Shallow DOF losing importance in filmmaking?

ripupthehwy

ripupthehwy

Well-known member
I purchased a Letus DOF adaptor for my HVX 200 and have done a couple shoots with it and looking forward to shooting a TV series with it in the coming months.

Now, I'm sitting here watching "Public Enemies" on blu ray. Looks awesome! It was shot with one of Sony digital cinema cameras, using HDCAM video tape. I believe this camera to be a 2/3 inch ccd. For the most part in every shot everything is in focus, as you would have with any conventional video camera. But do I care? Did anyone else in the theater care? No, I'm mesmerized by the crystal clear and sharp footage, the creative lighting and the awsome action and scenery the is unfolding before my eyes.

It's just funny to think how I salivated for a DOF adaptor to make my little handheld dv camera look more like the shallow depth of field of film. And now major motion pictures aren't concerned about it at all. I think I'd take a 2/3 inch ccd hd camera and be happy to shoot with it just as it is..without a DOF adapter. It natively gives shallow DOF that the 1/3 inch, and as I see with "Public Enemies" is just enough.

For the money, (which I and most have little of these days) I used to think using a Red Camera would be worth the jello and skew side effects it has in order to get the 35mm like DOF. But now I'm thinking, just get the sharpest HD camera with a CCD I can afford and just shoot good stuff!

:-)

My 2cents.
 
I think people put too much emphasis on shallow depth of field. It is true that in the past shallow depth of field has been associated with a more cinematic aesthetic, but the fact of the matter is that the manipulation of depth of field is just a tool, like any other tool we use in filmmaking to tell a story. And that's what's most important about filmmaking: the story. As long as what you do as a cinematographer or director supports the story in some way shape or form and doesn't take the audience out of the story, it's a fair and usable technique. In the past, cinematographers have kept subjects sharp and backgrounds soft to draw attention to the subject since the audience's eye naturally moves to the brightest and sharpest objects in the frame first - but again, it's just a tool to help tell a story.

So, by that same principle, cinematographers can choose which tools to use and which not to use, and in many cases especially nowadays, they choose to ignore manipulation of shallow depth of field and keep everything sharp because HD has that capability. And so far, it's working pretty well - I know that I'm starting to like the crispness and sharpness of HD granted that its lit properly like any film should be, but you get what I'm saying.
 
All I've noticed going from mostly shooting on a consumer HD cam to a hdslr is that many times between home movies and psuedo-documentaries one of the reasons that shallow DOF looks better is because it's hard to control what's in the frame without prior planning or an art-department in these situations. By being able to focus selectively I think things look better.

But overall, or for narrative work, etc, I would agree that it's less necessary.
 
I agree to this alot... When i see movies online, people tend to overuse shallow DOF so much that it becomes irritating to watch... playing with focus forth and back... it became like some mania, but what's the purpose?

I even watched Philip Bloom's movies, which i adored, when done with adapter, but now... it irritates me cause i want to see the picture and all i see is an inch of image!
 
it has its purpose and it can be used very nicely to create tension/drama/suspense, it can also be useful when a chaotic background would distract from the object in focus but I agree : its been overdone by DOF junkies pulling focus as much as possible. To me the art is in using it without making me notice that its there.....
 
Shallow depth of field is a nice touch. But just like fast shutter speeds, etc. it should only be used as a "spice" for films, not as a main ingredient. It's especially nice for music videos, but yes. Most movies have a very deep DOF.

Y tu Mama Tambien is another example.
 
I have to agree with Tomas. It's becoming over-used.

There's a short film circulating now that's very popular on Vimeo and getting a lot of blog commentary and the racking of focus back and forth is over done in my opinion. Just because you can start with a close-up shot of tree branches or whatever and rack out to a wide view landscape doesn't mean you should. And for goodness sakes, make sure the focus is sharp at either end!

One of my favorite shows to watch is Bourdain No Reservations. The crew has won cinematography awards for its work. They have a Letus. It's almost invisible; you really have to pay attention to see the DOF shots. Subtlety! They don't try to use it in every shot or even every episode.

I'd probably not buy mine again but I'm so heavily invested in it......
 
Google, Cranky...Anthony Bourdain..."No Reservations" is a show on Food Network i believe. They use sony hdv cams mostly...read somewhere that they use a Letus for some shots, but i can't tell. Not a big fan of the look of the show.
 
skinny! said:
Google, Cranky...Anthony Bourdain..."No Reservations" is a show on Food Network i believe. They use sony hdv cams mostly...read somewhere that they use a Letus for some shots, but i can't tell. Not a big fan of the look of the show.
Click to expand...
I did google... maybe not well enough. I know they used the V1U and lately switched to the Z7U. Didn't know about the Letus.
 
Cranky said:
I did google... maybe not well enough. I know they used the V1U and lately switched to the Z7U. Didn't know about the Letus.
Click to expand...


i watched the show in HD, and is it me or does it look awful?...much like "The Deadliest Catch"...crap. BUT, I understand that these shows use "throw away HD cams"...it's just not looking like HD anymore. poorly implemented HDV, or is HDV really nothing more than uprzed DV?....
 
The No Reservations crew was profiled in HD Video Pro a couple of months ago and that's how I know about the Letus.

Some of the episodes have been graded with a heavy hand but my purpose in referring to the show was that the photography is done well and the adapter is just 1 tool they have to create the show. They don't over-do it as seems to be common lately in a lot of things showing up on the web.
 
No, public enemies doesnt look awesome, i turned it off after bale shot the guy, i couldnt stand this "behind the scenes video" look.
 
Overall, I think it's a huge improvement for video. I shoot broadcast shows all the time on 2/3" cameras and for the most part, for unscripted work, it's a nice compromise between being able to get focus on the fly and be selective. A 35mm imager in those situations would end up with too many images out of focus. But for narrative, commercial, videos and interviews, 35mm size imagers just look a lot less video'ish and more dramatic. Granted, deep focus can look great (ie. Orsen Welles, etc) but for some reason, deep focus in a video signal for me lacks the photographic look I like for storytelling. Maybe it's the highlight clipping or rendering of complex patterns that bugs me.

In terms of losing importance, I think just the opposite. Can't remember the last narrative I did on 2/3" but this last year alone, I've shot 3 features on RED. In NYC, high end beauty commercials are being shot on 5D's.

I think the adaptor craze is on its last breath, though. I personally like shooting on my 7D than all my previous adaptors to the point I sold all of my adaptor gear. Unlike P. Bloom, I have to light alot of what I shoot and that's where adaptors really stink. The light loss, the constant adjustments and general poor build of virtually all low cost adaptors has definitely soured many a cameraman and client here in NYC. They're quickly phasing out.
 
here's a little quote of a critic on the movie "Public enemies" I found on internet:

"Not once did the film hook me and pull me in. I blame this on the way "Public Enemies’ was shot. The digital film just looks very cheap and very amateur. There was no style to it what-so-ever. The whole film looked like an unfinished product. If you have seen the movie then you know what I am talking about. It was like watching a video production of a stage play. I never felt like the world they were in was real, it all felt set up and fake."

Using no DOF is as bad as using too much DOF (except for commercials or music videos). However, I think it's an effect that people should use with parsimony, depending on the feeling that want to give to the spectator.
 
I'll put in my two cents here :

35mm adapters are a TOOL.

So is going without one...so is lighting to extremes so you can close that iris a bit!

I'm working on a film now with a director I've worked with alot, and I know he likes handheld, he likes easy as possible filming, and a bit edgey...so I light as bright as possible, close the iris a bit....end of story.

Is 35mm adapter use OVERused? sometimes...so is 1/3 inch filmmaking...so is neon leggings, disco music, and piercings....sometimes.

it's all relative, and we as film makers just have to skirt lines, go under them, go over them, and mix them for the sake of Art.
 
I agree with you Nick.

As far as "Public Enemies" yeah it did shout VIDEO a little too loudly. I just liked how clear it was on BlueRay and interesting how shallow DOF was not a priority for them. I thought "Well, obviously they wanted to go with video instead of film for some reason. But I imagine the RED camera with CMOS chips would NOT have worked because of all the action and whipping/panning of the camera. So they went with the best CCD camera available."

But I agree FILM would have been a better choice.

Which brings me to the next thought: The compromises with CMOS chips on the RED and virtually all other CMOS cameras is because of ROLLING SHUTTER. SO if hollywood has the budget, why don't they use a GLOBAL SHUTTER CMOS camera? Does one even exist? (is that what the Viper is? I'll look it up) Why doesn't RED make one? Yeah its alot more expensive to make I hear, but not an issue for Hollywood i wouldn't think.
Just thinking here, don't really expect an answer. RED is trying to aim below certain price points im sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top