Filming Wide Open Always - Why Do DPs Still Do This?

[Zack Birlew]

Hi, everybody, I was surfing the auction sites to see if there were any good deals out there and I came across a set of SLR lenses that looked like a really nice investment for the right cinematographer. However, the listing had a link to a video example and I watched it and got very much pulled out of it as it seemed like the DP filmed wide open with each lens, even though some of them famously only get good stopped down a tick or two. I thought we all learned from the early HDSLR times that filming wide open all the time is not the best look and you only do it if you have to or if you have a super expensive rental-only cinema lens that can actually look good at 1.4 or faster. Granted, the artist is free to do as they please and all that but why does this practice persist despite the vast history and knowledge of cinematography? Personally, I've been looking at getting a Mitakon 50mm 0.95 for some low light filming and close up effects but I don't plan on doing a wide open 0.95 "Army of The Dead" movie with it, however, others may see that as the perfect comparatively budget lens option to do so. Disclaimer, no offense to anyone, some may like this look but it would be interesting to hear why and the different takes on this subject.

 

[Alex Zeder]

Well, it depends on what the comparison video wanted to demonstrate. If they were only focused on a thin focus (ouch!) demo, this kind of wide-open test makes sense. For a comparison of the general lens characteristics a bit less.

I often hear people talk about fast lenses as if the narrow focus range were the only reason to use such a lens, without giving them credit for letting more light through when stopped down also. And that's maybe the reason why someone wants to demo the lens fully open as in the video you mentioned, assuming that this is how everyone will use them for the most.

Except for a few high-speed shots where I used the Mitakon 0.95 at 0.95 (it does well when the scene allows it, where CA isn't an issue), I haven't used this lens much. I'd consider it a niche lens, it can do tricky things but I won't grab it for daily use. Not because it's not a good lens per se but because of the usual limitations of stills lenses and there are lighter (weight-wise, not light-wise) alternatives. For example, with the same focal length and approximately the same aperture, my historic Canon EF 50/1.0 puts uncapped 1061g / 2.34lb on the scale, the Mitakon jumps on with 1473g / 3.25lb. Although these two lenses do not compare well optical wise (the Canon is really 'older'), both are for special use only. I was a bit tempted to also try the new Laowa Argus 45/0.95 for comparison, but here I would then probably get the 35mm to have a different length and less narrow focus range. In general, I think the razor thin focus range has more value for stills photography than for moving objects. The same scene with the subject completely isolated can look great in a photo but might be confusing when the subject moves back and forth in a video even if you manage to follow with the focus. This is the reason why I don't give too much for such lens tests that were made with stills photography in mind.

 

[Phil Holland]

I would say far more productions, films, shows, etc. stop down than film always wide open. So to me, more or less a non-issue. Quality wide open material is a fairly recent thing in reality.

Like everything it's a choice and hopefully a well thought out one that enhances the story. And a shallow DOF can provide a lot of useful things from a storytelling perspective.

But yes, one aspect many should look at is the quality of the glass wide open versus their lighting ratio in frame. A lot of older glass is awful and too much CA, at least to me, really is weird. But there's very much films with CA in them that I am very much not distracted by as the scene was designed carefully to have it only impact things like candle flames. In which case, sometimes it's a little magic or charm when done well.

Most T1 or slightly faster lenses aren't "bangers" when it comes to pure wide open performance. I'd lean into a T1.4 or T1.5 quality lens and sacrifice the stop. The Mitakon is a fun lens though and I've had it for years. Useful when you need that T1 or want something unique compared to the same focal length from something else. I'd also put some points in there for Laowa's Argus.

 

[Chris Kennedy]

In the end it’s all preference. I still feel many DPs are obsessed with as shallow a DOF as possible-especially the younger ones. I see that more in the music videos, commercials, and indie films than features though-where art direction is so much more important and comes with a much larger budget where it needs to be seen; so there’s more instances of a deeper DOF.

I really like the Mitakon T1, but shooting that open I’ve rarely done-think my 1stAC would kill me especially if shooting on a full frame sensor that open too often. I really like how it flares, reminds me of the Helius 44-2. And for the price it’s fairly sharp even wide open.

Lately I’ve been shooting my closeups at T4 and wider shots at a T2 for some separation. Compared to the me out of film school 14 years ago shooting everything wide open.

I personally feel to light and shoot everything at a deeper DOF really tests the skills of the DP way more than shooting at a shallower DOF. No room to hide any mistakes when everything is in focus unless it’ll be painted out in post.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Lots of NPCs in the world. Just look at how people talk about it - many people are just duck speaking. QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK.

That's the only explanation. In any case, shallow focus doesn't look cinematic - quite the opposite, in fact. To me, cinematic entails deep focus. There is an occasional use for it, to achieve a certain effect on the viewer that suggests what the character is thinking or feeling. But that should not be, and usually is not, the norm.

 

[Alex Lubensky]

There's a huge difference between photo lenses and true cine lenses regarding quality degradation when shooting wide open. Arri Signature Primes are as good wide open as at T2.8. Of course, pixel peeping on a test chard will show you some minor degradation, but the actual image still holds up really nice, unlike on photo counterparts. Though, there are some really good options on the photo market, like recent Zeiss Otus (or is it Milvus on the high end? Always mess those two up).

I'd say on a proper scale one should be looking at aesthetic reasons to shoot one or another aperture, rather than shooting a bit stopped down due to a lens performing a tad better.

 

[Zack Birlew]

There's a huge difference between photo lenses and true cine lenses regarding quality degradation when shooting wide open. Arri Signature Primes are as good wide open as at T2.8. Of course, pixel peeping on a test chard will show you some minor degradation, but the actual image still holds up really nice, unlike on photo counterparts. Though, there are some really good options on the photo market, like recent Zeiss Otus (or is it Milvus on the high end? Always mess those two up).

I'd say on a proper scale one should be looking at aesthetic reasons to shoot one or another aperture, rather than shooting a bit stopped down due to a lens performing a tad better.

That's what I saw in this video, modern documentary/interview style, where one shot would be open at 1.4 and then cut to a wide shot with the wider lens opened up to blooming F2 or maybe F3.5 if it was the lower quality 18mm, just terribly soft all around the edge of the frame, and then cut back to the better performing 1.4 and so on and so on. Despite the lighting and everything else which was done well it was all muddled with the still photo lens performance hijinks. Aesthetic reasons aside, clearly lens research should be factored into prep-work as some vintage lenses have known quirkiness in their lines unlike high end matched cinema lenses and newer premium still lenses.