Am I the only one desiring deep focus?

[David Quinn Carder]

It seems like everyone is after a shallow focus these days (which I predict will turn around after high-FPS/3D stuff becomes common) . . . am I alone in wanting deeper focus, rather than shallower focus?

 

[Jim McKinney]

It depends on the project. Deep focus can be really cool.

But selective focus is more frequently useful in a narrative context, as well as offering greater control over the image and properly used, is beautiful.

 

[Rob Castiglione]

I like deeper focus. Shallow DOF is useful to draw attention to a specific aspect of the frame or emphasise some story telling element.

Deeper focus as a general approach together with a plainer style of shooting arguably reveals fairly quickly whether a story/film actually has any substance to it.

 

[Leaf Baimbridge]

Everything has its place.

 

[Nick Gardner]

The only people that are all twitchy freaked out about shallow depth of field are people who started off working with prosumer camcorders.

Nick

 

[David Quinn Carder]

The only people that are all twitchy freaked out about shallow depth of field are people who started off working with prosumer camcorders.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Elaborate?

 

[David Rasberry]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Elaborate?

1/3" and smaller format sensors require lenses of such short focal lengths that there is very little possibility of shooting shallow DOF Under most conditions everything is always in focus to infinity.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Yup, what David said.

Nick

 

[rod bradley]

As Leaf says, everything has it's place. I myself often want depth of focus - and a frame that justifies it and movement within the frame -- although easier said than done.

But I think it's true, there has been a bit of a stylistic fad of late in terms of shallow depth of field, hence the whole cottage industry in giving those 1/3" sensors 35mm depth of field capacity.

I think there was a previous thread devoted to examples of deep focus -- and a discussion thereof.

 

[Jim McKinney]

I'm not sure I'd characterize selective focus as a "stylistic fad of late."

 

[David Quinn Carder]

1/3" and smaller format sensors require lenses of such short focal lengths that there is very little possibility of shooting shallow DOF Under most conditions everything is always in focus to infinity.

I understood that—what I didn't understand is whether he meant that these "prosumers" are used to deeper focus and are thus opposed to or "not into" shallow depth of field, or if he meant they've never worked with shallow depth of field and are thus overenthusiastic about it.

Personally, I've only worked with a prosumer camcorder, and not a very good one at that (the Sony HVR-Z1U), but I watch a lot of movies and know what my aesthetic goals are. I have a thing for deep focus and normal viewing angles (and am also looking forward to experimenting with higher frame rates). I'm not arguing that it's better or worse than anything else; I only mention it to out of curiosity. Zooms and shallow focus will no doubt be useful for commissioned work.

I think there was a previous thread devoted to examples of deep focus -- and a discussion thereof.

I did a quick search for "deep focus" and did not find it—sorry about that.

 

[Jamie Havill]

Selective focus is a tool. You know whether you want it or not. Don't want it, don't use it. Want it, then go ahead and use it. We could sit here all day and list title after title that uses selective focus and is brilliant, same as we could sit here and make a list of films that make use of primarily deep focus shots that are just as accomplished.

Believe it or not, we could also compile a list just as big, which contains a mixture of deep and shallow focus shots.

As has been said, selective focus is only a big deal at the moment because it's a newly availible tool to the low/no budget filmmaker. Once the masses have this tool, they will learn very quickly when, and when not, to use it.

These threads get boring at a very quick rate.

 

[Ryan M.]

Personally, I've only worked with a prosumer camcorder, and not a very good one at that (the Sony HVR-Z1U), but I watch a lot of movies and know what my aesthetic goals are. I have a thing for deep focus and normal viewing angles (and am also looking forward to experimenting with higher frame rates). I'm not arguing that it's better or worse than anything else; I only mention it to out of curiosity. Zooms and shallow focus will no doubt be useful for commissioned work.

I did a quick search for "deep focus" and did not find it—sorry about that.

No budget filmmaker, thats me! LOL. Anyways, I prefer shallow focus for things like films and interviews where I need to separate my subject. However I like and use deep focus for things like events, sports, stock footage, etc, which comprises the bulk of the stuff I shoot. I have done a lot of work with the Z1U and I thought it was alright for what it could do at the time it was released, but yes it did have its limitations which presented themselves right away. But to each his or her own.

 

[David Quinn Carder]

Selective focus is a tool. You know whether you want it or not. Don't want it, don't use it. Want it, then go ahead and use it. We could sit here all day and list title after title that uses selective focus and is brilliant, same as we could sit here and make a list of films that make use of primarily deep focus shots that are just as accomplished.

Believe it or not, we could also compile a list just as big, which contains a mixture of deep and shallow focus shots.

As has been said, selective focus is only a big deal at the moment because it's a newly availible tool to the low/no budget filmmaker. Once the masses have this tool, they will learn very quickly when, and when not, to use it.

These threads get boring at a very quick rate.

Then don't click them. I intentionally made the subject line clear and to the point. Also, if you don't want to argue (notice, if you read my previous post, that I am not here to argue either), then don't argue. I wanted some feedback and I got it.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

It seems like everyone is after a shallow focus these days (which I predict will turn around after high-FPS/3D stuff becomes common) . . . am I alone in wanting deeper focus, rather than shallower focus?

No I like to have a deep focus for green screen/3d/corporate jobs aswell and i think 2/3 will be perfect in that sense. Shallow focus looks very nice but for my company most important is keeping everything crisp. If the 2/3 feels like the panasonic hvx200´s depth of field, then I will get the S35 in future as a complement.

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

I must say, before knowing what I now know about shallow depth of field, I also wanted shallow depth. But coming to see that this kind of focus has become synonym with what a lot of indiefilmmakers desire and think is the ultimate goal, I am kind of going in the opposite direction. Because as staed earlier if everyone got it, it's not special anymore. As good looking shallow depth of field can be, I sometime get really annoyed by how shallow the background is. Sometimes it's a character with almost no background and in that sense, you might as well have been recording it up against a white wall. That I don't like. If shallow depth of field is selecting what the audience should focus on, making them aware of specifik stuff - and in a way, saying that they are not smart enough to make that selection themselves. Then deep focus is for the interlectual, smart audience. It is making the audience play the game of hide and seek. FIGHT CLUB SPOILER AHEAD: For example in the airoport sequence in Fight Club, You wouldn't want the total focus on Pitt's character when he moves by in the background, because that is for the audience to find out themselves. I'm aware that this is not always the case. Anyway that's just the way I see it.

 

[Jamison Stark]

It seems like everyone is after a shallow focus these days (which I predict will turn around after high-FPS/3D stuff becomes common) . . . am I alone in wanting deeper focus, rather than shallower focus?

There was an awesome thread recently about deep focus... DOF & beauty

 

[Gary Paul Walker]

RE: Am I the only one desiring deep focus?

When I was working on prosumer cameras I was near-militant about getting a shallow DOF, something that couldnt be achieved all that well (aside from the usual tricks of standing a mile away and zooming in with the iris wide open).
Because of that I was looking at other techniques to achieve the same results.. if I couldnt attract audience attention to a particular part of the image using DOF I started using lighting techniques and subtle camera moves.
With the release of the 2/3 Scarlet its been noted by many posters that it could certainly give a noticeable DOF, but a shallow DOF is just one way (and the most popular way amongst filmmakers with the budget for 35mm film and the glass to go with it) of an attention getting result.

I was in a film lecture last year where a producer was talking about the ways big-budget production companies push out the little guy. In it he talked for about 30 mins about shallow DOF saying that big production companies pushed it as a narrative standard because it was incredibly expensive to obtain, both in the technology and the time (shallow DOF means you have to spend the time getting the shot perfectly in focus and pulling focus perfectly when rolling).
Hopefully Red will be giving filmmakers a better DOF in the arsenal with the 2/3 - but I think we should encourage more imaginative ways to frame and tell a story. If you dont have the budget for a Hollywood Release, go for something thats stylistically different, you might find a completely different audience...

(wow, what a rant! someone quote this entire thing and say "Shut up Gary")

 

[Yuri Kudeiko]

Funny thread..

I personally want to have control over it... whether i use shallow/deep focus it depends on the application or narrative.

 

[Jamie Havill]

Then don't click them. I intentionally made the subject line clear and to the point. Also, if you don't want to argue (notice, if you read my previous post, that I am not here to argue either), then don't argue. I wanted some feedback and I got it.

I don't want to argue about it David, not one bit. It's just this has been discussed SO much already.

There are times when every filmmakers is going to use different levels of DOF to achieve what he needs to effectively get his story across in the most effective way. Limiting yourself to a style that primarily consists of deep DOF photography before you've even got started on a concept or idea seems alien to me.