Shallow DOF losing importance in filmmaking?

Over my holiday I have been catching up on Fringe and I am loving Tom Yatsko and companies use of shallow and long DOF. I can't imagine that show or any of those case-of-the-week shows without it.

I mean, what would a rainy night car interior be without those filmic, blurred circles of floating light; i.e. Taxi Driver. It sucks me in every time.

A great obvious example of how to use DOF from an adapter without making it a "character" or noticeably distracting is 28 Days.
I like Ted's point about it being a color in the crayon box, spot-on.

ASIDE: Did anyone ever use the white crayon?
 
Finnegan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Eeek. I finally got a chance to work with a good production designer and I'd take her along with someone who's got an eye for wardrobe any day over a few toys for lighting. My film finally had a color pallet and all I had to do was get a little bit of light on the set and things just instantly looked great. The only thing you can do with lighting is hide bad production design.

As far as DOF goes, I think it's mainly a craze that's happened because of these adapters. They may be a tool, but they did make the image much more cinematic, it was almost a necessary evil to prevent your film from looking cheap. The shame was that you couldn't stop down past 5.6 and get deep DOF. I'm loving the 7d now because it's sensitive in low light, I can stop down to get deep DOF if that's what the story calls for, but at the same time, I can open up and just make the background one giant mush pot if that's what I want.
 
Do you seriously believe ALIEN would have been ALIEN without the great sets? Do you think STAR WARS had great cinematopgraphy? Do you think TITANIC had great cinematography? Of course not. Production design and costumes are 90% of the movie look.

David Fincher in ALIEN 3 used very narrow depth of field. Did you notice and visual quality difference between ALIEN 3 and ALIEN 1? No... the sets were the important part. Not the DOF.

The only reason we use 35mm adaptors is because we try to emmulate film cameras and all its imperfections to trick the mind into thinking it is watching film. This said, a super 8 home movie and a 70mm big budget production are also both shot on film. Make no mistake about it. They real difference between them is production design, not DOF.
 
RyanT said:
Eeek. I finally got a chance to work with a good production designer and I'd take her along with someone who's got an eye for wardrobe any day over a few toys for lighting. My film finally had a color pallet and all I had to do was get a little bit of light on the set and things just instantly looked great. The only thing you can do with lighting is hide bad production design.
Click to expand...
I've been clamoring about this for years; what you're saying is exactly the truth. Lighting, as a skill set, is important, but all too often people forget that it's what you point the camera at that determines how your shot is going to look. Lighting helps accentuate what's already there, but it can't make something out of nothing!

The vast majority of indie films would be soooooooooo much better off if they'd spend their dough on a production designer instead of a DOF adapter.
 
Barry_Green said:
The vast majority of indie films would be soooooooooo much better off if they'd spend their dough on a production designer instead of a DOF adapter.
Click to expand...

The issue I think is the cost and long term benefit. Assuming that you can find a decent production designer who's willing to work for cheap (I really don't know how many of them are there at the micro budget level) you still have to give them some kind of budget so that they can dress up the set. And then after the shoot is over you'll end up with a bunch of stuff that you can't resell or reused. It's a tough decision when you want to stretch your resources over as many projects as possible.
 
Most production designers are pack rats. Find a good one and you really don't have to buy much, unless it's a pretty specific item....But then of course you should probably pay them a little.

You are right though, there really aren't very many on a low budget level, and a lot of times you'll just get someone who's interested, but hasn't a clue what they're doing.
 
The way to make a cheap production design budget look good is to spend a lot of effort on the costumes, makeup and hair and throw the background out of focus.
 
I always laugh when I see period movies getting best cinemotography academy awards. Often they are shot with pretty soft flat light and a little diffusion. The academy should be honoring the designer who created a lovely color pallet whose mood the DP could never begin to duplicate on his own.
 
Bottom line, if you want good cinematography, get a good production designer. If you don't have a the money, get a 35mm adaptor.
 
ripupthehwy said:
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.
Click to expand...

this is wrong. Public Enemy was shot partly on an EX1, which is 1/2 inch CMOS/ Rolling shutter varies between CMOS cams, and on an Ex1 it is nothing a little clever post can't correct.
 
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!

That said....

It's silly to say shallow depth of filed is bad, deep is good, or vice-versa. Deep is for seeing the environment, when it is useful and/or pleasing to see it, shallow is for honing-in on an actor or detail. You intercut between the two styles, as needed at any given moment. Shallow DOF is not a recent phenomenon - it can bee seen in photos that are now over 80 years old, and in films since the dawn of cinema. Over-using shallow DOF is another matter.
 
Robert Ruffo said:
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!

That said....

It's silly to say shallow depth of filed is bad, deep is good, or vice-versa. Deep is for seeing the environment, when it is useful and/or pleasing to see it, shallow is for honing-in on an actor or detail. You intercut between the two styles, as needed at any given moment. Shallow DOF is not a recent phenomenon - it can bee seen in photos that are now over 80 years old, and in films since the dawn of cinema. Over-using shallow DOF is another matter.
Click to expand...
Nicely said!
When I had my first camera and didn't know much about cinematography, I was always pointing out how sharp everything was in some shots and how pity it was that the background was un-sharp in some shots. I didn't know why, but I was pleased when everything was sharp. I had an 8mm film camera then.
When you think about it, DoF is an important tool when telling a story with pictures. Sometimes it can even help you to avoid problems with people in the background when shooting in crowded places.
If they are unrecognizable out of focus, you are good.
 
I have a DVX 100b and trying to "spice" up my image was leaning towards the Letus but now questioning wither I should just invest in an camera with an HD crisp sharp image. What would be smart at this point.
 
We always want what we can't or don't have. Once we have it we then want what we have had all along. Reminds me of a Dr. Seuss book I read as a child :)
 
as HDSLRs are here with shallow DOF, people is already overusing it, that's natural. Everything will turn upside down again and will get back to the image we're used to have before HDSLRs...
 
Tomas Riuka said:
as HDSLRs are here with shallow DOF, people is already overusing it, that's natural. Everything will turn upside down again and will get back to the image we're used to have before HDSLRs...
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Ultra shallow DOF will eventually become the new sign of amateurism. It is so affordable and so overused already. With the large sensor Sony camcorders it will be on everything.

Shallow DOF became very popular because the small sensor camcorders could not get it, we were starved for it, so we found it very interesting when DOF adapters achieved it. Many ignorant videographers used ultra shallow DOF exclussively, because in their logic, an 1/3" camcorder could not achieve it, so "their videos did not look like video, which made them filmic". Which was never true, because they were using the same camcorders, with the same chromaticity and the same latitude. Many went as far as investing 2/3 or 3/4 of their budget in lenses and DOF adapters/rails/follow focus units instead of investing in a camcorder with better image quality.

If you ask a cinematographer about 16mm vs 35mm, the last thing you will hear will be the difference in DOF. You will usually hear about the larger grain which makes high sensitivity stock look worse and the lower resolution of 16mm. And DOF adapters did exactly that, they waste sensitivity and resolution, they made HD more noisy and less HD. Ironic isn't it?

I believe that by 2012 the shallow DOF look will be as popular in video as it is in 35mm filmmaking today. Which will be a sign of maturity. We will start appreciating deep DOF again.
 
having shallow dof is nice, but you got to use it properly and choose the right lens, not shoot everything on 85 mm 1.4 just because 'it looks good'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top