The 'film look' is a Crock, Shallow depth-of-field is Banal and Rack focus is Lazy.

[Reditor]

Yes, control of depth of focus supposes the ability to us a shallow focus. Whether it be to have the eyes sharp, and pimple blurry, background separation, or to help the sense of depth on a forced perspective set.

We can go on for days on why we gotta have it, need it , want it. Oops gotta get back to posting my question.

Shallow depth of field is a simply put, just a tool in a filmmaker's arsenal. Like anything, it can be overused, but when you are using the camera to tell a story there are plenty of times I can think of that shallow depth of field is far superior then deep depth. I found the article extremely interesting, and true in most cases, but I still would argue with the authors absolute opinion on shallow depth of field.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Nono, it's saying "if you're using acrylics don't be so obsessed with making it look like oil paint." Choose your medium, make the best out of it's own characteristics, and use those characteristics appropriately and not obsessively (or that's what I want it to say)

Hey if there was an acrylic that looked exactly like an oil. Or a weird technique to achieve that I would be all over that!

Different mediums have different workflows. Acrylic Workflow + Oil outcome = Win!

 

[Justen Nguyen]

If a film maker automatically plumps for shallow DOF by default - and I suspect a lot do - then where is the consideration of visual effect on the audience, emphasis of story elements and the like? Where is the craft? Where is the art?

I agree very much with this. But I think the article was just so angrily focused, that Jones failed to see the bigger picture. While I admit to being guilty of that typical film student idea of using shallow DOF all willy nilly. I quickly got over it. However, many have not. Just last month I had a friend ask to borrow my adapter for a documentary and some interviews he was doing. As any new technology becomes more widely available and accessible, there will always be those who will indeed abuse it. The disparity of knowledge leads many to imitate without any real foresight as to why and what, just how. (And even then they are sometimes grasping at straws.)

Obviously, a great tool in incapable hands cannot be used as effectively as it would in knowledgeable ones. There's more to the "film look" than just shallow depth of field. In fact, the "film look" really has nothing to do with DOF, shallow or deep. It is a number of things like dynamic range, coloring, cadence, the right amount of motion blur, and most importantly frame per second.

To compare indie and student films to more professional productions, is like apples to oranges. Granted there are thousands of films that do focus on visuals and neglect story, but i think we all know this. And it is fairly typical especially of lower budget films and blockbusters. And in saying that, across the board, trying to achieve a filmic look is essentially a cop out, or a crock, discredits the hundreds of indie films that do have amazing stories and implement these techniques. Yes they can be quick fixes, but it is not to say that you do not also seem them used by professionals in the same manner. It's a veritable slap in the face to the films that have amazing stories but go nowhere due to the nature of their appearance.

As much as some would like bash, discount, or argue otherwise, our medium, our "art," is visual and sustains itself through the spectacle aesthetics. And in order for many "indie" productions to get anywhere a lot of them have to add production value in anyway possible to compete for attention and respect. To be "filmic", is to emulate polished professionalism, and I see no wrong in trying to achieve quality (when done right).

 

[Stephen Gentle]

The choice of shallow DOF, without even considering other aspects like setting and spatial arrangement, is lazy and banal. If that's what he meant, and I think he did, then I agree.

If a film maker automatically plumps for shallow DOF by default - and I suspect a lot do - then where is the consideration of visual effect on the audience, emphasis of story elements and the like? Where is the craft? Where is the art?

I think that your right. There's nothing artistic about just using one look - I mean, shallow depth of field looks great and can be used very effectively, but thinking that every shot has to have a super blurry background just to look 'cinematic' is just wrong.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I think that your right. There's nothing artistic about just using one look - I mean, shallow depth of field looks great and can be used very effectively, but thinking that every shot has to have a super blurry background just to look 'cinematic' is just wrong.

Again though, couldn't the same thing be said about color. Tarkovsky often mixed color and B&W film. Are we all lazy and banal for not choosing one or the other for every shot? Some directors only shoot with one or two focal lengths. I don't know that I would call that lazy or banal either.

It just seems like such a silly and arbitrary thing to pick out.

 

[Chris Bhurrut]

Some directors only shoot with one or two focal lengths. I don't know that I would call that lazy or banal either.

If shooting with just with one or two focal lengths is a default option, without any thought as to whether changing focal length would better express whatever it is they are shooting, then yes, I'd call that lazy. Wouldn't you?

It just seems like such a silly and arbitrary thing to pick out.

Agreed, perhaps a bit arbitrary. There's a plethora of things the author could've chosen to rant about. That doesn't make his point any less valid though.

Tarkovsky often mixed color and B&W film. Are we all lazy and banal for not choosing one or the other for every shot?

If doing so would improve whatever you're shooting, then maybe we are a bit lazy. Granted, there's a fine line to tread - there's no point trying to shoot stuff if it becomes totally impractical. But, if time and resources are available, why not look at all choices available to you?

Isn't this a large part of what art and creativity is about, making choices that best express your vision?

 

[DS Williams]

in order for many "indie" productions to get anywhere a lot of them have to add production value in anyway possible to compete for attention and respect. To be "filmic", is to emulate polished professionalism, and I see no wrong in trying to achieve quality (when done right).

This is an excellent point, one I haven't really concentrated on before. As an Indie DP, my films often recieve local acclaim or film school level praise because of my rig (hpx170 + Brevis 35mm adapter) as it adds a certain level of production quality not attained by the others in my area. Of course no amount of dynamic range, resolution, shallow DOF, or any additional production 'toys' for that matter will subsitute for appropriate, discerning use of these tools as STORYTELLING elements. In the end, we as DP's exist to use the science and technology provided to us to bring words off a page. To nuance a story with lighting, camera movements, composition, ect. No amount of shallow DOF will detract from our responsibility as Directors of Photography.

 

[Duncan Hill]

The film look isn't really a crock. It's what people are accustomed to and it's what audiences want to see for the most part. DoF is used as a tool to direct the viewer's attention and to keep the background from being distracting. DoF was used before motion picture cameras existed and will continued to be used into the future.

 

[kentbelcher]

Question...
why is the DoF smaller or thinner with 35mm lens prime or zoom shot on a red camera
than the same lens and same stop on a film camera?

any ideas?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If shooting with just with one or two focal lengths is a default option, without any thought as to whether changing focal length would better express whatever it is they are shooting, then yes, I'd call that lazy. Wouldn't you?

Fine. I'll call it Lazy. But what's wrong with being Lazy?

If the director isn't using his new found free time to improve the film in other ways then sure it's Lazy. But time on set is often an EXTREMELY limited quantity. Shallow DOF almost always looks sexy. If you can get to "visually appealing" without any work then you've just saved yourself a lot of time to put into other things.

Maybe it is lazy to arbitrarily choose a focal length and stick to it. But maybe the director thinks that focal length is good enough for most situations and would rather spend more time rehearsing his actors.

There are an infinite number of things a director can direct in a film. Having one less thing to worry about isn't necessarily a terrible idea.

When I think Lazy and Banal student film makers the first two things that come to my mind are often "He's going insane and nothing is real." + "Handheld camera operator who was just told to 'find good shots'". Which is lazy film making because that means your camera op is probably directing your film for you. Whether or not there is shallow DOF is pretty much near the bottom of my criteria for lazy or banal film making.

 

[Steve Gibby]

I believe in using DOF as a variable tool. Each shot's DOF is set to best convey to viewers what I want as an artist to tell them - and to take its place in telling the overall story of the show it will be a part of.

I don't believe someone needs to use a pre-conceived formula to restrict DOF to being shallow, just so their peers will think they're a "real" cinematographer - in my mind that's a newbie misconception.

Many Oscar-winning films in the past used very little shallow DOF - because it simply wasn't necessary for telling the overall story, and for illustrating to the audience the meaning of most of the shots. The multi-Oscar winning film "The Sting" (Newman, Redford) is an example. I've seen the film many times, but recently when I watched it, I specifically noticed that there are very few shallow DOF shots in it - and yet the director and cinematographer did a masterful job of telling the story they were trying to tell the audience. There are a myriad of great films in the past that approached their craft the same way.

I love shallow DOF - when a shot calls for it. I love medium DOF - when a shot calls for it. I love deep DOF - when a shot calls for it. IMO the very best directors and cinematographers keep an open mind about DOF - and simply use the DOF necessary to tell the overall story, and the story of each specific shot, most effectively - whether they're doing features, television, commercials, or whatever genres or niches of the motion media industry they're working in.

 

[John Redfern]

While I like the use of shallow depth of field for dramatic effect I spend most of my time trying to get the widest (or deepest) depth of field for my technical work. Last week I was screaming because I was in a cathedral using a Cooke 18-100 (at 18mm) and trying to get both the foreground and the stained glass window at the far end in focus together - with T5 the widest I could go.

Question...
why is the DoF smaller or thinner with 35mm lens prime or zoom shot on a red camera
than the same lens and same stop on a film camera?

any ideas?

If the film camera has the same image plane size as the Red it should be the same.

The critical factor in depth of field is magnification. This may be a function of focal length and image frame size but in reality it is image magnification.

If you shoot a person fitting head to toe in the frame with a 300mm lens and the same person with an 18mm lens still filling the frame you will get exactly the same depth of field. You are having to move the camera closer or further away. Technically the 18mm has greater depth of field but you have to move so close it works out the same.

John

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I agree with Steve from a couple posts up.

I don't see much value in that article at all. What the author has done is simply point out the advantages of one thing without having much grasp on the advantages of the other. It is clearly ignorant and closed-minded. Cinema is all about conflict, and there is never a "right" or a "wrong". Saying "shallow depth of field is banal" is banal. It is a great stylistic choice for every filmmaker. As is deep focus.

What filmmakers have to decide which style suits which scene the best.

Pointing out a few shots with deep focus is meaningless. There are a hundred more of the greatest shot in cinematic history built around the concept of shallow focus. And vice versa. Without a shallow depth of field, there would be no Kieslowski, Kubrick, Wong Kar Wai or any of the greatest visual directors. Similarly, each of these directors have on many an occasion used deep focus as well. At the same time, Jacques Tati could never have made the masterpiece Play Time without deep focus. Neither Orson Welles Citizen Kane.

So you see, in cinema, there are always two ways. It depends on which is right for the shot. Shallow focus is just as useful as deep focus, and everything in between.

Having said all of this - it can be misused. I am not going to say overused, because a film might require a persistent feeling of intimacy.

 

[David Rasberry]

I think much of the current obsession with shallow DOF is driven by young shooters who often haven't had that option shooting on small format video cameras. Give them the choice via the new VDSLR's or 35mm adapters on their video cams and they will be understandably driven to explore the new tool to the exclusion of other choices for a while. But exclusively associating "cinematic" style with shallow DOF is a crock.

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

Does DOF cause a lot of problems/issues for DOP's if they don't have anyone to do the followfocus. Here I'm thinking a shot with a guy walking towards the camera. Is that a no go for a one-man-crew?

 

[Joseph Podlesnik]

Joseph, what you say is true, but that only boosts the argument for overall sharp focus in film. (at least when
one prefers this method over another). The reason being
that an entirely in focus image is still PERCEIVED by the
same eye, and all of its selectivity. The eye does not see
the entire screen or print as one big sharp image. It hunts,
and gathers info, just as it does in the "real world".
Your statement is more critical of selective focus than anything.
Why? Because that's not what the eye brain has to deal with on a
daily basis. Even though that might be the end product- a huge out
of focus area up on screen will not change no matter how
long you stare or squint. No matter how much you desire to see into its fuzzy depths.Whatever its powers, selective focus can be overused.
Can we say the same thing about critical sharpness?

Giving "blur" its due.

There are many, many paintings throughout art history which make use of selective focus (obviously some more than others). We see less of this in earlier painting where painters were perhaps less aware of this or had no use for it in their visual story-telling (painters from the Sienese school http://www.google.com/images?q=lore...&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1680&bih=857 )

Ideas of selective focus seemed to have come about with the Impressionists - mid-19th cent (even before this in the study of optics in 17th century Holland and 18th cent England). Sir Joshua Reynolds, in his 'Discourse on Painting', discusses the importance of blurred edges in illusionist paintings. I do agree that in the visual world we negotiate blur against a background of sharp focus and not the reverse. http://www.zazzle.com/are_you_drunk_tshirt-235800719059011090

 

[George Butterfield]

I think the great emphasis on shallow DoF comes from 35mm film shooters who know that video spells the end of their craft. But of course shallow DoF definitely has its place as does razor sharp focus .... story telling trumps everything, except making money aka Sly Stallone ... although "Rocky" was a true masterpiece.

 

[George Butterfield]

Not RED specific, but an interesting point...

Actually this goes to the heart of RED which is a Digital Cinema Camera.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Sensationalism is so Passé.

 

[Dylan Macleod CSC]

I think the great emphasis on shallow DoF comes from 35mm film shooters who know that video spells the end of their craft.

It has nothing to do with "doing something video can't do".

Generally speaking - we are trying to create the impression of depth in a two dimensional medium.

Cinematographers use narrow depth of field as a way of guiding the storytelling by making a subject stand out against its environment.