Help: How to Achieve the Deepest DOF

9

908media

Active member
I'm going to be doing a lot of handheld tracking in the next few months with the following gear:

- 5D Mii
- Canon 50mm 1.2
- Red Rock Micro Captain Stubing rig
- Red Rock Micro Follow focus
- Zacuto Z-finder

Is kicking the aperture above 5.6 the only way to achieve a deeper DOF? Keeping a moving subject in focus with this setup is proving more difficult than anticipated.

I should note that buying another lens/camera is NOT an option.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
 
Higher f-stop, wider lenses. You can also try to make the actors farther away but that's probably not worth the compromise.
 
If buying another lens is not an option then kick it down to f8 and forget about nighttime shots
 
Echoing what Drew said, wide lens and crank the f up to E L E V E N man, that should help, but it won't be the only solution. You'll still need to wiki wiki the focus ring from time to time like you're a dj on the wheels of steel.
This advice is provided under the assumption there's ample light, but if you're lacking light, see if you can adjust the shutter and/or crank the ISO up to 3200 because I wouldn't drop the f below 8, just me talking though.
Hey, maybe this DIY shoulder rig here: http://athan.se/diy-shoulder-rig/
would suit you better than the Captain Stubing setup, just saying because of the unique focus-handle apparatus.
Let us know how it goes.
 
depends... if you can afford the distance, f4 would be ideal at say 18 feet; deep enough for 2 people; at 24 feet deep enough for a small crowd; is all arbitrary; what is your shooting setup?

otherwise anything posted here is merely speculation
 
There is no speculation here. The factors that lead to deep DOF were listed, and those are fact. As for what's deep enough, that part we don't know, the OP will need to experiment using the answer here. Wide lens, stop down, don't get too close to the subject. And keep in mind that F8 was standard before shallow focus came into fashion.
 
Cassius said:
And keep in mind that F8 was standard before shallow focus came into fashion.
Click to expand...
Really? I'm not doubting you, but I would like to read some sources for this. I do know that deep focus was popular in the '40s and '50s, at least, and Citizen Kane was shot mostly between f/8 and f/11.
 
ydgmdlu said:
Really? I'm not doubting you, but I would like to read some sources for this. I do know that deep focus was popular in the '40s and '50s, at least, and Citizen Kane was shot mostly between f/8 and f/11.
Click to expand...

Watch any classical Hollywood movie. Lots of wide angle staging and deep focus. Sure, the glamor close-ups of leading ladies will be a bit different, but for the most part shallow depth of field wasn't a fixture of most filmmaking for many decades. I'm sure there are some exceptions (and I'd be interested to hear some if anyone can think of any).
 
Thanks everyone. Wish there was another option, but stepping down + wider lens seems like the only way to go. Looks like I'll be turning that focus ring quite a bit!

A large percentage of shots will be from the waists up.
 
There is a little misconception here. Only two things effect DOF...aperture and focus distance. Focal length doesn't effect how shallow something is. If you have your aperture set to 2.8 and use a 50mm lens at 5 feet and then switch to a 100mm lens at 10 feet (to fill the frame with the same amount of your subject) you will wind up with the same amount of DOF. The only differences will be that with the longer focal length the background will be narrower so you will see less of it as compared to the 50mm (it will be blown up bigger essentially) and with the wider focal lengths the percentage of what is in focus before your focus mark is a little higher (to a small degree) than what is in focus behind your focus mark. For instance if I am focusing on a nose and I have 1 foot of DOF.... a wider aperture might give me .45 feet in front of the nose and .55feet behind the nose while a longer lens will give me .5 in front and .5 behind. In both, however, the amount of your image that will be in focus remains practically the same.

Shallow DOF perception goes up with longer focal lengths because of the narrow (blown up) background though. This is much like shallow DOF perception goes up when using larger sensors...essentially you are just using longer focal lengths to achieve the same FOV. You might say hang on, there is no way I have the same DOF on my consumer camera than I do on my DSLR when set to the same aperture. Its true you don't, this is because instead of being forced to move in real tight using your consumer camera, the image circle is cropped as compared to your DSLR so you no longer need to move in to achieve the same FOV, however, in reality this is making your focus distance equivelent, much longer and reducing your DOF. If you were to move in to the proper focus distance with your consumer camera, you would wind up with the same DOF however, the DSLR will still be much bolder of an image because you are using longer focal lengths to achieve the same DOF which is blowing up the OOF areas. This is why medium format cameras have a bolder quality to them aside from the dynamic range.
 
Oedipax said:
Watch any classical Hollywood movie. Lots of wide angle staging and deep focus. Sure, the glamor close-ups of leading ladies will be a bit different, but for the most part shallow depth of field wasn't a fixture of most filmmaking for many decades. I'm sure there are some exceptions (and I'd be interested to hear some if anyone can think of any).
Click to expand...
I knew that already. I was asking about where he got f/8 as specifically the de facto standard at the time. To merely say that classical Hollywood preferred deep focus is one thing, but to give a specific f-number is another thing.

Personally, I would prefer more variety in cinematography and scene coverage today. The current obsession with shallow DOF and close-ups is boring and almost annoying. Widescreen was supposed to offer a greater sense of FOV, but instead we got more and more close-ups. So props to the OP for trying something different.
 
It's just a thing that you hear from photographers who have been around, there is no source except that I've heard the number too many times to discount it.

As for focal length not affecting DOF, this is true except that how we perceive the background is just as important as what, technically, is happening. So it can still help to be a bit wider, but the aperture is what really matters.
 
Cassius said:
As for focal length not affecting DOF, this is true except that how we perceive the background is just as important as what, technically, is happening. So it can still help to be a bit wider, but the aperture is what really matters.
Click to expand...

I agree but the question was about getting deep DOF not making your footage look shallow. In fact, if he can make his footage look shallower/bolder while still mainting the same DOF then I would say use a longer focal length but of course that goes back to what aesthetic you are looking to achieve.
 
Last edited:
ydgmdlu said:
I knew that already. I was asking about where he got f/8 as specifically the de facto standard at the time. To merely say that classical Hollywood preferred deep focus is one thing, but to give a specific f-number is another thing.
.
Click to expand...

There is an addage in the documentary still photo world on what settings to use to take good photos. the saying is "f8 and be there."
 
egproductions said:
There is an addage in the documentary still photo world on what settings to use to take good photos. the saying is "f8 and be there."
Click to expand...
I don't see how that applies. AFAIK, photographers have always preferred to use narrower apertures, except in low light conditions or for the occasional art shot. So then what does it have to do with cinematography?
 
ydgmdlu said:
I don't see how that applies. AFAIK, photographers have always preferred to use narrower apertures, except in low light conditions or for the occasional art shot. So then what does it have to do with cinematography?
Click to expand...


Depends on what kind of photography you are talking about. Portraiture has always favored larger apertures to put focus on the subject and create background seperation. Landscape photography always and still does favor smaller apertures.

the f8 of social documentary was to say that f8 is a small enough aperture that you have a good chance of getting your subject in focus (aside from f8 just being a good aperture in general for lens sharpness). I don't know how f8 translates to "moving images" but I was just pointing out that when f8 is thought of as the beggining point of what's considered deep DOF it's usually refering to this famous quote. Your right its nothing concrete or definitive just a school of thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top