The blessings and curses of shallow DOF

J

johne

Member
As a photographer i have always hated consumer video because of the unnatural extreme sharpness of those camera's.

35mm movie was of course acceptable because of selectable F stop settings/framerates etc that made footage look sort of natural.

The advent of video recording full frame DSLRS ushered in a new era for prosumer/consumer/professional image gathering. You can now use good glass to shoot stuff with very shallow DOF.

Great.

But in a lot of circumstances i wonder WHY?????? Sure there are times that shallow DOF adds to the significance of a scene. But when it is being used as a style element with no other purpose than to show that you can do the shallow DOF trick it loses its strength. And to be honest it makes me want to "zapp to the next channel"

I believe that you should make use of any trick you can think of to mesmerize your audience, but don't over do it.

Shallow DOF can be very suggestive, but just as it can nicely lead the audience in the desired direction, it can also put them off wondering why the camera guy can't even get good focus.
 
hey all these shallow DOF vids arent movies anyway so im not bothered, bunch of cats and garden,random people tests.
What I dont get is why people buy DSLR's and keep shooting camcorder style anyway, whole short film handheld or on wide angle, just great.
 
bwwd said:
hey all these shallow DOF vids arent movies anyway so im not bothered, bunch of cats and garden,random people tests.
What I dont get is why people buy DSLR's and keep shooting camcorder style anyway, whole short film handheld or on wide angle, just great.
Click to expand...

Well, The Wrestler, Black Swan, and Valhalla Rising were all filmed totally handheld with no lenses above 25mm, so that point isn't exactly valid. Granted, you need great composition, set design, camera operation, and a good rig for that to work, but there isnt anything inherently wrong with handheld and wide lenses.

I agree completely with the OP. It's really funny, about 5 years ago the biggest giveaway of amature cinematography was something 3 miles behind the subject being in perfect focus, now it's shooting everything on a 5D at 1.2 and making it look like you filmed your entire movie in front of a Monet painting.
 
This is not fair comparison cause black swan wasnt shot on 35mm, by camcorder style i meant closed lens and 18mm on APS-C.
I could not find single movie shot on 5D on 1.2 f stop.There are thousands of tests sure but these are not movies.But i know what you guys want to say, i only dislike disctracting blurry mudlike bokeh without character, canon 50mm f1.8 has exactly this kind of bokeh when its wide open.
 
I like deep depth field (check RPHs 'pools of light' and 'lighting in layers') as I just don't feel there are only 2 axis at play and couldn't care less for a blurred out banana on a coffee table either, however I saw this on Mr Deakins' forum and thought it might be of interest:

"Some people, and I include myself in this, like the shallow depth you get by shooting at a 1.4. Of course, it's not for every situation. It might also be a matter of expediency. I will often shoot wide open if I want to take advantage of existing light sources."

thread: http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1809

He seems to be saying that he shoots wide open for both the look and to be pragmatic. :)
 
Which is more difficult and more the marking of artistic capability?



  • Shooting wide open on your lens in available light to imbue all of your shots with the fluffiness of a French impressionistic painting.
  • Shooting at a greater stop with a wide field of view and using lights to paint the depth of a scene.


You'll never get a solid answer to that question because some people love Monet and others love Hopper.


Depth of field is a raw mineral to be mined, ground, and cut into a gem that serves a greater purpose than just being pretty by itself.
 
I saw part of a movie last year that was entirely way to shallow focus. I had to stop watching as it was getting spooky and it was obvious that "spooky" wasn't the intent. Nothing was ever in focus except the actors..ever! (I did scan through the movie to see if it changed but it did not. Wish I could remember the name of the movie).

On a side note, a number of these DSLR filmmakers don't seem to understand how cameras work (especially in relation to video). I asked one guy why he was using such a fast shutter for this outdoor scene when the rest of the movie was not shot that way. He said "Cause it's bright out and I wanna shoot wide open". He had no clue what an ND filter was or how a super high shutter speed would effect the video.

If you are used to shooting stills and cranking up the shutter to keep a certain aperture setting then I can see why one might think that way, but I would hope one would do a tad bit more research on cinematography before shooting a feature film. Low budget or not.
 
Jordan Scott Price said:
Which is more difficult and more the marking of artistic capability?




  • Shooting wide open on your lens in available light to imbue all of your shots with the fluffiness of a French impressionistic painting.
  • Shooting at a greater stop with a wide field of view and using lights to paint the depth of a scene.



You'll never get a solid answer to that question because some people love Monet and others love Hopper.


Depth of field is a raw mineral to be mined, ground, and cut into a gem that serves a greater purpose than just being pretty by itself.
Click to expand...

Well, i suppose i can answer half of your question

It would certainly be more dificult to shoot at a greater stop with a wide field of view and using lights to paint the depth of a scene.
Whether the one or the other is a more distinctive sign of artistic capability, is i suppose open for debate.

"Depth of field is a raw mineral to be mined, ground, and cut into a gem that serves a greater purpose than just being pretty by itself." A quote to remember.

What i dont like is when a certain technique, whatever it is, becomes so dominant and pronounced that it becomes the message instead of the messenger.
 
Funny thing is, shallow DOF was hated by some directors back in the old days. But like 24fps, it became the norm. It would be cool to have a camera with adjustable DOF. You could do it in theory. But not very cost efficient since it would require a very complicated lens/chip mechanism.
 
bwwd said:
hey all these shallow DOF vids arent movies anyway so im not bothered, bunch of cats and garden,random people tests.
What I dont get is why people buy DSLR's and keep shooting camcorder style anyway, whole short film handheld or on wide angle, just great.
Click to expand...

Because owning a camera, a cameraman does not make. It takes a lifetime and the dedcation to perfect the skills.
 
yeah, but i still dont get these guys who want to make movies but break all the rules of framing and lens choice
 
Well breaking rules is fine, if you know what you are doing and are well trained.

Sort of how stunt people get to do crazy stuff like jump off a building or run with scissors, they can do that because they are athletes, and know how to fall, and avoid injury.

"Don't try this at home we what you call are professionals". As the myth busters would say.
 
Breaking the rules is one thing, but a lot of peeps don't even know what the heck the rules even are!
 
haha yeah, people want to make movies like they see in cinemas but they dont bother to mimic them and spend time on framing,lens choice,camera movement and lights
 
I remember these guys years back that were making a short for a 24 hr film contest, that framed everything 4:3 but decided to use a 2.4 mask in post. Cut the tops of heads etc. Looked stupid but they thought the 2.4 aspect ratio gave the short a more "cinematic seriousness". I was like, uhm... then why didn't you frame it for 2.4??
 
This is very pertinent question.

I consistently wrestle with the shallow DOF issue as it looks very cool, no boubt there, but WHEN to use it and when not to?

I try and set up a shot with my little list of 'what drives the story' questions but in the end I lways end up going for the 'ooh, that looks cinematic' option which means shallow DOF again.

I have watched countless tutorials and chatted to a lot of very experienced DP's about where and when which lenses and depth configuration should be applied.
Most of their somewhat complicated explanations boil down to something along the lines of shooter experience attached to a good eye and gut feeling.

It would be very interesting to hear (or read) some theories of where it definitely works and where it definitely doesn't. I'll happily experiment with what I read here and bring back a screen grab or two from set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top