The Cult of Shallow DOF, High ISO and Super Wide Lenses

Dino

Dino

Veteran
We've all seen the trend towards shallower than shallow DOF, the absolute "need" to shoot at astronomical ISO's and the widest of wide lenses being an imperative--especially on Vimeo and YouTube. We also know that DSLR's have driven this of late, especially Canon 5D's, but this can be traced back to 35mm DOF adapters that do Full Frame 35 and music videos and quirky feature films that embraced these stylistic choices.

Below are screen grabs from my first shoot as DP with an AF100:
AF100_Screen_Grab_01.jpgAF100_Screen_Grab_02.jpg
Here's the finished spot:

These scenes weren't shot with a super high ISO, or at f.95 or with a 12mm lens, the AF100 was set at ISO 200, aperture was f2.8-4.0 with 35mm and 50mm Nikon prime lenses. Nothing exotic, no need for the camera to shoot in the dark or have 1mm DOF. Just two lights were used for talent, standard focal lengths.

ISO 200 makes controlling contrast much easier than trying to shoot at ISO 2000, every shot was on a slider, some much closer up, so I wasn't going to make my AC deal with f1.4 all day.
And when I'm shooting talent, the last thing I want is some super wide lens--not flattering to anyone.

Yes, it's cool that there's an f.95 lens, the AF100 can shoot ISO 3200, and a Lumix 7-14mm zoom lens exists. These are fun. A full frame 35mm sensor can be fun as well. But they aren't really necessary, nor do they serve the story most of the time--despite what one might think after reading forums or watching shorts on Vimeo.

I think it's time to get back to real filmmaking and walk away from the gimmicks. I'm happy the AF100 allows me to do just that! End of rant.
 
Last edited:
+10,000,000.

We shot all of "A Verse Before Dying" with nothing wider than an 18mm (except for one special-effects shot) and no f/0.95 lens, and I don't remember the highest ISO we used; we were at 200 for much of it, I'm sure Timur can fill us in on that.
 
On Red the two lenses we use 95% of the time are the 24 and the 50. All the rest are just for the other 5%. And we do quite high budget glossy stuff.

100% agree with your post.
 
Those frame grabs are beautiful Jeff! Cheers!

I have become quite a fan of ISO 200 as well and am just overjoyed with the AF100. I'm prepping a short called "FEAR" which stars "One Life to Live" star Jessica Morris though to be honest I will be using the 25/0.95 and the 7-14 (mostly to shoot in a very cramped bathroom).

I saw in a different thread you used the low gamma for indoors. Care to share your settings and rationale for low indoors and D with exteriors?
 
Last edited:
Of course, none of this is to say you can't get that ultra-shallow look (the 25mm f/0.95 gives you the same DOF as a 5D/50mm/f1.9) or the ultra-wide look (the 7-14 matches the wide angle of a 5D at 14mm) or high ISO (3200 ISO, when tweaked properly, can look really surprisingly good on the AF100). You CAN get that, if you need it. But all those things should be the rare exception, rather than the rule or something to be sought after.
 
Congratulations Dino, the youngsters/starters need to hear this and step away from the fad.

Nice work with your lighting! Loved how you separated her with exposure levels, a great important tool in cinematography, it's not just about DOF.
 
Barry, I actually disagree with "those things should be the rare exception" part. that's like someone else saying "you should almost always use shallow dof". it totally depends on the project really. I don't think you should force any of those elements if they don't belong, but I also don't think you should necessarily shy away from shallow dof or wide lenses or high iso's just because some other folks use it without discretion.

the frame grabs look great.
 
Well, I'll try to rephrase it then -- rarely ever, in a conventional narrative shoot, will there be cause for needing a 7mm wide lens, or an f/0.95 aperture. The standard cinema set starts at 25mm, and a wide in cinema is 18mm (which, on the AF100, would be about a 15mm, on a 5D it's be 30mm). In general cinema shooting, anything wider than that is just not normally used, it's a rare exception. Just like the hyper-ultra-shallow DOF you'd get from a 25mm lens at f/0.95. It's not common, it's not practical, and it's rarely used in conventional cinema shooting.

If you want to do it, you can -- the options exist.
 
oldskool favs

oldskool favs

oldskool favs

day ext. t8
day int. t2.8
night int. t2
+/- 1stop
on a 32mm lens
 
It's all good in the hood baby. I make my bones doing the two ends of the extreme; broadcast/web commercials for conservative clients and music videos for crazy artists that hate anything above f4 and it's all 24 or wider and 85 and tighter. I'm glad that there's a camera that can professionally deliver the results that I need for the budgets I get handed.

One love, from Howard Hawkes to Chan-Wook Park.
 
Dino said:
We've all seen the trend towards shallower than shallow DOF, the absolute "need" to shoot at astronomical ISO's and the widest of wide lenses being an imperative--especially on Vimeo and YouTube. We also know that DSLR's have driven this of late, especially Canon 5D's, but this can be traced back to 35mm DOF adapters that do Full Frame 35 and music videos and quirky feature films that embraced these stylistic choices.

Below are screen grabs from my first shoot as DP with an AF100:
View attachment 28805View attachment 28806
These scenes weren't shot with a super high ISO, or at f.95 or with a 12mm lens, the AF100 was set at ISO 200, aperture was f2.8-4.0 with 35mm and 50mm Nikon prime lenses. Nothing exotic, no need for the camera to shoot in the dark or have 1mm DOF. Just two lights were used for talent, standard focal lengths.

ISO 200 makes controlling contrast much easier than trying to shoot at ISO 2000, every shot was on a slider, some much closer up, so I wasn't going to make my AC deal with f1.4 all day.
And when I'm shooting talent, the last thing I want is some super wide lens--not flattering to anyone.

Yes, it's cool that there's an f.95 lens, the AF100 can shoot ISO 3200, and a Lumix 7-14mm zoom lens exists. These are fun. A full frame 35mm sensor can be fun as well. But they aren't really necessary, nor do they serve the story most of the time--despite what one might think after reading forums or watching shorts on Vimeo.

I think it's time to get back to real filmmaking and walk away from the gimmicks. I'm happy the AF100 allows me to do just that! End of rant.
Click to expand...

+10,000,001

I could live with 3 lenses on S35. 35mm, 50mm and 85mm.

We shot verse 95% ISO 200, ( including the night candle light scenes), and for 90% of the shoot i was at a T4-T8 indoors, and a T11-T16 outdoors.

Thats said some people want other lengths. I just bought a Cooke Varotal 18-100 T3, A full set of brand new Cooke iPanchros, 18mm, 25mm, 32mm, 50mm 75mm and 100mm, and ( for the psychos out there) a Duclos 11-16mm T3.

Truth be told, all i'll ever need is the Varotal. You can theoretically shoot a whole narritive on that one lens. Its been done. But, just in case, i have focal lengths 11mm - 100mm covered. ( by two lenses no less!)

The whole lot is a static T2.8-T3 across the board. This will be used on RED MX and my F3.

I was just shooting a interview on 5D with two small 500w softboxes, and guess what? i was at ISO 100, and stopped down to a F4.

I dont know why people are so obsesse with "low light" and fast lenses. 2.8 is plenty shallow DOF, and if you cant get exposure at ISO800 an a T2.8 lens you have to fire your gaffer, or leave the production cause they arent giving you the tools you need ( lights) to shoot your project.
 
Timur, I'd say we're on the same page! Congratulations on the Cooke Varotal and iPanchros!! Our Arri Alura worked four days last week with an AF100 on three different projects, two DP's. One project was shaky cam style with small snap zooms--can't do this with most stills zooms. Both DP's(one is Art Adams, who has used this combo several times) like the convenience of staying on one lens all day, no worries about ramping or breathing. T2.6 allows for plenty shallow DOF.

Why did you go with the Cooke vs. Schneider primes? I haven't seen the Cooke iPanchros in person, but I know Illya Freidman of Hot Rod Cameras thinks highly of them.
 
I tested the Schneiders. I did not Like them one bit. The optics are nice, but the mechanics are a mess. I could deal with them if i were the only person using it, but i couldn't ask money from people to rent lenses that are that odd to work with.

The Cookes, are well Cookes. Build of a tank, optically perfect, mechanically perfect, Legacy name, and optically matched to S4's and S5's.
 
*Clapping for the general direction of this thread.
Dino, have you tried out the gh2 yet? Your Af100 shots look great.
 
Sage said:
*Clapping for the general direction of this thread. Dino, have you tried out the gh2 yet? Your Af100 shots look great.
Click to expand...

I've seen it on-set a couple of times, but haven't shot with it--not a fan of shooting with DSLR's. I just saw a test where GH2 had less aliasing than the AF100, amazingly. I like the way it handles highlights better than the AF100. It really is a much better camera for video than a Canon 7D or 5D, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top