- Thread starter
- #41
David Quinn Carder
Well-known member
This is getting silly -- Hollywood producers generally don't even know what the term "depth of field" even means, let alone dictate one to the cinematographer, and let alone pick one they think is more expensive to create!
In 35mm, it's actually cheaper to get a shallow focus -- it takes higher light levels to achieve a deep focus. And producers generally like cheaper. As long as there aren't a lot of focus mistakes...
You know, when the F900 hit the market in 2000, a lot of producers I talked to couldn't even get their head around the depth of field differences between 2/3" and 35mm, they just mainly wanted to know what it was going to cost them.
In fact, the main resistance I get from studio people from using anamorphic lenses is that they feel that focusing is too hard to get right (because of the shallower depth of field.) So this notion that the Hollywood studio system wants a shallow focus look because it's more expensive to create and will keep low-budget and independent production out is ridiculous.
What they do want is every studio movie to look like every other studio movie -- it's that stylistic conservatism that propels a standardized look, that and more cinematographers are used to lighting everything to T/2.8 no matter what format they seem to be shooting. And since the standard has been 35mm for a long time, studio people want their movies to look like they were shot in 35mm generally. It has nothing to do with them thinking that the shallower depth of field of 35mm shot in lower light levels will keep the small guys out. It has more to do with wanting their studio movies to look like everyone else's studio movies.
Very well said.