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

I skipped over most of this thread but can we all agree that regardless of what camera was used, RUBBER was a killer movie? I wasn't worried about the depth of field because I was too busy BEING STOKED ON A TIRE TAKING A SHOWER!

You can't just focus on one small part of a movie and dismiss the whole film, you've got to consider the whole thing. It's like a finger pointing towards the moon:
 
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!
Click to expand...

I'd say many people fail at accomplishing the harmony of these but shallow DOF takes the least amount of effort to maintain, so therefore it can dominate a film... unfortunately.


@nicksnow
You can't just focus on one small part of a movie and dismiss the whole film, you've got to consider the whole thing. It's like a finger pointing towards the moon:
Click to expand...

did you not see my several reasons why I thought the film sucked? (posted earlier in the thread) Why are you saying we are focusing on one thing in the film? There were many factors. If seeing a tire in the shower is clever enough for you to think it was a great film and you were able to overlook the other problems then that's your judgement and that's the way it is.
 
Ever since the "DSLR revolution", shallow depth-of-field has been abused to hell. This is because for years, indie filmmakers were using crappy miniDV/other cameras with crappy little sensors and crappy lenses where shallow depth-of-field could not be achieved. Now it can be achieved, and for relatively cheap. The problem is, too much of anything is usually bad for you. And people are shooting so shallow, that not only is it disorientating, but they can't even seem to pull focus correctly most of the time. Most of my lenses are f1.4 or f1.8, but if the light is available, I will shoot at f3.2 (or higher) if possible. I read once, can't remember where now, that most of the Hollywood films we see are shot between f2.8 - f3.2.

Another thing is the abuse of software like Magic Bullet. People are colour-grading to the point where all dynamic range and latitude is lost, that their actors end up looking like silhouettes...
 
HansSteinert said:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by HHL

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


Epic Meal Time might ;)
Click to expand...

I just had a bacon cupcake tonight. It was an experience...
 
5 pages and only 2 or 3 posts about what is probably the real issue: lighting. Most people don't have the proper lighting rigs and are forced to shoot below f2.8 because they can't get enough lighting. The current revolution of "pull it out and shoot it with whatever light (usually less than f2 even at a maxed out iso)" is great but for gods sake invest in some lighting if you're serious about making a real movie. Light is everything when it comes to photography and film... it's how cameras work. If you use ND filters to knock down light outdoors then use lights to bring it up indoors.

There's low budget and then there's not being equipped for what you want to tackle.

Edit: Don't get me wrong... there is some great stuff shot with nothing but available light. But anytime the thought "Hmm.. I have to stay wider than F2.8" goes through your head... you've handicapped the vision of the thing you're making.
 
Last edited:
ryanhargrave said:
5 pages and only 2 or 3 posts about what is probably the real issue: lighting. Most people don't have the proper lighting rigs and are forced to shoot below f2.8 because they can't get enough lighting. The current revolution of "pull it out and shoot it with whatever light (usually less than f2 even at a maxed out iso)" is great but for gods sake invest in some lighting if you're serious about making a real movie. Light is everything when it comes to photography and film... it's how cameras work. If you use ND filters to knock down light outdoors then use lights to bring it up indoors.

There's low budget and then there's not being equipped for what you want to tackle.

Edit: Don't get me wrong... there is some great stuff shot with nothing but available light. But anytime the thought "Hmm.. I have to stay wider than F2.8" goes through your head... you've handicapped the vision of the thing you're making.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this.

I don't really like shooting at f1.4 - too shallow. However, due to lack of funds, and as a result, having no lighting, I don't really have a choice but to shoot at f1.4. I love shooting at f2.8 - f4 when the light is there!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top