DOF & beauty

[XiaoSu Han]

Does anyone else think that this image feels wrong aesthetically?

For me, this does not look natural and pleasing at all, if I'd have someone standing so close to me, I'd never see the background if I focused my eyes on her in the foreground. I think that composition and frame wise the girl in the foreground is maybe framed a little to tight?

In my eyes this works,

but this doesnt:

Just trying to add a contrary opinion.

Also, I'd like to add that this is discussing still frames, almost single photographs, and may be because I don't have a moving shot/scene in the back of my head when looking at those frames.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Without motivation they would indeed feel completely wrong and out of place. With motivation however they might strike you as a great bold choice.

They could be jarring moments, like purposefully going off rhyme in a poem, or crossing the line. Might be to show a character's turning point. You can show that there is an internal struggle, or a decision being made to "cross a bridge that can't be un-crossed". To me the composition says that any of these situations are hidden from the rest of the world, but revealed to the audience.

 

[Andrew Wilding]

Does anyone else think that this image feels wrong aesthetically?

For me, this does not look natural and pleasing at all, if I'd have someone standing so close to me, I'd never see the background if I focused my eyes on her in the foreground.

I disagree with that whole heartedly - why does a shot have to mimic what we see with our eyes to be aesthetically pleasing or cinematic? I love these bold compositions not despite the fact that they are out of the ordinary and not entirely true to human eyesight, but because of those very reasons.

just two cents...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It's not meant to be natural or pleasing, it's meant to be unnerving and disturbing. I believe the girl is looking at a spider in this scene. "The Innocents" is a ghost story after all. It was shot by Freddie Francis, and I'm sure some of this strange b&w widescreen imagery is the reason David Lynch hired him to shoot "The Elephant Man".

The shot from "For A Few Dollars More" is from a montage sequence of bad guys watching the guards circle a bank and counting how long it takes for the guards to finish their patrol around the building, in preparation for a bank robbery. So the men in the foreground in different shots are counting as the guards cross in the background.

 

[albert rudnicki]

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.

Thanks Michael

Mixing different focal lengths gives a surreal feeling to the scene and that was the purpose to this exercise.
do you have a pic for us to share. I would love to see it.

Here is another one.

 

[XiaoSu Han]

It's great how cinematography benefits from the succession of images instead of a single image.

As said, those stills won't work as single pictures, but are great in their respective scenes. That's why I felt they are wrong I guess.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

These other frames from "The Innocents" will give you an idea of the mood of the movie, which is meant to be creepy (the man outside the windows is a ghost):

 

[Michael Ragen]

Hey Albert,
Can't post here, but pm sent.

 

[Elsie N]

Some more deep focus shots in my collection of frames:

My first impression of the lower shot was "greenscreen!". I would have liked a softer look on the near subject while keeping the distant subject sharp... which may be what XiaoSu Han was saying. Of course, as later posts have pointed out, this is one scene taken out of context so I'm sure it worked in the story as is.

 

[Mike Hadfield]

Only just seen this, great thread.

Thought I'd add a couple of my favourites and different shots.

Not sure if they're strictly deep focus but they all try to hold focus between fore and background elements.

This first one from 'Kaidan' (1964, Cinematography by Yoshio Miyajima)

It's just such a nice expressive shot with the colour palette, works nicely in context and is a studio shot.

There's so much gorgeous imagery in that film.

===

A similarly nice one from 'New Tale of Zatoichi' (1963, Cinematography by Chishi Makiura).

There's lots of deep staging done in this film (and many others of the period and genre), and Makiura went on to do the Lone Wolf and Cub films which influenced Tarantino so much.

Here's another sequence from the film which uses the depth dramatically.

SPOILER WARNING !!!

Throughout the film Ichi mearly wants to leave his life of killing, yet his past and his social status as a blind beggar force him to continue as a killer.

The final sequence sees Ichi forced to defeat and kill his teacher to stop a kidnapping. His teacher is also the Father of the girl he loves.

Dejected, he leaves the frame, the girl, his adopted father, and the chance of a normal life behind, a cursed man.

There's so much in this frame, the old Kami shrines on the left, the temple of the right, the slain father in the distance, the orphaned girl, and the cursed yakuza.

Also love the classic, stepped zig zag staging of Japanese art.

The final shots of Ichi leaving into the distance in this bleak landscape is genuinely heartbreaking.

===

Here's another similar, deep focus shot from 'Sword of Doom' (1966, Cinematography by Hiroshi Murai).

===

Different type of shot from 'The Conversation' (1974, Cinematography by Bill Butler)

This one looks like it's using a split focus diopter, or perhaps done optically, as you can see the blurring to the left of the tape reel.

Still, it's a great shot as whilst the girl seductively undresses, Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) lies still, all his attention on the tape which is playing, emphasizing his single mindedness.

And finally, a couple of nice ones from 'Black Narcissus' (1947, Cinematography by Jack Cardiff)

Sister Ruth (Kathleen Byron) watches them suspiciously. The feeling is then reinforced with this shot:

 

[James T Mather]

Does anyone else think that this image feels wrong aesthetically?

For me, this does not look natural and pleasing at all, if I'd have someone standing so close to me, I'd never see the background if I focused my eyes on her in the foreground. I think that composition and frame wise the girl in the foreground is maybe framed a little to tight?

In my eyes this works,

but this doesnt:

Just trying to add a contrary opinion.

Also, I'd like to add that this is discussing still frames, almost single photographs, and may be because I don't have a moving shot/scene in the back of my head when looking at those frames.

I don't understand how you could consider them "wrong" aesthetically - the depth of field is all relating to narrative purpose - the shots use of depth-of-field helps convey (even in stills) - madness, loss and paranoia - it depends on what emotional effect you are trying to achieve. To say they don't "work" on general principle is meaningless - it's all about intention versus result on the part of the filmmaker.

For example, the third image forces the viewer to consider the relationship of the three men in the background to the man in the foreground - if they were out of focus this relationship would not exist and would just be a standard profile close up - I am certain that Leone considered this and it is apparent from the still. what doesn't work about this?

If you solely frame shots on people "a little wider" and with "regular" depth of field to mimic the eye (or any hallmark movie) then your contribution as a DOP will be the same from job to job with no interpretation on the material .


Deep depth-of-field could be used to suggest a characters excessive awareness of the world around him - as in, a person who is agoraphobic, paranoid, or obsessive in some way - the image is not focusing on one thing but rather the whole world - maybe even a drama about Aspergers or Autism could benefit from this visual treatment as it attempts to visually compliment the state of mind of the character. Or someone on cocaine or crack (or better still - coming down from LSD).
By the same token a low DOF may suggest a sense of isolation or disconnection from the world (Michael Clayton as an example springs to mind) and loss of drive in the character. Perhaps a diffusing of their attention, such as being on heroin, tranquilizers or hash. A sense of claustrophobia.

It reminds me of film school when people proclaimed they would "never" zoom because zooms were "cheesy" etc then everyone began raving about this ending: its the zooms that create the impending unease (even before this clip begins) - when I mentioned this, they couldn't remember zooms being used at all - what they recalled was they knew something was still "not quite right"in the drama.


Surely all technique is related to intent?

 

[Sidney L. Plaut]

this thread makes me happy - discussing what we all love... film.

the frame with the girl looking at the spider, with the woman in the background:

Interesting point about how, even though the girl is the largest form, our eyes drift towards the woman in the background

- the high contrast on the womans face does indeed seem to "win" over a larger graphic element in the frame. wonder where our focus would be if both faces were lit with the same contrast ratio...

 

[Kevin Olsen]

I think Antonioni was really inspired by Kourosawa's use of deep focus. He was also very interested in natural landscapes and man made ones. He often used deep focus to show the characters relationship to the landscape or the architecture they were within.

[/IMG]

Can you please tell me which movies these are from? I am not sure which Antonioni you are speaking of.

Thanks!

KO

 

[Mike Hadfield]

The first and last shots are from 'L'eclisse' (1962).

It's part of a sort of themed trilogy with 'L'avventura' (1960) and 'La Notte' (1961) preceding it.

All 3 are great. Here's the final shot of L'avventura:

The spiral staircase is from 'Identificazione di una donna' (1982)

The shot with the models and photographers is 'Blow Up' (1966), although that shot looks like it's a production still. Here's a colour grab.

The guy on the bed is Jack Nicholson in 'Professione: reporter' (1975).

 

[XiaoSu Han]

I looked at these shots entirely from a "is this a picture that I would have printed and put up on my wall" standpoint of photography, and the ones I've posted above I wouldn't. As already said it's because it's out of context, I'd have to put up a series of pictures up I guess.

The ones that Mike Hadfield posted I'd put up.

In my eyes,

this would be an extremely striking image as a print and as a photograph on it's own.

The other examples posted are definitely great in their contexts, but I was looking for the impact as a single frame.

Additionally I have to say that I am sure those pictures don't stand out in their films at all as well and wouldn't take the audience away from the story as "flashy" photography. That's great!

In that regard, I'd like to find out if there's similarities in paintings. Are there "deep focus" paintings from the respected masters with proportions that are a bit "extreme"? Is there DOF in painting? Why don't they use split diopters in normal photography unless shooting underwater?

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

Can you please tell me which movies these are from? I am not sure which Antonioni you are speaking of.

Thanks!

KO

Mike answered which films the frame grabs are from... the director's full name is Michelangelo Antonioni. Most of his films are in Italian but The Passenger, Blow Up (Shot in the UK) and Zambriski Point (Shot in the US) are in English.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo_Antonioni

He was also a painter, and a good friend of American Director Wim Wenders.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

this thread makes me happy - discussing what we all love... film.

the frame with the girl looking at the spider, with the woman in the background:

Interesting point about how, even though the girl is the largest form, our eyes drift towards the woman in the background

- the high contrast on the womans face does indeed seem to "win" over a larger graphic element in the frame. wonder where our focus would be if both faces were lit with the same contrast ratio...

There is also the eye line to consider, plus she seems to be speaking. The woman is attempting to connect with us far more than the girl. She is likely successful despite us peering so "deep" into the little girl's moment. The girl at a 90 degree seems to be trying to conceal her intentions/emotions/motivation, disconnected. It is then easier for us to figure out of what the woman feels despite the disparity of size in the frame, so maybe then we tend to work on figuring out the woman first, so we get something out of the shot before they cut. We might then rush to try to figure out the little girl's intentions second.

 

[Christopher Grant Harvey]

Great thread and great discussion.

 

[Andrew Wilding]

Ive been trying to bring a sort of "Deep focus" aesthetic to my work. I Find that it is very rewarding to be able to work in a tableau fashion - setting up one master that can play uninterrupted for the whole scene. Cutting back and forth like a a maniac is not only unnecessary but distracting when your doing this deep focus kind of stuff. I also find that with deep focus, movement, both within the frame and especially movement of the camera, is hugely intensified. A small dolly move looks phenomenal in a deep focus situation. The combination of wider lenses and many planes in focus just makes it so dramatic.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Andrew, that looks awesome (specially the first grab). Congrats.

Deep focus really asks for an outstanding art direction.