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

[HansSteinert]

I have 0 money for things I make, so my definition of low budget is probably significantly lower than yours. A thousand dollars for a 20 minute film is "low budget" too, but at least they have some money to make sure the mise en scene is looking good. With broad depth of field shots, lighting and a controllable background helps immensely. I'm not saying it's impossible to pull off, but in a lot of cases it isn't really possible.

Money doesn't make a movie look good. But it gives them more control over how to make the movie look good. Whether or not they use this control to make it good or bad depends on whether or not they are good filmmakers. You can make a movie look good without money, there just needs to be much more sacrifices.

Mind you, I never said "shallow depth of field" to cover a "meh" background is better than having broad depth of field with a good background. I'm saying blurring out the background is the lesser of the two evils if there's nothing you can do about a problematic background. It could be a stylistic problem or a continuity problem that you just don't have control over in the sake of ultra-low budget filmmaking.

And I'm not even talking about shooting at f1.4. Even f4 with a close up on an APS-C can do an adequate job of blurring the background to hide stuff like this.

The Social Network was shot on Zeiss Master Primes at f1.3 - f2 nearly the entire movie. Out of curiosity, did you guys dislike the visual presentation of it? They went for an ultra-clean look... super shallow depth of field, and shot at 4k on RED with a brutal post production denoising which was then conformed down to 2k. I'm assuming they shot at 4k deliberately so that the denoising "softness" could be hidden after converting back down to 2k.

Anyways, I actually thought the film looked pretty good.

 

[bwwd]

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.

I have axactly the same opinion, thats why i prefere 5d with 50mm than 7d with 30mm, i like wide + telephoto , without pincushion problems on closeups *

 

[DavidBeier]

I have 0 money for things I make, so my definition of low budget is probably significantly lower than yours.

The short I've got that is currently in a couple of festivals (I pray it gets into more) was shot for $100 and is six minutes long. Other people in my grad program spent FAR more but frankly I'm broke and I take pride in trying to do stuff for as little money as possible (I'm also just damn cheap). I spent $30 on renting a costume, $40 on renting a wheelchair, and $20 on food for the cast/crew (cooked myself), and $10 on a chinaball for the indoor scenes. I wrote the film in mind thinking about the locations I knew I could get for my limited/non-existant budget. I kept my eyes open for potential spots and scouted them thoroughly so I knew I could make them look good on camera. I was required to shoot with a Sony EX1 which has a 1/2 sensor. I very much wanted to make use of longer lenses not because I wanted to have a very shallow DoF but because I had some very specific compositions in mind which required me to compress the space in such a way that long lenses do. As a result, I often had to back the camera further back than most would so I could zoom the EX1 in enough to use a 55mm, or 85mm lens. It wasn't easy and it took extra time but i got the results I wanted.

The film helped me get a very competative scholarship at my school and also got me a few jobs. Many of the complements have been on the visuals of the film and, once again, it was shot for $100 on a camera in which it's very hard to limit the DoF. I'm not sharing this story to brag (I've seen way better films than mine made for nothing) but to make the point that making a strong film asthetically is A LOT more about planning and making artistic decisions than it is about budget. There are huge limitations that come with a lack of budget but it's our job as low budget filmmakers to find stories that we can tell within our means instead of trying to do something we can't pull off well.

A thousand dollars for a 20 minute film is "low budget" too, but at least they have some money to make sure the mise en scene is looking good.

Having made a 30 minute film for $1,200, I can safely say that this isn't the case. When you're on the kind of low budget you describe, you're pretty much spending everything on more essential stuff like food, fees, gas, ect.

With broad depth of field shots, lighting and a controllable background helps immensely. I'm not saying it's impossible to pull off, but in a lot of cases it isn't really possible.

I notice a ton of bad lighting and other issues in DSLR and other super shallow DoF films just as I do in ones shot in deeper focus. Money certainly does help one control the lighting but I don't think a shallower DoF hides it particularly well. The bad lighting is part of what makes DSLR shorts easy to pick out from film and higher end productiosn.

Money doesn't make a movie look good. But it gives them more control over how to make the movie look good. Whether or not they use this control to make it good or bad depends on whether or not they are good filmmakers. You can make a movie look good without money, there just needs to be much more sacrifices.

I can certainly agree with this and hope I'm not coming across to combative. I just don't like how much I hear people blame a like of money for what are really LAZY visuals (not saying this is true in your case). It does take more effort without cash but SO much more can be accomplished when you really think about the choices you are making which a great deal of amateur and professional filmmakers don't.

Mind you, I never said "shallow depth of field" to cover a "meh" background is better than having broad depth of field with a good background. I'm saying blurring out the background is the lesser of the two evils if there's nothing you can do about a problematic background. It could be a stylistic problem or a continuity problem that you just don't have control over in the sake of ultra-low budget filmmaking.

I just have trouble understanding how a lack of funding is making your backgrounds so unappealing and why you think that bluring them solves the problem. I mean, I've never heard a professional photographer say, "There's nothing I can shoot because I don't have the money to make the background look good." There's so many visually interesting things in the world and figuring out how to use what you have to speak for your story is part of making a good film. Sure you'll need money to do a convnincing Sci Fi film or a fantasy flick but anything grounded in reality can be helped by finding REAL places which have an intersting asthetic. It takes effort and planning but is worth it. City of God is one of the most visually stunning films I ever saw and that's shot on the streets of Brazil. They weren't spending a ton on sets or lighting.

The Social Network was shot on Zeiss Master Primes at f1.3 - f2 nearly the entire movie. Out of curiosity, did you guys dislike the visual presentation of it? They went for an ultra-clean look... super shallow depth of field, and shot at 4k on RED with a brutal post production denoising which was then conformed down to 2k. I'm assuming they shot at 4k deliberately so that the denoising "softness" could be hidden after converting back down to 2k.

Anyways, I actually thought the film looked pretty good.

As I said, the norm these days is to shoot on a pretty shallow DoF. It's just the way the trend seemed to move and people like Sodderbergh and others have commented on how unfortunate this is. The Social Network was shot the way so many modern films are with a fairly shallow DoF (though not as super shallow as some 5Dii films). I thought it looked fine but it's actually less visually impressive than a number of Fincher's movies (not neccesarily for the DoF). My favorite Fincher visually is Seven which i still think is STUNNING in it's use of color, camera movment, and framing. There are some very shallow DoF shots in Seven and they're done for very clever reasons, mainly to hide the identify of John Doe early in the film. In contrast, I also really loved what Fincher did in Zodiac with a fairly deep DoF. The direction there was subtle but still stylized with many deeper focus compositions which reminded me of All the President's Men. It's the right tool for the right job.

Speaking of Oscar films, I really loved some of the visuals in the The King's Speech. I know it gets a lot of flak for being too conventional but I actually thought it took quite a risk in the framing early on. The King is contstantly framed with no look space in his eye line, leaving all the negative space on the "wrong" side of the screen and creating a huge disconect between him and the people he is talking to. When I first saw the film, I almost thought it was a mistake at first but, of course, one realizes that no professional would screw up that badly. You quickly realize that this framing is used to isolate the King from anyone in times of difficulty speaking and, as the film progresses, he comes to share the "look space" or the negative space in the frame with his speaking teacher as the two develop a friendship. I think it took a lot of guts for Hooper (the director) to try this and it's something that has NOTHING to do with budget and everything to do wtih creativity.

 

[ROCKMORE]

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 ?

Coming from a film background, I've been shooting with SLRs and DSLRs a long time and the only thing we were worried about was stopping down to get things in focus. That's the actual problem.

 

[isle]

Too deep can never be distractive, too shallow can. People should learn how to use DOF and that when something needs to be out of focus it doesn't mean that it has to be as out of focus as possible, but out of focus just a correct ammount.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I notice it being abused on the various food shows on cable TV. I don't think most of these shows are being shot with DSLR's. I was able to get a similar background blur with my Canon XL2 and the Canon 16x manual lens, and this looks like an HD equivalent of that.

 

[Erik Olson]

There has been rampant abuse of shallow DOF for several years now and it can be a real distraction. I watched Up in the Air for a third time last night and marveled at how Eric Steelberg brought such an interesting visual style to common and often spartan spaces. Art direction is very minimalistic in this picture, yet there is precious little (if any) 2" DOF used to cover for it. Proper composition goes a long way and it doesn't hurt to have onscreen talent who command your attention when they are on screen.

 

[pulpfiction007]

Common theme today....I agree with many others who say shallow dof is being over-used, either for lack of other ideas (composition wise) or because an inexperienced director isn't thinking about it at all. I like to use Signs as an example of very nice deep dof work, with the very occasional shallow shot for specific purposes. Many Coen films are shot with a similar approach.
Not saying this is how everything should be shot, but certainly more interesting to look at than most pieces with 90 minutes of faces and blur. Social Network was done this way for a purpose and it fits, many films do it for no reason other than it's easy.

 

[DavidBeier]

I actually think the 5Dii is going to lead to a deeper focus that we've seen in a while. As i said before, I think the shallower and shallower DoF was something that was pushed by a desire from filmmakers rather than from audiences. Because it's getting SO overused to such an extreme amount thanks to the 5Dii, I'm hearing a lot of filmmakers voice their annoyance with it for the first time. This frustration was certainly not the case five years ago when every low budget person I knew wanted as shallow a DoF as possible.

 

[HHL]

There has been rampant abuse of shallow DOF for several years now and it can be a real distraction. I watched Up in the Air for a third time last night and marveled at how Eric Steelberg brought such an interesting visual style to common and often spartan spaces. Art direction is very minimalistic in this picture, yet there is precious little (if any) 2" DOF used to cover for it. Proper composition goes a long way and it doesn't hurt to have onscreen talent who command your attention when they are on screen.

Now I'm going to have to watch that film!! I agree that shallow DOF is over used....yet another reason to give the HX9 a fair look. NOT for pro use....but for "pocket cinematography". Shallow DOF ain't everything....

 

[jmanord]

I have to totally disagree with you. I love shallow depth of field. It's like perfectly cooked bacon, everything is better with it. I couldn't help but notice there are a lot a filmmakers here who work for free. I have lots of ideas for movies but am not as experienced a cinematographer and definitely don't have a budget. Would you mind if I sent you my ideas and then you could spend your time using your expert creative talents and superior understanding of composition to craft me a free work of art? I think it will need mountains, a desert, and polar ice caps in the background, but I'm sure that's easy to do without actually traveling. If that's a problem, just change the entire movie to suit your everyday surroundings. I'm sure it will still be visually stunning; no one ever gets tired of a suburban backdrop. While you're at it, make it 3D; that's much less annoying than shallow DOF. Thanks a million for you letting us know what elements and shooting styles a good movie should have. Sarcasm is the lowest form of communication, and it's effing awesome.

 

[draven4]

Just make your point, we'll listen. No need for so much sarcasm. This is a thread, that's what they're for, hearing opinions.

 

[William_Robinette]

I'm finding more and more that the easiest way to tell between someone who is a great image maker and someone who is a good image maker is to look at their compositions.

And I very strongly believe that as an image maker composition needs to be hanging over the front of your mind, smacking you in the face until it's right. If you can't find a good one, you have no business being in charge of the visual production of a film. And by extension if you cover it up with depth of field so thin eyelashes are going in and out of focus, well... you're doing it wrong.

And this doesn't even touch mise en scene, how those compositions work together when edited, or blocking and screen direction.

(I know this is a thread about very shallow DoF, but I got sidetracked)

 

[ICD Films]

Blah, blah.

Just look at Shane's stuff. Yeah, the guy knows what he's doing. But then, no person should ever use any tool in life that they don't know how to use. It goes for sportscars, electric screwdrivers, and video... oh sorry, stills cameras.

http://vimeo.com/24203140
http://vimeo.com/24840519 (that would be a decent contender to crush the still-surviving "no one would use 5D for professional applications"-talk)

 

[TimurCivan]

High end DP's for the most part shoot @ a T2.8-5.6 for a reason. Lenses are sharpest there, the contrast increases, flares are suppresed, and you can keep most of a face in focus in the standard portrait shot. Plus, iits not horrific to light to a T5.6 with 500asa stock. Now digital is making ISO800-ISO1600 very viable, but this means that you shouldnt order less light and open up 3 stops.... it means its easier to work at the magic sweet spot of the lens.
.
One thing i noticed, in training some younger (i say younger.... sigh* im only 28) guys using DSLR's, is that they cause bad habits in inexperinced DP's. The biggest one being setting an aperture
(usually F1.4, or 2.8 on the canon zooms), then dialing in ISO to find exposure, on a shot by shot basis without readjusting lights. This leads to a lot of inconsistency. Digital imagers respond to light very differently at different ISO.

the Tstop choice of 2.8-5.6 isn't arbitrary. Its where the lens will look its best. The order should be something like this, if on digital, you choose your camera based on what needs to get done, greenscreen FX plates, High speed slomo, standard 24p, theatrical release, TV broadcast etc... then you choose your lenses for their character, then you select a stop to determine your look, and order lights based on the technical parameters of what preceded and the stop you want to shoot at.

 

[HansSteinert]

I'm finding more and more that the easiest way to tell between someone who is a great image maker and someone who is a good image maker is to look at their compositions.

And I very strongly believe that as an image maker composition needs to be hanging over the front of your mind, smacking you in the face until it's right. If you can't find a good one, you have no business being in charge of the visual production of a film. And by extension if you cover it up with depth of field so thin eyelashes are going in and out of focus, well... you're doing it wrong.

And this doesn't even touch mise en scene, how those compositions work together when edited, or blocking and screen direction.

(I know this is a thread about very shallow DoF, but I got sidetracked)

Maybe I've never been on the same page with any of you when we were having our discussion, because I would never consider DOF so shallow that an actors entire front face isn't in focus to be acceptable. When I was talking about shallow depth of field, I was talking more about something like this:

Which I shot at like f3 on an 85mm lens for a local promotional film that's still in the works.

There are only very certain situations where having ultra thin DOF is acceptable. I was talking more along the lines of simply having an out of focus background, if that makes sense.

If you guys want to see an example of where ULTRA thin depth of field works (I think it's important to emphasize "ultra" because clearly our definitions of "shallow depth of field" aren't consistent") check out the film Mr. Nobody. The cinematography in it is amazing. It's not all ultra thin obviously (it has a lot of deep DOF shots), but in some scenes it is like f1.4 and it actually worked.

 

[WhiteMonkey]

I started watching Rubber on Netflix as a result of reading this thread. Thought I might be missing something but I definately was wrong about that. Rubber sucked but I liked the cinematography. DOF was controlled but I think you'll find that more and more as DLSR's get in the hands of this and the next generation of imagemakers.

 

[DavidBeier]

Maybe I've never been on the same page with any of you when we were having our discussion, because I would never consider DOF so shallow that an actors entire front face isn't in focus to be acceptable. When I was talking about shallow depth of field, I was talking more about something like this:

Which I shot at like f3 on an 85mm lens for a local promotional film that's still in the works.

There are only very certain situations where having ultra thin DOF is acceptable. I was talking more along the lines of simply having an out of focus background, if that makes sense.

If you guys want to see an example of where ULTRA thin depth of field works (I think it's important to emphasize "ultra" because clearly our definitions of "shallow depth of field" aren't consistent") check out the film Mr. Nobody. The cinematography in it is amazing. It's not all ultra thin obviously (it has a lot of deep DOF shots), but in some scenes it is like f1.4 and it actually worked.

I think what we're talking about is the push to make it more and more shallow. Your image looks fine and isn't what I would call extreme shallow DoF. Even Citizen Kane with it's deep focus tended to use a similar DoF when shooting a close up on a lone actor with nothing prominant in the background. For all the years I shot on the HVX200 and EX1, I'd still back them up as far as possible (zooming in to 55mm or 88mm) and use a open aperture when I was framing a close-up without important background action. Like I said, DoF is a tool and just as I don't think everything should be shot with a super-shallow DoF, I certainly don't think we should do nothing but deep focus either.

What many of us are complaining about is this situaion where everything is in such super shallow DoF that one has ZERO sense of the background in a mid or mid-wide shot where close-ups turn into these hazy beasts where not even the whole face is in focus.

Once again, I have seen a couple of films where the SUPER shallow DoF was used intelligently. In Solaris (2002) and Eternal Sunshine (2004), it was used to give both films a very isolated and unreal quality that tied into the stories and themes of both films. I just don't like this artistic choice being used as a "one style fits all" device to cover for what is often lazy composition.

 

[HHL]

What many of us are complaining about is this situaion where everything is in such super shallow DoF that one has ZERO sense of the background in a mid or mid-wide shot where close-ups turn into these hazy beasts where not even the whole face is in focus.

True. But it's MORE than that. I'm asking WHY shoot shallow?

Now...there IS an answer for that. (I'm sure we'll hear many) But the "newbie" film maker is doing the OPPOSITE.
AKA: I'll shoot as shallow as I can. PERIOD. And that makes a good shot! My work is done here!
Even if it's:

"OK....now, I'll shoot at F3.0-4.0 because I don't want to shoot toooo shallow."

WAIT! WHY are you choosing to shoot shallow at all? WHY does the shot require the viewer to look ONLY at what is in focus?

Earlier on in this thread, you saw the whole, "DOF is like bacon...put it on everything and it makes it better."

THAT IS the sad state of things. Although NOT intended, its actually a GREAT analogy of why you should NOT shoot shallow on EVERYTHING.
In fact....if you don't need to hold the viewer's hand and direct his/her focus to a specific part of the frame....why USE IT?

(Would anyone like to have some "bacon ice cream?")

A chef that uses bacon in EVERY dish would be called what? The same thing as a film maker who uses shallow DOF in every shot.

Now, I'm not making fun of anyone here. It's just the principle. It's not considered good DP work for a cinematographer/film maker to shoot shallow on EVERY shot. Honestly newbs...it's not. More and more, it's the sign of an amateur....a hack. IT CERTAINLY has it's place. (Like bacon, yes?) There are PERFECTLY appropriate places to add bacon. In some places...it's AMAZING. BUT SERIOUSLY...bacon for breakfast, bacon for lunch, bacon for dinner, bacon for snack, bacon mid-night snack....ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

Focus on one of the MANY tools that are available to us as visual story tellers:

(In no particular order)
1. Motion
2. Lighting
3. Color
4. Composition
5. Sound (yes, I include this even though visual is our dominant tool)
6. Music
7. Pacing
8. Story. Story. Story.
9. Framing.
10. Focal length.
11. Lens selection
12. Acting
....etc...etc...etc

DOF plays NO ROLE in MOST of these....so, ease up on the bacon! Cheers!

 

[HansSteinert]

(Would anyone like to have some "bacon ice cream?")

Epic Meal Time might