3D Depth of field

[Joseph S.]

I don't know if anyone discussed this yet, but 3D and "shallow depth of field" just don't look right.

I just saw "The Final Destination", and even though some of the 3D was cool, the shallow depth of field just doesn't cut it in 3D. Makes it look like those kids cardboard pop-up books, but only worse.

Just my opinion.

 

[Noah Kadner]

Yeah I think it has to do with the way your eyes work. Technically you have only one 'lens' and it's very wide angle with very deep depth of field. That of course directly collides with a director's desire to be creative with a variety of different focal lengths. But if you think about it, for maximum realism and believable 3D you should stick with a single wide lens and avoid shallow depth of field completely.

Noah

 

[M Most]

I don't know if anyone discussed this yet, but 3D and "shallow depth of field" just don't look right.

I just saw "The Final Destination", and even though some of the 3D was cool, the shallow depth of field just doesn't cut it in 3D. Makes it look like those kids cardboard pop-up books, but only worse.

That issue would have been even more noticeable if they had shot the picture with "big chip" cameras (they used 2/3 inch Sony F23's, in large part to minimize that problem).

One of the problems with live action 3D is that to some degree you're stuck with the limitations imposed by your physical locations. In CG productions, the common solution is to use multiple camera pairs and compositing to control the roundness of foreground objects better. You can't do that with live action.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I don't know if anyone discussed this yet

Yup.


http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21762