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

This is all so very true. I often times find even 20mm lenses too wide for practical use in narrative filmmaking, and I'm very hesitant to shoot larger than a 2.8 unless absolutely necessary. If I can get everything at a 4 or 5.6, I'm super happy. So often I see extreme use of wide aperture and focal length as a total distraction from the story. Cinematography should always serve the story, and if the shooting style is pulling the audience out of it, you're doing it wrong.

It's nice to have the creative ability to get extreme shots, but moderation goes a long way.
 
I think the landscape is shifting a bit -- Danny Cohen was just nominated for his DP work in "The King's Speech." There's quite a lot of wide angle footage in that movie -- and I mean wide -- like 20mm or thereabouts. The footage was tasteful, and advanced the story, but it's nothing like you would've found in a slow-paced drama 5 or 10 years ago. Excellent movie, by the way.
 
Thierry Arbogast is known for his wide angle lenses. He works alot with Luc Besson, known for Le Femme Nikita, 5th Element, The Professional.....

His work looks absolutly cinematic. Its all about context. A good DP uses the lens to serve story, as stated above.
 
ken37 said:
I think the landscape is shifting a bit -- Danny Cohen was just nominated for his DP work in "The King's Speech." There's quite a lot of wide angle footage in that movie -- and I mean wide -- like 20mm or thereabouts. The footage was tasteful, and advanced the story, but it's nothing like you would've found in a slow-paced drama 5 or 10 years ago. Excellent movie, by the way.
Click to expand...

"The King's Speech" also had a lot of unusual framing of actors, but I think movies like this are the exception that proves the rule, albeit very good exceptions.

edit: I posted the finished spot at the top of the thread, and I now remember that I used a 14mm for one shot, but this was a cheesy comedy piece, so exaggerated images work fine.
 
Last edited:
I started at the UCLA Motion Picture Department in 1964.. One of the first films I saw there was CITIZEN KANE - a film I hadn't heard of at the time - Everyone in the film department wanted to learn how Gregg Toland got those incredible images that are in focus from the extreme foreground to background. (and he did that when B&W film was rated at asa 40). Almost every student film then was deep focus as a result...
 
Deep focus means the DP has work to do. I like it. making a gorgeous image with seperation, without the Shallow DOF crutch is mans work. :)

Toland made it work cause he know what heas doing.
 
Yes, and just seeing the ceiling was unusual at the time. Lots of low angle, forced perspective. Groundbreaking movie!

I also like "The Last Picture Show", black and white, deep focus, lots of wide shots. "Paris Texas" is also one of my favorites.
 
Mac said:
I started at the UCLA Motion Picture Department in 1964.. One of the first films I saw there was CITIZEN KANE - a film I hadn't heard of at the time - Everyone in the film department wanted to learn how Gregg Toland got those incredible images that are in focus from the extreme foreground to background. (and he did that when B&W film was rated at asa 40). Almost every student film then was deep focus as a result...
Click to expand...

I was amazed to learn how many of those shots were composites. That allowed for amazing forced perspectives, deep focus and incredible scale.
 
TimurCivan said:
+10,000,001

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

Amen! Can´t tell how much I second this Timur.

We just shot a feature on Red - it was 35mm, 50mm and 85mm for 99%.

I only use a 20 if I want to create a atmosphere of unease. I usually go rather tighter than wider.

Frank
 
90% of the time you want to be on the long lens.... Except for estabishing shots, sometimes work very well super wide.... like the opening shot to this:


This is my friend Khalid Mohtaseb's work. Best DSLR shooter out there.

Super wides also read as filmic when put in juxtoposition with long lenses.
 
Great Post, gimmicks are fun but basics are necessary. Have to understand the rules before breaking them because as much as free for all can be fun and exciting the end result is all that matters.
Cheers, good rant.
 
i think and hope we're over the hump of the hype of shallow dof that was started by the 35mm adapters and then further instigated by dslr video with no hope of film schools actually doing proper teaching of how to use it.

i think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a stylistic exposition shot/transition shots which use shallow dof to set a stage, vs shallow dof on dialog/action shots

example: opening of a film about a woodworker, could open with tight shallow racks between tools in the shop, sounds like a good place for credits don't it? but then deep focus when they enter the scene, so the audience can take in the lovely mise en scene you hopefully set up.

not the most glamorous of examples, but should be a start for those just getting the concept.
 
imdjay said:
i think and hope we're over the hump of the hype of shallow dof that was started by the 35mm adapters and then further instigated by dslr video with no hope of film schools actually doing proper teaching of how to use it.

i think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a stylistic exposition shot/transition shots which use shallow dof to set a stage, vs shallow dof on dialog/action shots

example: opening of a film about a woodworker, could open with tight shallow racks between tools in the shop, sounds like a good place for credits don't it? but then deep focus when they enter the scene, so the audience can take in the lovely mise en scene you hopefully set up.

not the most glamorous of examples, but should be a start for those just getting the concept.
Click to expand...

Dare to refuse SDOF +1
 
Does the bar scene in the video in the first post seem like it has surprisingly high noise for iso200? Perhaps it looks more natural when not so heavily compressed (it starts looking flickery in vimeo, but that seems common for very compressed noisy video). Was it pushed much in post? Shot tungsten? Black balanced? Just seems like a lot of noise everywhere in the shadows and maybe even low midtones. Clearly compressed vimeo video is hardly ideal for judging, but I would expect high compression would tend to lessen detail/noise.

As to the general point of the thread, I agree that 90% of the time I'm shooting 24-70mm f2.8+. But I occasionally pull out my f1.2 or my 11-16mm, and I would hardly call them gimmicks. You DO need them sometimes, and to refuse them when called for would be detrimental to your product. Perhaps some of the issues come from the fact that wider apertures and wider lenses do need in some ways to be used more carefully (missing focus or getting image distortion are real concerns) and that as these have become more accessible to the inexperienced, we see more of these problems show up in publicly distributed video, but it is important not to forget what these tools can do for us when used properly and carefully.
 
nyvz said:
Does the bar scene in the video in the first post seem like it has surprisingly high noise for iso200? Perhaps it looks more natural when not so heavily compressed (it starts looking flickery in vimeo, but that seems common for very compressed noisy video). Was it pushed much in post? Shot tungsten? Black balanced? Just seems like a lot of noise everywhere in the shadows and maybe even low midtones. Clearly compressed vimeo video is hardly ideal for judging, but I would expect high compression would tend to lessen detail/noise.

As to the general point of the thread, I agree that 90% of the time I'm shooting 24-70mm f2.8+. But I occasionally pull out my f1.2 or my 11-16mm, and I would hardly call them gimmicks. You DO need them sometimes, and to refuse them when called for would be detrimental to your product. Perhaps some of the issues come from the fact that wider apertures and wider lenses do need in some ways to be used more carefully (missing focus or getting image distortion are real concerns) and that as these have become more accessible to the inexperienced, we see more of these problems show up in publicly distributed video, but it is important not to forget what these tools can do for us when used properly and carefully.
Click to expand...


that's a good point, there are many situations where DOF is your best friend, i recall an outdoor static scene where a random guy in the background was just standing there watching us. instead of yelling at him or redoing the scene somewhere else(run and gun quick shoot) i just opened the aperture and blurred his stupid face from recognition.
 
nyvz said:
Does the bar scene in the video in the first post seem like it has surprisingly high noise for iso200? Perhaps it looks more natural when not so heavily compressed (it starts looking flickery in vimeo, but that seems common for very compressed noisy video). Was it pushed much in post? Shot tungsten? Black balanced? Just seems like a lot of noise everywhere in the shadows and maybe even low midtones. Clearly compressed vimeo video is hardly ideal for judging, but I would expect high compression would tend to lessen detail/noise.

As to the general point of the thread, I agree that 90% of the time I'm shooting 24-70mm f2.8+. But I occasionally pull out my f1.2 or my 11-16mm, and I would hardly call them gimmicks. You DO need them sometimes, and to refuse them when called for would be detrimental to your product. Perhaps some of the issues come from the fact that wider apertures and wider lenses do need in some ways to be used more carefully (missing focus or getting image distortion are real concerns) and that as these have become more accessible to the inexperienced, we see more of these problems show up in publicly distributed video, but it is important not to forget what these tools can do for us when used properly and carefully.
Click to expand...

If you look at the two screen grabs, these were taken from ProRes 422 camera original footage recorded on a Ki Pro. They represent the true exposure and noise level. This was shot ASA 200, tungsten, black balanced. Post used the AVCCAM files, definitely graded as you can see the levels were lifted. I had nothing to do with post, but was sent a QT mpeg4 with the companies logo as well as a more compressed .wmv, without the logo. The less compressed QT definitely shows noise that I don't remember seeing in the AVCCAM or ProRes camera originals. I watched the AVCCAM on a 100" projection screen and didn't see any objectionable noise. The finished clip uploaded to Vimeo is the QT, which is definitely noisier than original footage or .wmv, for whatever reason.

I don't believe my original post ever recommended never using wide lenses or super shallow DOF, just tried to point out that these tools, plus very high ISO settings, were being overused, particularly amongst Canon 5D2 shooters. If you believed 5D2 shooters, full frame 35 stills size is the new motion picture standard format--which I reject. These same shooters would be very disappointed by the field of view of an Arri 435, Alexa, RED One, Sony F35, Panavision Genesis, etc.
 
And I think shallow depth of field looks really nice with a face, to draw the audience to the eyes (if they're sharp, which can be difficult) and separate it from the background - serving the story. But PLEASE I never want to see another rack focus through flowers or leaves - or along the grill of a car. I hope we are finally past that.
 
As long as there's weddings and the page peel filter, it's still going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Mac said:
And I think shallow depth of field looks really nice with a face, to draw the audience to the eyes (if they're sharp, which can be difficult) and separate it from the background - serving the story. But PLEASE I never want to see another rack focus through flowers or leaves - or along the grill of a car. I hope we are finally past that.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top