Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

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

This reminds me of the crap simulated lens flares in computer generated imagery has had. Remember back in the 90's when everybody who owned photoshop or an early 3D program was putting lens flares in everything? C'mon, what starship explosion in space is complete with out a lens flare?

Then came the backlash. Lens flares became very uncool to the snobby "experts" . Lens flares became trendy. And Banal. But the snobery about simulated lens flares has turned out to be much more trendy then the use of lens flares themselves. Thankfully not many armchair art directors have decided to look down on other simluated visual effects like motion blur, DOF, bokeh, lens distortions, etc...

IMHO, shallow depth of field (with film, digital sensors, or created in CG) is just one "word" in the visual language we use to make moving pictures. Some folks may be overusing the "word" a bit right now but I hope there's not a short-sighted trend to make the "word" mean banal.

-Matt
 
Dylan Macleod said:
Cinematographers use narrow depth of field as a way of guiding the storytelling by making a subject stand out against its environment.
Click to expand...

A film like Wong Kar Wai's IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE is a great example of using both DOF and framing and to draw the viewer's eye to where the director and DP want it to go. IN THE MOOD has some extremely shallow DOF, but I think that was as much a result of simply needing more light (fast lenses) as it was about making the subject stand out.

Malick's THE NEW WORLD was shot with with a dogma that called for deep focus. Again, some scenes have shallow DOF, but they tend to be scenes shot at night and around magic hour where the film cameras were struggling for light.

I agree very much that young filmmakers are obsessed with DOF because many of them came up shooting on HVX 200 or 16mm or whatever - myself included. All of these fads run their course and will level out over time. To me, bitching about overuse of shallow DOF is as passé as the overuse of DOF itself.

If you want to bitch and moan about something, I nominate this nauseating trend of shooting action pictures with "skaky-cam." I walked out of District 9 with a green face, looking for a barf bag.
 
hans de vries said:
Sorry, I hope I haven't offended anyone; it's just my frustration that movies I found really stupid get huge audiences and movies I think are excellent are usually liked by a few artists and a few intellectuals that I never get to talk to (I know it sounds arrogant, it's not my intention to be a snob, but it isn't any other way)
Click to expand...

You have different tastes than the mainstream. So what? That doesn't mean the mainstream should "frustrate" you. I really can't stand 90% of what wins at Cannes - dull, depressing ugly in my opinion - so what again? It's my right to like what I like, and the judges at Canne's right to like what they like. Having met a few I do not feel they are "superior intellects".
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
If people notice your cinematography in a movie.. then you have done a terrible job. You dont want the cinematography to be the thing that pops out. you want the story to pop out..

where am I going with this?
Click to expand...

I agree when it's fiction, but disagree when it's documentary travel, say, or many types of music videos - here the noticeable cinematography is why people are watching in large part.
 
I like shallow depth of field when it's not too shallow and you can still tell what's going on in the background. I have never really been a fan of rack focus though, I'm not sure why. It's ok when it's absolutely necessary, like directing the viewer's focus to an object on the screen, but when things are just sliding in and out of focus for no reason, it drives me nuts.
 
Tom Lowe said:
A film like Wong Kar Wai's IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE is a great example of using both DOF and framing and to draw the viewer's eye to where the director and DP want it to go.

If you want to bitch and moan about something, I nominate this nauseating trend of shooting action pictures with "skaky-cam." I walked out of District 9 with a green face, looking for a barf bag.
Click to expand...

I love the combo of WKW and Christopher Doyle. I definitely agree, if anything I feel the whole shaky-cam thing is just lazy/poor camera work.
Though what bothers me most about the shallow DOF craze is the lack of accurate focus.
 
David C said:
I like shallow depth of field when it's not too shallow and you can still tell what's going on in the background. I have never really been a fan of rack focus though, I'm not sure why. It's ok when it's absolutely necessary, like directing the viewer's focus to an object on the screen, but when things are just sliding in and out of focus for no reason, it drives me nuts.
Click to expand...

THIS is when shallow DOF works, when it functions expressively or communicates an intended feeling in a story (e.g., Travis' isolation, etc)

shadow-depth.jpg
 
It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. (BanannaRama and others before)
 
Justin Nguyen said:
… if anything I feel the whole shaky-cam thing is just lazy/poor camera work.
Click to expand...

Not really: it must be hard work to shake a heavy professional camera that much ;-)
 
Matt Fleming said:
Remember back in the 90's when everybody who owned photoshop or an early 3D program was putting lens flares in everything?
Click to expand...
I get a kick out of the computer graphics cars with their wheels rotating backwards. Don't any computer graphics cars have their wheels rotating forwards?
 
DoF is just another component of shot composition, really. With framing you choose what to focus the viewer's attention on in the X and Y axes; selective DoF allows some of the same control on the Z axis. Saying shallow (or deep) DoF is "bad" is like saying wides or closeups are "bad" -- it doesn't really make any sense. Though of course unmotivated misuse/overuse of any of these (e.g. shooting everything in closeups for no good reason) might not produce the greatest results.

In general, larger format cameras are preferable with respect to DoF because they give you the choice to use shallow DoF when necessary, in the same way a camera that can use both wide and telephoto lenses is superior to a cameral that can only use one or the other.

On the other hand, in the real world, especially with indie lighting budgets, the stop you're shooting at, and therefore your DoF, is often going to be determined by practical/technical factors rather than creative decisions, so for a project where you want a lot of deep focus and know there won't be a huge lighting budget, it might make sense to choose a smaller sensor format.
 
Is Depth of Field going to be dead anyway with 3D ???

Film makers used DOF to give the illusion of depth (a false perception of 3D space). Now we have 3D is DOF really that important?

A diversion of the original question.

:jacked:
 
NBS Studio said:
Is Depth of Field going to be dead anyway with 3D ???

Film makers used DOF to give the illusion of depth (a false perception of 3D space). Now we have 3D is DOF really that important?

A diversion of the original question.

:jacked:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say shallow DOF is a false perception. As an exercise, grab something at your desk... bottle, phone, ipod... while looking at the object hold it up at arms length and close one eye. What happens to the background? Looks like 50mm at 1.8 if you ask me. Shallow DOF is natural, especially in close to medium shots...

As far as 3D goes... hold up the same object. Look at it with both eyes open... then with only one eye... Is it any less 3D? Nope. 3D in the natural world is something that is PERCEIVED and not SEEN. Which means that current stereoscopic production IS a false perception. Until there is a method of natural stereo presentation... (retaining the 3D image with only one eye open) then I'm not really interested any "forced 3D" films. Unfortunately, we'll never get there unless we dump money on current 3D tech...
 
What I mean is....

Is the DOF or focus going to be an issue in the future?

Take a look at the video on this link;
http://gizmodo.com/308659/adobe-tin...sing-camera-and-software-[updated-with-video]

Just think if you could change the focal point? or even change the depth of field after the fact in post production?

RED needs to look in to this. This was developed for still photography, but just think of the applications in video production?

WOW, I just love the thinks that are coming out!!!

RED DIGITAL CINEMA.... are you up to speed yet????
 
NBS Studio said:
Just think if you could change the focal point? or even change the depth of field after the fact in post production?
Click to expand...
In a way, you can. We've used defocus windows for years in post to soften backgrounds to help draw more attention to foreground characters. Ideally, it's better for the DP to do this deliberately with exposure during production, but if the background is too sharp, we can always degrade it during the final color-correction process. I had to do this a lot with early HD projects from about 1999-2005, mainly with episodic TV where the flaws of sets were a little too visible.

But what we can't do is put the background back in focus when the depth of field is too shallow. Me personally, I think a very narrow DOF (like a close-up where one eye is slightly soft and the other eye is crystal-sharp) can be distracting.

Still, it's a creative choice, like anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top