DOF & beauty

[albert rudnicki]

my small contribution to the thread.
My upcoming film will have a lot of unnatural double exposure shots.
I am cheating since it's compositing.
background is done with the 300mm, and foreground 85mm.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Albert, nice shot. I love mixed focal lengths. I can't remember the film but I saw a timelapse in the background of a CU much like yours where the foreground was jittery and was doing all sorts of other funky things which made for some of the best crazy dream stuff I've ever seen. Only the colors tied them in like yours, while everything else was pure insanity.

About The New World frame, I think the girl stands out because of her darker skin tone and wardrobe being the only brown in a sea of bright green. The only other browns are the other people in the BG but they are small and spread out. Textures too i guess since her clothing has a texture far closer to skin than the lush greenery.

David, thank you for covering so much. Most of what you covered I knew, at a lower level of mastery than yours. Still, it is wonderful to hear things over and over again when it comes from you because of how you present the information. Thank you.

As you point out, often the story benefits more from effect than normal face reproduction. In that light I was trying to figure what the deepest DoF attainable might be where you need to have a "nice" CU in the foreground. I wouldn't want to shoot any CUs on anything shorter than a wonderful 28mm but it would come down to the shot. Would there be significantly deeper DoF on a 28mm or even 24mm from a 35mm at the same f-stop? Or would it not be worth it with an "average face"?

[Brandon Kraemer]

About The New World frame, I think the girl stands out because of her darker skin tone and wardrobe being the only brown in a sea of bright green. The only other browns are the other people in the BG but they are small and spread out. Textures too i guess since her clothing has a texture far closer to skin than the lush greenery.

Yes, it's because of the color composition. The green forrest creates a pattern, and the color contrast makes the foreground talent pop off the screen, giving it dimension. Some of the other posted pictures with deep focus that were in color used this same device. If there were a lot of sameness to the hue and texture of both the foreground and background, the image would not be nearly as striking.

Another thing I like about Tom's example is how the background extras look a lot like the trees, from a tonal standpoint. It's effective at linking the people to the earth, which adds some subtext to the actress in the foreground, who is also not silhouetted by the green pattern like the rest of her people, which draws us to her. You get a lot of information from this frame but it's not distracting.

[David Mullen ASC]

I wouldn't want to shoot any CUs on anything shorter than a wonderful 28mm but it would come down to the shot. Would there be significantly deeper DoF on a 28mm or even 24mm from a 35mm at the same f-stop? Or would it not be worth it with an "average face"?

Don't forget that when you switch to the shorter focal length, you compensate by pushing in closer to keep the same size for the face, and thus your depth of field drops off again. So really, by shooting closer with a wider-angle lens, you are mainly getting more perspective distortion.

However, one reason why wide-angle shots in a given format (as opposed to short focal length shots) seem to have more depth of field, even when they don't (when you define depth of field as the range in which an object will be acceptably sharp) is that background details are smaller in size on a wide-angle shot so you can't really see the difference in focus between the foreground and background as well, whereas with a telephoto lens, that same background is cropped and enlarged, so the focus difference is very clear.

But once you get close enough with a wide-angle lens and the focused distance is near minimum for the lens, there is such a drop-off in depth of field that the background still goes soft. Ultimately, closing down the iris is the most effective way of increasing depth of field.

[Mitch Gross]

If you wish to see some stunning deep focus compositions (and well, stunning compositions period) then check out "Last Year at Marienbad" by Alain Resnais. It is one of the most stunningly-composed motion pictures in history. Resnais is nothing if not a structuralist, and every one of his images is highly organized.

Here's a typical frame I quickly found that illustrates David's point about a reflection in the mirror from his comments on "The Shining."

[Tom Lowe]

Hey Tom
Good catalyst for discussion, but to David's point, don't you think the girl stands out because of her beauty? Nothing to do with photography - everything to do with casting.

It could certainly have something to do with it! But even objectively, I think the framing and the certain type of grass behind her, mixed with the colors and just the right DOF make the shot seem three dimensional to me.

One (if not the) core tenant of cinematography is to control what the audience is looking at. This is accomplished with the use of narrow focus, light levels, and movement. If you are going to have a deep focus then your subject should be at least 2 stops brighter than anything else in the scene (see the first image in this thread).

Also, framing can be used to direct the eye. Wong Kar Wai taught me that.

[Roberto Lequeux]

However, one reason why wide-angle shots in a given format (as opposed to short focal length shots) seem to have more depth of field, even when they don't (when you define depth of field as the range in which an object will be acceptably sharp) is that background details are smaller in size on a wide-angle shot so you can't really see the difference in focus between the foreground and background as well, whereas with a telephoto lens, that same background is cropped and enlarged, so the focus difference is very clear.

I see! That makes so much sense now.

So for shots like this one that you posted, would likely end up using more of a normal lens? There is a lot of compression in this frame so I am afraid to guess.

[Michael Ragen]

Hey Albert,
That's a great looking image. I shot a music video earlier this year where the talent was shot with an 8mm peleng at t5.6/8 and the background plates were shot at t3 18mm. I was suprised how well it worked.

[Michael Lindsay]

Audrey Tatou seemed to do just fine having her close-ups shot on an 18mm for "Amelie", but she's Audrey Tatou....

Just interested why you feel her CUs were shot on a 18mm? Did you read this, her it or deduce it?

kind regards

Michael L

PS and a genuine thanks for your tireless support of this forum..

[XiaoSu Han]

My favorite movie, Oldboy, uses extensively wide angles and even deep focus composites (I guess the movie was shot on a Sony F900, only a few shots on 35mm):

It is my favorite movie as well and as I've seen it 5 times in the cinema and a couple of times on DVD with directors and cinematographers commentary, I'd like to correct this.

It was completely shot in (anamorphic AFAIK) 35mm and no F900 was involved. IMDB is completely wrong on that. They even did a Bleach Bypass chemically if you do a little research it even says it on the web.