Shallow depth of field annoying when overused as in the movie RUBBER.

[draven4]

Few notes I want to share. I just watched the movie "Rubber" on Netflix streaming. In case some of you might not know it was shot on the 5d so naturally being interested in DSLRs I watched it.


1) they overused the shallow depth of field technique way too much. It gets really annoying.

2) shallow depth of field does not playback very clean on Netflix streaming. So keep this in mind if you are shooting a film and are crazy about the technique. The image looks fairly bad and really soft but not in the cool brokeh way. It just looks like an ugly mesh of pixels. Keep in mind that if you're going to make internet content for Netflix keep this in mind.

3) the shallow DOF also was annoying also because there were shots that seemed to focus on one thing but your brain might want to see more in the shot but it's forced not to, not in a nice creative way but in a way that makes you feel like you need glasses.

4) the movie sucks.... bad. What a waste of time! Drawn out, dumb, poor acting, pretentious. Who cares if the premise seemed original. It was executed terribly. Just sharing my opinion.

 

[matador43]

1) they overused the shallow depth of field technique way too much. It gets really annoying.

[…]

Just sharing my opinion.

I feel exactly the same way. Here in France, the "shallow deep of field" DSLR look as invaded lot of tv shows, most because of the hype and the fashion look that really because it add something to the storytelling. It's like people making creative shows with just a DSLR and Magic Bullet Looks but no ideas. I'm really tired of this.

Sorry if I'm not so clear…

 

[isle]

It's because many people from photography have started to shoot video and the use of DOF is very different in photography and they use the DOF as they use it in photography = too shallow.

I feel exactly the same way. Here in France, the "shallow deep of field" DSLR look as invaded lot of tv shows, most because of the hype and the fashion look that really because it add something to the storytelling. It's like people making creative shows with just a DSLR and Magic Bullet Looks but no ideas. I'm really tired of this.

Sorry if I'm not so clear…

This guy is one of the best at color correction, but other than that your comment describes his videos pretty well: http://vimeo.com/5000009

 

[Samuel H]

well, I also got bored with the ultra-shallow DoF thing a couple of months ago

in fact, now that we're sharing recent experiences: yesterday I watched "you will meet a tall dark stranger" and, even though I think it's not one of the best movies W.Allen has made, I must say the image was absolutely gorgeous... and it must have been shot mostly at something like f/4 or so on 35mm film; I was constantly thinking: how can this shot be *so* nice, if I can clearly see lots of detail in that distant background

 

[bwwd]

Have you ever guys wondering... if you would never had access to DSLR with video recording, would you be so concerned with this super shallow DOF problem ? Would you even be able to spot it? Ask others in your houses if they think that something is wrong with the movie.
You tend to forget that you were just regular viewers long time ago as well and you had no idea about shallow DOF and all technical specs or problems like aliasing.For regular viewers these problems might be nonexistant.
Today you might be too spoiled and tired with all 5d random tests.
I remember that after learning about shallow DOF i never looked at the movies the same way, i was looking for shots with DOF and lens focal lenghts in movies, it was amazing and very distracting but thats how it was and its happening to a lot of us when we know more and more.
Now i can tell if movie is anamorphic or not and i tend to judge bokeh, its hilarious!!! I never did that before!

 

[draven4]

@ bwwd

We didn't have a shallow DOF problem before shooting on cameras such as DVX and HVX, HPX.

Yes regular audiences would still notice it because something will seem odd when watching the film. Even if someone isn't necessarily aware of technical things about the film they will catch on to something being wrong with a film. (subconsciously) Ever seen a movie a long time ago before you were well film educated, and couldn't figure out the exact reason why you didn't like it? Well that's what would happen.

I see your point though. Yes we all notice specific reasons why a film is wrong now, with the knowledge we have... and it's pretty cool to be able to.

 

[DavidBeier]

Shallow DoF has been overused for years. There's so much that can be done when one composes the frame but a super shallow DoF has become an excuse for directors to avoid thinking about what's in the shot. A number of scholars have pointed out that the deph of field has gotten shallower and shallower in the last 20 years (similar to how the average shot length has gotten shorter).

DoF is a tool like any other. When so many limit themselves to an ultra shallow DoF, it throws away so many creative options for storytelling. For every film that uses a shallow DoF for an actual artistic purpose like Michel Gondry's Eternal Sunshine or Sodderbergh's version of Solaris, there are a hundred that use it for no point at all. Part of the reason was that a shallow DoF was something that had long been harder to do for low-budget productions. Such productions would shoot on 16mm or (more recently) video with 1/3 or 2/3 inch sensors, all of which neccesitated wider lenses and thus a deeper DoF (not to mention such productions often couldn't afford fast prime lenses capable of narrowing the DoF even more). Because of these limitations, so many aspiring filmmakers got it into their head that a shallow DoF was inherantly "more professional" or "more cinematic."

What's great about the HDSLRs and other full frame cameras is that young filmmakers are actually starting to get burned out on the super shallow DoF. When such a look is now achievable by just about ANYONE then it no longer has this mystique behind it and once again becomes just another technique. This won't make you stand out from the crowd of other filmmakers or look any more pro. Now, it comes down more than ever to the skill of the director and his crew in a variety of ways from mise-en-scene, to lighting, to blocking, ect.

On that note, I watched Zodiac again recently and I gotta say how damn good that film still looks. It was shot on a 2/3 sensor but Fincher knew how to use the extra focus to create some great compositions that are really stunning.

 

[HansSteinert]

If you're a super low budget indie filmmaker and can't afford big sets and don't have a lot of control over foreground and background, DOF can "hide" your lack of budget.

This is the story of my life. It's better to blur out the background that to have a super broad in-focus shot with lame background composition. In my opinion, at least.

I don't think these people would shoot super shallow DOF all the time if they had complete control over their background. Or maybe they're dumb.

It's not the 5D's problem. The iso performance has a 1 stop improvement from APS-C, which compensates for the 1 stop different in DOF between sensor size. All people have to do is stop down with the camera. You guys don't see filmmakers with IMAX cameras overusing shallow depth of field. I personally like the "look" of bigger sensors not because of its depth of field, but because of its Z axis perspective. A more telephoto look is more appealing on faces IMO, and I like the ability to shoot "wide" on a steadicam without having a ton of Z-axis stretching. This is the same reason why I'm a big fan of panoramas and anamorphic.

Oh, and shallow DOF is overused in photography too because it's easier to get an aesthetically pleasing image than actually having to keep tabs on background composition.

 

[vision_filmz]

Few notes I want to share. I just watched the movie "Rubber" on Netflix streaming. In case some of you might not know it was shot on the 5d so naturally being interested in DSLRs I watched it.


1) they overused the shallow depth of field technique way too much. It gets really annoying.

2) shallow depth of field does not playback very clean on Netflix streaming. So keep this in mind if you are shooting a film and are crazy about the technique. The image looks fairly bad and really soft but not in the cool brokeh way. It just looks like an ugly mesh of pixels. Keep in mind that if you're going to make internet content for Netflix keep this in mind.

3) the shallow DOF also was annoying also because there were shots that seemed to focus on one thing but your brain might want to see more in the shot but it's forced not to, not in a nice creative way but in a way that makes you feel like you need glasses.

4) the movie sucks.... bad. What a waste of time! Drawn out, dumb, poor acting, pretentious. Who cares if the premise seemed original. It was executed terribly. Just sharing my opinion.

My opinion is completely opposite. The footage looks incredible, shallow DOF was used excellent in this movie & the story was original. Nothing worst than people who complain about others who use DOF. If you do not like or want DOF then you are using the wrong camera. So many movies use this, that for it to bother you on such a personal matter is ridiculous. I thought the Movie was great..


Finally I love DOF as well as shots that are all in focus. Get the Hate out of your blood people & live life.

 

[draven4]

I respect your opinion. Don't agree at all but respect it.

If you do not like or want DOF then you are using the wrong camera.

Many camera's including 35mm film and professional HD, Alexa, Red have the option of shallow DOF. In fact it is more lens specific than a camera thing. The question is how much should you choose to use it. It's good judgement that makes better use of the tool. Saying I shouldn't use it doesn't make sense. So if I thought someone shot with too much red light in their film should that mean I should not use a camera that sees a red channel?

We are free to do what we want though. So who am I to say... but like I said I was just giving my opinion and from the looks of it many agree with me.

 

[HansSteinert]

I respect your opinion. Don't agree at all but respect it.



Many camera's including 35mm film and professional HD, Alexa, Red have the option of shallow DOF. In fact it is more lens specific than a camera thing. The question is how much should you choose to use it. It's good judgement that makes better use of the tool. Saying I shouldn't use it doesn't make sense. So if I thought someone shot with too much red light in their film should that mean I should not use a camera that sees a red channel?

We are free to do what we want though. So who am I to say... but like I said I was just giving my opinion and from the looks of it many agree with me.

I want to add to this. Some people argue that the 5D is an inferior camera to APS-C cameras because, according to them, the 5D's sensor size forces shallow depth of field rather than having the ability to have both shallow or broad. Given the iso advantage to APS-C cameras relative to the 1 stop DOF change, this is claim is inaccurate. A 5D can get the same exact depth of field as an APS-C camera with the same digital noise amount within the same environment.

I bring this up because it's almost like the 5D II has a stigma in the filmmaking community that it causes people to "automatically overuse shallow DOF", and that couldn't be more false.

 

[L Fernando]

Movie doesn't suck..bad ..at all. That's like your opinion, this is mine

Plus, it got a fairly positive reception by critics.

I do think it's not for everyone and that the fun but simple premise was stretched for way too long, would have worked better as a short film (40-45min).

 

[draven4]

Just to add in terms of the film story and direction.

1) it lingered too long on shots, jokes and the pacing was too slow. It actually works against the jokes.
2) the audience part was somewhat funny but later became an annoyance to the film
3) DOF mentally killed physiologically where we wanted to look and what we as an audience thought was important emotionally.
4) I don't mind minimalist sound tracks but this film needed a slight bit more music. In addition to the slow pacing, quiet of the desert amplified this slow pace feel, the lack of music made it seem even more like the film was dragging on.
5) I wanted to like this but had to put away the "oh cool shot on DSLR!" aspect and see it for what it is.
6) acting was sub par. The audience members were pretty terrible.
7) the approach to the line of reality and reason worked against the film. Broke the flow of the movie.
8) the director tired to get too artsy with it. Mistake in my opinion.. should have been done a little more straight forward. Premise seemed great.. a killer tire! Then he had to make it into an art film..... about a tire.

Just some of what I thought. Just thought I'd give you reasons other than talking just technically about the DOF. I didn't really want to post these reasons because this is not the directing forum so I mainly spoke technically when I originally started the thread. Now I feel I need to further explain as I now have done.

Thanks for hearing me out and I don't have the "hate" you think. Just trying to learn from what I see and not think everything is perfect. Because it's when you think you're perfect is when you stop learning.

I've said my two cents..... peace!

 

[HansSteinert]

Didn't Rubber have an extremely low budget? If that's the case, you shouldn't be overly critical of it imo.

edit. Looks like they had half a mil.

 

[draven4]

@ isle

This guy is one of the best at color correction, but other than that your comment describes his videos pretty well: http://vimeo.com/5000009

Here's a direct link to what you posted isle.

Exactly, good example. You eye kind of starts to hurt looking at his video. Your brain wants and tries to put the image in focus. Who cares if the color looks good. Blurry is blurry.

People who go crazy with the use of shallow DOF don't seem to understand this.

I will say in this video you posted isle there is more in focus and since it's a lot quicker than the shots that were in the film Rubber, it isn't so bad on your eyes. But for longer takes like in feature films it should be used in good judgement. Also forgot to add, when watching an image on a larger screen the shallow DOF is more potent. Keep in mind when we all see tests online people are posting us videos and sometimes they play on small windows so it can fool you into thinking the shallow DOF is tolerable.

 

[ICD Films]

There's no too shallow focus.

Only bad focus pullers... hunting for focus, will be the branding of the "DSLR revolution" and it's young filmmakers.

 

[draven4]

@ Martin Oller

Only bad focus pullers... hunting for focus, will be the branding of the "DSLR revolution" and it's young filmmakers.

I mean't to say that too. Ha. Yeah. It's actully not just shallow DOF but a combination of things in dealing with DOF.

Didn't Rubber have an extremely low budget? If that's the case, you shouldn't be overly critical of it imo.

edit. Looks like they had half a mil.

Budget doesn't matter. They had the potential. It was the execution that I'm criticizing not the production value.

 

[HansSteinert]

I mean't to say that too. Ha. Yeah. It's actully not just shallow DOF but a combination of things in dealing with DOF.

Budget doesn't matter. They had the potential. It was the execution that I'm criticizing not the production value.

I don't agree with the underlined, but I do think half a mill is more than enough to put a decent indie picture together, so I'm not going to use that excuse in this case.

 

[DavidBeier]

DISCLAIMER: PLEASE EXCUSE DAVID BEIER FOR THE FOLLOWING POST. HE IS AN INCREDIBLY OPINIONATED INDIVIDUAL WHO IS FRUSTRATED THAT HE HAS YET TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD.

If you're a super low budget indie filmmaker and can't afford big sets and don't have a lot of control over foreground and background, DOF can "hide" your lack of budget.

I HATE this argument (no offense).

Having a decent budget can certainly help the look of a film but the idea that something can't look good without a lot of money is just plain wrong. Talented people have been finding creative ways to work wonders without a lot of cash for years and it goes way beyond just bluring out everything that looks cheap.

This is the story of my life. It's better to blur out the background that to have a super broad in-focus shot with lame background composition. In my opinion, at least.

I don't mean to be combative but I reject this way of thinking. Lame background composition doesn't come exclusively from a lack of money. It also comes from a lack of effort put into the composition or a lack of skill with framing a shot. Citizen Kane didn't have a huge budget. So many of the visual innovations of that film didn't come from having a lot of money but came from having creative and skilled people willing to put forth the effort to create an asthetically sophisticated film with what they had.

I'm not referring to you when I say this (you may be a far better director than anyone here), but I have grown tired with so many directors who think the visual asthetic of a movie is also about money and none about effort, artistry, or craft. A little while ago, i was hired to edit a promotional trailer for a "horror" film (torture porn really) because the director/producer thought that this would convince investors to shell out 1 mil for the feature to be made. I got hired on to try to save the edit as the previous guy had given up because of how bad the whole thing was. The acting was awful. The "story" was impossible to discern. Finally, the visuals were terrible. Lousy lighting, lousy framing, 70s style zooms in the middle of the shot, ect. After I did my repair job, we were talking visuals and the guy mentioned liking another film's visuals which had been shot for a low budget. I said to him, "well, you need to avoid zooming in the shot, you can try to use longer lenses for close ups, and try to use china-balls or other low-cost lighting when in doors. All of this can give your film the more professional look you want." He responded, as he had whenever I'd hear other people critisize anything about the film, "well, I wanna do all that and use the right f stops when we get the money. I'm a very visual director, once we get our million dollar budget, it'll look great." My thought was, of course, "why would someone risk a million dollars on a feature for you if you can produce a competent looking trailer?"

It's like Hana-Barbera animation. It was TERRIBLE but some have defended it by saying, "well, it was made for a very small amount so of course it's not going to be great and good for them for cutting corners and getting something made for so cheap." I don't buy that because i can think of countless great examples of animation where the creators didn't have much of a budget but still managed to create some amazing work (Chuck Jones didn't get much from Warner Bros but look at the artistry of What's Opera Doc or The Rabbit of Seville). Look at El Mariache. Robert R made that for $7,000 on plain old 16mm which has rough the same DoF as a 2/3 video camera. All he spent money on was the film but he created something that many thought was very stylish and visually arresting.

I'm not trying to suggest that budget has no bearing on the visuals. It does. But there are so many great examples of people under budget constraints making amazing looking stuff because they took the time to think about the visuals and figured out what they could accomplish with their means.

I don't think these people would shoot super shallow DOF all the time if they had complete control over their background. Or maybe they're dumb.

I didn't see the movie so I don't know if they're dumb or if the shallow DoF was appropriate. I'm just suggesting people have gotten Super shallow DoF crazy and often use it as a way to avoid really thinking about the composition of a shot or the visual asthetic of a movie. Shaky-cam has also become an over-used gimmick for those who want to take the easy way out. Some filmmakers say it's more "gritty." Others say it shows "realism." Others say it shows "freedom." There are a billion different rationales for why directors use it so much so that the gimmick really doesn't have much meaning now. I've heard a number admit it's pretty much a matter of "it's faster to shoot that way and I don't have to spend as much time planning out all the shots." There are some great directors who can use the shaky camera well but too many just use it as a crutch to avoid doing the real work of filmmaking.

Oh, and shallow DOF is overused in photography too because it's easier to get an aesthetically pleasing image than actually having to keep tabs on background composition.

Of course it is. I'm just arguing that what is "easier" doesn't make it "better." I think the really great filmmakers do what isn't easy.

There's no too shallow focus.

Only bad focus pullers...

Respect your opinion but couldn't disagree more. DoF is a tool and any time someone thinks one simple tool is the only way to do things or great for every situation, they've elimated a ton of artistic possabilities and are limiting their film. Saying you can't have "too shallow focus" is like saying you can't have "too slow motion" or "to warm a warming filter." I don't every movie to look like a Michael Bay film where it's shot at 60+fps and everything has an orange haze nor to I want every movie swimming in a sea of blur. That's just me though...

 

[draven4]

@ HansSteinert

I think you're confusing the matter.

Budget has nothing to do with telling a good story and executing it good with what they have. Budget at times can only hinder production value but a good film is still a good film.

People can accept a lower budget film with a not so big hollywood production if they like the execution. Heck isn't that how many cult hit movies are what they are. Even though they are of low budgets the idea was executed well.

But even if there is a big budget it can still suck so bad to the point it's garbage. We see this all the time from things like Transformers 2. Ha!