Why are so many scared of focus?

Jack

Can you make us an:

Laughing my ass off rolling on the floor helecopter image ?

Pllllllleaaaaaaasssssseeeeeee ?
 
watch at own risk if you are epileptic ...

I give you ...

SDOF and Rack Focus ... I think this example should finally satisfy Pmark!
rain35mmSDOF.gif
 
To both the Deep Focus and Shallow Focus Lovers,

I agree with the pros that both camps brought up about their touted focal lengths. The films that handle deep focus cinematography adeptly are masterful works and yes, it usually does take more foresight and effort to lead the eye through the frame without the use of shallow focus and only with composition, color, movement, etc. AT THE SAME TIME I also totally love films that do handle shallow focus cinematography in a way that is equally adept in its own way, allowing the film to focus in on key visual information that help tell and transmit the story to the viewer the best way possible.

I think the biggest problem with this thread has come up with several people (and I won't mention names) who have decided to tout one superior over the other. Neither is better. It depends on the story you tell and what you are trying to get across. One is not for the lazy and the other is not for the anachronistic. It all depends on which tells the story better?

For instance, an awesome example of deep focus, perhaps THE example (and that's not an exaggeration) is the famous shot in Citizen Kane when you start out with young Kane playing in the snow and pull out through a tree, through a window, into a house, into a kitchen, into a conversation between three adults talking about young Kane. That is a shot that I can't imagine without deep focus photography because then it loses the multiple planes and loses the visual meaning associated with seeing Kane trapped in a frame, trapped in a frame, trapped in another frame, hinting at his life to come.

Now the opposite of this would be the masterful use of shallow focus in Sam Mendes Road to Perdition. Now in general, that film uses a lot of shallow focus. In fact almost every single shot uses shallow focus. But there's one shot in particular that really uses this in the most awesome way possible (my articulation GOOD!). Since this movie isn't as ubiqutously known as Citizen Kane, I'll give time markers. It occurs 33 minutes and 30 seconds into the film. It occurs at the end of a meeting where the son of the mob leader is embarrased in front of everyone by his father played by Paul Newman, and the father walks out, arm around shoulder of Tom Hank's character who is the favorite surogate son of the man. The shot starts out at the end of the table and slowly creeps up on the real son who is still sitting down as the other men leave the table. As it closes in on the son, you see Tom Hanks and Paul Newman walking out behind him and the camera slowly focuses to them which puts the chastised son's face severly out of focus. Finally at the end of the shot we focus back to the son's face who is full of bitter contempt. As it defocuses on the man's face, it almost makes it look like you are seeing a man decomposing right in front of you which is exactly what is happening to his inner state of mind. Just like the example of Citizen Kane and deep focus, this is an example of a shot where shallow focus gives it a deeper lyrical meaning that would be lost without it.

Now I know I've rambled long enough but you know what? This thread has gone on long enough. I think both sides need to 1) agree to disagree as to which they consider "better" and 2) stop trying to tout their side better (and more importantly, the other side WORSE). It's okay to bring up examples of why deep focus is awesome and why shallow focus is awesome, but saying the other is weak is what caused all this arguing in the first place.

That being said....

LONG TAKES > RAPID CUTS!

:-)
 
Last edited:
Here is an interesting perspective from a well respected modern filmmaker, Jean Pierre Jeunet, who directed Delicatessen & Amelie taken from an American Cinematographer article.

"Another signature trait of Jeunet’s work is his systematic use of wide-angle lenses, often placed very close to the actors. Short focal lengths yield a more exaggerated perspective and greater depth of field than longer lenses. For the viewer, the increased perspective heightens the three-dimensional quality of camera moves, while the depth of field keeps more in focus within the frame.

For Very Long Engagement, which was shot in Super 35mm 2.35:1, Delbonnel used Arricam Studios and Lites and an Aaton 35-III, all outfitted with Cooke S4 lenses. He used no diffusion on the lens, as he prefers to diffuse with lighting. He notes that the Cookes also naturally soften the image. “For this film, I felt that the Cookes corresponded to my lighting, and the brand also offers a great range of short focal lengths: there are eight lenses between 14mm and 35mm. Working with Jean-Pierre, we could have returned all the lenses above 32mm to Technovision — if they had rented to us by the lens, we could have made some savings!”

Full article: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec04/engagement/page1.html

Listen to an interview with him on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4280683
 
^
Interesting article but I am actually more fond of the rather rare telephoto deep focus that is most famous in films like Yojimbo or Red Beard. It requires ALOT of light but it's quite stunning. The telephoto lense gives everything a more 2D look but by having it all stay in focus it makes the frame seem much more like a painting then just a shot in a movie. I find this absolutly breathtaking and I like how one can get a bit closer to it with a 1/3 chip. Anyone who wants to see how amazing deep focus looks should watch Yojimbo and Red Beard (you should have already seen Citizen Kane).
 
Ok, I'm joining really late here, but here's my opinion... I don't see a need for always having shallow DOF. I think if you throw in a few shots here and there that have shallow DOF used for the right reason, then you're good to go! In my last short, that is what I tried to do, and I think it worked! A film grad from a prestigious film school saw my short and asked what it was shot on... he thought it was at the least 16mm. I told him DV and he was shocked... anyway, I think shallow DOF can be overused... but it has a place in some shots :)
 
^
My last short ended up winning my school's film festival competition. It was shot on a DVX100A. A graduate student asked me, "That was done in the 16mm class? I didn't know you we could shoot color." (the film had a mixture of color and black and white footage) I told him I hadn't done it for the class and that it was shot digitally. He seemed surprised.

The next day I ran into him and we chatted and he started saying how much he prefers 16mm over digital because of the shallow DoF. The incident was actually what caused me to write this thread. I still find it ironic that the day before he thought it was 16mm and then, upon finding it on video, suddenly decided DoF was an issue.
 
So I'm reading all of these posts on shallow DOF and find it intriguing to say the least as well as having a really powerful urge to find "Barry Lyndon" and watch it.

Then I read Loki's posting below.

Loki said:
Tell the story with the best means available to you, and if that means using focus to help, then giver.
Click to expand...

I think. Geez. That's awfully Canadian... "giver"...also known as "give 'er."

Anyway I scroll up and peek at Loki's location and, BOOM, Canada, eh?

hehe.

Sorry for the digression.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

sincerely,


ian


FUBAR ROCKS!!!!
 
Last edited:
Perhpas I could chime in.

Perhpas I could chime in.

This debate is interesting but it seems that the argument is over whether shallow DOF is a crutch or a valuable tool in the film-maker's toolbox.

I vote tool.

That is all.

sincerely,


ian
occasionally succinct, usually not.
 
In my experience, anyone who goes off on a big rant sure to offend is generally trying to convince themself and isn't positive of what they say.
 
snodart said:
In terms of shooting DV/HD footage with a shallow DOF and prosumer cam, it is in some ways a fad I think. It is also based on tradition though (film). As we stand now, the majority of people are accustomed to seeing a medium to shallow DOF at a typical theater or on their DVD player with a rental.

I spent two months of late nights building my own vibrating 35mm adapter. It is a very limited tool (shallow DOF), but IMO, it brings my footage to a different level. Well, okay, it makes it look like a real life movie. True, this alone won't make a great shot, but in combo with all the correct elements (lighting, movement, comp, etc), I sure like it. And yes, there are great shots with a large DOF if the correct elements are there.

Another factor to consider is that a 50mm lense (for 35mm film) most closely mimics the human eye. Look across the room with your finger about 9 inches away from your face and focus on it. Not much else is in focus. Keep your finger there and focus on something across the room. Finger is out of focus. The brighter it is, the more the pupil (aperture) is open and the DOF is more shallow. The darker it is, the smaller the pupil, DOF is deeper. Perhaps this has something to do with a medium/shallow DOF gaining the praise of many.
Click to expand...

Brighter = More Pupil Closed
Darker = More Pupil Open
 
pmark23 said:
Shallow DOF is my (and many other's) pet-peeve.

(Warning: Big rant ahead which is sure to offend.)

At an indy screening you can hear the groans and sighs as yet another out-of-place DOF shot intrudes upon the story for no reason other than to stroke the DP's ego.

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...

pmark23 said:
There's a very big difference between using it as a tool and using it as a crutch.

As a documentary filmmaker, I use it all the time (the DVX has great shallow DOF, BTW) when I don't have time to clear the background of distractions.

One place where it's almost mandatory is in advertising, because you want the focus to be on ONLY the subject. This is why you see DOF adapters on many DV commercial shoots.

Getting back to the point of the main topic, the reason many current top-tier directors don't use it (or use it extremely sparingly) is because of the cheese factor involved in a shallow-DOF shot. It's been abused by so many filmmakers more interested in style than substance that it's lost it's storytelling value.

The reason it was used so rarely in the past is because it wasn't viewed of as a very useful storytelling tool. Shallow DOF restricts the layers of meaning.

For an excellent example, look at Murnau's "Blue Angel". Murnau deliberately set up several layers of action, each one separate, yet adding to the story to form a larger whole. Citizen Cane used it another way, by setting up a path for the eye to follow along a single 3-dimensional path then back to the subject just in time for a cut to another deep-focus shot.

Another reason it wasn't used is that it was viewed as unnatural and intrusive, and pulls the viewer out of the story just as if the camera pulled-back and you saw the crew standing there filming it. In other words, it's self-reflective of the filmmaking experience, and points out to the audience that they're watching a movie rather than being involved with a series of relationships in a story.

Why is it that the reason people make DOF adapters is to "capture" the "look" of 35mm film? None of the movies I watch use shallow DOF, except extremely sparingly. My assumption is that this is used as an excuse to cover shoddy cameramanship. "Dude, your movie sucks!" "Yeah, well... you see... um... It's only video -- it doesn't have the depth-of-field of a real movie camera. If only I had more gear, then I'd be better than Spielberg!" Which probably explains why we're flooded with crappy indy movies and shorts with shoddy camera work and too much pointless DOF shots.

I think the real reason it is so much in vogue by beginning filmmakers is that they don't know framing or composition yet, and making the background blurry looks pretty and distracts the audience (and maybe themselves) from noticing their poor framing (or so they think.)

Filmmakers didn't use shallow DOF for the first 80 years of filmmaking (even though it was available and extremely easy to use) -- nobody will miss it if you don't use it today. Forget about DOF adapters and learn composition and blocking if there's "something missing" from your production.


John, I'd love to see your list of feature-films featuring shallow DOF. I'm racking my brains trying to come up with some. I can think of lots of tiny shots (for example, the robot-kid's entrance in "AI"), but nothing that uses it a lot besides television shows, commercials, and music videos.
Click to expand...

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...



Very Nice Argument!!


So shallow DOF is another storytelling tool that we should use as we see fit to tell our story the way we want it told.


Balance. Choice.
 
I've just spent the last hour reading this whole mess and I'm speechless. With every post, I kept thinking about the wonderful, academic, clinical, artistic, etc., etc. post I was doing to write. And then I realized, as so many others in this thread, that this whole subject is INSANE! From the "show me great movies AFTER the year I was born that are SDOF movies", to the challenges, to some guy hitting a dead horse over and over again with a stick =), to some really good posts on what DOF ACTUALLY IS, and so forth...

Well, just a couple of things...

Firstly, most of the awesome DOF "Kane" stuff was done with a combination of special effects lenses (i.e. split diopters) AND matte paintings. This was an ARTISTIC CHOICE by Welles that went beyond the frickin' camera and film technology.

If you look at a lot of the studio films from the 40's and 50's, close-ups are shot with long lenses (in addition to diffusion). Why? So the actress's nose doesn't look like it's as long as the width of her frickin' head. Think Clockwork Orange. Long lenses flatten the face, make things look prettier. And guess what, long lens = shallower DOF when shot in a "normal" f-stop range for a motion picture.

You want to see some kick ass shallow depth of field before the dawn of the "Modern SDOF Movie", whatever that is, check out Sven Nykvist's work on Bergman's Persona. That should pretty much close the arguement.

I do agree, in a lot of ways, that trying to achieve a film-look on video is kind of like trying to make graphite look like ink. Film and video are two different mediums. Each really be embraced for what they are and can do WITHOUT trying to make it something that it's not. BUT, that's a whole other rant. =)

Cheers.

John G.
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
Brighter = More Pupil Closed
Darker = More Pupil Open
Click to expand...

Correct. My thoughts were there, but switched the words I guess. Should be:

DOF in the human eye is deeper in bright light because the pupil is more closed.

DOF in the human eye is more shallow in low light because the pupil is more open.

Thanks ESTEBEVERDE
 
snodart said:
Correct. My thoughts were there, but switched the words I guess. Should be:

DOF in the human eye is deeper in bright light because the pupil is more closed.

DOF in the human eye is more shallow in low light because the pupil is more open.

Thanks ESTEBEVERDE
Click to expand...
No Worries Cuz!!!

We know what you meant!

I just posted it in case someone who wasn't as well versed came across!

Thanks for having such a great attitude! :)

Estebe
 
I do agree, in a lot of ways, that trying to achieve a film-look on video is kind of like trying to make graphite look like ink. Film and video are two different mediums.
Click to expand...

and i thought it was just me. i usually say "making water color look like oil"...nice to see someone on the same page.
 
10s said:
Video folks are fighting for shallow focus because the small chip format delivers this look. Remember video cameras were designed for replacing 16mm news gathering cameras so we have inherited this legacy. TV News needs as much deep focus as possible, artists don't. Back in the 30s DPs were after deep focus, because of slow film speed & lenses. They would foam at the mouth in envy over what many of us despise.

So in the end....who cares, just tell a good story and we'll enjoy the popcorn.
Click to expand...

I must admit that this post made me think back, way back to a time when I just started out in this business. Sometimes I get the feeling that the median age on DVXUser is about 20, and no one remembers the time before MiniDV let alone HD.

Anyone who was working as a professional cameraman about a dozen years ago will remember that for a time in 35mm there was a push to try to get more DOF out of the lens and stock, particularly with anamorphics because the focus is so critical.

It seems to me, that as soon as HD started becoming a potential alternative to 35mm, the benefit of the extended DOF with a 2/3" imager was now a liability.

I had the great pleasure of meeting Roy Wagner (ASC) this week and he actually made the same observation. It was good to hear that I hadn't imagined hearing DPs longing for more DOF with 35mm

---

my .02 of the dead horse.

Shallow DOF is just another look, it just happens to be very en vogue right now. Just as Swing and Shifts were in the late 90s. Take a look at almost anything from Tony and Ridley Scott, they both love the long lenses, while I think they take it slightly to excess, I would say generally the choices work.

Deep DOF is also another fantastic look. A History of Violence was shot almost entirely on a 28mm. There's a lot of DOF and it's got to be one of the best movies of 2005.

---

Creating deep DOF can be a pain with 35mm, and REALLY, REALLY difficult with Anamorphics. Lighting sets to a T11/16 is a pain, most people I know don't want a base that hot. But I've seen it done, to create more DOF, and for slow motion.

On the other side of the coin, creating unmotivated shallow DOF is fairly easy, but it can make working very difficult. One DP I worked with only wanted to shoot the whole movie at what he considered "the sweet spot" which was 2.8/4. Nothing else would do. Not that he had actually tested this, he heard it from a friend. We layered in NDs to make ND15 when shooting Day Ext. so he could get his 2.8. Even when I had to pull focus on 300mm & 400mm car-to-car, driving shots in CU. Actually the lens was probably about 3.3, so we were WFO (wide f*cking open) as it's known. The DP refused to do any eye focusing, or take any responsibility for the look if it went soft. Don't know how I pulled it off, but I did- it was some kind of Zen focusing.

Yes this DP (to put it mildly) is an idiot, but as the 1st AC, it was my job to do as he asked in regards to the camera and shotting aesthetics without questioning his motives. This was only the tip of the iceberg with this guy. A total hack tool. I thankfully never worked with him again.

About 6-months ago, someone mentioned his name to me about how "talented" this guy is. I dunno maybe he got better, although he was also a cocky ass, so I somehow doubt it. Just goes to show, you only need to convince one person that you're a "dp", even if you're not.

Good luck to all with your lensing and cinematic choices. Try to make them creative. No matter which side of the coin you fall, there's plenty of data to back up whatever you believe.

I.

P.S. My pick for great overlooked creative cinematography- Revisit 12-Monkeys. Almost nothing in the movie is longer than 50mm, yet they make both shallow and deep DOF work, in very creative ways. Fantastic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top