I don't disagree with any of the statements made thus far; however I think there are a couple more reasons why a lot of folks are shooting with a shallow depth of field. First of all, bokeh can be absolutely beautiful. Everyone knows this but I hadn't seen it mentioned in this thread. It's simply visually appealing when light, lens, and sensor play nicely, which brings me to a second reason: bokeh can be unpredictable. Almost like a gambler whose brain chemistry is chained to the highs and lows of winning and losing, shooters rejoice in the unexpectedly stunning bokeh that bestows the ineffable.
Shallow DOF...not so much of a big deal
- Thread starter jambredz
- Start date
TwoBrothersFilms
Member
I do agree that you can have a shot turn out amazing because of how the light's reacting with the camera in run/gun situations like weddings and maybe live events and thats why a lot of people do shoot with these big chip cams. but I'm gathering these guys are mostly talking about "filming" situations where you are set up for a specific shot and you know how things are going to happen with your camera and lighting (for the most part). A lot of indie shooters are just using the DOF because it's easily there and fun to play with. Correct me if I'm wrong?
I'll even admit, when I started shooting with a 7D I abused it for awhile, mainly until I learned how to use and work with it properly
I'll even admit, when I started shooting with a 7D I abused it for awhile, mainly until I learned how to use and work with it properly
Chris Light
Veteran
it'a all objective, subjective, and "to each their own" type of shizz. love it, hate it, use it, don't abuse it...blah blah blah. as a viewer, i should never notice it.
that's the point. i'm not a pro, but i'm constantly shooting, switching lenses and what not, and i'm evaluating footage, and dammit, to my eyes, the really shallow DOF stuff rarely gets used if focus isn't spot-on...and it's not always as spot on as i thought anyway. Deep DOF shots win about 90% of the time.
Bokeh definately differs from camera to camera and lens to lens, but who in the hell but a filmmaker will notice that crap? Seriously. I understand bokeh. i do. but if i choose a shallow DOF shot, it's surely not because the bokeh is perfect...i choose it as a by-broduct of what was already a very good shot.
that's the point. i'm not a pro, but i'm constantly shooting, switching lenses and what not, and i'm evaluating footage, and dammit, to my eyes, the really shallow DOF stuff rarely gets used if focus isn't spot-on...and it's not always as spot on as i thought anyway. Deep DOF shots win about 90% of the time.
Bokeh definately differs from camera to camera and lens to lens, but who in the hell but a filmmaker will notice that crap? Seriously. I understand bokeh. i do. but if i choose a shallow DOF shot, it's surely not because the bokeh is perfect...i choose it as a by-broduct of what was already a very good shot.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
Like Perrone, Barry and others said, 35mm is usually shot at f4, f2.8 being the typical shallow DOF setting.
On a 2/3" camcorder you will have to use about f2, and f1.4 respectively to match the DOF (asumming 1,85:1 spherical). If you have f1.4 prime lenses it's easy. Zooms are f1.8 or f2.2 though (even the most expensive ones) so they will not give you the f2.8 35mm DOF.
On an 1/3" camcorder you need about f1.0 and f0.7 which are obviously not available (f1.6 and f1.8 are the typical limits of zoom lenses on 1/3" camcorders). This is why DOF adapters were introduced, used and abused.
On a 2/3" camcorder you will have to use about f2, and f1.4 respectively to match the DOF (asumming 1,85:1 spherical). If you have f1.4 prime lenses it's easy. Zooms are f1.8 or f2.2 though (even the most expensive ones) so they will not give you the f2.8 35mm DOF.
On an 1/3" camcorder you need about f1.0 and f0.7 which are obviously not available (f1.6 and f1.8 are the typical limits of zoom lenses on 1/3" camcorders). This is why DOF adapters were introduced, used and abused.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Similarly, that F4 on S35 equates to about what... F5.6-F8 on full frame? So those people trying to shoot F1.4 or F1.8 are shooting where film S35 film guys would be at F1.0 or less. Why?
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/7449/dofequiv.png
f6.8 is f4. F1.4 is f0.8 and lets not forget those priceless FF 50mm f1.0 shots with a cine equivalent of f0.583
EDIT:
http://www.panavision.com/lenses.php
From this page, the most shallow is probably an f1.5 (could even be f1.6, Panavision T1.6 should be quite good). That f1.5 is a FF equivalent of f2.6.
There are f1.2 lenses though from Zeiss which is an f2.0 equivalent on FF.
Last edited:
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
I have to say that the DOF use in The Girldfriend Experience is peculiar.
Two glasses are in focus on the foreground, boy and girl out of focus on the background. The girl picks the first glass. Focus does not change. Then the girl picks the second glass. Focus does not change. Now everything is out of focus for a few seconds and CUT. DOF problem, zero focus change. A cinematographer could attempt to justify the treatment. Perhaps it's supposed to express somebody's sentiments? Who knows what Soderbergh had in mind. Truth is that the average viewer is confused and distracted. Most people will be pulled to the in-focus glasses but immediately try to focus on the actors and fail, then jump back to glasses, jump back to the actors when the action continues. Then they are left with an out of focus frame for a few seconds.
There is another scene where the actors are very close to the screen and out of focus. They are talking for a couple minutes with focus is 5m to the back, on a candelier.
There is a scene when the girls walk towards the camera. She starts at the DOF point, walks right through it and ends up near the camera completely out of focus. She stays there for 10 seconds.
There is a scene on a table where the focus is on a spoon in the middle of the table? Both actors are out of focus because the DOF does not appear to be enough.
That would get you fired in the early days of cinema, now it's art!
There are some scenes in an airplane with extremely heavy pro mist style filtering (like 50 pixel blur overlay) and massively clipped highlights. That's supposed to be a HD video look?
All interiors look like an orange/green magic bullet look. All exteriors look like a magic bullet blue shade.
There is a very slow (30seconds?) dolly (could be zoom, hard to tell) that starts at an wide angle and ends at a similar wide angle. You can see that stuff on Tarkovsky films (great one in Stalker) but they end up in a useful shot, they go from point A to point B and save the cut, they don't start and finish master shot!
Soderbergh should have hired a cinematographer and an editor for this film. 90% of it looks like an one man camera department using a dSLR in available light and editing does not help it at all IMHO. The camera work is what one would expect from an amateur.
Chadfish
Veteran
It's art. It doesn't have to be correct.
Have you ever taken LSD? It really loosens up the old "preconceived notions" about everything. Not that you should shoot anything on LSD! I'm just saying, for people stuck in the left brained way of looking at art, a little psychedelic experience will change your whole outlook. The artist in this case, I am sure, made every decision consciously. So go with it. The real important thing is whether or not it was a good story.
Have you ever taken LSD? It really loosens up the old "preconceived notions" about everything. Not that you should shoot anything on LSD! I'm just saying, for people stuck in the left brained way of looking at art, a little psychedelic experience will change your whole outlook. The artist in this case, I am sure, made every decision consciously. So go with it. The real important thing is whether or not it was a good story.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
Of course it's conscious. It didn't go far enough to be considered avant-garde though or even dramatically useful. A few shots out of focus are hardly worth the bytes we are spending here. Will the film miss something if we have these shots in focus?
Chadfish
Veteran
I haven't seen the film. My point is that it's not our place to question the artist, but to put meaning to what the artist has given us to look at / hear. Maybe he just thought these shots in question were pretty. The guy has done a lot of films as director, and a lot as a cinematographer. Look at his IMDB page. So I think he meant to do whatever you see. I'm just saying that art is subjective. Maybe he did these shots just to mess with minds! There is a thread here about the subject...
It is absolutely the point to question the artist. Art without audience is nothing, and so the audience is what gives art its very essence. You may have the time to waste on mindless, talentless, drivel, but I certainly won't be living forever and so for someone to maintain my attention for 2+ hours, they need to put a lot of work, craft, and talent into their film.
PhilJackson
Active member
I actually really enjoyed the slow dolly (or zoom but felt like a dolly) in of the girlfriend and boyfriend in the living room. The film was never trying to be traditional, so I feel coming at it as if it were is missing some of the point. I've never looked into what was intended but the concealing of the 'girlfriend' in many of the situations is mirroring how she is always hiding herself from these men.
From what I remember, when the actual couple was together on screen the coloring wasn't as intensely shifted to blue or orange. I took that as when she's with these other guys it's more of an artificial world of some sort.
Either way, I'd recommend it for anyone interested in being a director of photography, weather you agree with the choices or not, it's interesting to see it play out.
From what I remember, when the actual couple was together on screen the coloring wasn't as intensely shifted to blue or orange. I took that as when she's with these other guys it's more of an artificial world of some sort.
Either way, I'd recommend it for anyone interested in being a director of photography, weather you agree with the choices or not, it's interesting to see it play out.
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
just curious but for everyone saying to shoot at f3 and higher, etc, etc. If you have a gh1 for instance, don't you have to shoot at very high apertures just to compensate for the micro 4/3 sensor having less shallow depth of field than full frame 35mm or canon 5d/7d etc? So if a hollywood film is fine shooting at f2 or f3, wouldn't you have to crank it up to f1.4 etc on a GH1 just to match their same level of DoF? or am I mistaken?
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
The sensor on a GH1 is marginally smaller than the sensor on a 7D/550D. The sensors in the 7D/550D are marginally smaller than the common S35 film size Hollywood typically uses. The Canon 5D uses the full frame which is done only VERY rarely in Hollywood.
So the question becomes, are you trying to emulate IMAX/5D DOF, S35 DOF, 7D/550D DOF, or are you just trying to make your film look good?
Shooting at F2.8/F4 on the 7D puts me in a good space for most things I want to shoot. I'd image the same would be true on the GH1. Maybe open up a half stop more. You couldn't buy a lens to emulate a Hollywood F2. Well, maybe a F1.2 would come close.
So the question becomes, are you trying to emulate IMAX/5D DOF, S35 DOF, 7D/550D DOF, or are you just trying to make your film look good?
Shooting at F2.8/F4 on the 7D puts me in a good space for most things I want to shoot. I'd image the same would be true on the GH1. Maybe open up a half stop more. You couldn't buy a lens to emulate a Hollywood F2. Well, maybe a F1.2 would come close.
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
I'll be honest I don't like the visual aesthetic of a 5dmkii. I don't know if guys here on dvx just don't know how to use it right but almost everything I've seen from 5dmkii the DoF is just too damn shallow and not good looking. 7d on the other hand looks amazing and sometimes I've considered selling my gh1 for a 7d or ideally having both if $$$ ever permitted. I just don't like that Nose in focus the rest of the face blurry DoF I often see from 5dmkii films.
But anyways, what aperture would one have to open up to to get roughly the same DoF as a F2 in hollywood films with cine lenses? I looked at the chart but only saw 4/3 there not M4/3
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
I produced that chart. The 4/3 figures is for 18mm wide sensor. Micro 4/3 is just a lens mount I believe.
F2 in spherically shot 1,85:1 is f1.8 on 4/3. You can get the f2 4/3 zooms for an equivalent f2.3.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Ha! -If you have to place some LSD in the popcorn, just to make sure the audience is understanding the artsyness of your film, something went really wrong.
Frank
Barry_Green
Moderator
The GH1's sensor is almost the same size as 35mm cinema film. The f-stop compensation is about 1/2 a stop, that's all. If you want to match 35mm cinema film shooting at f/2.8, you'd set the GH1 to f/2.4.