The blessings and curses of shallow DOF

[Jordan Scott Price]

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.

Think of depth of field as audio to written word. If you could read your scene like a book, what images, transitions, colors, and textures come to mind as the words come off the page?

Depth of field affects all of these things, but it is not the chief instrument. It is in the service of communicating images. It should never work against the communication.


There is no book or manual on where shallow depth of field does or doesn't work because it's all art, it's all taste, and it's all subjective. The effectiveness of your images, however, can always be qualified by its strength in communication, not solely by its depth of field.


I think if you broaden your interpretation of a script when you put your director's hat on, Wilbur, you won't be worrying about what is an acceptable level of "shallow," but rather how well you are facilitating your objective. Depth of field is just one of many elements reliant on that objective, not the inverse.

 

[TimurCivan]

Here's a good rule.

I shoot narritiive at a T4 (whether on CP's or Cookes). So I set my ISO in one place, and light for the stop and the ISO. The DOF just falls where it does, but its consistent between shots, because its the same stop between the lenses. The bokeh looks similar in shape, the focus is natural, and the contrast and flare is consistent between the shots.

 

[bwwd]

But i like how this looks like despite super shallow DOF

http://vimeo.com/8759421

 

[TimurCivan]

And the dp of that film used long lenses, and still did everything I said, just for a. T2.8, or so.

 

[Jordan Scott Price]

Here's a good rule.

I shoot narritiive at a T4 (whether on CP's or Cookes). So I set my ISO in one place, and light for the stop and the ISO. The DOF just falls where it does, but its consistent between shots, because its the same stop between the lenses. The bokeh looks similar in shape, the focus is natural, and the contrast and flare is consistent between the shots.

That is exactly how I operate: F2.8 for close-quarters setups or setups where we are too pressed for time to rig for the light level I need; F4 for setups that allow me the time to light for it.

But that is almost a wholly technical element. The topic of this thread is the concentration on depth of field as an intention, away from which your point gladly takes us.

 

[Jordan Scott Price]

But i like how this looks like despite super shallow DOF

And that is your taste. Your opinion. You are entitled to it, and no one can revoke it.

There is no rule for what is right and what is wrong. But for what works? Absolutely.

 

[TimurCivan]

That is exactly how I operate: F2.8 for close-quarters setups or setups where we are too pressed for time to rig for the light level I need; F4 for setups that allow me the time to light for it.

But that is almost a wholly technical element. The topic of this thread is the concentration on depth of field as an intention, away from which your point gladly takes us.

Yes but the point of the thread is "why". This is a reason why. Most lenses are optically awesome @T4. That's why dp's shoot there. The shallow dof aesthetic is a choice. Why would I choose to make something look like it was shot @ a T1.3? Perhaps the charachter is having a personal moment, and the rest of the world needs to melt away.

Point being 90% of the time I want a lot of the frame infocus so I can tell the story, and it will look consistent and sharp.

 

[Denwa]

Shallow and deep DoF are creative tools that can bring intimacy, detachment, or reveal something or..... whatever to a scene. My only issue is the filmmakers that seem to think everything needs to be extremely shallow.

Technical issues aside, sometimes you want to show the background on a scenic vista shot with the actor near the camera, sometimes you definitely do not. It's all a creative choice (up to the limitations of the camera's DoF ability).

In hypothetical dreamland, if DoF was adjustable from deep to shallow without affecting f-stop or lens choice (I said hypothetical), and DoF being then a purely artistic choice,I wonder what films would like?

 

[Jordan Scott Price]

Yes but the point of the thread is "why". This is a reason why. Most lenses are optically awesome @T4. That's why dp's shoot there. The shallow dof aesthetic is a choice. Why would I choose to make something look like it was shot @ a T1.3? Perhaps the charachter is having a personal moment, and the rest of the world needs to melt away.

Point being 90% of the time I want a lot of the frame infocus so I can tell the story, and it will look consistent and sharp.

I was supporting your statement.

 

[StuOS]

At the risk of getting my head handed to me, let me take a crack at this, if I might.

In the segment bwwd gave us, above, we start with a man who is seemingly in pain, perhaps both physically and emotionally. It is his pain that is the subject at the moment, and while the pain is undoubtedly exacerbated by the chanting of the crowd, to have the crowd in focus behind him would simply distract the eye. The viewer's eye might get caught by the leering face of one of the spectators, thereby detracting from the story. We cut to a young woman in the crowd. It is not possible to achieve bokeh behind/around her without going to a super closeup on a very long lens, but she is picked out of the crowd, anyway. Her skin appears to be lighter than that of the spectators around her, and there may a an ellipsoidal on her (hard to tell). Regardless, the filmmaker has attracted your eye to what's important. Later, we see the camera push in on a blurry image in a mirror, eventually becoming sharply focused with extreme DOF bokeh. But this also enhances the story, since the story is what's going on on the actor's face. Everything else would be a distraction.

Now, imagine, say, a B&W scene of a man in a post-apocalyptic environment, with a jumbled and broken urban landscape all around and behind him. If we're establishing that shot, the story element is probably about the environment rather than the man. The man may act, simply, as a means of providing perspective to the enormity of the catastrophe, so you might want a very deep DOF. If we then cut to the man to see how he feels about all this, the scenery might get in the way of that focus, so we might go shallow again.

Or let's take the crowd scene in the clip, above. Suppose you're shooting a gladiator movie, your protagonist has just won, and you want to emphasize his position in the arena in the midst of a bloodthirsty and ugly crowd. You might want to find a way to superimpose the crowd in very sharp focus right on top of him, because the story is the crowd at that point. Perhaps you would then go to a CU of his face with the crowd them blurred out, so that the story is now about how the man feels about his position in the midst of this bloodthirsty crowd.

Sorry for being long-winded and a bit obvious, but I thought I would get the ball rolling on the "whys" of bokeh or not.

 

[Denwa]

Exactly. They should stick that in film school books. lol

At the risk of getting my head handed to me, let me take a crack at this, if I might.

In the segment bwwd gave us, above, we start with a man who is seemingly in pain, perhaps both physically and emotionally. It is his pain that is the subject at the moment, and while the pain is undoubtedly exacerbated by the chanting of the crowd, to have the crowd in focus behind him would simply distract the eye. The viewer's eye might get caught by the leering face of one of the spectators, thereby detracting from the story. We cut to a young woman in the crowd. It is not possible to achieve bokeh behind/around her without going to a super closeup on a very long lens, but she is picked out of the crowd, anyway. Her skin appears to be lighter than that of the spectators around her, and there may a an ellipsoidal on her (hard to tell). Regardless, the filmmaker has attracted your eye to what's important. Later, we see the camera push in on a blurry image in a mirror, eventually becoming sharply focused with extreme DOF bokeh. But this also enhances the story, since the story is what's going on on the actor's face. Everything else would be a distraction.

Now, imagine, say, a B&W scene of a man in a post-apocalyptic environment, with a jumbled and broken urban landscape all around and behind him. If we're establishing that shot, the story element is probably about the environment rather than the man. The man may act, simply, as a means of providing perspective to the enormity of the catastrophe, so you might want a very deep DOF. If we then cut to the man to see how he feels about all this, the scenery might get in the way of that focus, so we might go shallow again.

Or let's take the crowd scene in the clip, above. Suppose you're shooting a gladiator movie, your protagonist has just won, and you want to emphasize his position in the arena in the midst of a bloodthirsty and ugly crowd. You might want to find a way to superimpose the crowd in very sharp focus right on top of him, because the story is the crowd at that point. Perhaps you would then go to a CU of his face with the crowd them blurred out, so that the story is now about how the man feels about his position in the midst of this bloodthirsty crowd.

Sorry for being long-winded and a bit obvious, but I thought I would get the ball rolling on the "whys" of bokeh or not.