"Soft focus"

F

Frank Abyss

Member
I'm brand new to videography. I watch a lot of videos made by various folks and I notice that on many videos, whenever a subject moves a bit, there is a lag in the focus. The lag is tiny, mere nanoseconds perhaps...not very noticeable unless one looks for it.
So my questions:
1) is "soft focus" (when not necessarily intended) OK and do you always need to have super-sharp focus?
2) Whenever you have frames where the focus is not tack-sharp, and these frames neither bring something more or detract to the video, do you re-shoot or tend to let it go?
 
There's really no one answer for any of that. As a general rule, no, you don't want to have flaws -- and if soft focus isn't intended, it's a flaw. But when you have them, it's always a balancing act. That's entirely circumstance-dependent.

In a perfect world of unlimited time and resources, of course you'd reshoot. But no one lives in that world.
 
1) Anything that isn't in keeping with the over-all intent, or mood, or is not intentional done for effect is a potential distraction and not desirable.
2) Re-shoot.
Good luck.
 
1) If you watch for it you will see these focus imperfections in films of all levels. It's not uncommon at all to see them in tentpole Hollywood movies either. That being said, if it's not intentional then it shouldn't be there if you can help it. Obviously better ACs will be better at their job and will make this much less of an issue.

2) It depends on how bad the focus issue is and how much time is available for the scene. If it's noticeable enough that someone who isn't looking for it would catch it, then re-shoot. If it's not very noticeable and time is scarce, then move on. If it's not very noticeable but there's no time crunch, then I would re-shoot it anyway.

Lately I've done a series of 10-14 day features, and because of the quick schedule there are definitely instances of lagging-focus that made the movie because we didn't have time to shoot. There are also scenes with very limited coverage, compromised lighting setups, funky dolly moves etc. that end up making the cut due to time restrictions, as is the case when you work with a limited budget and short schedules. In short, fix it when the problem is noticeable and depending on available time. Most of the time the best you can do is limit the number of flaws.
 
I guess your interest is in video cameras that have large 'cine size' chips (DSLR, C100, FS700 RED etc.)

Such cameras tend to have a thin Depth of Field (DOF) - which is considered to deliver a visually appealing image.

The down side of this thin DOF is that it is very hard to sustain focus, especially on moving subjects - considering that none of the cameras offer auto focus that works, unlike modern still cameras whose AF can easily beat the human eye for 90% of shots

These large chips (and film of a similar size) have been in use on movie sets for some years - now on movie sets they often use 'formal' methods to aquire focus..

'Cine' Lenses with large and accurate 'witness marks' (feet or meters) collimated (tested and calibrated) to work on a specific camera
They have a (highly paid and experienced) 'focus puller' dedicated to control of focus
They 'block' (pre plan/rehearse) scenes and the actors move to preplanned 'marks' on the ground which the focus puller has pre measured using a roll of tape
The 'Puller' uses a 'follow focus' which he/she will have marked to correlate with those marks on the ground
Some follow focus have adjustable 'hard stops' to help the puller
Often use 'cine tape' a sonic radar distometer that costs $10+K
Enough light to shoot at 4 -5.6 (not 1.4)
The puller may use a 'radio remote' follow focus enabling him/her to stand side on to the scene to judge distance better

So you see that 'in focus' shots in cinema productions really requires a dedicated department with skilled staff and expensive equipment.

Roll on to 2009 and a video function enabled in DSLR cameras makes 'thin DOF technology' available to 'the masses', not only large chips.. but very fast lenses like the 50 1.4

These masses record their 1080 footage looking at a 480px monitor (1/4 of the res they are recording) and throw themselves into recording live events and lo budget drama with actors who cant hit their marks, on productions that do not have time to make them, they use still lenses, whose 'witness marks' are often wildly inaccurate too and cameras that in the main dont offer a 'zoom in while rolling' feature to check focus without using the 'formal' methods of traditional cinematography, often using minimal light and a very open Fstop.

Manufacturers have not helped these low budget shooters acquire focus by implementing new technology in any way, and in fact by having 'peaking' on monitors which is supposed to be a focus aid, but often does not work, have hindered it.

These masses also follow various bloggers who often avoid the tedia of focus acquisition, some of those bloggers employ focus pullers, often promoting camera rigs that they use but not showing the $10k+ of focus accessories they personally employ, some shoot 'tests' where they can just throw away muzzy footage.

The 'masses' dont have a chance of sustaining focus! And the problem will only get worse as we can stream full 1080 or even 4k and really see those focus errors... SD did not have enough resolution to show focus inacuracy.

So 2009 to now is "The Era of Focus Drift". IMO one of the least appealing 'looks' available in cinematography.

Over time better focus aids may become available or even functioning AF for movie making in large chip cameras,

So how as someone 'brand new to videography' are you going to sustain focus?

-You could buy a camera with a small chip and lots of DOF like the EX1r

Or with a large chip camera..

Use the 'formal' methods or
Mark your scenes using the camera magnify facilty (if there is one) before you roll
Consider a higher resolution monitor (screen) for example the small HD DP6 which is 720 (but still not the 1080 your are recording)
Shoot with a smaller Fstop
Practice
Buy old manual lenses that have a long 'focus throw'
Use wide not tele lenses
Experiment with the rudimentary AF available on some cameras (sony FSxx, sony NEX, Maybe sony F3 and some others)
Practice
Practice

An interesting link http://provideocoalition.com/freshdv/video/freshdv_film_school_art_of_focus

S
 
Last edited:
Nice post Sam--and kudos for using the term "tedia" which I've never seen in print, but seems perfectly logical from a grammatical standpoint...!
 
Blocking and T-marks help a lot even if you don't have any of the other stuff. Also sometimes a wider lens or a deeper f-stop.
 
Wow, thank you all for the responses.
Sam, thanks for your in-depth answer...
I shoot mostly over/underwater scenes...just sharing what I see/discover. Topside, I shoot a Panasonic GH3 and a bunch of old manual prime lenses. The Panasonic 14-42 that came with the camera tends to be to slow.
The more I explore cinematography, the more I discover how much talent,time and dedication it really takes,even for a short film.

Thanks for the link...
 
Last edited:
For sure.. and mix in some water and it gets really baffling with changes of effective focal length and the like

Ive dabbled in the water which is really fun, do all the normal skills and mix in the need to sustain life - very mentally extending

S
 
I've seen instances where the focus on a characters eyes is soft momentarily, and its during a moment in the film where they're hesitant, or pensive, but as they start to have clarity of thought their eyes will come into focus. It's incredibly subtle - enough so that I've wondered if it's intentional. Either way, I've found it to be impactful in terms of driving the subtext.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top