How was this look achieved? Shallow DOF techniques

[Will Keir]

UPDATED: Nov 20th, 2013

I've been finding myself draw to clear focus of faces with a completely blurred background. It can be as simple as opening the aperture all the way and creating separation in camera or the effect is enhanced in post. I'll get my camera back to test myself soon but in the meantime I was looking for some advice and possible tips for achieving the looks in these two examples. When I tried this with Super Speeds I found that I couldn't get the face completely clear (maybe one eye sharp but the other less so) and while blurred, it was not nearly the level of these examples.

Here are the examples of visually what I am looking to achieve. I have my Epic available, a full set of super speeds and a shoulder cam.
Will I need to add more light to get these results? Are we using wides or longs?

1) a piece from a music video at 0:42 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFEDTtKaFzU
Safe & Sound performed by Taylor Swift.

and

2) the beginning scene between father and son in the move "Warrior. " Also the scene between brothers outside Atlantic city on the beach.

It's the intimacy of these shots I would like to acquire as a skill for my own projects. A focus on the acting, the character. Thanks in advance for helping guide me on my way.

At the end of this, I'll post some examples of my own work and try to create this thread as a reference for others seeking the same.
As you will see there are times when I'm able to hone in and get some great results but mostly this process is without science and repeatability
and goes on feel. I'm looking to understand the art and science behind shallow DOF, achieving a working knowledge of how to get what I want and the ability
to repeat great results.

Examples from my own work:

Best.

 

[Scott Crawley]

You're a clever guy. Whip out a DOF calculator and find your sweet spot. Six to eight inches of depth is enough to keep most faces in focus from eyes to ears, and longer lenses yield more shallow DOF and are more kind to facial features.

Find what you like. Good hunting.

 

[paulherrin]

correct video: http://youtu.be/RzhAS_GnJIc?t=42s

long lens... (for that shot) with some extra separation distance between fore/back ground you can get something similar with wider lenses, make sense?

doesn't necessarily have to be wide open, but you can tell from the wider shots (and you can assume they kept their aperture relatively consistent) that the background certainly isn't sharp so they were pretty well opened up (and probably ND'd down)

 

[Eric Santiago]

Thanks Paul

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Get some T/1.4 lenses and shoot wide-open and you'll get a shallow-focus look.

The video looks like it may have been shot in anamorphic, probably wide-open, which is around T/2.8 on many anamorphic lenses, so a T/1.4 spherical lens would get you a similar depth of field.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Will remember shallow DOF is determined by several factors:

1) Aperture the wider open, the thinner the plane of focus. So 1.4 or 2 will be shallower than say a 2.8 or f4

2) Focal length: a longer focal length will separate the background more, and get you more shallow. Generally speaking, backgrounds start to fall off more at 50mm and up. An 85 is pronounced. 100 more. 135 and 180 extreme. 300 bonkers. 500 insane

So already, you can see how a 200 f2 or 300 2.8 are CRAZY SHALLOW.

A useful estimate of shallowness is divide the focal lenght by the aperture. So an 85 1.4 = 60. Where as a 200 f2 = 100. The tele wide open will certainly get you shallower

3) Close Focus: the closer you get to your subject, the more they background will fall out of focus behind them if you are sharp on them. Which is why fast wide angles with remarkable close focusing can ALSO get very shallow. For example my Contax 28 f2 has a floating element and lets me almost get macro shots at f2. They are VERY shallow.

Also keep in mind, to have a background fall out of focus, it needs to be SET BACK. Ie it needs to be at least four or five feet behind your subject. If its too close to them there isn't enough spacial depth sometimes to have it fall off. That's why you try and avoid shooting people against walls, not just because there's little to see, but because it's hard to get the wall out of focus.

Hope this helps.

 

[Per von Koch]

Get some T/1.4 lenses and shoot wide-open and you'll get a shallow-focus look.

The video looks like it may have been shot in anamorphic, probably wide-open, which is around T/2.8 on many anamorphic lenses, so a T/1.4 spherical lens would get you a similar depth of field.

That and some ND's. Sorry if that was a given...

 

[Andy White]

I've been finding myself draw to clear focus of faces with a completely blurred background. It can be as simple as opening the aperture all the way and creating separation in camera or the effect is enhanced in post. I'll get my camera back to test myself soon but in the meantime I was looking for some advice and possible tips for achieving the looks in these two examples. When I tried this with Super Speeds I found that I couldn't get the face completely clear (maybe one eye sharp but the other less so) and while blurred, it was not nearly the level of these examples.

Here are the examples of visually what I am looking to achieve. I have my Epic available, a full set of super speeds and a shoulder cam.
Will I need to add more light to get these results? Are we using wides or longs?

1) a piece from a music video at 0:42 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFEDTtKaFzU
Safe & Sound performed by Taylor Swift.

The Taylor Swift video is anamorphic - probably Alexa too (as a lot of her recent ones have been shot this way).

if you want that type of bokeh, Ana is the way to go as it has a unique style/signature (especially in these type of shots).

Also, I'd use longer lenses (in Ana 75mm/80mm/100mm) and (depending on how much the talent is moving) a diopter too, as that will really create the background separation.

Some of the wider shots look interesting - maybe they used a Mezmer, as there's quite some Ana swirl on some of the wides.

Funny to see black flecks added to help with the 'old film' look- LOL

 

[Eric M Hurt]

I would swear there's Lensbaby footage in there. The roundish look of the out of focus background sure looks like it.

 

[Ryan Skeete]

The Taylor Swift video is anamorphic - probably Alexa too (as a lot of her recent ones have been shot this way).

if you want that type of bokeh, Ana is the way to go as it has a unique style/signature (especially in these type of shots).

Also, I'd use longer lenses (in Ana 75mm/80mm/100mm) and (depending on how much the talent is moving) a diopter too, as that will really create the background separation.

Some of the wider shots look interesting - maybe they used a Mezmer, as there's quite some Ana swirl on some of the wides.

Funny to see black flecks added to help with the 'old film' look- LOL

Looks like they shot anamorphic 35mm. BTS: http://youtu.be/xDJLsPd6NdY?t=34s

 

[paulherrin]

^^ the hunger games was shot 35mm right over the mountain in nc, maybe that's why? they are obviously going for a similar organic/older feel as the movie

 

[Nick Gardner]

Utilizing 5k on the epic will yield shallower dof as well.

Nick

 

[Andy White]

I would swear there's Lensbaby footage in there. The roundish look of the out of focus background sure looks like it.

From the BTS it looks like an old Roundfront 35mm - they're big, not very precise (barrel distort a lot) and often have that look. Most people I know (myself inc) prefer the 35mm Squarefront as it doesn't distort as much... but still looks a bit like a Mezmer was used.

Looks like they shot anamorphic 35mm. BTS: http://youtu.be/xDJLsPd6NdY?t=34s

Well, educated guess on the Alexa as most of her recent vids have used it, at least I was right on the Anas

Looks like they mixed up wides (on the 35mm) with 50/75/100 on the meds/CU's. Nice choices really. Good find on the BTS as it'll be good for all to see the implementation of lens choice vs shots and how they edit together.

Will, dip your toe in anamorphic... if you want this look/feel, you'll get there quickly

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Additional blurring around the edges could have been done in post.

 

[Andy White]

Additional blurring around the edges could have been done in post.

Yup - wasn't even thinking on that... was just focused on an in-camera route

But, I am living through the 'flu from Hell' ATM, so that's my excuse and I'm sticking with it! LOL

 

[Björn Benckert]

A little brain fry on this matter....This is something I asked many experienced DOP's and the replies really differ.

What is the factor or factors that change DOF?

 

[Scott Crawley]

A little brain fry on this matter....This is something I asked many experienced DOP's and the replies really differ.

What is the factor or factors that change DOF?

I didn't think there was any debate about this. The trifecta is:

Focal length (& distance to subject)
aperture
Frame size

Is there something else?

 

[Nick Gardner]

People confuse this all the time, Focal Length doesn't have any effect on DOF. If you shoot at 100mms at 10', DOF is the same as a 50mm at 5'. You tend to use longer focal lengths to get tighter shots, but just moving closer achieves the same effect. A longer lens doesn't inherently have shallower dof than a wider one. You do have a narrower angle of view with a longer lens, so you see less of the BG, but the DOF is the same.

Nick

 

[paulherrin]

let's not have this discussion again... apparent depth of field (i.e. blurriness) is not the same as technical depth of field (i.e. measurement of focus range) but they tend to be used interchangeably and i'm not sure there's anything we can do about that at this point. words and terminologies are organic matters.

it's the difference between thinking in terms of either two or three dimensional relationships. sometimes 2d is simpler to discuss for some people, and it really doesn't matter - and if you're in a situation where it does you probably know what you're talking about.

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

 

[Scott Crawley]

People confuse this all the time, Focal Length doesn't have any effect on DOF. If you shoot at 100mms at 10', DOF is the same as a 50mm at 5'. You tend to use longer focal lengths to get tighter shots, but just moving closer achieves the same effect. A longer lens doesn't inherently have shallower dof than a wider one. You do have a narrower angle of view with a longer lens, so you see less of the BG, but the DOF is the same.

Nick

Yes, yes and I'm not using a camera to photograph a subject so distance doesn't matter either.

If I am confused by something here, it is the nature of the question. Bjorn, are you stirring the shit pot? ;-)