Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Am I the only one desiring deep focus?

Gary Paul Walker said:
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")

Click to expand...

Shut up Gary
 
Nick Gardner said:
The only people that are all twitchy freaked out about shallow depth of field are people who started off working with prosumer camcorders.

Nick
Click to expand...
Or the major studios shooting 35mm film who were terrified at the new digital levelling of the field. They had to find something to cling to. Something to maintain the larger formats validity.
 
Depth of field, both shallow and deep, has been around as an artistic device long before motion pictures existed.

How much we choose to reveal or blur is governed no differently today than it was when our tool box contained only brushes and pigment. Doesn't everyone here know this?

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
We had a meeting with clients today who wanted deeper depth of field that we thought we could offer with Red. Happily we have worked out lenses and suitable F stop to provide whats needed.

We like Deep depth of field where its appropriate but we also like shallow depth of field where its appropriate.
 
Creativity should never be limited by equipment. The lack of shallow dof should in no way mean that a film cannot look big budget. It is a look that people are used to due to its popularity but I have seen films shot in deep focus that look better than many shallow focus films. I think people who are in the industry know how much easier it is to accomplish shallow focus today so it does not have the wow factor that it once had. Honestly, I think that they will be more impressed by creative camera angles, movement and inventive coloring and lighting composition. Hell, Slumdog Millionaire was shot on a 2/3" chip and the focus was a great deal deeper than most other nominated films and it still won for best cinematography. Creativity can always trump technical limitations. I think that with shallow focus becoming more available to the masses with these DSLR's, Hollywood and creative individuals will turn to techniques like dutch angles and deep dof to distinguish themselves, but that just my opinion.
 
i am kind of in the middle with the shallow dof. i really enjoy a shallow dof but more often than not it isn't completely necessary for most applications. might just have to buy both fixed and non fixed 2/3s scarlets.
 
Joel Arvidsson said:
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.
Click to expand...

The 2/3 can't feel like the hvx200 because the hvx200 has a 1/3 sensor. So you have the posibility to have a more shallow DoF.
 
Here's a reason for low budget projects with small crew to shoot deep focus. Less chance to get an out-of-focus shot with no focus puller.
 
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).
Click to expand...

With all due respect that's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard ;-) I mean that in a totally goodhearted way. First of all, it's more expensive to have a deeper dof. You need more lights. A lot more lights. Which means more guys, and more generators, and more cable and more money. Also, good focus pullers get it right the first time most of the time. That's what tape measures, lasers, chalk and stand ins and rehearsals are for. On the really big movies, the star may do one take that he likes, and then give one or two for the director and that's it. They are done. If the AC blows one of the takes he stands a very real chance of being replaced by a guy who can get it done. Secondly, I highly doubt if a major producer ever fired two brain synapses giving a shit in any way shape or form about the "little guy", unless he was trying to figure out how to buy their little movie for $1 million dollars, and make $20 million off of it. And just for the record, no body really sits around and talks about the depth of field on a 35mm film shoot. Your stop is usually a function of how much light can you get into the room, and what is a reasonable stop to give the AC a fighting chance. Sure sometimes there are certain shots where you want a lot, or a little Dof, but those are exceptions not the norm. I will reveal one last closely guarded secret among the Hollywood elite - Most big movies are just as fucked up as little ones, they are just fucked up more expensive. ;-)

Nick
 
Nick Gardner said:
With all due respect that's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard ;-) I mean that in a totally goodhearted way. First of all, it's more expensive to have a deeper dof. You need more lights. A lot more lights. Which means more guys, and more generators, and more cable and more money. Also, good focus pullers get it right the first time most of the time. That's what tape measures, lasers, chalk and stand ins and rehearsals are for. On the really big movies, the star may do one take that he likes, and then give one or two for the director and that's it. They are done. If the AC blows one of the takes he stands a very real chance of being replaced by a guy who can get it done. Secondly, I highly doubt if a major producer ever fired two brain synapses giving a shit in any way shape or form about the "little guy", unless he was trying to figure out how to buy their little movie for $1 million dollars, and make $20 million off of it. And just for the record, no body really sits around and talks about the depth of field on a 35mm film shoot. Your stop is usually a function of how much light can you get into the room, and what is a reasonable stop to give the AC a fighting chance. Sure sometimes there are certain shots where you want a lot, or a little Dof, but those are exceptions not the norm. I will reveal one last closely guarded secret among the Hollywood elite - Most big movies are just as fucked up as little ones, they are just fucked up more expensive. ;-)

Nick
Click to expand...

While the ideas reported by Gary may be debatable, there's no reason to be aggressive or unpolite.

And maybe that lecturing producer might have had a point.

Considering the speed offered by filmstock and sensors nowadays, stopping down the iris isn't as expensive as you put it, especially if you're shooting in real indoor locations (apartments, homes and whatever). And getting a good deal for a quiet, truck-based generator is far from being impractical - the only real bugger, in my experience, being the gas and its floating prices. Actually, as we speak, getting one of those good "one-shot, one kill" focus puller at times can be more complicated or pricey (in comparison) than obtaining the right equipment for a decent shoot.

Unless, of course, by "little guy" you mean no-budget filmakers, making features for a couple of thousands bucks or less.
 
Sorry if you missed the smiley faces and "goodhearted" parts of the post. The whole concept that somehow "the studio system" is keeping the "little guy" down is ridiculous. They don't exist in the same universe.

Nick
 
Little and big fishes of the film business do exist in the same universe, as they both try to sell their work to the same persons (distributors and audiences).

And is a matter of fact that finding an avenue for their products is becoming harder and harder for the small guys.
 
Nick Gardner said:
With all due respect that's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard ;-) I mean that in a totally goodhearted way. First of all, it's more expensive to have a deeper dof. You need more lights. A lot more lights. Which means more guys, and more generators, and more cable and more money. Also, good focus pullers get it right the first time most of the time. That's what tape measures, lasers, chalk and stand ins and rehearsals are for. On the really big movies, the star may do one take that he likes, and then give one or two for the director and that's it. They are done. If the AC blows one of the takes he stands a very real chance of being replaced by a guy who can get it done. Secondly, I highly doubt if a major producer ever fired two brain synapses giving a shit in any way shape or form about the "little guy", unless he was trying to figure out how to buy their little movie for $1 million dollars, and make $20 million off of it. And just for the record, no body really sits around and talks about the depth of field on a 35mm film shoot. Your stop is usually a function of how much light can you get into the room, and what is a reasonable stop to give the AC a fighting chance. Sure sometimes there are certain shots where you want a lot, or a little Dof, but those are exceptions not the norm. I will reveal one last closely guarded secret among the Hollywood elite - Most big movies are just as fucked up as little ones, they are just fucked up more expensive. ;-)

Nick
Click to expand...

Firtstly, no offense taken (and someone after the lecture echoed similar thoughts to him). I think principally he was talking about the people at the top of the industry ie Hollywood elite wanting to maintain a greater technology gap between no and big budgets... Speaking to a business model, they want to keep their industry Unique Selling Point. I think why I re-told what the lecturer said was to suggest that Scarlets DOF characteristics at a more achievable price might chip one (albeit a small one) of those things that big budget films have always been able to hold over no-budget films.
And yes, there are films released that have a huge DOF , but there's nothing wrong with wanting to aspire to a look of a film that beforehand wouldve required a Redrock or Letus.
I may be wrong (and will probably draw criticism), but I dont see Hollywood film production as some clandestine organisation - but they're a business and they're looking for every edge to protect profit margins.
 
David Quinn Carder said:
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?
Click to expand...
You can have focus as deep as you want ... you can have focus as shallow as you want. What you need is light (sensitivity) control.
 
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.
 
Well said David I too believe that most producers if not all do not know what DOF is as well as other tech things, they just count time and dollars in cost.
Give them a lookalike that is usual in other films and they are happy.
I dont think they care about the artistic point of view iether.
Just money money money.
 
I'm gonna step back to the original question of this thread for a moment and hopefully shed a little light on the subject of 'why everyone is after shallow DOF' these days. As a lot of us know, most people are after shallow DOF simply because there's a wide-spread belief that it will make your video look like film. This is a big misconception.

Now, to be fair, I suppose to some degree it does make things look more filmic. However, in my analysis of comparing film to video I can say with complete confidence that shallow DOF is not the first and foremost element to making video look like film.

There are two major criteria that need to be met before video can be more like film - and yes, 'Look' is one of them - the other is 'Feel'. The feel of film is achieved by frame-rate. It's the motion in which the camera and the subjects in frame moving at 24fps that really sets it apart from video more than anything else (in my opinion). The 'Look' comes second, and this is not achieved by shallow DOF, but rather, dynamic range. It's the crushing of blacks and the clipping of the whites that video cameras do so easily that really sets the look of film apart from video. The dynamic rage of film is much greater than video, resulting in a more realistic image.

Lastly comes shallow DOF - and even then I wouldn't say it makes video look like film (all movies shot on film contain shots with a deep DOF and they still look like film). As mention many times in this thread - shallow DOF is simply a tool to be used as needed - sometimes you need it and sometimes you don't. Best to have both, just in case! :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top