Is narrow DOF bad cinematograhpy?

I

iFilm7

Active member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIiW0Trk3T0

This footage is BEAUTIFUL and the film making itself is beautiful. but i have this OCD ["Pure OCD" look it up on wikipedia] and i keep telling myself that the quality of the footage doesnt have to be all that and that the story counts.... please help me to diminish these thoughts. ):
 
There is no problems in terms of depth of field, but the rolling shutter shaking is pretty distracting/annoying and the framing is odd on a few shots. A good guide is to not cut some one off at a joint. In this case, in the restaurant, the man in love looks like a floating head. When you crossed the line I was a little disoriented.

It does look good and if that shake wasn't there the stuff in the park would be perfect. Those shots were beautiful.
 
The shaking of the camera would be a stylistic choice wont you agree?
And yes haha, I totally agree with you there when they crossed the 180 degree rule... I was a bit bothered and unbalanced by that.
 
hand held shake is fine, but in this case there is a definite jello shake going on from shooting with a HDSLR hand held
 
DOF should only be used when it should be used. People who use it to get away from video look in every one of their shots are retarded.
 
Revsta said:
DOF should only be used when it should be used. People who use it to get away from video look in every one of their shots are retarded.
Click to expand...

This is my point exactly... My OCD is telling me thaat.
But I love the narrow DOF... I think it adds style to cinematography.
 
I love narrow DOF, but also deep DOF. I've mentioned Y Tu Mama Tambien on this forum like a million times, but there is only one or two shots in the whole film with narrow DOF, and the whole movie looks fantastic.
 
diego1235467 said:
I love narrow DOF, but also deep DOF. I've mentioned Y Tu Mama Tambien on this forum like a million times, but there is only one or two shots in the whole film with narrow DOF, and the whole movie looks fantastic.
Click to expand...

Deep DOF on film is a whole new ball game than deep video.
 
Revsta said:
Deep DOF on film is a whole new ball game than deep video.
Click to expand...

I think its a tool and a stylistic method for film makers.
I love it and i personally want it in many of my films, IF it adds to my style, whatever that may be, during my journey through film making.
 
Revsta said:
Deep DOF on film is a whole new ball game than deep video.
Click to expand...

I really don't think it's that different. It's just that deep DOF with video is just an all the time sorta deal...therefore it's not really a decision.

I shot something a while ago and even when I had a full adapter rig at my disposal, I chose to shoot it on the stock HVX. I knew that the deep DOF that the HVX was going to give me was going to be more appropriate for my film, and at the end I was happy I had made that decision.

As long as what you're doing has purpose, it really doesn't matter too much.
 
I think the main question is: what is important in this shot? If you have a close-up where the person talking is the only thing important, then a narrow depth of field makes sure we pay attention, and don't look instead at the crap on the wall behind them. But if you have a woman walking by a dilapidated hotel, and the story calls for us to see this hotel, but you have the woman as the only thing in focus, well then the narrow depth of field is a problem.
 
Revsta said:
DOF should only be used when it should be used. People who use it to get away from video look in every one of their shots are retarded.
Click to expand...


Sooooooooooooo what if you don't use the shallow dof and your film looks like video... that would be retarded too. I mean you guys are right that it should only be used when it should be used but what if the alternative is crappy looking footage... then I'd be using it all the time.
 
BTW the film was really good. I think all the other aspects were in place sound/acting/story/music. It is true when they say the camera is only a small part of the whole package. Great job.
 
Video is a whole new ball game than film PERIOD. It doesn't mean deep DOF on video always looks bad. I've had great results.
 
Zblock said:
Sooooooooooooo what if you don't use the shallow dof and your film looks like video... that would be retarded too. I mean you guys are right that it should only be used when it should be used but what if the alternative is crappy looking footage... then I'd be using it all the time.
Click to expand...


Lighting is the most significant factor in the 'is it video or is it film'. Light your talent, set, 'like a film', and then the only reason why people would not 'think film', is because they knew you didn't have the money to blow on film+processing+camera.

At that point DoF becomes just a tool in the kit, as it should be.

On the other hand, light your set like a 70/80s sit-com... and people will think 'video'... (or 80's porn... or 90's porn... or 00's porn... go ahead, research it and admit that it true...)
 
There's nothing inherently right or wrong about depth of field. It's up to the cinematographer to properly use the tools at their disposal.


-Andrew
 
I personally feel shallow depth of field is overrated, but everything has its uses, as others have said countless times here. I try to only use it when it's really right (for my purposes), which is usually in close-ups. But I love deep focus. I think it has more texture to it, but I tend to go for images that represent human vision. Wes Anderson almost exclusively uses deep focus in his films, and I love it.
 
I'll chime in something else. With HD I much prefer deep DOF. I just can't see the glorious HD when it's too shallow :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top