the real film look...

A

action

Member
hi gang,

this is my first post on this forum and i hope to contribute more as i have just registered.

i sold my vx2000 and canon xl1s to purchase a dvx100a which i have not done yet. my backround is in still photography and you can view some of my work at www.chunglee.com

now onto my question:

the one element that i feel is essential to creating the film look is a shallow depth of field. framerate, cropping, lighting, camera movements and all the other techniques are possible with the right equipment and expertise etc... but i have been having a devil of time creating shallow depth of field due to the small chips.

i set up the scenes and lighting so the camera is wide open with the lens zoomed out as long as possible with the actors as far from the backround as i can but that is the only time i get anything close to shallow.

can the cinematographers on the site offer any other suggestions. one thing just came to mind while i was typing this and that is to focus on something in the forground of my shot so the actors are near the back end of the depth of field...

i'm a video neophyte.

thanks in advance for the help.

chung lee
 
Re: the real film look...

Focusing on something closer than "bang-on in the middle" of focus can help...another thing that can create the illusion is dimming the lights in the background slightly...itll make it less clean, and it'll *appear* more out of focus.

Other than that, I can't think of much else...that's one of the things about most MiniDV cameras...without that Mini35 adaptor, you kind of have to take what you get...it is a $4000 camcorder, and it does give you more than what you pay for...

Anyone else got suggestions??
 
Re: the real film look...

This is the most-talked-about subject in DV cinematography. Short answer is, it can't be done -- at least not the way you're used to doing it. The DVX has a lens with a 4.5mm - 45mm focal length. It's extremely difficult to get shallow DOF when the longest lens you have is 45mm.

Search the posts here and you'll find a DOF tutorial.

Basically, to do what you want, you might find it easier to use one of the aftermarket products: either the mini35, which lets you use 35mm movie camera or still-camera lenses and get their shallow DOF; or the SoftScreen, which will give a very convincing effect of shallow DOF on close-up shots. http://indietoolbox.com
 
Re: the real film look...

I put the smiley up there, so it might look like I'm joshing, but you *can* do it in post. As Barry says, it's hard to do in camera, and you'll probably not be 100% satisfied with the results you do get. An option is to composite a shallow DOF in post. In a realm of imperfect solutions, it's one to at least consider.
 
Re: the real film look...

Exactly...It really comes down to "How important is this insanely shallow Depth of Field to me?"
 
Re: the real film look...

once in every hundred times that i step into the shallow-DOF discussion i must, but really, must, say: movies, films, TV... all these are moving pictures in two dimensions, not three. shallow depth of focus is just one way to make your images look "realistic".
we should ask ourselves what is the big deal about shallow DOF and why do we like it so much. the answer is, imo, it brings another "hierarchy" into the composition, as if you tell the viewer what is the most important / valuable element in the picture, and then what is the next important and so on. just like the human eye acts. it's always "focus" on something, blurring out - or even better - eliminates the rest in a very unique way.

learning cold flat 2D composition is worth spending time on, because thats all we'll ever have here, two dimensions, unless you consider 3D cinema as something serious (but i guess don't, do you?!?!) or willing to devote yourself to a tele lens, which is absolutely ridicules.

now, just to make it clear, i like the effect and always try to use as open iris as i can. true, film-look sales and even more important, it does the job. but it's just a tiny bit, comparing to the many times i have to break my head, trying to come up with a good composition in "flat conditions".

one last thing, now when we have this wonderful camera around for over a year, and after reevaluating this whole thing called "film look" (which you must edmit, works great as a marketing strategy for us shooters and panasonic at the same time) i think, the hack with film. film is dead. DVX is a video camera that generates picture in a way that is pleasant to watch and that's why we like it.
 
Re: the real film look...

[quote author=shai link=board=news;num=1084912461;start=0#6 date=05/18/04 at 16:27:22]we should ask ourselves what is the big deal about shallow DOF and why do we like it so much.[/quote]

We all have our own opinions on that, but I think that people want it so much because they cannot have it. They cannot get that look with their video cameras, and their video doesn't look like film, so they say "ah hah! That's the problem: I don't have shallow DOF!"

I reject the notion that shallow DOF is the only missing ingredient, and that shallow DOF = film look. Movies do use shallow DOF, and they use deep DOF, and they always look like movies. Shallow DOF does not, in and of itself, make something look like film. As an example, I point to sports, like tennis or baseball. Watch a tennis server as they're about to serve, or a pitcher as they're about to pitch: the video camera will have EXTREMELY shallow DOF. Yet it looks like video. Granted, video with shallow DOF, but there's nothing about it that makes it look like film.

Shallow DOF is a nice thing to be able to invoke. It would be a nice tool to have in the toolbox. But it is far from the most important element, and for those who struggle to make their footage look more like the movies, it is most definitely not "THE" answer. I've seen Digital Betacam movies that have hyper-shallow DOF, that just scream "video". And movie panoramas with DOF from the front of the lens to infinity, that just ooze "cinema".
 
Re: the real film look...

Citizen Kane is considered to have some of the greatest examples of "good cinematography". It was shot on film. It has an infinite focus...

Funny, because it seems that you hit the nail on the head, Barry. We want what we can't have...in the 40s, it was extremely difficult to have a deep depth of field...so they did their best to get it...and now us DVXusers can't get a shallow depth of field, so we want it!

Let's just all make good movies and be happy!
 
Re: the real film look...

sorry Barry, didn't mean to chat with Jimmerson over your head.. i agree with what you've just said.. film look got nothing much to do with shallow DOF. back at the days, when citizen kane was out, people praised the use of deep DOF . . . looking at this piece again today could be a great tutorial of working around the lack of shallowDOF
 
Re: the real film look...

[quote author=Mike_Donis link=board=news;num=1084912461;start=0#14 date=05/18/04 at 16:58:00]Citizen Kane is considered to have some of the greatest examples of "good cinematography".  It was shot on film.  It has an infinite focus...
[/quote]

[quote author=shai link=board=news;num=1084912461;start=0#14 date=05/18/04 at 16:58:00]back at the days, when citizen kane was out, people praised the use of deep DOF . . . [/quote]

filmmakers community ?! this is more like the circus telepathic show  ;D
 
a little clarification...

a little clarification...

i think i was a little narrow in my original post. i agree infinite depth of field is used consistently and effectively in cinema and shallow depth of field is used in video.

that said. my backround is in still pictures and i use shallow as well as infinite depth of field as the image warrants.

in videography i also use infinite depth of field but just like still photography there are situations in which i would like the depth of field to be shallow and in those instances how would i acheive it in video.

i can get shallow depth of field in limited situations but those have been times when i had alot of space and i was wondering if there are techniques that can be used when space is limited.

would it stand to reason that if shallow depth of field is very difficult to acheive in the minidv format then being able to acheive this would make minivideo look more like film than anything else since now we have 24p in the said format?

thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts.

chung
 
Re: a little clarification...

Re: a little clarification...

[quote author=action link=board=news;num=1084912461;start=15#18 date=05/18/04 at 19:15:47]would it stand to reason that if shallow depth of field is very difficult to acheive in the minidv format then being able to acheive this would make minivideo look more like film than anything else since now we have 24p in the said format?
[/quote]

I think the consensus here has been "no." More important after 24p would be lighting and composition -- and story and acting and production design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top