Shallow DOF...not so much of a big deal

jambredz

jambredz

Veteran
ok ...so shallow DOF seems to be the main thing indi filmakers go for (nothing is wrong with that) as they think it emulates big bugdet films . But recently i've been really taking notice of hollywood/big bugdet films and alot of them dont even hav this shallow DOF that everyone is clamouring for. its what i'd describe as medium DOF if thats even a term, and even pretty deep...not this super shallow look.

Anyway...just something i noticed :)
 
Yeah, we've been saying that for years. Those who are obsessed with shallow DOF seem to want to shoot on a "full frame" sensor at f/1.4. In actual Hollywood work it's more typically an Academy gate sensor (like APS-C, not S35) and being shot at f/3.4.
 
It seems shallow depth of field is the look of the day and your right it is way over used by inexperienced cinematographers. Shallow DOF is not going to make you the next Conrad Hall. Sorry, there is a lot more to it than that.
 
Orson Wells was into great DOF. Here's a shot that is clear all the way back, though the YT compression is bad.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE


For Welles, this meant that action could take place without the need for cutting back and forth, allowing the viewer to change their own focus while watching the shot, an effect much admired but rarely duplicated with such force. It takes a closed iris and a lot of light.
 
I agree that many Hollywood movies use a medium and long dof most of the time, but that's not to say they don't use shallow dof at all. Definitely not for EVERY SHOT like some indie filmmakers believe, but certainly for shots that the focus isn't moving back and forth a lot, or extreme close-ups, or stylistic purposes. It can have a very pleasing bokeh background look. So it's always good to have the option of using a very shallow dof.

Just don't OVER USE it.
 
Chadfish said:
Orson Wells was into great DOF. Here's a shot that is clear all the way back, though the YT compression is bad.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE


For Welles, this meant that action could take place without the need for cutting back and forth, allowing the viewer to change their own focus while watching the shot, an effect much admired but rarely duplicated with such force. It takes a closed iris and a lot of light.
Click to expand...

We spent a complete 4 hour class in school on this scene and how it was done. We live in a world were a 12 year old can ask for enough equipment (with Home Depot lights at first) for Christmas to really start making "Movies". Before Canon, Sony, Panasonic and JVC started making sub$5k 3CCD cameras in the '90's this was almost unthinkable.

I am extremely guilty of shallow depth of field with rack focus while handheld the first couple shoots I did with my T2i. Considering I made a decent living until last year with a DVX-100a, this leap in options has forced the experience issue even more. If that 12 year old devotes the same amount of effort and time as a Violin player or Football player does their passion, they will by ready to earn living as a Pro right out of High School if not before.

I guess what I am trying to say is they/I am making these errors because for the first time WE CAN! Once the crazy era ends and anyone can edit 4k on their iPad we will see a grounding back in storytelling and not 20 slider shots of a bush at f1.4 in broad daylight.
 
Having the option of a shalow DOF is just as important as having a deep one, as usual a new option turns into a fashion, but what I cant stand is people buying an HD DSLR to add a lot of accesories over, until they have almost the same functionality as a traditional prosumer camcorder, only bigger, less compact and way long more expensive
 
Last edited:
There are many "tools" in the toolbox of a cinematographer. Shallow DOF is merely one of a few that is intended to direct the eye. Others include subtly lighting the point of attraction half a stop brighter, making the focal point the axis around which we move the camera in a curve, etc. As it so happens, shallow DOF is the one that requires the least skills to achieve. So it is added to the arsenal well before other things.

A Hollywood cinematographer also has various other expensive tools at their disposal which a pretty darn hard to emulate. Learning to use a basic dolly is always a fun one to see with newer shooters. If you watch how Hollywood lays track, in most cases it's a few feet indoors. New indies will lay a mile of track if they have it!

The idea of shooting shallow DOF is very sound. You want to pick your point of interest out of a background. The time to do that is the 1-up shot. If you're shooting a 4-up shot, and only the principal's left eye is in focus, you might want to stop down a bit!

It is fun to read about the trials and tribulations of shooting a picture in IMAX like the Dark Knight because the size of the negative forces such shallow DOF. And then you turn around and see indie people CLAMORING for the 5D since it gives a similar level of depth. People who own neither a dolly or a stabilizer, but yet want to fight the same battles as the folks shooting a $200M movie. That's just very entertaining to me.

As Barry mentioned, most of these productions are shooting F/4.0 as a base stop, or occasionally F/2.8. A lot of that is dictated by the fact they are working on the zoom lenses on movies with smaller budgets or shooting with limited schedules. Yes, you'll have some scenes at F/2.0 or eve F/1.4 if they've got the lenses to do it, but those are the great exception. It's DARK if you have to shoot at F/1.4. That means a greater danger for actors who have to move in that kind of light, it makes it harder for the focus puller to see their marks, it's just harder for everyone to be working on those light levels.


Sorry, this just rambled on....
 
kgimedia said:
Once the crazy era ends and anyone can edit 4k on their iPad we will see a grounding back in storytelling and not 20 slider shots of a bush at f1.4 in broad daylight.
Click to expand...

Good one.



I'm guilty of making the same "mistakes." You start playing with a new toy and do things you could never do with dad's handycam, so you want to do it with every shot because you can.

You know you've learned a lot when you realize your shot list is variegated and fluid instead of being full of attempts to "show off."
 
PerroneFord said:
There are many "tools" in the toolbox of a cinematographer. Shallow DOF is merely one of a few that is intended to direct the eye. Others include subtly lighting the point of attraction half a stop brighter, making the focal point the axis around which we move the camera in a curve, etc. As it so happens, shallow DOF is the one that requires the least skills to achieve. So it is added to the arsenal well before other things.

A Hollywood cinematographer also has various other expensive tools at their disposal which a pretty darn hard to emulate. Learning to use a basic dolly is always a fun one to see with newer shooters. If you watch how Hollywood lays track, in most cases it's a few feet indoors. New indies will lay a mile of track if they have it!

The idea of shooting shallow DOF is very sound. You want to pick your point of interest out of a background. The time to do that is the 1-up shot. If you're shooting a 4-up shot, and only the principal's left eye is in focus, you might want to stop down a bit!

It is fun to read about the trials and tribulations of shooting a picture in IMAX like the Dark Knight because the size of the negative forces such shallow DOF. And then you turn around and see indie people CLAMORING for the 5D since it gives a similar level of depth. People who own neither a dolly or a stabilizer, but yet want to fight the same battles as the folks shooting a $200M movie. That's just very entertaining to me.

As Barry mentioned, most of these productions are shooting F/4.0 as a base stop, or occasionally F/2.8. A lot of that is dictated by the fact they are working on the zoom lenses on movies with smaller budgets or shooting with limited schedules. Yes, you'll have some scenes at F/2.0 or eve F/1.4 if they've got the lenses to do it, but those are the great exception. It's DARK if you have to shoot at F/1.4. That means a greater danger for actors who have to move in that kind of light, it makes it harder for the focus puller to see their marks, it's just harder for everyone to be working on those light levels.


Sorry, this just rambled on....
Click to expand...

Well put. definitely enjoyed this post.
 
PerroneFord said:
There are many "tools" in the toolbox of a cinematographer. Shallow DOF is merely one of a few that is intended to direct the eye. Others include subtly lighting the point of attraction half a stop brighter, making the focal point the axis around which we move the camera in a curve, etc. As it so happens, shallow DOF is the one that requires the least skills to achieve. So it is added to the arsenal well before other things.

A Hollywood cinematographer also has various other expensive tools at their disposal which a pretty darn hard to emulate. Learning to use a basic dolly is always a fun one to see with newer shooters. If you watch how Hollywood lays track, in most cases it's a few feet indoors. New indies will lay a mile of track if they have it!

The idea of shooting shallow DOF is very sound. You want to pick your point of interest out of a background. The time to do that is the 1-up shot. If you're shooting a 4-up shot, and only the principal's left eye is in focus, you might want to stop down a bit!

It is fun to read about the trials and tribulations of shooting a picture in IMAX like the Dark Knight because the size of the negative forces such shallow DOF. And then you turn around and see indie people CLAMORING for the 5D since it gives a similar level of depth. People who own neither a dolly or a stabilizer, but yet want to fight the same battles as the folks shooting a $200M movie. That's just very entertaining to me.

As Barry mentioned, most of these productions are shooting F/4.0 as a base stop, or occasionally F/2.8. A lot of that is dictated by the fact they are working on the zoom lenses on movies with smaller budgets or shooting with limited schedules. Yes, you'll have some scenes at F/2.0 or eve F/1.4 if they've got the lenses to do it, but those are the great exception. It's DARK if you have to shoot at F/1.4. That means a greater danger for actors who have to move in that kind of light, it makes it harder for the focus puller to see their marks, it's just harder for everyone to be working on those light levels.


Sorry, this just rambled on....
Click to expand...

Thank you. I learned a lot from this post alone. I'm also guilty of having recently made a DIY dof-adapter and bought a lot equipment for it. I even made a demo video with some footage for showing off, BUT it's a beginning and I think that there will be much more coming, once I'm accustomed to the many cinematographic techniques.
 
I think the main reason people overuse the shallow dof look these days is because they can. I mean think back five yrs ago, when there was no dslr, or before when their was no dof adapters. We were at he mercy of the tiny sensor, and in most cases we didn't have the extra room to scoot back and zoom in. So basicly everything was a long dof. With the new tools and the ability to shoot with shallow dof, many go crazy with it.

It is funny to watch new film makers rack focus every other shot and for no aparent reason. Or shoot wide open, then complain about not being crisp enough. I think experience shooters know enough to use it for guiding the audience attention to specific items in frame. I think Perrone is spot on. he's one that gets it. Unfortunetly were going to have to deal with it until all these newbies get a few productions under their belt. lol
 
Just like every camera, every lens, every tripod, steadicam, track, dolly, focus pulling, DOF... they all have a place. Yeah the DOF in a lot of things gets abused these days.. but it's because people can easily get it. It'll wear off.

Zach
twobrothersfilms.com
 
I just saw Soderberg's "The Girlfriend Experience". Worst cinematography I've seen in some time. Falls into all of the digital traps. Oh its digital so I don't need light blah blah. Shallow dof is the deal so I don't need to be in focus. I don't know how many shots there were where the principals of the scene were either completely out of focus or black in silhouette. Don't tell me that is artistic choice, absolute crap. Shot on RED.

When DOF adaptors first came out I don't know how many clips and shorts I saw shot entirely with a 50mm 1.4. Probably because it was the only lens they had and the adaptors didn't look good stopped down.

As has been said the time for shallow focus is on a tight close-up. That shot doesn't really look right without shallow focus, so there is the use.

1/3" cameras actually work fine for most shots, and they are certainly better for wide shots and moving shots where dslr's fall apart with wobble, aliasing and moire. Gear is affordable enough now that it really isn't about one camera to rule them all, unless maybe you have a RED or Arri and a full set of primes.

If you already have one don't abandon a good video camera in favour of a dslr, even an hv20 will be better in many situations. Add the dslr kit and use it for its strength. Keep a 50mm or 85mm on it all the time and bring it in for the locked off close-up.

Finally super shallow dof is a TV look that has been developed in the last few years to hide the flaws in the sets, especially when scrutinized on 50" HD sets. It is not historically a feature look, that much stuff out of focus can't hold long on the big screen. I wouldn't be surpised if the tide will turn back to deep focus, to differentiate from the crap indie stuff on the internet, and to look like 3D even if not shot in 3D

I like deep focus, I like to be able to compose 2-shots in depth and not have to rack on each line. Follow focus on 35mm is not an easy task and it isn't something that a one man band, on a run and gun rig can hope to do effectively. Even on 16mm I usually shot at at least f4 to avoid soft focus ruining a take, film isn't cheap and wasn't worth the risk just for the sake of a look.

If you don't have a video capable slr, but have access to an slr go out with a longish lens and a wide stop, and shoot some action with manual focus. See how many usable shots you end up with.
 
dop16mm said:
If you don't have a video capable slr, but have access to an slr go out with a longish lens and a wide stop, and shoot some action with manual focus. See how many usable shots you end up with.
Click to expand...

Well errr.... uh... since I grew up doing this on film, I can tell you my ratio was about 4-10 shots in 36. That was for football and basketball. I was better with tennis.

I was pleased to get nearly a 75% rate last fall shooting a night soccer game. It was an F4 lens on a 40D, but I'd been out of the stills game for nearly 15 years.

But your point is well made. Shooting wide open is DAMNED hard even when you know the blocking. Set your lens at F4 and shoot the movie. Got a tight 1-shot, shoot it at 2.8, Maybe F2. Call it a day.
 
dop16mm said:
I just saw Soderberg's "The Girlfriend Experience". Worst cinematography I've seen in some time. Falls into all of the digital traps. Oh its digital so I don't need light blah blah. Shallow dof is the deal so I don't need to be in focus. I don't know how many shots there were where the principals of the scene were either completely out of focus or black in silhouette. Don't tell me that is artistic choice, absolute crap. Shot on RED.
Click to expand...

Generally I'd agree with this statement but for this film, I think it was very much a choice, I believe he only used in two shots additional lighting, he wanted to only use what was there. Also let's not think that they messed up and had out of focus shots slip through into the final cut. These are professionals, that was a choice, weather you agree with that choice is a different matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top