Why are so many scared of focus?

Loki said:
I agree there. But that is a technology issue, not a stylistic one. The early filmmakers had little choice for a lens. I think if you watch some good films from the 70's onward, you'd be surprised to find that "shallow DOF" is everywhere. Most CU's in any film use focus to direct attention. Watch a Michael Mann film...
Click to expand...


Pmark:

I think Loki is absolutely bang on with this point.... it was a technology issue.

Without doing further research, the early lenses were pretty small aperatured (f8 or f5.6 ... I'm guessing here... correct me if I'm wrong) so large depth of field was pretty much the order of the day. That required tons of light... hence the need for studios.

Much later on, better lens technology allowed for bigger aperatures, which in turn gave shallow depth of field.

Interesting insight about Stanley Kubrick on the set of Barry Lyndon (70's) trying to shoot by candle light. From Chromogenic.net:

"The Zeiss 50mm f/0.7. The fastest lens of all time. Only three exist in the world, custom-made by Carl Zeiss Oberkochen for NASA to be used in the Apollo program. Kubrick, incredibly, found a way to acquire two of them, and then hired an engineer to find a way to adapt them to an old cinema camera they had chosen especially for its ability to be modified for unusual lenses. Reportedly, the rear element of the Zeiss was just 4 mm from the film plane, so to be able to focus it they had to do some extensive modifications to the camera body housing and the lens itself. On the second of the two lenses, they ingeniously fitted a reduction lens meant for projectors to get a wider angle of view, around 36.5 mm.

Apparently, even operating the lens was a scientifically precise endeavor. The f/0.7 aperture made it a full two stops faster than the previous limit of f/1.4, but it also made the depth of field impossibly thin. They made focusing adjustments mathematically, using a tape measure to aide in calculating the distance from the film plane to the actors, who had to hold very still during filming lest they move out of the razor-thin focus field. The camera they were using wasn't a reflex design, so they didn't know what they had until they got the film back. Also, the light from the candles was so dim that even at f/0.7 they had to push the film a full stop to 200 ISO."

I'm pretty sure that if Murnau or Welles would have been much happier if shallow depth of field was a choice available to them.

Getting back to the HVX, I saw some stills posted from an HVX driven indie. The shot was of an intimidating detective, a framed closeup of his face. The blue painted concrete wall behind his face (distance of maybe 4-5 feet away) was in dead sharp focus, and my eye couldn't stop from being drawn to the intricate holes and crevices... they were so sharp!

Shallow DOF is a nice tool to have....
 
DavidBeier,

I think what you're really talking about is inexperienced young filmmakers who are in love with shallow depth of field so they take it to the extreme and do real "show-offy" things like constant rack focuses or whatnot. To that, yeah, I agree, it sucks most of the time.

However your statement that REAL filmmakers don't use shallow depth of field is misleading. Yes, most good filmmakers don't use that "show-offy" rack focus/super narrow depth of field. However, b/c of the way film cameras operate, the depth of field most filmmakers (as opposed to videomakers) work with is a lot shallower than you think. Check out your average movie and look at wideshots. Now I'm not talking SUPER WIDE shots of terrain and stuff because yeah, with that stuff almost everything is in focus.

But even in a mundane (cinematically) film like Anchorman, check out wide shots of the office. You'll usually have a foreground in focus with the core characters (Ron Burgandy) and then the background. You can still see the background so in that definition, I guess it is "in focus" but if you really look at it, is it AS IN FOCUS as Ron Burgandy? No. Because they are working with lens that have shallower depths of fields than us video guys are used to. So in effect, pretty much EVERY FILM works with "shallow" depth of field. Shallow depth of field doesn't neccesarily mean SUPER SHALLOW depth of field which I think you are more talking about.

Yes, I do agree that a lot of young filmmakers are getting too caught up in the whole 35 mm adaptor phase and forgetting things like composisition and framing, but that's their fault. I don't think you should say shallow DOF is your pet peeve but bad filmmakers in general (which is a pet peeve of all of us I think) :)
 
I think its pretty. Straight up. IT just looks like the Photographs ive been taking for years. ( same lens as my AE1 program)
i love my SGpro. Im not looking for a constant SHDOF, but if it happenes.... it happens. plus if you get more than 10 feet from the camera pretty much everyhtign is in focus, with a F2.8 28mm, and after 20 feet with my CAnon 50 mm 1.4. Physically, it only gets that super SHDOF look if you get close. but for wide shots, it looks pretty normal.
 
I'm still waiting to see a list of these supposedly great films filled with shallow DOF shots.

I suspect that none of them are really that great, or that the shallow DOF shots are extremely minimal (1% or less of the film).

I went through my collection last night in a fruitless search, but I only collect good movies. ( :nads: )

Come on, prove me wrong!


Let me summarize my position for those of you only capable of thinking in black-and-white (Sith, undoubtably): Shallow DOF is overused by amateur filmmakers, and is used rarely by experienced filmmakers. Nowhere do I say that it should NEVER be used, and that Shallow-DOFers should be burnt at the stake (but now that I think of it...)

I'm certain that we'll soon discover that shallow DOF is quite rare, and everyone's quest for the perfect DOF adapter is really a misguided attempt at compensating for lack of composition skills (except those of you shooting commercials or for television, or those or just happen to like blurry shots.)
 
pmark23 said:
I'm still waiting to see a list of these supposedly great films filled with shallow DOF shots.

I suspect that none of them are really that great, or that the shallow DOF shots are extremely minimal (1% or less of the film).

I went through my collection last night in a fruitless search, but I only collect good movies. ( :nads: )

Come on, prove me wrong!


Let me summarize my position for those of you only capable of thinking in black-and-white (Sith, undoubtably): Shallow DOF is overused by amateur filmmakers, and is used rarely by experienced filmmakers. Nowhere do I say that it should NEVER be used, and that Shallow-DOFers should be burnt at the stake (but now that I think of it...)

I'm certain that we'll soon discover that shallow DOF is quite rare, and everyone's quest for the perfect DOF adapter is really a misguided attempt at compensating for lack of composition skills (except those of you shooting commercials or for television, or those or just happen to like blurry shots.)
Click to expand...

Perhaps I am confused. What exactly are you describing when you say Shallow DOF? Any image in which the background or foreground are out of focus, and the subject is in focus? Or are you talking about a very shallow DOF with a very large circle of confusion? If you are referring to the previous, I think that about 90% of the movies I have seen have this element. What I don't see much of are movies with a DOF that mimics prosumer DV/HD. At any rate, I'm not sure why this is such an issue. 35mm adapter envy?
 
stabwound said:
I'm pretty sure that if Murnau or Welles would have been much happier if shallow depth of field was a choice available to them.
Click to expand...
Welles used to choose deep focus, he was able to use short depth of field... Deep focus was for Welles a choise
 
pmark23 said:
I'm still waiting to see a list of these supposedly great films filled with shallow DOF shots.

I suspect that none of them are really that great, or that the shallow DOF shots are extremely minimal (1% or less of the film).

I went through my collection last night in a fruitless search, but I only collect good movies. ( :nads: )

Come on, prove me wrong!


Let me summarize my position for those of you only capable of thinking in black-and-white (Sith, undoubtably): Shallow DOF is overused by amateur filmmakers, and is used rarely by experienced filmmakers. Nowhere do I say that it should NEVER be used, and that Shallow-DOFers should be burnt at the stake (but now that I think of it...)

I'm certain that we'll soon discover that shallow DOF is quite rare, and everyone's quest for the perfect DOF adapter is really a misguided attempt at compensating for lack of composition skills (except those of you shooting commercials or for television, or those or just happen to like blurry shots.)
Click to expand...

What the .............................. ?

Did we just skip every last post in this thread ? Every friggin film I can possibly dig up in my DVD collection has umpteen upon umpteen examples of a shallow DOF being used.

What part about the last handful of posts are you missing ?

You mean, I really do have to go home and post a bunch of grabs ?

Dude, go watch some Apple trailers of current films; Shallow DOF hell in ever one of them.
 
I tend to associate shallow dof and rack focusing with television. I think as a medium a lot of background details are lost on television and shallow dof helps focus the viewer on important details. (this point has been rehashed to death)

It's a tool, and when used without motivation it sticks out.
 
pmark sez:

pmark23 said:
Shallow DOF is my (and many other's) pet-peeve.

Back of the olden days, a DP would be fired on the spot if a dailies report came back from the lab that part of the background was soft.

If you look at the language of cinema, there's lots of terms and buzz-words to commonly used techniques: MOS, Zoom, Push, etc... But there is no term for the shallow DOF shot. Why not? Simply because professionals don't talk about it because they don't use it.

If you look at films from the dawn of filmmaking to the early nineties you'll see just how rare shallow DOF is.

The shallow DOF shot was considered an effect, and used only for very specific situations (such as a reveal), but even then used sparingly because it was (and still is) considered a crutch.

The fact that it's in vogue now is firstly because of inexperienced video-oriented DPs who are trying to copy a drawback of 35mm filmmaking (that film professionals try to avoid!) And secondly, by the proliferation of directors with poor directing skills who aren't able to control where the viewers eyes travel -- and hence need to blur parts of the background to make sure the audience is focussed on the foreground subject. This is bad. BAD!

Our brain has a remarkable ability to blur-out whatever we're not looking directly at. On the big screen, we automatically blur out the background (when we're not looking at it), so doing it for the viewer is pointless. Worse, it makes the film less visually interesting, because there's no place for the eye to wander. A good filmmaker will use the background to add layers of meaning to the film and help the story-telling process. By blurring out the background you automatically reduce the scope and meaning of the story -- which makes the film less interesting on a subconscious level, while consciously you may be left only with "Gee doesn't that look pretty".

There are places for shallow DOF. For example in shooting for television where you have the audience watching a small screen and need to get rid of a distracting background. Or in documentaries, where you don't have control over the background.

Otherwise, constant shallow DOF mostly betrays an amateur filmmaker. Sure now it's somewhat stylish, but it's the "grunge music" of filmmaking. Eventually people will come to there senses, and throw their DOF adapters in the garbage with red-faced shame.

</rant>
Click to expand...


As technology (lighting, lenses, cameras, processing, etc.) marches forward, many new and interesting advancements are offered up into the hands of artists. They can use them or not. Citing examples of "film language" like MOS (With out sound or more accurately translated "mitt out sound") by definition implies that a choice has been made (record with sound or without). That's what we're talking about isn't it...choices? Shallow DOF is a narrative choice and has become part of "film grammar" like it or not. Can it be used in a "lazy" fashion - of course, but so can a Steadicam. Should these also be banned from films?

The tasteful application/execution of these "choices" is what helps make it artisiticlally interesting and vital.

Saying that a DP would have been fired for a BG that was a little soft clearly isn't very relevant today (if it ever was), (understanding of course that "out of focus" is different than isolating a character from the background as an artistic choice). Could the same thing be said about todays hand held techniques just because the older studio cameras were far too large to hold? Of course, many will overuse the novelty that the latest evolution offers, (I suspect, that dispite how cool the off-speed overcranking looks, it will fall into this category too.) but that's what separates the truly artistic from the hacks.

That said, story telling is still story telling - everything else is simply a stylistic choice that the artist makes in the hopes of best conveying a message. Change has effected all aspects of film making. Even screenplays have changed. (ie. the way exposition is handled and even the formatting itself.)


Things evolve. It's part of our business.


dmc
 
Last edited:
pmark23 said:
I'm still waiting to see a list of these supposedly great films filled with shallow DOF shots.

I suspect that none of them are really that great, or that the shallow DOF shots are extremely minimal (1% or less of the film).
Click to expand...

Yes... well a film shot entirely in focus from a crane is also hard to find...

I went through my collection last night in a fruitless search, but I only collect good movies. ( :nads: )

Come on, prove me wrong!
Click to expand...

Mind providing a list of your great movie collection? or at least summarizing...

go watch "The Constant Gardner", or "The Insider" if you want some examples of this..

Let me summarize my position for those of you only capable of thinking in black-and-white (Sith, undoubtably): Shallow DOF is overused by amateur filmmakers, and is used rarely by experienced filmmakers. Nowhere do I say that it should NEVER be used, and that Shallow-DOFers should be burnt at the stake (but now that I think of it...)
Click to expand...

Tis true.. you never say "never"... but then again, you also never really say what Shallow DOF is for you...an inch? a foot? couple metres? So I just assume that you don't actually shoot anything and you just like to talk about shooting stuff... prove me wrong... bust out those IMDB credits.. or portfolio or whatever...

I'm certain that we'll soon discover that shallow DOF is quite rare, and everyone's quest for the perfect DOF adapter is really a misguided attempt at compensating for lack of composition skills (except those of you shooting commercials or for television, or those or just happen to like blurry shots.)
Click to expand...

I think you have some sort of complex of your own with Focus effects.. an out of focus background doesn't imply poor composition. I don't know if your aware, but the reason most people use an Adaptor is to get a soft focus on the background, not to just completely fuzz out the background.

Try this trick with your own eyes... look at an object.. focus on it... and pay attention to your peripheral vision. Notice how everything else except the focused object is out of focus slightly?

Watching a well made film, you never notice these things, and you shouldn't. You should be paying attention to what is "in focus", unless you are trying to achieve an effect, such as the Deep Focus Technique in Citizen Kane.

Well shot films attempt to mimick the way your eye naturally filters out unecessary detail. And I can gaurentee you, that there are Rack Focus effects going on in your "good" movie collection that your not even aware of.

That brings me back to what I said earlier... what do you consider Shallow DOF? The DVX does not, and cannot deliver the same Depth of Field as a Film Camera, which is the another big reason people use the adaptors. I don't care what you say about "good composition" cause apparently you have no clue what that actually means.

Composition isn't just referring to framing, but reading your posts, it seems that is all your concerned about. A good composition leads the eye, with focus, colour, geometry, movement etc... Sure you can have a nice composition with everything in focus, but why let people's eye's wander around the frame when you want them to look at something specific? (unless of course that is the stylistic choice of the filmmaker.)

It is all about information... if you want people to take in a lot of information in one shot then so be it, but you get into trouble when that interfers with editing and pacing. What separates the pros from the amateurs is their ability to filter out the unneccessary info, and only keep what needs to be seen.

Do you need to see all those street signs and people walking during a close up on a street? If it is integral to the story then yes, but if not, why bog down your image with useless information.

Most indie-zero budget filmmakers don't have experience and just shoot to get it done (I am guilty of this as well). That is where the "everything in focus" problem arises. Despite what you said previously, having everything nice and sharp really doesn't add layers of meaning, because if you understood composition you'd realize that layers imply separation, and with no separation you really are working with 1 layer.

Yes, of course you can light to create that separation, but that is only one tool. So you have lit a scene with contrast, and depth, now what are we supposed to be looking at? The foreground? the Background? etc..

I think I have made my point by now... give those exampels a watch.. two big name films that use really "shallow" DOF in many shots... of course I still have no idea what Shallow DOF means to you..

so.. take what I say with a grain of salt.. who knows.. maybe we will all be shooting are films with Deep Focus 20 years from now.
 
I only collect good movies. ( :nads: )

Come on, prove me wrong!
Click to expand...

I only collect really bad films. I hate the good shite.

-

Prove you wrong ? How many different ways do you like being beat ? Damn Masochist. At this point it's become a virtual gang bang.
 
EA_Cru_2002 said:
DavidBeier,

I think what you're really talking about is inexperienced young filmmakers who are in love with shallow depth of field so they take it to the extreme and do real "show-offy" things like constant rack focuses or whatnot. To that, yeah, I agree, it sucks most of the time.

However your statement that REAL filmmakers don't use shallow depth of field is misleading. Yes, most good filmmakers don't use that "show-offy" rack focus/super narrow depth of field. However, b/c of the way film cameras operate, the depth of field most filmmakers (as opposed to videomakers) work with is a lot shallower than you think. Check out your average movie and look at wideshots. Now I'm not talking SUPER WIDE shots of terrain and stuff because yeah, with that stuff almost everything is in focus.

But even in a mundane (cinematically) film like Anchorman, check out wide shots of the office. You'll usually have a foreground in focus with the core characters (Ron Burgandy) and then the background. You can still see the background so in that definition, I guess it is "in focus" but if you really look at it, is it AS IN FOCUS as Ron Burgandy? No. Because they are working with lens that have shallower depths of fields than us video guys are used to. So in effect, pretty much EVERY FILM works with "shallow" depth of field. Shallow depth of field doesn't neccesarily mean SUPER SHALLOW depth of field which I think you are more talking about.

Yes, I do agree that a lot of young filmmakers are getting too caught up in the whole 35 mm adaptor phase and forgetting things like composisition and framing, but that's their fault. I don't think you should say shallow DOF is your pet peeve but bad filmmakers in general (which is a pet peeve of all of us I think) :)
Click to expand...

For the record, I'm pretty sure I didn't say "REAL filmmakers don't use shallow depth of field." I think that was PMark. I'm well aware that most Hollywood films like to use shallow depth of field quite often. In the case of professionals I think most tend to do a good job and use it effectivly. However, I still argue that I think being able to move the eye with light, composition, and movement is much more sophisticated and has produced some of the most visual stunning films I've ever seen. As I said, the deep focus of Welles, Kurosawa, and Frankenhiemer is simply astounding to me. There is so much craft in every shot that it blows my mind. It makes the medium so much more painterly which is what I like. I realize that I'll be though of old fashoned for these views but I think it takes much more skill to create a good image with deep focus and the results are far more powerful in my book.

My beef is with student film makers who think that a shallow depth of field will make their stuff look more professional when I don't think it's that sophisticated a choice to being with. I'm not attacking others for how they chose to make movies, simply saying I disagree and think that deep focus allows for a much more visually sophisticated look.
 
wow, in reading this post, I have become angry as hell. How can some of you say that shallow DOF is not used in big films? Are you kidding? I think you're getting deep focus mixed up with shallow focus. Now most definitely I would not recommend using shallow DOF for EVERY shot of your film unless you wanted to make some pretty asian cinema film but don't completely toss it. How can you say it's a fad? It's a lens limitation and has become a characteristic of film and filmmakers have learned to use it to their advantage to actively select what can be seen by the viewer. Are you telling me you'd rather watch a film shot with ONLY deep focus? Nothing pops out, there's no depth at all in deep focus and although you can use light to add SOME depth, I can't imagine how boring films would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top