Why are so many scared of focus?

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.
Click to expand...

They also used to fire people for lens flares.

*There I beat a different horse altogether.
 
Wow . . .

Though I didn't read all the posts, my take on it is this:

Don't get so wrapped up in what's hot and what's not. You have a camera and a story to tell. Communicate with the Director and shoot it however you feel is best. Use whatever kind of DOF you want. Do your own thing and don't worry about what other people 'think' of your choices/style. As long as you're a satisfied cinematographer (and hopefully working at least fairly steadily), that's all that matters.
 
pmark23 said:
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!)
Click to expand...
*chuckle* like when Lightwave 3D came out, the ultimate cool-factor was conferred by its ability to calculate and render lens flares - something that DPs will go to great lengths, to avoid...

xxxxxx

pmark23 said:
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".
Click to expand...
Not necesssarily. CUs and ECUs using shallow DOF can be very dramatically effective, and worthwhile for that purpose. *If* the DOF effect is selected for a purpose and not gratuitous technique-for-the-sake-of-technique, like you said...


pmark23 said:
Otherwise, constant shallow DOF mostly betrays an amateur filmmaker.
Click to expand...
Constant and over-use of pretty much *any* one technique mostly betrays an amateur...but virtually any technique, in the right hands and at the right place, can be effective, and desirable.

Fortunately, a friend just bought himself a RedRock M2. So I can borrow, on the occassions when I might need its output.



Oh, and, what DC said.
 
This is my first post since joining the DVX user. You guys are so damn funny and masively talented. I have learned so much and yet know so little but the learning part is what makes it so facinating. So many different viewpoints and each of you with your own brand of skill and tact.

I was heading off to try and catch a salmon on my local river here in Scotland but as i looked out the window the heavy low cloud and stillness suggested it might turn rather wet so i tuned in here to see what i could learn. Surely a wee ten minutes will not hold me back! several hours later......

Well blow my socks off you guys had me rolling about the floor in absolute hysterics. Yikes it was like watching a big salmon rising in the water and you guys kept casting your flies over it in the hope you would catch it, but none of you were smart enough or clever enough to catch this "Whopper" Then suddenly! the big salmon had hooked himself !!! and ended up being caught after all. The king of all fish had landed himself.

From a beginners perspective i have learned much this morning. All of you have given me great insight and for what it is worth (which is nothing) i think many good points have been aired on all sides. If the salmon had not risen none of you would have attempted to cast to it and my early morning fishing (5am when i got up)would not have been as productive. Now having woke up the whole house with fits of laughter it is time to scarper and head off to try and catch a real salmon.........Even if i catch one today i doubt if later on in telling the story it could ever be as good as this Thread with all its wide views, short views, some out of focus and others so sharp with great visuals just brilliant what a start to my day thank you all....

Michael
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, many of the deep focus shots were fake but that doesn't change that they were still gorgeous. Also Kurosawa and Frankenhiemer didn't use any of those tricks.

And yes it's an aristic choice. That's the point of the thread (or it was when I made it before it became chaos). I don't think people should be scared of having everything in focus because when used as an artistic choice it's fantastic. Yes you have to pay more attention to how you compose your shots but that's part of the aristry.

And yes you can achieve amazing things in shallow DOF like Scott has but ultimatly, as far as pure composition goes, I'd argue that no shallow DOF shot has been able to have the power on me that some of the great deep focus ones did. That's just me.
 
Well, the Kurosawa long lens pan shot, had a very short DOF, and if that was not enough, the pan "motionblurred" all the rest that could get in focus.

I wouldn't go as far as you and say one is better than the other. But I have to admit, I'm a fan of the short focus style. Sorry.
 
I'm not refering to the long lense pan shot. I'm refering to Yojimbo and Red Beard where a telaphoto lense was used from very far off but with a huge amount of light so that the iris could be closed way down to maintain deep focus. This gave the image a VERY two dimensional quality that I really love.
 
Dof

Dof

DOF, besides being used as a stylistic aesthetic, is also used to add dimension and depth to framing, and character. It characters are feeling isolated in a scene or in the story, using a long lens will isolate that character to the audience. For that guy who said that "why not use light to tell the audience where to look", any seasoned DP will know that specific placement of lights is needed when trying to shoot shallow focus, so really you are still using lights to tell the audience where to look. Also for that same guy who said "why not use composition", anyone knows that when you use a long lens to create shallow focus, you are using that selected focus area to compose the image.
 
Shallow depth of field is used all of the time in still photography. Why would anyone see it as a problem with moving pictures?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top