus in Miami Vice; the Trailer alone does not support this claim.

 

[joe 1008]

Interesting point, but I don't know how much I agree. Otherwise we'd all be shooting at 30 or 60 fps, because that is closer to how the eye sees. Many times when I see a shallow DOF used in a film, it works for me because it is VERY noticeable. The classic rack focus between a speaker in the foreground and the one in the background always makes me sit up and recognize it for what it is. It does impose a view point on me that makes me feel like I am there, but not because it replicates what I see in the real world, but because it forces me to change my center of attention. Thus I'm watching through the eyes of an observer who is really there.

I agree with what you are saying about 30 or 60 fps, especially about 60 fps. Maybe the strobing of 24 p helps the audience not to see to sharply what happens on the screen, maybe that helps a lot in storytelling. Seeing a movie is "flying" (Kurosawa) or a state of "distracted attention" (Walter Benjamin) 24 might help to achiev that. But it was also a tecnology established in the early days of moviemaking. Maybe, when more lighthouses become digital we will see many proyections in 60p - future will tell

It (the eye) can't "zoom" and thus force a change in the DOF.

It can only "zoom" as a function of selective attention in the brain, there is no optical support for focal length change but the built-in dolly system can get the eye closer to or further from the oject of attention if the dolly system has had a good cup-a-joe.

The eye leans more toward a deep DOF system than a shallow one.

That´s why we generally do not see a zoom in movies - it´s an artificial distraction that does not coincide with human perception.(sometimes, of course, a zoom a desired and artistic choice ) Generally we use a dolly, steadycam or EDITING to bring an object closer to the lens (or make its appearance bigger) EDITING with that goal is exactly what the eye-brain complex is doing when focussing perception on something far away (quite similar to the way you described it)
And I completely disagree that the human eye leans more toward a deep DOF. I´m just focussing right now the upper rim of the teapot on my desk with my eyes an the cell phon next to it is clearly out of focus. It´s like 35mm: You don´t even need a long focal length for shallow DOF.

 

[KMR]

Sproketz, I think this is the best post so far in this thread! Definitely the most factual and most fun to read.

I would have to disagree here. Short DOF is an artistic choice, not a replication of the function of the human eye.

The eye (the brain is also part of the system) is a fixed focal length optical system with a very small lens.

It has a wide field of view with no apparent barrel distortion.

It has a very wide dynamic range.

It can't "zoom" and thus force a change in the DOF.

It can only "zoom" as a function of selective attention in the brain, there is no optical support for focal length change but the built-in dolly system can get the eye closer to or further from the oject of attention if the dolly system has had a good cup-a-joe.

The eye leans more toward a deep DOF system than a shallow one.

The eye is an analogue system that is constantly on meaning that there is no inherent frame rate. There are however inherent limitations involving "persistence of vision" and "strobing" when these things fall below certain speeds on film and video displays. 24P is a deliberate creative choice that steps out of the eye's reality and creates a sort of proscenium to frame a story. 24P does not recreate reality as the eye sees it but does make it look nicer.

The eye cannot cut to different angles. Thus if you are listening to a conversation between two people, you will generally be on a wide or medium 2 shot and will not be cutting between over-the-shoulder views of whoever is talking at any particular moment.

A 35mm lens and camera system will be able to get the close ups but will not be able to determine that the guy on the left side of the conversation is completely full of crap.

All of which is not to say at all that shallow DOF is not a desirable and usefull look for creatives to have in their arsenal.

 

[hoofandmouf]

I find it automatic. Just looking at the 35mm Adapter Clips on this site support this idea.



____________________________________

SIDE NOTE:

I'm not sure of the use of Deep Focus in Miami Vice; the Trailer alone does not support this claim.

you have to un-learn what you have been taught about how a motion picture should look

and....

In an interview Michael Mann explained: “Motion picture film could not see the world that these characters inhabit, the world of this motion picture. It just can’t see it. It can’t see at night, the environments, the red desert or depopulated refineries. And so we had to invent and modify visual technology to be able to see it. And it’s a very painterly, very interesting medium you can manipulate a lot more than film as well. The scene where Mark Ruffalo shows up at the crime scene, you’re seeing two miles away, downtown, a little American flag on top of a building. You couldn’t see any of that [with film]. It’s not just the seeing though. It lends itself to taking the atmosphere and real landscapes and pushing them, to move, to drive a scene and affect a scene and affect the way you feel about these characters. It’s all story driven.

there was a separate article where he spoke of the greater DOF with digital cameras and that was why he chose to work with them on his last 2 films...

Sodebergh is experimenting just as Mann, thats why I consider these filmmakers to be of great importance

 

[kidtexas]

And I completely disagree that the human eye leans more toward a deep DOF. I´m just focussing right now the upper rim of the teapot on my desk with my eyes an the cell phon next to it is clearly out of focus. It´s like 35mm: You don´t even need a long focal length for shallow DOF.

Remember, for a given aperture and sensor size (I'm sure this applies to the human eye as well), the closer you are the shorter the DOF. When I do macro photography, I usually shoot around f10 and am happy when my depth of field is a fraction of an inch. Of course, my subject matter might be 4" from the front of the lens. Focal length doesn't affect DOF, only the appearance of DOF by changing the magnification of the background relative to the foreground.

I'm not saying the human vision approximates shallow or deep DOF, or is more like 35 mm or a 1/3" chip. I'm just not agreeing that we like shallow DOF in movies because it's closest to what we see. To be honest, I don't think it really matters what is similar to the way we experience the world. Film and film making techniques allow the film maker to enforce an experience on the viewer by playing with and on established conventions that the viewer unconsciously understands and interprets. Sometimes shallow DOF is good, sometimes deep is good. Sometimes 24 fps is just the ticket and sometimes a higher frame rate is appropriate.

With regards to why does 24 fps work, who knows. It's a distinctive look that we've all grown accustomed to for movies; thus for movies, it seems necessary. I personally liked the explanation that it *doesn't* look real and subconsciously prods the viewer into a fictional world with it's "dreamy" look. Whatever it might be, it's now part of the vernacular of film making that audiences accept, so we use it.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

you have to un-learn what you have been taught about how a motion picture should look

Me ? Why ? I'm not latched onto a certain look. I embrace both deep and shallow DOF. I am more concerned with Mis-en-scene, lighting and framing than I am the need for soft focus.

In an interview Michael Mann explained: “Motion picture film could not see the world that these characters inhabit, the world of this motion picture. It just can’t see it. It can’t see at night, the environments, the red desert or depopulated refineries. And so we had to invent and modify visual technology to be able to see it. And it’s a very painterly, very interesting medium you can manipulate a lot more than film as well. The scene where Mark Ruffalo shows up at the crime scene, you’re seeing two miles away, downtown, a little American flag on top of a building. You couldn’t see any of that [with film]. It’s not just the seeing though. It lends itself to taking the atmosphere and real landscapes and pushing them, to move, to drive a scene and affect a scene and affect the way you feel about these characters. It’s all story driven.

there was a separate article where he spoke of the greater DOF with digital cameras and that was why he chose to work with them on his last 2 films...

Sodebergh is experimenting just as Mann, thats why I consider these filmmakers to be of great importance

Soderberg is overrated IMO but Mann is a stud. The commentary of Collateral is excellent. I'm not exactly sure of the context of the flag comment but I believe he is referring more too the latitude in the shot and not whether or not it is in deep or shallow focus.

Here are 2 shots. The first one very out of focus (shallow) and the next one deeper yet also wide open.

Anyways; the Primo lenses being used don't really themselves too deep focus anyway.

 

[D_and_G]

3. The reason for these three suggestions is that it would allow us to shoot more stories more often. Crew size would be reduced as would cost.

Somehow you seem to be shoehorning the aesthetics of the story into a preconceived notion. Sure, working with a stock approach might be appropriate for some stories, but certainly not across the board. The story should determine all core choices in the film's production, IMHO.

And as to the cost, I don't think there are many people saying they can't afford to shoot because of adapter considerations. Out of all the costs involved that isn't a determining factor, for most, including the one extra member on the crew, if that.

Maybe you should have titled this thread - Dogma style and the HVX. I think it's more appropriate. BTW - your cost argument goes out the window if you want to really utilize deep focus effectively beyond the Dogma doctrine.

Personally, I have no interest in shooting Dogma, and whether it be in deep focus or shallow the story will determine the choices. And I may do a run and gun for fun one of these days, but it will also be a choice, not a doctrine.

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:

 

[J.R. Hudson]

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:

Booya !

 

[hoofandmouf]

dammit..... I wish I could find that article where he speaks of the DOF and Miami Vice

I'll eventually come across it again and try to remember to post it



anywho.....


what I was getting at is that Mann embraces digital and embraces its so called short comings and uses them to his advantage..... this includes lattitude @ night, deeper DOF, etc

he's not scared of a little noise

and while I dont think Sodebergh is necessarily a great filmmaker for his writing/directing, I do like his progressive attitude towards filmmaking as a whole

 

[Kenneth]

Maybe you should have titled this thread - Dogma style and the HVX. I think it's more appropriate. BTW - your cost argument goes out the window if you want to really utilize deep focus effectively beyond the Dogma doctrine.

Personally, I have no interest in shooting Dogma, and whether it be in deep focus or shallow the story will determine the choices. And I may do a run and gun for fun one of these days, but it will also be a choice, not a doctrine.

My point is not to shoot Dogma. That implies run and gun to the point of shoddy. I propose that the stock HVX has all it needs as is to shoot a high-quality, visually appealing feature.

Just my opinion.

 

[D_and_G]

LMFAO!

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

My point is not to shoot Dogma. That implies run and gun to the point of shoddy. I propose that the stock HVX has all it needs as is to shoot a high-quality, visually appealing feature.

Edit : I agree with you Kenneth - Depending on the story, and the choices that the artist wants to make to support it...and there is no set rule... It's been an interesting converstaion anyhow. Since you know where I stand, Luck to ya' :beer: