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

I have never used ANY (repeat ANY).... camera that has better DOF control than the AF102 and the ease of achieving the desired DOF is simply incredible.

Obviously choice of lens is easy with a camera such as AF102 because of interchangeable lens capabilty

Making an image is a personal thing and some are more skilled at image making than others. Those that are very good at it are recognised for their skill and craft.

Some resort to trends and fads (or gimmicks) for the right or wrong reasons. It works or it dont. Everything is valid.

There will always be trends and followers ...and then there are those that create the trends and forge new directions.
 
this was a good read, a lot of good points made. though we can thank dslr cameras for the exaggeration in DOF (maybe adapters too). coming from a student stand point, i cant tell how many students love the dslrs cause they are cheap and look like filmic, which is fine to get someone started in using cameras, but the sensor/DOF ratio is thrown off to what we are trying to emulate, 35mm motion picture which granted has great shallow DOF, but not nearly as much as full frame. there is a gap in this knowledge and the whole thing is misrepresented; that the shallower your shot the better. someone mentioned learning on film, which i totally agree with. using a film camera opens up your mind to a whole world that digital closes, and that is needed to learn and become a better filmmaker. i have only shot super 16 this past school year and while i knew a lot before, manually finding ratios and light placement, you learn to strategically plan your shot (mainly because there is no film to waste, but thats besides the point=]..).

it is true what many have said, both options are good and they work for the emotion of the shot; what are you trying to say to the audience and how will it make them feel. i like the shallow look but if my shot or story doesnt call for it, it wont be used.

that said, if anyone has the chance, pick up Mr.Nobody and watch it. an amazing story with beautiful camera work; they shot very shallow and it worked very well for the story, pretty images with a lot of broken rules.
 
U think 16 is hard.

Try 35. Every blown take is about 150$ in the toilet. My advice for beginners on dslr, try shooting a 3:1 ratio for your next project. Only bring 2x 4 gig cards, and you're not allowed to delete. Plan out your takes. And shoot almost what's gonna end up on screen.
 
It all depends on what your shooting. Your spot is general comedy, it would make no sense to have insane shallow depth of field. But just as an example, i just shot a music video last weekend where the depth of field of the Nokton 25mm at 1.4 was critical when you creatively want people to look at and feel certain ways at various things. The looks exist in big budget movies too. Anamorphic at 400+mm is a different kind of shallow DOF but to the untrained eye, I think its often what people are trying to replicate with their 5D or whatever. The dance scene in Meet Joe Black comes to mind as an example...
 
Just watching the SOCIAL NETWORK bluray and found it interesting that the whole film was shot at 1.3 using master primes.
 
Yes, Fincher likes shooting in low light with motivated practicals. Saw the movie three times last week on DVD and Blu Ray. Had a very nice look, IMO, one of the best I've seen shot on RED. The super shallow DOF doesn't bother me if there's an establishing shot first, before moving into coverage with abstract backgrounds. Sometimes I see backgrounds that are so abstract that I have no idea what kind of space the talent is in. Okay for music videos, not so okay for features or docs, IMO.
 
I believe what's meant is that, like selective focus, varying lighting values between subject and background causes the eye to focus on that which the filmmaker intends, ie; focus on talent in the foreground, background soft or talent in foreground lit brighter, background darker. Also, this adds depth to a scene as does the use of different colors in the background, in addition to light and dark. The bar scene that I lit had a lot of warm tones--flesh, wood, yellow light I added for glows behind the bar, so I added blue light on the glasses hanging in the background for separation, depth and interest.
 
Thanks to all of you for your kind comments! I certainly get more out of this forum than I put in, I've learned a lot here over the years from some very bright and creative members.
 
Dino said:
... selective focus...
Click to expand...

Hello to everyone on my first post here, and sorry to Dino for being so "selective", so to speak, in my clipping of his much longer post, but I really do think this phrase- "selective focus" - needs to replace the much more ubiquitous and frankly overused (both in actual use and in the use of the term) "shallow depth of field" that we keep seeing all over places such as this. It really SHOULD BE about being "selective"- i.e., the director and cinematographer actually have to put some effort and thought into it, as opposed to simply being forced into using the allegedly magical "shallow depth of field" simply due to the size of the sensor and/or lack of light.

I'm all for "selective focus"- which says that somebody actually has control over it- as opposed to "shallow depth of field" which implies that filmmakers are simply at the mercy of their equipment and sensor size.

Vincent
 
Here's a quote from Danny Cohen, Cinematographer for King's Speech regarding deeper focus:

" For one, you get nice big portraits, which you wouldn't get with long lenses that are much farther away. But you also get so much more of the background that you instantly see where the person is. It's not just out-of-focus mush; it contextualizes where the person is in the room, or in those larger scenes, for example in the Abbey before his coronation. That's where the reality comes in—you're putting them in a real location that's an equally important part of the scene."

Here's the whole article : http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/projects/12926.html

Thanks to this thread I've come to really like ISO 200, especially for the shadows.
 
hscully said:
Here's a quote from Danny Cohen, Cinematographer for King's Speech regarding deeper focus:

" For one, you get nice big portraits, which you wouldn't get with long lenses that are much farther away. But you also get so much more of the background that you instantly see where the person is. It's not just out-of-focus mush; it contextualizes where the person is in the room, or in those larger scenes, for example in the Abbey before his coronation. That's where the reality comes in—you're putting them in a real location that's an equally important part of the scene."

Here's the whole article : http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/projects/12926.html

Thanks to this thread I've come to really like ISO 200, especially for the shadows.
Click to expand...

Great article! If we can't see where the person is, why shoot on location?

The other downside to shooting wide open all the time is loss of contrast and sharpness, most lenses just don't work as well wide open, as many of us know. To me, the most important part of lighting is control, not how low light the camera is capable of shooting.
 
Dino said:
Great article! If we can't see where the person is, why shoot on location?
Click to expand...
I think that's part of the issue. Budget productions frequently want to hide an uninteresting location, or at least obscure it, because they can't afford to shoot where they would like to. - Tim
 
I think another reason to obscure the background relates to Cohen's suggestion of context. If we wish to draw attention to our character apart from the place, an internal moment perhaps, shallow DOF may be better. What I find interesting is considering the choice. The place in Cohen's scene is paramount to the context of the shot, the deeper focus better serves especially given the historical significance. I just think it's a great question to ask when choosing rather than take the portrait picture every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top