Shallow DOF losing importance in filmmaking?

SaN said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm halfway or so through the blu-ray of it and I agree that it's a bit of a struggle to stay 'hooked in' to it, but I think it has very little to do with the cinematography. I think it's the script and directing that's the main problem. Depp and Bale are certainly good enough actors in general, but in 'P.E.' they're hustling though dialog to the point of unintelligibility, giving odd, unconnected sounding line readings, etc. Then there's the disjointed storytelling and erratic pacing, either of which could be attributed to the script or editing or both, but when you look at all the above, it's hard not to assign the fundamental problems to the director/co-writer, Michael Mann. While he's done what I think is fine work in that dual role in the past (although what a 'co-write' credit actually entails is elusive) in such films as "The Insider", in this case it's my humble opinion that he dropped the ball quite badly, and *that's* why I find myself suffering from temporary ADD while watching it.

Regarding the visuals, there were two issues that I noted, one of which was quite distracting, which in fairness to the reviewer quoted above, did by definition detract from the quality of the experience. It was apparently an added effect that was intended to look like old/degraded film (or something), but it appeared to me more like looking through a screen door. A sort of blurry, cross-hatchy texture overlaid on certain shots (then not the next, then back again - argh) that was very distracting. At first I thought I was seeing massive compression artifacts (and I suppose it's possible that I was), but it's a blu-ray, and I've never seen anything that drastic this side of YouTube, so I figured it was deliberate. Who knows...

The other notable visual thing was *extreme* sharpness, but of unusually high quality (and only in certain shots, and of course not on any of the 'screen door' effect ones). It looked a lot like excessive edge-enhancement, but to my eye it lacked almost any of the usual tell-tale signs of that, most particularly the dreaded halo effect surrounding contrasting-colored boundaries. I like a nice sharp image, so I was partly pleased by this, which is good, but also somewhat distracted, which is bad.

But all of that was a minor annoyance compared to the flaws in what I attribute to the directing/storytelling. I'll struggle through the rest of it I'm sure, and will post again if my impression shifts, but that's how I'm seeing it so far.
 
Last edited:
Shallow DOF is awesome. Public enemies imo was horribly shot. Due to the time period I think it needed the sdof even more so it would look old and dirty. Don't get me wrong I like the crystal clear stuff for say... Planet Earth or even Star Trek. But I think the majority of people would agree that the basics of cinema have always been to show you a SCENE or image or person or object to focus on. An infinite depth of field contradicts this.

When somethings done right, it doesn't matter how or why it was shot that way and when somethings done wrong it doesn't matter what tricks/or tools you used... it still sucks. The option to use a 35mm adapter is a HUGE step for us indy people. Lets not throw away the wheel here.
 
Zblock said:
But I think the majority of people would agree that the basics of cinema have always been to show you a SCENE or image or person or object to focus on. An infinite depth of field contradicts this.
Click to expand...

I believe that using shallow DOF to lead the viewer to focus is the cheapest. most amateuristic way and sometimes, downright annoying. The human visual system has a multitude of ways to decide where to put his attention and these are all in the hands of the photographer. You can grab the viewer's attention by art design, color, lighting, motion, gesture, etc. Why would I want to enforce something to the viewer when I can lead him by using his own natural vision processing mechanisms?

The eye is relatively low resolution, with a small high resolution area at the center, so that we can see more detail on the most interesting part of each scene. This part is something we chose and it is a very satisfying experience when we discover it naturally. Our vision is naturaly relatively deep DOF with selective focus. Put your index finger vertically in front of you eye wit the arm fully extended and stand 2m from a wall. Switch focus from your finger to the wall. The difference in sharpness is minor, it certainly doesn't look like f1.4 in super35, even thought the distance is very small. When the distances are large and there is more light hitting the eye, our vision has very deep DOF. Try to switch focus on demand from your index finger to the wall a few times. It feels very unnatural, doesn't it? You have to force it. That's because nothing changes and you have to switch focus. But if you catch a burglar or a lion with the corner of your eye passing the hallway at the far right of your vision, or a sudden flash, or a bat flying above you, your eyes will instictively switch to the moving element. It's effortless. It's the job of the filmmaker to achieve this. To get your focus to the right element for the story in the most natural way.

How can shallow DOF be natural when the eye cannot even focus on an area that is out of focus in natural vision? This happens all the time in shallow DOF shots and it is very annoying because photographers that overuse DOF are usually not aware of how vision works. They leave interesting elements in out of focus areas such as converging lines, parallel verticals, items lit with heavy contrast or heavily saturated objects. When they eye is led there, it's a catastrophy, the viewer is disoriented, and really, how many people will say how wonderful the bokeh quality is when this happens in the middle of a shot? When the focus pull is slow, it's even worse, the user is anxious to focus on the item on which the photographer unintentionally led his vision but he has to wait for a while or even forever. Does that help the story?

Shallow DOF is very artistic and very useful in still photography because photography lacks more powerful tools to lead the viewer attention. Especially black and white photography. The applications in film photography are IMHO relatively limited, so limited that many well known cinematographers avoided it like the plague when they weren't forced to use it because of a low light situation.

Imagine a shot with two people talking in a low light situation, lying in bed, 100cm away. Many good cinematographers have shots scenes like that and they obviously try to hide the focus pulling by performing it with great speed. It's not considered something that will add to the shot because it will probably disorient the user if the user selects to focus on the wrong face. I have discussed with some well known european cinematographers in person about DOF and the ideal treatment of the scene is to have deep DOF and let gesture by the actor, and tone and content of the dialogue lead the viewer. And if keeping them away is not useful to represent their emotional state, move them in the DOF region! Leaving more options is usually better than hitting a disagreement with the viewer choice. In a natural environment, we do get the option and the viewer has to work for our attention. Why would cinematography be different? In the great days of cinema, the cinematographers that could achieve deep DOF were praised for their capabilities.

I think shallow DOF was very popular in the past few years because it instantly creates an image different of that of the small aperture 1/3" and 1/4" camcorders. This generation was forged in digital cameras with small sensors, they have become tired of infinitely deep DOF and they found the changes these adaptors provided refreshing. Few embraced the look of the dv cameras and very few made something wonderful out of it, because everybody was dreaming of 35mm cinematography. Those who could actually use shallow DOF, the filmmakers with large apertures and 35mm film cameras, typically chose the practical deep DOF or relatively medium DOF (f4 usually).
 
Zblock said:
But I think the majority of people would agree that the basics of cinema have always been to show you a SCENE or image or person or object to focus on. An infinite depth of field contradicts this.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, typically shallow depth of field has been used to direct the viewer's eye in the frame, and it has been very successful because generally that's how the human eye works. But to say that it's "basic" of film to have soft points in the frame isn't any more correct to say its "basic" to have everything sharp in frame. Look at the classic example of deep focus: Citizen Kane. Gregg Toland went through monumental hardships to create entire frames in deep focus and not once does the ability to look around the frame take the viewer out of the story that is being told. Similarly, viewers are still expertly guided to look at a specific object or subject in the frame through meticulous composition and lighting.

All in all I think this point best demonstrates that depth of field is simply a tool and nothing more. Some choose to use the tool, others don't. Some love it, some hate it. Some use it too much, others too little. Some people use it properly, others incorrectly. It's just the nature of film since we're in a medium of artistry. I will, however, say this about Public Enemies: there are many problems besides the way it was shot that made it less than a movie. I personally though the lighting fit most of the scenes and it certainly emphasized what time period we were in, especially with what I thought was great production design, but the camera movement and poor writing and really didn't help me get into it. And that is all on the director. The shootouts weren't even exciting to me because I could care less whether any of them lived or died. When Johnny Depp gets shot in the face in the end, I literally felt absolutely nothing. It was like, oh...was that the conclusion?
 
I guess maybe I got side-tracked off the post. Is dof losing importance in filmmaking? I think that with the new technology, new doors will be opened and people will try new things and push the envelope of whats considered cinema. I still feel very strongly that the means to shallow depth of field are an amazing asset to a filmmaker or anyone with a dv camera but there will most certainly be those exceptions that prove to be great visual pieces that use other techniques besides shallow DOF.

No, it's not losing importance. Yes, other avenues are gaining importance.
 
I personaly like the look of the short depth of field , in my opinion its all personal preference. you definately don't need it to make a film. but just like using a different lens for a shot or a whole film , this would be just the same
 
To me, when shooting a film on a non-film format, the most important things VISUALLY are:

1. A good cinematographer

2. Set design or location look

3. Lighting

4. Quality of Lense

5. Shallow Depth of Field

(listed in order of importance)

What do others think?
 
Last edited:
Lighting trumps set design. Maybe I'm biased, but to me, the sets only exist to be photographed and the set designer knows that. As a corollary, in independent filmmaking there isn't usually a budget for the building of multiple sets, and we rely heavily on different styles of lighting to convey that there is a different emotion or feel to every location even if the location is in fact, the same. Ryan Patrick O'Hara (a member on this board) will attest to the importance of lighting vs. sets as he shot a short film where the script called for four separate hotel rooms, but the production only had one room. So he made the rooms look entirely different through lighting and moving furniture.

Lighting to me is way more important than the design of sets. But don't read that as me saying set design isn't important, because it is. It's just that in low budget filmwork, you often don't get the luxury of having both and if I was forced to choose I'd take good lighting over good set design.
 
This is a very pertinent debate. My answer is ironically: the bigger your budget, the less important it becomes to have a narrow depth of field. Why? Because when you have the money to get some incredible backgrounds, you want people to see them. The reverse is true as well. Throwing the background out of focus is the cheapest was to dress the background. Moreover, when you have the money to light everything for a large depth of field, use it. The older movies had a narrow depth of field simply because they had no choice: film was slower and lighting was more awkward.

I'll take the set design any day! If you have a low budget, the last thing you want is a wide depth of field simply because you don't have the money to dress the background as they do in big films. A movie such as Back to the Future has such intense art direction and production design that you actually want to see the background. Most low budget movies try to hide imperfections in the background. The narrow depth of field is the cheapest way to "dress" a background.
 
Last edited:
Technical
Good equipment and a person who knows how to use it
Lighting and Composition
Clean sound

From the viewers point
Good story
nice pictures
 
Shallow (or deep) DOF are just colors in our crayon box - no more no less. You want to have the ability to shallow it up when appropriate, which 1/3" camcorders generally can't, so an adapter is one of the better ways to achieve it there. If you're going shallow all the time however, most likely you're missing the point. Many newbie films suffer badly from this.
 
Lighting trumps set design. Maybe I'm biased, but to me, the sets only exist to be photographed and the set designer knows that.
Click to expand...

Yeah I really debated in my mind # 2 & #3 as to which was more important. I stress to people all the time how lighting will make or break your overall look. I put set design before lighting only because I thought, well if you have a horrible production look (background, set or whatever) then all the lighting in the world is not going to make it look any better. Unless of course you put your background/set in the dark and only light the actors. lol
 
The reason big budget movies look like big budget movies is because of the art design, the costumes and the sets. Lighting is rarely the determining factor. Beginning film students always talk about getting a good DP. Then they spend hours lighting their student film and it still looks like a student film. That is one of the flaws of film schools. They don't tell you enough about production design, art direction and costumes.
 
I believe lighting is the very essense of cinematography. I would put it above all other factors. How else would one explain that Polanski/Taylor's Repulsion and Nolan's Following look great? I can't imagine these guys waiting for high budget production design in order to prove their filmmaking skills.

Imagine the sets of a hollywood film and excellent production in all areas (hair styling, makeup, costumes), but lit in tv style (flat for maximum flexibility) or unlit. It wouldn't look very interesting, right? Lighting is what makes a film look good, not the art direction or any obvious money on the screen. The schools IMHO do the right thing when they focus on the things that are most important. Good lighting can also be achieved at low cost. Film school graduates will not get into hollywood films immediately, so they'd better know how to make their low budget art direction look excellent. They will have to prove themselves in such films. If the budget is high enough and the art direction is top notch, it will only make the result better.
 
I dunno, I'd take great sets and locations with home depot lighting budget than arri lighting budget with limited sets and bad locations.

Especially since great locations easily and naturally light well.
 
I dont know, bourne doesnt have incredible sets its shot on streets with bad weather and cold ,and this mood is great for the story.
Back to the future needed sets cause story was in 50's .It was interesting to watch ,i dont really enjoy movies from 50s but i like to see how man from future would behave in 50s.
Maybe its taste but i dont like big sets i like natural and real stuff , no cgi ,no fantasy,no models as actors.Kinda like taken or bourne trilogy.In our real world on real streets.
Public enemies would look better if shot on 35mm film with deep focus.
 
bwwd said:
Public enemies would look better if shot on 35mm film with deep focus.
Click to expand...


PE looked like an experiment to me. I'm not convinced anything would have helped that film besides not shooting at a video framerate, actually lighting it, and hiring camera operators that didn't have the shakes.

The approaches used to tell stories cinematically have a pretty established methodology at this point. Shallow focus is a valuable technique that I've even seen used in illustration and cartoons. It's not a fad and it's not going to fall out of favor with probably 99% of filmmakers anytime soon for narrative or commercial stuff.

On a budget (a low one), it allows a DP the ability to shoot around a lack of production design and end up with shots that actually look good. Of no small concern to cinematographers is achieving separation between various planes of a given shot.

I see lighting AND focus control as the best means for achieving this.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top