Shallow depth of field is often used to emphasize the subject, and de-emphasize the background, to create urgency or a more intimate moment with a character or convey a certain mood. Also, the reverse is often done, where the majority of the shot is in sharp focus, but a blurred image or silhouette passes across the foreground, again to create a desired emotion or effect for the viewer.
1. Nobody shot wide open back then, Spielberg was doing exactly the same thing as the rest of the industry. Still today few movies are shot below f/2.8 in Hollywood, unless they're going for a documentary look. 2. The two main variables that determine depth of field are focal distance and distance to the subject. At 21mm, everything that is more than 3 feet away from the camera to infinity will be in focus. I doubt you can find a movie shot mostly at 21mm that doesn't use "deep focus".
@@RustyShackleford9000 Yeah but they're still only gonna give you bokeh if you're focusing within a few feet, otherwise they're just going to be out of focus entirely. 21mm at f1.4 focused to infinity, is going to still give you a deep depth of field, except it'll also be a softer image due to the aperture, making it essentially a lower quality image than say 21mm at f4.
Spielberg really has an eye for cinema and knows how to frame shots with perfect composition, camera movement, lighting, and know which camera techniques to utilize to tell the most effective story possible and they all feel organic and not artificial, that is why he is one of my most favorite Filmmakers ever.
I think Spielberg himself has said that when it comes to the cinematography the reason he avoids those kind of apertures and really shallow depth of field in his shots is that that isn’t how you as a person see the world- at least not unless you’re shortsighted or longsightedness and not wearing contacts or glasses. He doesn’t want the cinematography to be like that because it lets you know it’s a film, whereas having everything in focus is how you as a person see it. It’s meant to draw you in as if you are the camera observing this all rather than being a film you watch.
I think he does that because he can pack more information in 3D space. He builds the scene preferably with depth so they are more exciting and crowded. It feels more like the extension of the viewers 3d dimenisonal space than when you have flat super blurred scenes. Low dof scenes are still great for emotional and close and personal stuff. Our eyes are roughly F2.0 and the focus is very noticable, not full bokeh washed out but noticable unsharp. You just cant look at it because you focus on something.
If that's really what he's said, he's totally wrong. No human with 20/20 vision can focus on two objects at the same time. Main contributors are our large pupillary distance, which is about 63mm mean and the very narrow angle covered by the macula, around which eye resolution drops off drastically. The former leads to 3D vision, but also very little apparent DoF (it acts like a giant virtual aperture), the latter means we can't even see two things within the same focal plane, like on a movie screen, sharp at the same time. We have to choose. Or let our brain stitch together the whole scene. Now, one can argue there's merit in Steven Spielberg giving us that choice, not patronizing us about what to focus on. Maybe his neural image processing does the stitching part more intensely and deep DoF feels more natural to him. Or maybe his strong focus on storyboards influences his choice of small apertures (drawing storyboards with shallow DoF and focus shifts in mind would be quite inefficient). I also somewhat get the "I paid for the whole set, so I also want the audience to see the whole set" argument, albeit, it sounds a bit greedy and as a viewer I never felt I missed out due to a particular set piece not being quite in focus. But to see the world in a way Spielberg shoots - well, at least you'd have to cover up one eye all the time.
@@on_wheels_80 THANK YOU. We experience blurred backgrounds every day, many times a day. I’m seeing a shallow depth of field right now typing this on my phone; the walls and the rest of the room to my right and left are very blurry, the only difference is with a movie you can stare directly at the “out of focus” area and actually FOCUS on it ironically. That’s what different about watching a movie with shallow DOF vs experiencing it in real life: the blur will always remain in your peripheral vision in real life.
@@latentsea 1. Autofocus vs manual focus has ZERO to do with depth of field. DOF is achieved thru a combination APERTURE, focal length and shot framing. Deep or shallow DOF can be achieved using manual or auto focus. 2. “Cinema” (whatever you mean by that) is 2D….. (???). Bro anything that isn’t shot in 3D… is 2D…. 3. Your brain “interprets” what is in front of it. If you are looking at your phone a few feet from your face, the rest of the room will be out of focus in what we call our “peripheral vision.” Your comment feels like an AI generated post where the prompts were just “focus, depth of field, cinema and reality” lol
So many UA-camrs, who financed a 1.2 set of lenses for their Full Frame talking head videos, won’t understand and dismiss how un-teal-and-orange those clips were and call Spielberg’s work un-cinematic. Another beautiful video of one of the greats. ❤
@@ngonzale3 did you know that you can create very deep focus/deep depth of field even at an f/1.2 aperture? All depends on your framing/blocking. Not actually about the aperture.
@@RustyShackleford9000 exactly, there's no reason to NOT invest in a set of fast lenses. You can use them for every scenario. Same with Full-Frame-- why NOT have the options? Just shoot in s35 mode or stop down.
@@Frontigenics Yeah, get full frame and fast lenses, stop it down, stop it up, stop it all around, one cannot make good images unless one spends at LEAST $50k on gear, that is what Matthew Brady and Ansel Adams said.
Like 20 years ago I never understood why lights always where so bright on sets. All those BTS-shows on DVDs made the scenes look like you had full on daylight indoors. No that I've become a photographer I understand it perfectly. When i started out as a photographer I always wanted shallow depth of field. That holds true today but it must serve a purpose. To isolate a subject. I often got so hung up on the depth of field that i would totally miss the background. I do a lot of weddings and this year is the first year that I've begun to stop down in order to show more of the scenery. Taking a step back and show more of the things around them. With all that said - wonderful video of a wonderful director!
Photography is all about what you need to show. If you need shallow depth of field and fast lenses go for it. If you don't need it then don't use it. Do you think Henri Cartier Bresson, Irving Penn Sebastaio Salgado etc. or cinematographers such as Alberto Rotunno thought about bokeh? They showed what needed to be shown, when it needed to be shown and with artistry. This fad of shooting everything at full aperture all the time is a complete snore for me and many long time photographers (IMHO).
That's a common impulse, I had that as well, and I dare say that probably most beginning photographers want that. In an ideal world, you'd start composing based on the background to minimize the restrictions on depth of focus. The next consideration would be light and the last consideration would be the actual subject. For some types of photography you are limited, for example sports, photo journalism and event photography. But, to the extent possible, you'd still want to keep those things in mind, it's just that there's somewhat less control over it. In terms of filming, the issue is that you have to figure out how to make the background realistic, but not distracting while dealing with motion. A still photograph of a scene can get away with stuff that films can't just because you don't have to worry about motion. The best directors know how to make use of that to draw people into the scene, but not distract from whatever key actions are going on.
@@z4570 That's the result of a lack of knowledge about composition. The first consideration is always either the background followed by the light or vice versa. Without those two components, you'll never have a subject that works well enough to overcome the hole you're starting in. Depending upon the type of photography you have somewhere between no control over those two things or complete control over them. The whole bit about always running fully open is the result of a lack of understanding about the other ways in which you can control the background and even with the blurriest of backgrounds,t here's no guarantee that you won't still have distracting bits.
That micro four thirds GH7 is looking good right now. A good tool for someone who favors more depth of field but doesn’t have the same lighting budget as Speilberg, could achieve more creative shots.
And darkness! I'm sick of films that open with long pitch-dark scenes, and "films" of moody landscapes that are pretty and don't tell a story beyond "look at the beautiful bokeh and honor my precious artistic sensitivity." Wish more filmmakers would get to know their target audience first and serve their need for inspiration and hope, which is far more urgent than eye candy and gear.
A great analysis of Speilberg's work...I think this helps those of us that grew up with his films and cant quite describe what it was that made these films stand apart in our memories and lives...Videos like this helps to at least try to put a finger on it...
Excellent! When I watch movies I tend to scan around the frame. I'm sure I'm not the only one. And I love seeing all the details and movement that shallow focus denies the viewer. Shallow focus has been celebrated as THE way to make your film shots look cinematic, but it's just nonsense. Lighting, blocking, camera motion, acting, costumes, set dressing, editing, audio... everything combined makes a shot look cinematic.
This is also why I don't like 3D movies. They want you to look at the center at the frame. I like to look around in the frame. What is going on in the background and at the sides
You can say anything you want about Spielberg as a storyteller (all the adjectives have been exhausted: soapy, saccharine, predictable, too Hollywood, shallow etc) but one thing is certain, he is a hell of a filmmaker. No living director blocks and moves the camera like Spielberg, NO ONE. in terms of camera movement, framing and blocking is up there with Kurosawa, Welles and Lean.
Love to see him make a remake of Dirty Harry, Spielberg style. Throughout the years, I have enjoyed Steven's movies. I had to go to the theater to see them and it was well worth it. Movies like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" had to be seen at a theater to get the full effect. Those movie years were the best.
@@leeringduckling I don't think anyone is saying Spielberg isn't popular. I mean at the height of his career he could be considered the most popular artist whoever lived.
Bright apatures still are a very useful tool and also a low effort way to draw attention to your subject. They definitely can be overused even in photography but when you pay for a F1.4 lens and carry the extra weight, expect you would want to utilise the wide apature.
Great Video! This reminds of Bicycle Thieves and the entire neo realism film movement where every corner of the frame told a story and not just focusing on the main character
I wish more filmmakers understood how to use depth of field. I feel like some just go with super shallow cause they fall in love with the Bokeh, not paying enough attention to how it affects story. I can’t tell you how many times I’m asked to pull at a 2 or less. I can do it but it’s hard to bury pull when you have 2 or more characters relatively close to each other but just out of reach to hold them together. Anyway, thanks for the video!
but also, I don't think Spielberg used wide depth of field as some bold artistic choice, he was trying to get as much of the scene in focus to more easily tell the story and catch all of his scene. He's never been a director to make artistic choices. He's making movies not films.
You really have to think about proportionality too. If you shoot something wide open, and more than 50% of the image is just an out of focus background then what's compelling about that image?
@@wiseguymotionpictures1416 I mean... any photographer or filmmaker would argue the subject is the compelling part, and purposefully throwing out the background is getting rid of distractions. There's plenty of shots both still photography and cinematography that have backgrounds that are blown out either with bokeh or exposure. But it can also be a cheap trick. I don't think Speielberg did it though for artistic reasons... I think he just always wanted as much shit to be in focus as he could... cause why not. Spielberg is a storyteller filmmaker, not an avante garde artist trying to be clever with the camera.
Everyone who does photography goes through this journey. On one hand you have the ulttra blurry swirly bokeh stuff, which is great for artistic or creative portraits, but for street photography I shoot a lot at ISO 400, aperture between 8 and 11 and shutterspeed varying on whether I am shooting shadow or direct sunlight. Of course, with photography, fixing in post is also half of the game. I end up zone focusing a lot and am able to shoot from the hip with these settings which means I don't need to/have to set up shots as much, meaning I am not distracting people with my camera as much. Great for interesting candid shots.
At first I wasn't sure if this was for me with all the technical jargon, but I caught on surprisingly quick thanks to your presentation style. Thoroughly fascinating, educational, and well done, sir.
I think shallow depth of field became so exciting bc all of a sudden young filmmakers had access to fast glass and big sensors via DSLR, and we went from camcorders to something much closer to Super 35 w cinema lenses. It gave us a new aesthetic that wasn’t previously explored unless at a massive budget level. I do love to shoot deep depth of field as well, however I believe this is the reason for the shallow craze!
Great video! Yes, there is a typical magic to Spielberg films. He definitely honed his craft by directing many episodes for TV shows, such as Columbo, before feature films. It's definitely his smooth camera movement with beautiful movement parallax, I'd say inspired by Tonino Delli Colli, ace cinematographer for Sergio Leone's masterpieces in Techniscope (often stark sunlight, spherical, 2-perf): The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly, and Once Upon A Time In The West. I'd say Spielberg's use of light and his volumetric rays of light - and John Williams' music are huge contributions as well.
Wolfcrow clearly understands cinematography! I do mostly corporate work (ie: the talking head) and I can say there is nothing more frustrating than having people trying to BS their way or reciting buzz words. Thank you Wolfcrow. 👍
Rewatched Jaws this year in 4K in my home theater, and realized not just the use of depth of field (ALL perfectly sharp and in frame), but framing. Immaculate use of framing throughout, where you almost have to (in a good way) pivot your head from side to side.
Do you really believe that 4K is necessary for home theater? The switch from DVD to Blu-ray on my 110" screen was of course immediately obvious. The DVD simply can not record all of the necessary information. But _even at a view distance of 1:1 (8 ft)_ there is nothing about a Blu-ray presentation that leaves me thinking that I'm missing anything, or has me bothered by obvious visual degradation. Yes, here and there is a movie with sub-par encoding, but that's not the fault of the medium. I can only say that I have very good eyesight, as the converse is something that might well contribute to a person's satisfaction with a lower standard. As for audio, it doesn't get any better than lossless, so Blu-ray usually has that covered. But I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on this.
@@HagbardCeline23 *"What you're describing is the 'absence' of DOF. There's no blur so no DOF."* By definition, the greater the depth of field, the less blurring. Infinite depth of field means a 100% in-focus image. Perhaps you are a gamer, and have been mistaken by the incorrect use of the term in the gaming industry.
@@bricaaron3978 I agree, I remember the first time I walked into a store that had one of those new fangled HDTVs, walking up to one of the big screen CRT models and just about putting my nose on the screen and the pixels were still quite tiny compared with what I was used to with a regular TV signal on even a 13" screen. The limitation on how many pixels make sense is primarily the size of the room and the size of the TV. The human field of vision is limited and knowable. It's a relatively simple calculation involving your eyes angle of view, how far the pixels need to be apart to be distinguishable and your seating distance. For most of us, that's not really a calculation we need as even a Bluray is probably far more pixels than we need for any room that isn't a dedicated home theater, and even then it's probably more than enough. A DVD is often times plenty, the main advantage of Bluray over DVD is the colors available and sound, not the extra pixels.
@@bricaaron3978 Not who you asked, but 4K definitely has a noticeable affect even at home. I'm someone who used to assume 4K in general was pointless. It's obviously not as dramatic as DVD to Blu-Ray, and it'll depend a lot on the film and how it was shot and mastered, but many are tangibly sharper even about 10 ft from my 55" tv. I was floored by how sharp Dunkirk looked the first time watching it on 4K Blu-Ray. Though even more drastic is HDR. I think many people are put off by or have a bad impression of "HDR" due to the amount of displays that do it poorly, or advertise the ability but don't have the brightness etc to do it justice. But watching content that really makes use of it on a well calibrated screen adds so much to the picture. Almost makes it hard watching movies in the cinema.
Loved this thanks. Good to be push out of clinging to the obvious choice by realising that in many cases, this can in fact limit your creative expressiveness. Spielberg is undeniably once of the greats and we have so much to learn by his unique approach.
I recommend the reading of the associated article too. Most of what we read on filming techniques concentrates on how to achieve a shallow depth of field, so as to draw the eye to the element in focus and isolate the rest. So we are shown a different perspective here. Thanks Sareesh.
It’s a shame that audiences’ attention spans have shortened so much that Spielberg’s style of filmmaking seems out of fashion. He truly understands storytelling, especially visual storytelling. He’s one of the few rare filmmakers that knows how to make intelligent, well-crafted populist fare that doesn’t treat the audience like idiots.
Thank you so much. I understand and use depth of field as a still photographer, but although I knew when I was a kid watching early Spielberg films that his presentation was unique, I didn't have the vocabulary and I didn't know much about cinematography. Very helpful!
Look, I’m frustrated that filmmakers on UA-cam are so focused on theory that they refuse to or forget to talk about the practical implications of these techniques. How are we talking about deep DOF and not talking about lighting and exposure? Many indie filmmakers are using shallow DOF simply so give themselves more light, especially with tight budgets or in situations where you can’t simply add more light to a scene. And esp outside of the traditional filmmaking process. I’ve been a videog and photog for 6 years now, self-taught using mostly YT, and it’s super frustrating to be put on a job where I can’t know the lighting set up before hand. If an environment is too dark, I might have to shoot at f1.4 just to keep my ISO below 2000, shooting on APS-C. The key fact is that Spielberg ISN’T just shooting with a deep DOF, he’s ALSO got access to millions of dollars in lighting equipment, rigging teams, electricity wherever he is. It IS NOT ENOUGH to know the theory behind the aesthetics of a shot. The financial context and the access and freedom that it provides, has a DIRECT relationship with HOW YOU ARE SHOOTING. And not just “I’m using a better camera and better lenses now,” but also how much light you have to work with, and how that directly affects the gear you choose and how it performs. And I wish that when people make educational videos like this, they talk about not just how these ideas affect the creative thinking when composing a shot, but how they effect the unavoidable aspects of filmmaking for us who aren’t in Hollywood, or are even working solo - the technical and logistical compromises and necessities that made those shots possible.
Tbf cost of lighting being the reason movie makers of old would have loved access to the shallow depth of field available now was mentioned in this clip. As was Spielberg's access to quality and expensive lighting/sets.
I can't believe I just rewatched the entire video for a single sentence. May as well be a footnote. Anyway, It's a moot point - Hollywood producers were NOT wishing they could "save money" on lighting. Lighting alone takes up a relatively small part of a multi-million dollar budget. It can take a proportionally large part of a small filmmaker's budget, because we're not spending millions on other things like story rights, transportation, set, etc. Besides, after Spielberg made it, when he needed more money, they'd just give it to him. Jaws went way over it's budget, but was still a pretty inexpensive movie compared to most blockbusters. And when it made multitudes more money, they wouldn't dream of letting lights getting in the way of Spielberg making more money.
@@usernamehandle well.. I watched the video once and I got that point from him. He even mentioned a personnal experience of his short movie that he had a hard time to get it done because of budget... Wtf is your comment xD Make your own video to talk about it if you are not happy
He mentioned speilbergs access to expensive equipment multiple times, including early on when he mentioned his prodigy status. He also went into the difficulty of lighting the shots given his choice of lens, due to the specific types of lighting mostly available at the time and the enormous power usage. You might be right about other videos on UA-cam, but this creator did cover the difficulties. He just didn't make those tradeoffs the subject of the video. On the up side, it sounds like you have some of the skillset and knowledge to attempt that video, and might have found a niche.
Okie dokie, thanks for the neat conspectus! I find Spielberg's camera movement gratuitous or heavy-handed at times, but thanks for pointing out just how well he does it.
I think every cinematographer / director should implement deep focus to their practice because when you have a very speciality large crew to make a film together, everything in the frame can be controlled. Therefore, deep focus helps a filmmaker to show their audience how they have considered everything in the frame and nothing to hide 🙌🏼
Very similar style to many comic books, that's why his movies work so well at entertaining the mind in a fun and creative way. Very immersive but also leaves so much to the imagination.
This video taught me a lot. I only shoot stills, but I've been using film and filters to try and get "Spielberg" colors. Now I think I have some ideas for lenses and apertures. Thanks. Good video.
One reason people avoid deep focus these days is because it doesn't look as good on digital. Film has layers of color sensitive crystals which gives it a dimension that single chip digital sensors don't have. When you stop down and use crisp lenses at an ideal stop on a well-lit set, film has astonishing depth and beauty. This is even more enhanced when you shoot with a larger format like anamorphic or 65mm. Digital tends to look flatter the more you stop down and we tend to associate the infinite depth of field visible at F16 or F22 with video. You also have to know how to light for depth. The soft bounce lighting predominant in movies today tends to look very flat when you stop down. Classic deep focus films were lit with hard light which created layers of detail and made characters pop. Many of Spielberg's 70s and 80s films were shot on Eastman 5247 which is a very contrasty saturated stock and creates natural separation between warm skintones and pale blue skies. Not to mention his absolute mastery of blocking and framing. Most directors these days use shallow depth of field because it's easy to create a pretty frame when 90% of it is out of focus.
A few weeks ago I was recording a video with deep focus and it definitely looked strange, being able to walk about 10 meters in focus and get to 30 centimeters from the camera, somehow, felt wrong 😂
Even though as you mentioned Steven has a major influence on the lens selection, he allows the cinematographer (Allen Daviau from his early work & Janusz Kamiński for his current work) to take care of the film stock. The film stock is a key component to the lens. I am a 100% film photographer so pardon my bias in favor of film comment.😊
Great take on a legend. Given the fact our human eyes rarely rack focus, shooting a smaller aperture allows for his films to feel real as if seen with the human eye in person.
Nobody shot wide open at F2.8 or bellow back in the days for many obvious reasons : Films were shot at F5.6-F8 or above when it was possible to show everything in the frame and even when close focused, F8 gave enough depth of field to see approximately what was happening on the background and enough separation on the close subject without blurring the whole picture behind. The location, and the whole work of set design was a piece of art and needed to be shown. This is the reason why they used strong lightings with higher contrast and less diffusion than today. Finally, a few directors shot at F2-2.8 or even bellow only when it was man absolute obligation, in very dark light scenes or to put extreme emphasis on the subject and create an effect with the background on very few shots.
Thanks for making this. What caught my attention is that he preferred a 21mm lens on super 35. Practically the same equivalent focal length as the wide end of the Canon 24-105 I use on my Z-Cam E2 with a Speedbooster XL.
Wonderful video, as ever. I’d love to see you do a follow up at some point on Spielberg’s deep focus influences. Orson Welles, John Ford and Jean Renoir are the obvious ones, but clearly he studied DPs too (Greg Toland, James Wong Howe et al). Hitchcock and Howard Hawks were likely influences as well.
It's gratifying to see someone extol the value of deep focus. Everyone these days is so obsessed with "bokeh" it 's insane. A while back, I was DP-ing on a demo for a documentary series a friend of mine was trying to get rolling, and some of my friend's contacts in "the biz" told him the footage was unusable -- because the background was in focus. :/
Is it that an attitude that "the focus" of a shot should be literally the only thing in focus? There seems to be a lack of trust in the director to use the language of cinema and for the audience to understand it, everything has to be so simple.
Out of all of the things to make a good movie, (script, sound, lighting, blocking, actors, costumes, sets and props) the camera is probably the least important variable. Without perfecting everything else, the camera may as well be a potato. And if all that is perfect, a potato may actually be good enough.
I think this crave for bokeh nowadays comes from the fact that cellphones mostly shoot in deep focus. Shallow deep of field is something that only proper cameras can achieve, so it gives more of a "professional" look. Jesus, cellphones are even trying to imitate shallow deep of field digitally 😅
@@giuliobonasso3663 I think most of the audience do not know what bokeh is. They just see "yeah, that part of the screen is out of focus". One definite trend is the use of narrow optical focus to guide where the literal focus of a scene should be. While this is effective, this does lead the audience a bit too strongly on what is important, it literally does not let the audience see what is out of focus. It's functionally very close to an extreme close up, the context of their surroundings is limited to a blur. If there is more than one person or think in a frame at the same time, it's more likely that rack focus will be used to say exactly where and when the audience should move their metaphorical focus, when the optical focus moves.
This is an awesome video - thank you for shedding light on the fact you don't need to shoot wide open :) I like dialing my shots to 4.5 or 5.6 sometimes to get more of the background
Deep focus is usually really good, but also requires more skill/budget. You need to have good blocking and flow between scenes so the viewers naturally follow the point of attention, but depending on the setting, you may also need budget to get a suitable background that fits the scene. Obviously trying to recreate Indiana Jones on a indie film budget would be incredibly difficult and require choices made due to it. But it also doesn’t mean shallow depth is bad, just that there should really be thought out into it (e.g. the Batman. Creates the oppressing feeling of Gotham, as well as portrays Bruce’s mindset, with how he’s so hyper focused on vengeance. Especially love the scene where he gets shot, and only his face is focused on. Barely as well).
Spielberg’s filming technique adds to each film’s feeling of realism. I love directors who give us more than one focal point. I’m but a humble photojournalist but I primarily shot with a Nikkor 16-35 mm and 80-200 mm. I rarely used anything in between. Except an 85mm, f/1.4 that I often used wide open to shoot basketball in dim high school gyms. Nothing like manual focusing moving targets with a DOF of about a foot. I loved the Sports Illustrated photographers who shot basketball wide angle with high-power strobes in the rafters.
With this idea of avoiding shallow depth of field, even a smartphone camera without post Bokeh, but with camera moving skills, can create a good involving storytelling.
This is the main reason why I've always wanted Spielberg to do a comic book movie. His visual style is perfect for capturing the essence of framed illustrations IMHO
I learned photography using a large format camera, and for a long time followed the f/64 club method. I usually shot photographs at f/32 or more. I didn't start using shallow depth of field until I got into cinematography, but I still favor deeper focus that allows the environment to play a major part of the story. It just requires learning how to manage the frame to control the viewer's eyes, which includes combining lighting and the fine art photography composition techniques.
Hey man, I just recently stumbled across your channel and your videos are great. You really fill a niche discussing cameras and film stocks in a way I haven't seen before and I really enjoy it.
Excellent work as a photographer i only use 8 or 5.6 aparture, which is not totally the same for T but provides excellent work if you use a very good lense.
Wonderful analysis of one of the great film directors of all time. I make videos of my city of Toronto and surrounding nature and I’m definitely influenced by Spielberg and how he frames shots and moves the camera. Another big influence is Kubrick. You want to learn how to shoot and do interesting framing, watch the films of these two brilliant filmmakers. That’s your film school right there.
Wide open apertures really dont show up in big budget movies that much at all. To me, it feels like one of those things ppl get obsessed with when they first start getting in to videography. But then eventually grow out of.
Dune seemed to have a lot of shots with shallow depth of field. Sometimes it’s more about lighting as you need a lot to get small aperture especially if you’re shooting film.
@@fd3871That makes sense; it would do that. Is that what they teach in film school? Use shallow depth of field to hide a lack of budget by blurring out background elements inconsistent with the story? I would have thought the more important limiting factor would have been the lack of budget for lots of light to light up the set so the lens can be closed down for a bigger depth of field? Or a lack of an experienced DP / gaffer to know how to get the most out of what you do have? I used strobes (in combination with a 1970s era Mamiya RB67 camera that used a leaf shutter in the lenses not a curtain shutter in the camera body … such a shutter could synchronize at any shutter speed) almost entirely so I could usually get the DOF I wanted except on very large sets. lighting and professional light design I’m an entirely self-taught still photographer and I manipulate depth of field in order to draw attention to places in the frame I want it to be. Or not to be. Or create an overall visual experience in the frame by having most, about half, or almost none of the visual elements of the frame in focus. That kind of thing. I worked on a couple of TV commercial sets (beer commercials I appeared in, shot in overnight after closing in a bar I also managed to keep my photo studio lights on in the daytime!) and watched the director / DOP do the same thing essentially during the filming / videography, using some pretty clever dolly or jib arm camera moves combined with zoom and focus pulling on the hero product and in another shot the same kind of thing on them. hero character / bartender (me). It was a clever visual trick I think the director was kind of a bit in love with that day (I’m sure it was in the story board somewhere) since he did it so many times on so many shots that ended up in a beer commercial a couple months later. It looked pretty cool when it worked “right” according to him when I had a peek at the video playback of a few of the good takes. It almost convinced me at the time I should have gone back to some school or other for a little bit more schooling to meet some connected relevant people and learn motion picture camera systems and a bit about lighting for cinema… and become a director then maybe get a job at a little specialty film company that made creative music videos for fun and TV commercials for money instead of just toughing it out sticking it through the transition film to digital in commercial still photography! I’d spent so much time in school already and wound up in photography of all things (which had nothing to do with my university degrees) by the mid-1990s. So … no … no back to a little bit of intense and focused film school for thirty year old me to learn to be a director! Couldn’t bring myself to do it and spend more on school I wasn’t sure would go anywhere. Digital killed so much basic commercial photography work though … and then the internet drove a stake through the heart of the need for professional looking highly produced printed corporate communications and the conceptual product catalog, etc. for any but the wealthiest of clients. Stock digital photos of character actors and just plain amateurs, instead of produced on. location custom concept shoots of models. So many things just got … cheap. And not very much fun. And not at all profitable. It was a rough time for commercial photography, the era from 1995 to 2005. It was like a pandemic went through and killed two-thirds of the models, beauty and styling professionals artists and many others who lost the entirety of their living to the internet and the digital camera and DIY advertising and marketing. Still immensely profitable for the clients of course, although a few of them disappeared too particularly the ad agencies and design firms. But it was like the Black Death went through but it didn’t really make the value of the laborers who survived any higher … almost all the extra profit just got scooped up by the biggest and most successful of the clients. And so that phenomenon continues to this very day. Sorry for the digression.
Isn’t it just mostly caused by the fact that novice directors and DPs don’t have enough light on their sets to allow them to close down their lenses sufficiently to give them the deep depth of field that a Spielberg takes for granted because if he sticks his light meter toward his camera from all the key areas of the frame on his set and if they’re too dark to show up as he wants them to on the film or the sensor he just adds the little spot lights he needs until they do. And if the whole set is too dark when he measures the whole scene overall to give him the f-stop on the lens that gives him depth of field he wants then he just adds broad lights until he gets there? Or the other way around? Broad lights first, spots second? Either way, I would think that starting DOPs fart around with story telling using narrow depth of field or by moving the tiny area of focus in a shallow depth of field frame during a filmed sequence because they just don’t have enough expensive and complicated lights and the light modifying equipment (and the experienced people who know how to set them up so they still look natural … or simulate whatever look the director wants to simulate on film or sensor … then monitor the lights and meter them all and do the calculations, etc) to light up a big set … or even a medium sized set. And they “ grow out of it” when they get good enough to merit a budget that includes money and people for these lights. Or they develop a style that doesn’t need them at all and still looks professional anyway. That’s gotta be tough I should think though!
Beside all the technical reasons, i think it also comes down to trusting his audience and his material. He respects his audience. If the subject matter is captivating by itself, you don’t need as many tricks to draw the audience in. The human eye is the ultimate camera and it will naturally assign things to the foreground and background on its own.
I think wolfcrow hits the nail on the head when he says the viewer can focus on anything they want in the frame at any time. To use zoom lenses far narrower than the human field of vision, or to rack focus between subjects in the foreground and background, are “special effects” that foreground the artifice of cinema. Spielberg is a naturalist, and wide lenses with wide open apertures is the best approximation for the human eyeball, so the viewer can feel like they’re in the movie, rather than watching a movie.
Deep focus is what I like doing but the amount of lighting for a small budget project doesn’t really work. But using duel iso sensor makes a world of difference. Your videos take me away from all the rubbish content out there. We need more of these insightful content. Keep it up bro, you have my support.
This is somewhat overstated as there are many many singles and two shots in Raiders alone that have shallow depth of field. Rarely do cinematographers shoot wide open simply because it’s the softest part of the lens. But shallow depth of field is achieved all the time without being wide open with 35mm / anamorphic.
My cinematography teacher maintained that shooting T5/5.6 was the best aperture to film at because you will always get the best performance out of your lenses there. I was always a fan of shooting close ups at lower apertures to emphasize and isolate the character, but I get why Spielberg does it his way. It pulls the audience more into the film as if they're right there with the characters.
John Frankenheimer had a similar philosophy. He shot wide and with deep focus fields because he wanted the viewer to choose where to look in a wide scene. He wasn't beyond a shallow depth of field when the moment required it but so many wide scenes with everything sharp was a trademark of his.
5:18 Fascinating to see a Redhead (800W lamp) attached to the camera crane during the famous drinking-game one-er. Going to go and rewatch the shot to see if it’s detectable (moving shadows etc)
I've seen people doing "how to" videos on UA-cam at f1.2 and half the stuff isn't even in focus. Just because you can doesn't mean you should! I always assumed Spielberg shot everything how you'd see it if you were there in person. Somehow the shots are fascinating without being distracting. He pretty much always chooses the perfect focal length and depth. My favorite director of all time, by quite a bit!
This is an example of excellent documentary film making for the masses online Fascinating info, read beautifully and executed bang tidy. Spielberg himself would be more than happy with this study of his huge body of stunning work. 😉
I'm so glad that in recent years there has been a serious reclamation of Spielberg as an American cinema master. There seemed to be a period that peaked during the early and mid 2000s where ppl turned against him and no genuine, thoughtful analysis of his work - let alone his masterful formalism, was ever given. Luckily we've all learned our lesson.
@@aperson4640 I mean, it quite literally did. Both in the casual online space and in critical circles. It took off when Terry Gilliam slagged Spielberg in an interview. And there was a wider critical note of "Spielberg is just populist schmaltz" going around for some time. Being taught in academic settings does not negate wider conversation.
I felt the same way, but to me it was mostly regarding certain frustrating endings (The War of the Worlds) or editings (Minority Report, Munich) at that time, that were below its usual standards. But I do not think someone serious ever questioned the quality of its staging and framing capabilities.
@@nope5657 then maybe its a cultural difference, looking at French film revews, it's one of its worst rated movies in the 2000s (along with The Terminal an AI, that were not that great either to be honest)
Camera movement is key to the "language" of a given film. Spielberg uses it to switch the viewers' perspective from narrative, observational and participant in the story. He takes into consideration which point of 'participation' he wants to have the viewer 'participate' in. It's a much more complex visual structure which draws the viewer into the story as a participant rather than just an observer.
From a photography perspective: Many of these shots would work great as photos, but not all of them. For video, you do have motion to help with subject seperation. Obviously you don't have motion in photography, so you have to use other tools. A shallow DOF is one of these tools, but I think using other tools can really help with creating excellent pictures: lines, shapes, color. A shallow DOF is basically a subject seperation cheat button.
Many of the shots you’ve referenced aren’t wide angle lenses - they’re 50mm-100mm lenses with wide angle framing. There’s a key difference there. He rarely went lower than a 24mm lens.
Spielberg uses shallow dof sparingly and purposefully. The scene in ET where Elliot cuts his finger and ET heals it has some closeups as delicately shallow as any low budget indie. It reminds me of how in THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL, Wes Anderson's "memory" closeup of Agatha spinning in front of colorful bokeh stands out in a film full of deep focus tracking shots.
I apprenticed with and then assisted a well known still photographer back in the 1970s who taught me what attracts the eye compositionally more than anything is strong contrast with the background, why faces in portraits are illuminated with a “mask” of highlights on forehead, eyes, cheeks, mouth and chin on darker backgrounds in portraits. In movies movement relative to the background is a very effective eye catching form of contrast because of the way human vision functions. The rod cells in the periphery of the retina only detect a narrow band of greenish light but are 3000x more sensitive than the RGB sensing cone cells concentrated around the optic nerve in the center 2° of the field of view. So if something moves the rod cells react and the brain directs the eye there and then the brain tunes-out the signals from the rod creating the sensation called “tunnel vision”. For that reason keeping everything in a cinematic frame is focus and causing the eye of the viewer to react and follow movement is a strategy which mimics how our eyes and brains work subconsciously. In person we rarely perceive with the same shallow DOF of a wide open camera lens aperture because our eye constantly and subconsciously shift focus based on whatever moves and catches our attention. What shallow DOF does is mimic the sensation of “tunnel vision” where the brain ignores the periphery. Again that’s very effective in still photos to pull attention to a focal point and keep it there but isn’t as necessary in a movie because the fact the focal point is moving will cause actual tunnel vision to kick in if viewing on a large screen making focus shifts with narrow DOF unnecessary and distracting if overdone.
I do find it interesting how a lot of modern filmmakers argue that wide DoF and wide lenses look "amateurish" while shallow DoF and long lenses are more "cinematic", completely ignoring the fact that some of the greatest masters of cinema did the opposite. This is another reminder that it's not about the technique or the tools, but rather how/why you use them. Anything can become a strong style when done with purpose and intention.
Really interesting. So glad to hear you say this in a time when know-it-alls will judge us by our bokeh. I shoot lots of stills in classrooms, where the environment is important to tell the story. In my amateurish videos, depth is welcome - e.g., in music groups where the faces are wonderful and it would be a loss if too many were out of focus. So I understand why Spielberg would want depth for reality and immersion, since it's the way our eyes see the world.
Thank you so much! So much of film is too blurry nowadays, and so many UA-cam camera channels spend so much time poo-pooing on camera gear with greater depth of field, however, as you said, so much of the greatest cinema doesn’t use blown out blurry backgrounds.
@@3dtrip870 “greater” depth of field does not convey any specific meaning. DOF can be either deep or shallow. Also “blown out” means too bright/overexposed, and does not refer to aperture or DOF.
@@RustyShackleford9000 greater means “more”: of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average. Stop being nitpicky, you obviously knew what I meant.
@@3dtrip870 I actually have no idea what you meant. What does “more” depth of field mean? There is deep or shallow focus/depth of field. When you say “greater”, are you saying deep or shallow DOF?
@@RustyShackleford9000 you don’t understand greater (more) depth of field, vs less. Let me try to explain this to you 12” of DoF is greater than (>) 1” of DoF. I understand I did not give a baseline number, however, the discussion was started by the video about Spielberg and his use of DoF, which was more, (or greater) than many filmmakers today use. Hope that helps
you know how theres sometime two different perspectives in one shot, i like that in his shots you can see that the camera works extra hard to focus on the subjects and see blur
As a former m43 user I often thought how odd it was that so many were so obsessed with a shallow DOF that was rarely ever a part of the great masterpieces. I then moved to FF and while neat I honestly end up shooting stopped down most of the time. It’s just too much razor thin DOF. Ironically while m43 is less sensitive I always felt the lenses could be used at f2.8 vs the f5.6 of FF which kind of balanced them out in the end. The sensors are 2 stops less sensitive but the lenses can be used 2 stops more opened up. I’m not saying m43 is superior just that people make way too big of a deal about FF and razor thin DOF. Spielberg had a DOF m43 can very easily manage and yet it doesn’t get much more cinematic than his work. My point is people need to stop making such a big about FF and razor thin DOF. Any m43, APSC, s35mm or FF camera is perfectly capable of creating fine art.
In fact considering how much light he needed to use because of stopping down so much ironically m43 would be better for his style. M43 could be shot f4 with the same field of view type lens vs f5.6 he shot on film. This would let in a whole extra stop of light for similar DOF. That extra stop of light would mean not needing as high of output of lights. Kind of ironic in a way. In this case m43 is actually easier to achieve that same look and FF is actually more difficult. Larger sensors are not always superior. FF would have to be stopped down to f8 for that same look which would mean needing even more light output and a higher cost with no gain.
The thing is I also think that having things all in focus is more like how our eyes see. Anything more than 10 inches away is usually always in full focus. So it feels like you are there and not looking at a photo with everything in the background blurred out.
Spielberg uses various focal lengths to point the audience's eyes to the location in the frame he wants you to hone in on. It's painterly. Whereas, a lot of filmmakers use shallow depth of field only because they think it looks "cool."
That's a crazy coincidence. The focal lenghts I love the most are 16mm, 32mm, 40mm FF equivalents. I shoot 32mm FF Equi. 80% of the time. I also just doscovered how much of a massive difference stopping down my already crazy sharp 2.8 zoom lens to 4 increases the image quality. It's like a brand new lens. This is on a APS-C body. But for those special shots where I really need the shallow DOF, i have my full frame body as a b cam
It's really strange this is out, normally I shoot at f2 or 2.8 but there was something I wasn't happy with, using manual focus I found it difficult plus whilst I got better DOF I was never blown away. So with a client I shot at F4 and I was much happier with the image. Less stressful on focusing and I didn't miss the DOF.
Leon in the professionnal : The rifle is the first weapon you learn how to use, because it lets you keep your distance from the client. The closer you get to being a pro, the closer you can get to the client. The knife, for example, is the last thing you learn. Same thing with cinematography … everybody can shoot a zoom lens with a narrow DOF … but it takes a master to use a wide angle lens
Download My Free Ebook! How to Make Stunning Films on a Budget. My Proven Secrets: wolfcrow.com/free-ebook/
Hi, I'm trying to download the ebook, but it's not working. Could you please look into this and provide access to download it?
I think when you have a beautiful background or spend millions on beautiful sets, why blur it all out.
Or put tons of filters and CG over it. Yet that's what so many modern movies do.
Shallow depth of field is often used to emphasize the subject, and de-emphasize the background, to create urgency or a more intimate moment with a character or convey a certain mood. Also, the reverse is often done, where the majority of the shot is in sharp focus, but a blurred image or silhouette passes across the foreground, again to create a desired emotion or effect for the viewer.
@@RustyShackleford9000Thanks.
This
Like Grieg Fraser.
1. Nobody shot wide open back then, Spielberg was doing exactly the same thing as the rest of the industry. Still today few movies are shot below f/2.8 in Hollywood, unless they're going for a documentary look.
2. The two main variables that determine depth of field are focal distance and distance to the subject. At 21mm, everything that is more than 3 feet away from the camera to infinity will be in focus. I doubt you can find a movie shot mostly at 21mm that doesn't use "deep focus".
You're spot on.
@@avx111 depends on the 21mm lens in question. There are 21 mm lenses that have apertures as wide as f1.4
You can shoot shallow on a wide open 21mm. Especially the superpeeds mentioned in the video.
@@RustyShackleford9000 Yeah but they're still only gonna give you bokeh if you're focusing within a few feet, otherwise they're just going to be out of focus entirely. 21mm at f1.4 focused to infinity, is going to still give you a deep depth of field, except it'll also be a softer image due to the aperture, making it essentially a lower quality image than say 21mm at f4.
Even west side story which is a recent movie is still depp focus tho
New appreciation for Spielberg. Don't think I'll be able to view his films in the same manner again. Great analysis.
Spielberg really has an eye for cinema and knows how to frame shots with perfect composition, camera movement, lighting, and know which camera techniques to utilize to tell the most effective story possible and they all feel organic and not artificial, that is why he is one of my most favorite Filmmakers ever.
I think Spielberg himself has said that when it comes to the cinematography the reason he avoids those kind of apertures and really shallow depth of field in his shots is that that isn’t how you as a person see the world- at least not unless you’re shortsighted or longsightedness and not wearing contacts or glasses. He doesn’t want the cinematography to be like that because it lets you know it’s a film, whereas having everything in focus is how you as a person see it. It’s meant to draw you in as if you are the camera observing this all rather than being a film you watch.
Bravo👏👏👏👏👏.......💯
I think he does that because he can pack more information in 3D space. He builds the scene preferably with depth so they are more exciting and crowded. It feels more like the extension of the viewers 3d dimenisonal space than when you have flat super blurred scenes. Low dof scenes are still great for emotional and close and personal stuff. Our eyes are roughly F2.0 and the focus is very noticable, not full bokeh washed out but noticable unsharp. You just cant look at it because you focus on something.
If that's really what he's said, he's totally wrong. No human with 20/20 vision can focus on two objects at the same time. Main contributors are our large pupillary distance, which is about 63mm mean and the very narrow angle covered by the macula, around which eye resolution drops off drastically. The former leads to 3D vision, but also very little apparent DoF (it acts like a giant virtual aperture), the latter means we can't even see two things within the same focal plane, like on a movie screen, sharp at the same time. We have to choose. Or let our brain stitch together the whole scene. Now, one can argue there's merit in Steven Spielberg giving us that choice, not patronizing us about what to focus on. Maybe his neural image processing does the stitching part more intensely and deep DoF feels more natural to him. Or maybe his strong focus on storyboards influences his choice of small apertures (drawing storyboards with shallow DoF and focus shifts in mind would be quite inefficient). I also somewhat get the "I paid for the whole set, so I also want the audience to see the whole set" argument, albeit, it sounds a bit greedy and as a viewer I never felt I missed out due to a particular set piece not being quite in focus. But to see the world in a way Spielberg shoots - well, at least you'd have to cover up one eye all the time.
@@on_wheels_80 THANK YOU. We experience blurred backgrounds every day, many times a day. I’m seeing a shallow depth of field right now typing this on my phone; the walls and the rest of the room to my right and left are very blurry, the only difference is with a movie you can stare directly at the “out of focus” area and actually FOCUS on it ironically. That’s what different about watching a movie with shallow DOF vs experiencing it in real life: the blur will always remain in your peripheral vision in real life.
@@latentsea 1. Autofocus vs manual focus has ZERO to do with depth of field. DOF is achieved thru a combination APERTURE, focal length and shot framing. Deep or shallow DOF can be achieved using manual or auto focus. 2. “Cinema” (whatever you mean by that) is 2D….. (???). Bro anything that isn’t shot in 3D… is 2D…. 3. Your brain “interprets” what is in front of it. If you are looking at your phone a few feet from your face, the rest of the room will be out of focus in what we call our “peripheral vision.” Your comment feels like an AI generated post where the prompts were just “focus, depth of field, cinema and reality” lol
So many UA-camrs, who financed a 1.2 set of lenses for their Full Frame talking head videos, won’t understand and dismiss how un-teal-and-orange those clips were and call Spielberg’s work un-cinematic. Another beautiful video of one of the greats. ❤
@@ngonzale3 did you know that you can create very deep focus/deep depth of field even at an f/1.2 aperture? All depends on your framing/blocking. Not actually about the aperture.
@@RustyShackleford9000 exactly, there's no reason to NOT invest in a set of fast lenses. You can use them for every scenario. Same with Full-Frame-- why NOT have the options? Just shoot in s35 mode or stop down.
@@Frontigenics exactly! this guy gets it lol
yea right who?? you sound crazy
@@Frontigenics Yeah, get full frame and fast lenses, stop it down, stop it up, stop it all around, one cannot make good images unless one spends at LEAST $50k on gear, that is what Matthew Brady and Ansel Adams said.
Like 20 years ago I never understood why lights always where so bright on sets. All those BTS-shows on DVDs made the scenes look like you had full on daylight indoors. No that I've become a photographer I understand it perfectly. When i started out as a photographer I always wanted shallow depth of field. That holds true today but it must serve a purpose. To isolate a subject. I often got so hung up on the depth of field that i would totally miss the background. I do a lot of weddings and this year is the first year that I've begun to stop down in order to show more of the scenery. Taking a step back and show more of the things around them.
With all that said - wonderful video of a wonderful director!
Photography is all about what you need to show. If you need shallow depth of field and fast lenses go for it. If you don't need it then don't use it. Do you think Henri Cartier Bresson, Irving Penn Sebastaio Salgado etc. or cinematographers such as Alberto Rotunno thought about bokeh? They showed what needed to be shown, when it needed to be shown and with artistry. This fad of shooting everything at full aperture all the time is a complete snore for me and many long time photographers (IMHO).
That's a common impulse, I had that as well, and I dare say that probably most beginning photographers want that.
In an ideal world, you'd start composing based on the background to minimize the restrictions on depth of focus. The next consideration would be light and the last consideration would be the actual subject. For some types of photography you are limited, for example sports, photo journalism and event photography. But, to the extent possible, you'd still want to keep those things in mind, it's just that there's somewhat less control over it.
In terms of filming, the issue is that you have to figure out how to make the background realistic, but not distracting while dealing with motion. A still photograph of a scene can get away with stuff that films can't just because you don't have to worry about motion. The best directors know how to make use of that to draw people into the scene, but not distract from whatever key actions are going on.
@@z4570 That's the result of a lack of knowledge about composition. The first consideration is always either the background followed by the light or vice versa. Without those two components, you'll never have a subject that works well enough to overcome the hole you're starting in. Depending upon the type of photography you have somewhere between no control over those two things or complete control over them. The whole bit about always running fully open is the result of a lack of understanding about the other ways in which you can control the background and even with the blurriest of backgrounds,t here's no guarantee that you won't still have distracting bits.
Back in the day filming a theatre show was a real problem. To expose the film properly, you had to wreck the lighting for the audience.
Deep focus is an awesome technique that needs a resurgence. Ditto hard lighting
hell yes
That micro four thirds GH7 is looking good right now. A good tool for someone who favors more depth of field but doesn’t have the same lighting budget as Speilberg, could achieve more creative shots.
Totally agree, It costs more to make the mise en scene interesting, so it seems we have settled for bokeh. Boring.
Yes. Hard lighting I miss so much.
And darkness! I'm sick of films that open with long pitch-dark scenes, and "films" of moody landscapes that are pretty and don't tell a story beyond "look at the beautiful bokeh and honor my precious artistic sensitivity." Wish more filmmakers would get to know their target audience first and serve their need for inspiration and hope, which is far more urgent than eye candy and gear.
A great analysis of Speilberg's work...I think this helps those of us that grew up with his films and cant quite describe what it was that made these films stand apart in our memories and lives...Videos like this helps to at least try to put a finger on it...
💯
Excellent! When I watch movies I tend to scan around the frame. I'm sure I'm not the only one. And I love seeing all the details and movement that shallow focus denies the viewer. Shallow focus has been celebrated as THE way to make your film shots look cinematic, but it's just nonsense. Lighting, blocking, camera motion, acting, costumes, set dressing, editing, audio... everything combined makes a shot look cinematic.
This is also why I don't like 3D movies. They want you to look at the center at the frame. I like to look around in the frame. What is going on in the background and at the sides
Loving the nerdy detail of this. I’m all here for it. Spielberg is a master.
You can say anything you want about Spielberg as a storyteller (all the adjectives have been exhausted: soapy, saccharine, predictable, too Hollywood, shallow etc) but one thing is certain, he is a hell of a filmmaker. No living director blocks and moves the camera like Spielberg, NO ONE. in terms of camera movement, framing and blocking is up there with Kurosawa, Welles and Lean.
Love to see him make a remake of Dirty Harry, Spielberg style. Throughout the years, I have enjoyed Steven's movies. I had to go to the theater to see them and it was well worth it. Movies like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" had to be seen at a theater to get the full effect. Those movie years were the best.
you could say all those things, and you'd be wrong. He is a deeply humanist and Popular director.
@@leeringduckling I don't think anyone is saying Spielberg isn't popular. I mean at the height of his career he could be considered the most popular artist whoever lived.
Dude Ridley Scott exists.
@@thealifexablecreed9811 that’s a nice joke.
This is why I HATE the DSLR UA-camrs that shoot everything at f/1.2 and call it cinematic 🤦♀️
Bright apatures still are a very useful tool and also a low effort way to draw attention to your subject. They definitely can be overused even in photography but when you pay for a F1.4 lens and carry the extra weight, expect you would want to utilise the wide apature.
Great Video! This reminds of Bicycle Thieves and the entire neo realism film movement where every corner of the frame told a story and not just focusing on the main character
I wish more filmmakers understood how to use depth of field. I feel like some just go with super shallow cause they fall in love with the Bokeh, not paying enough attention to how it affects story. I can’t tell you how many times I’m asked to pull at a 2 or less. I can do it but it’s hard to bury pull when you have 2 or more characters relatively close to each other but just out of reach to hold them together. Anyway, thanks for the video!
but also, I don't think Spielberg used wide depth of field as some bold artistic choice, he was trying to get as much of the scene in focus to more easily tell the story and catch all of his scene. He's never been a director to make artistic choices. He's making movies not films.
You really have to think about proportionality too. If you shoot something wide open, and more than 50% of the image is just an out of focus background then what's compelling about that image?
@@wiseguymotionpictures1416 I mean... any photographer or filmmaker would argue the subject is the compelling part, and purposefully throwing out the background is getting rid of distractions. There's plenty of shots both still photography and cinematography that have backgrounds that are blown out either with bokeh or exposure. But it can also be a cheap trick. I don't think Speielberg did it though for artistic reasons... I think he just always wanted as much shit to be in focus as he could... cause why not. Spielberg is a storyteller filmmaker, not an avante garde artist trying to be clever with the camera.
Everyone who does photography goes through this journey. On one hand you have the ulttra blurry swirly bokeh stuff, which is great for artistic or creative portraits, but for street photography I shoot a lot at ISO 400, aperture between 8 and 11 and shutterspeed varying on whether I am shooting shadow or direct sunlight. Of course, with photography, fixing in post is also half of the game.
I end up zone focusing a lot and am able to shoot from the hip with these settings which means I don't need to/have to set up shots as much, meaning I am not distracting people with my camera as much. Great for interesting candid shots.
At first I wasn't sure if this was for me with all the technical jargon, but I caught on surprisingly quick thanks to your presentation style. Thoroughly fascinating, educational, and well done, sir.
This is the best video on UA-cam for anyone who wants to become a good film maker
I think shallow depth of field became so exciting bc all of a sudden young filmmakers had access to fast glass and big sensors via DSLR, and we went from camcorders to something much closer to Super 35 w cinema lenses. It gave us a new aesthetic that wasn’t previously explored unless at a massive budget level. I do love to shoot deep depth of field as well, however I believe this is the reason for the shallow craze!
Great video! Yes, there is a typical magic to Spielberg films. He definitely honed his craft by directing many episodes for TV shows, such as Columbo, before feature films. It's definitely his smooth camera movement with beautiful movement parallax, I'd say inspired by Tonino Delli Colli, ace cinematographer for Sergio Leone's masterpieces in Techniscope (often stark sunlight, spherical, 2-perf): The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly, and Once Upon A Time In The West. I'd say Spielberg's use of light and his volumetric rays of light - and John Williams' music are huge contributions as well.
Your love for films is contagious and inspiring. Thank you. 🙏🏽
You’re welcome!
Wolfcrow clearly understands cinematography! I do mostly corporate work (ie: the talking head) and I can say there is nothing more frustrating than having people trying to BS their way or reciting buzz words. Thank you Wolfcrow. 👍
Rewatched Jaws this year in 4K in my home theater, and realized not just the use of depth of field (ALL perfectly sharp and in frame), but framing. Immaculate use of framing throughout, where you almost have to (in a good way) pivot your head from side to side.
Do you really believe that 4K is necessary for home theater? The switch from DVD to Blu-ray on my 110" screen was of course immediately obvious. The DVD simply can not record all of the necessary information.
But _even at a view distance of 1:1 (8 ft)_ there is nothing about a Blu-ray presentation that leaves me thinking that I'm missing anything, or has me bothered by obvious visual degradation. Yes, here and there is a movie with sub-par encoding, but that's not the fault of the medium. I can only say that I have very good eyesight, as the converse is something that might well contribute to a person's satisfaction with a lower standard.
As for audio, it doesn't get any better than lossless, so Blu-ray usually has that covered. But I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on this.
What you're describing is the 'absence' of DOF. There's no blur so no DOF.
@@HagbardCeline23 *"What you're describing is the 'absence' of DOF. There's no blur so no DOF."*
By definition, the greater the depth of field, the less blurring. Infinite depth of field means a 100% in-focus image.
Perhaps you are a gamer, and have been mistaken by the incorrect use of the term in the gaming industry.
@@bricaaron3978 I agree, I remember the first time I walked into a store that had one of those new fangled HDTVs, walking up to one of the big screen CRT models and just about putting my nose on the screen and the pixels were still quite tiny compared with what I was used to with a regular TV signal on even a 13" screen.
The limitation on how many pixels make sense is primarily the size of the room and the size of the TV. The human field of vision is limited and knowable. It's a relatively simple calculation involving your eyes angle of view, how far the pixels need to be apart to be distinguishable and your seating distance. For most of us, that's not really a calculation we need as even a Bluray is probably far more pixels than we need for any room that isn't a dedicated home theater, and even then it's probably more than enough. A DVD is often times plenty, the main advantage of Bluray over DVD is the colors available and sound, not the extra pixels.
@@bricaaron3978 Not who you asked, but 4K definitely has a noticeable affect even at home. I'm someone who used to assume 4K in general was pointless. It's obviously not as dramatic as DVD to Blu-Ray, and it'll depend a lot on the film and how it was shot and mastered, but many are tangibly sharper even about 10 ft from my 55" tv. I was floored by how sharp Dunkirk looked the first time watching it on 4K Blu-Ray.
Though even more drastic is HDR. I think many people are put off by or have a bad impression of "HDR" due to the amount of displays that do it poorly, or advertise the ability but don't have the brightness etc to do it justice. But watching content that really makes use of it on a well calibrated screen adds so much to the picture. Almost makes it hard watching movies in the cinema.
Loved this thanks. Good to be push out of clinging to the obvious choice by realising that in many cases, this can in fact limit your creative expressiveness. Spielberg is undeniably once of the greats and we have so much to learn by his unique approach.
I recommend the reading of the associated article too. Most of what we read on filming techniques concentrates on how to achieve a shallow depth of field, so as to draw the eye to the element in focus and isolate the rest. So we are shown a different perspective here. Thanks Sareesh.
It’s a shame that audiences’ attention spans have shortened so much that Spielberg’s style of filmmaking seems out of fashion. He truly understands storytelling, especially visual storytelling. He’s one of the few rare filmmakers that knows how to make intelligent, well-crafted populist fare that doesn’t treat the audience like idiots.
Well, i for sure felt like an idiot watching ready player one. What a turd that was lol
Thank you so much. I understand and use depth of field as a still photographer, but although I knew when I was a kid watching early Spielberg films that his presentation was unique, I didn't have the vocabulary and I didn't know much about cinematography. Very helpful!
Look, I’m frustrated that filmmakers on UA-cam are so focused on theory that they refuse to or forget to talk about the practical implications of these techniques. How are we talking about deep DOF and not talking about lighting and exposure? Many indie filmmakers are using shallow DOF simply so give themselves more light, especially with tight budgets or in situations where you can’t simply add more light to a scene. And esp outside of the traditional filmmaking process. I’ve been a videog and photog for 6 years now, self-taught using mostly YT, and it’s super frustrating to be put on a job where I can’t know the lighting set up before hand. If an environment is too dark, I might have to shoot at f1.4 just to keep my ISO below 2000, shooting on APS-C. The key fact is that Spielberg ISN’T just shooting with a deep DOF, he’s ALSO got access to millions of dollars in lighting equipment, rigging teams, electricity wherever he is. It IS NOT ENOUGH to know the theory behind the aesthetics of a shot. The financial context and the access and freedom that it provides, has a DIRECT relationship with HOW YOU ARE SHOOTING. And not just “I’m using a better camera and better lenses now,” but also how much light you have to work with, and how that directly affects the gear you choose and how it performs. And I wish that when people make educational videos like this, they talk about not just how these ideas affect the creative thinking when composing a shot, but how they effect the unavoidable aspects of filmmaking for us who aren’t in Hollywood, or are even working solo - the technical and logistical compromises and necessities that made those shots possible.
Tbf cost of lighting being the reason movie makers of old would have loved access to the shallow depth of field available now was mentioned in this clip. As was Spielberg's access to quality and expensive lighting/sets.
I can't believe I just rewatched the entire video for a single sentence. May as well be a footnote. Anyway, It's a moot point - Hollywood producers were NOT wishing they could "save money" on lighting. Lighting alone takes up a relatively small part of a multi-million dollar budget. It can take a proportionally large part of a small filmmaker's budget, because we're not spending millions on other things like story rights, transportation, set, etc. Besides, after Spielberg made it, when he needed more money, they'd just give it to him. Jaws went way over it's budget, but was still a pretty inexpensive movie compared to most blockbusters. And when it made multitudes more money, they wouldn't dream of letting lights getting in the way of Spielberg making more money.
shhhh you're making too much sense.
@@usernamehandle well.. I watched the video once and I got that point from him. He even mentioned a personnal experience of his short movie that he had a hard time to get it done because of budget...
Wtf is your comment xD Make your own video to talk about it if you are not happy
He mentioned speilbergs access to expensive equipment multiple times, including early on when he mentioned his prodigy status. He also went into the difficulty of lighting the shots given his choice of lens, due to the specific types of lighting mostly available at the time and the enormous power usage. You might be right about other videos on UA-cam, but this creator did cover the difficulties. He just didn't make those tradeoffs the subject of the video. On the up side, it sounds like you have some of the skillset and knowledge to attempt that video, and might have found a niche.
Okie dokie, thanks for the neat conspectus! I find Spielberg's camera movement gratuitous or heavy-handed at times, but thanks for pointing out just how well he does it.
I think every cinematographer / director should implement deep focus to their practice because when you have a very speciality large crew to make a film together, everything in the frame can be controlled. Therefore, deep focus helps a filmmaker to show their audience how they have considered everything in the frame and nothing to hide 🙌🏼
0:01 "Wide angle apertures"?
Right, that didn't get off to a good start did it?
I guess he meant to say "Wide open apertures"
Glad I didn't have to say it. Obviously just a slip up, but man, that was pretty soon in the video. haha
Yeah he mixes "wide lenses" and "wide open lenses" up a couple of times. Not good if this is the very subject of your video.
Very similar style to many comic books, that's why his movies work so well at entertaining the mind in a fun and creative way. Very immersive but also leaves so much to the imagination.
This video taught me a lot. I only shoot stills, but I've been using film and filters to try and get "Spielberg" colors. Now I think I have some ideas for lenses and apertures. Thanks. Good video.
Just remember, back in the day filters etc were expensive. Mastering your technique was free.
One reason people avoid deep focus these days is because it doesn't look as good on digital. Film has layers of color sensitive crystals which gives it a dimension that single chip digital sensors don't have. When you stop down and use crisp lenses at an ideal stop on a well-lit set, film has astonishing depth and beauty. This is even more enhanced when you shoot with a larger format like anamorphic or 65mm. Digital tends to look flatter the more you stop down and we tend to associate the infinite depth of field visible at F16 or F22 with video. You also have to know how to light for depth. The soft bounce lighting predominant in movies today tends to look very flat when you stop down. Classic deep focus films were lit with hard light which created layers of detail and made characters pop. Many of Spielberg's 70s and 80s films were shot on Eastman 5247 which is a very contrasty saturated stock and creates natural separation between warm skintones and pale blue skies. Not to mention his absolute mastery of blocking and framing. Most directors these days use shallow depth of field because it's easy to create a pretty frame when 90% of it is out of focus.
A few weeks ago I was recording a video with deep focus and it definitely looked strange, being able to walk about 10 meters in focus and get to 30 centimeters from the camera, somehow, felt wrong 😂
I don’t buy the film crystal layers vs digital argument, but your observations on lighting and colour cuves sound spot-on.
@@danielkharlak539 go shoot deep focus on an Arri Alexa and tell me it looks bad lmao
but shallow focus doesnt look better on digital neither! it seems like a false background, like using green chroma or similar.
@@vinagredelmal7717 Google "Arri Alexa LF" and then come tell me that Digital Doesn't look good lol
Even though as you mentioned Steven has a major influence on the lens selection, he allows the cinematographer (Allen Daviau from his early work & Janusz Kamiński for his current work) to take care of the film stock.
The film stock is a key component to the lens.
I am a 100% film photographer so pardon my bias in favor of film comment.😊
Thank you for this truly "eye-opening" analysis.
Great take on a legend. Given the fact our human eyes rarely rack focus, shooting a smaller aperture allows for his films to feel real as if seen with the human eye in person.
Nobody shot wide open at F2.8 or bellow back in the days for many obvious reasons :
Films were shot at F5.6-F8 or above when it was possible to show everything in the frame and even when close focused, F8 gave enough depth of field to see approximately what was happening on the background and enough separation on the close subject without blurring the whole picture behind. The location, and the whole work of set design was a piece of art and needed to be shown. This is the reason why they used strong lightings with higher contrast and less diffusion than today.
Finally, a few directors shot at F2-2.8 or even bellow only when it was man absolute obligation, in very dark light scenes or to put extreme emphasis on the subject and create an effect with the background on very few shots.
🤓
Thanks for making this. What caught my attention is that he preferred a 21mm lens on super 35. Practically the same equivalent focal length as the wide end of the Canon 24-105 I use on my Z-Cam E2 with a Speedbooster XL.
Great video on the greatest director of all time 👍
The Stranger Things/E.T. joke is hilarious! I thought you made a mistake for a second. Clever
What? Where was the joke, I missed it.
@@lauristonbrewster9097 When the ET scenes show up he credited them as "Stranger Things" then crossed it out
@@orcanimal lmao
Great Channel This video has confirmed my hatred of shallow focus!
Wonderful video, as ever. I’d love to see you do a follow up at some point on Spielberg’s deep focus influences. Orson Welles, John Ford and Jean Renoir are the obvious ones, but clearly he studied DPs too (Greg Toland, James Wong Howe et al). Hitchcock and Howard Hawks were likely influences as well.
It's gratifying to see someone extol the value of deep focus. Everyone these days is so obsessed with "bokeh" it 's insane. A while back, I was DP-ing on a demo for a documentary series a friend of mine was trying to get rolling, and some of my friend's contacts in "the biz" told him the footage was unusable -- because the background was in focus. :/
Yeah, that's why all the UA-camrs are pushing full frame cameras as the only thing that matters--because it gives you nice bokeh. 🙄
Is it that an attitude that "the focus" of a shot should be literally the only thing in focus? There seems to be a lack of trust in the director to use the language of cinema and for the audience to understand it, everything has to be so simple.
Out of all of the things to make a good movie, (script, sound, lighting, blocking, actors, costumes, sets and props) the camera is probably the least important variable. Without perfecting everything else, the camera may as well be a potato. And if all that is perfect, a potato may actually be good enough.
I think this crave for bokeh nowadays comes from the fact that cellphones mostly shoot in deep focus. Shallow deep of field is something that only proper cameras can achieve, so it gives more of a "professional" look. Jesus, cellphones are even trying to imitate shallow deep of field digitally 😅
@@giuliobonasso3663 I think most of the audience do not know what bokeh is. They just see "yeah, that part of the screen is out of focus".
One definite trend is the use of narrow optical focus to guide where the literal focus of a scene should be. While this is effective, this does lead the audience a bit too strongly on what is important, it literally does not let the audience see what is out of focus. It's functionally very close to an extreme close up, the context of their surroundings is limited to a blur.
If there is more than one person or think in a frame at the same time, it's more likely that rack focus will be used to say exactly where and when the audience should move their metaphorical focus, when the optical focus moves.
This is an awesome video - thank you for shedding light on the fact you don't need to shoot wide open :) I like dialing my shots to 4.5 or 5.6 sometimes to get more of the background
Deep focus is usually really good, but also requires more skill/budget. You need to have good blocking and flow between scenes so the viewers naturally follow the point of attention, but depending on the setting, you may also need budget to get a suitable background that fits the scene. Obviously trying to recreate Indiana Jones on a indie film budget would be incredibly difficult and require choices made due to it.
But it also doesn’t mean shallow depth is bad, just that there should really be thought out into it (e.g. the Batman. Creates the oppressing feeling of Gotham, as well as portrays Bruce’s mindset, with how he’s so hyper focused on vengeance. Especially love the scene where he gets shot, and only his face is focused on. Barely as well).
Notice some of the examples shown in this video are from the movie Duel.
I detest the modern blur look of backgrounds. I want to see everything clear
I've screwed up so many photos because I missed focus. So ridiculous. No more!
Spielberg’s filming technique adds to each film’s feeling of realism. I love directors who give us more than one focal point. I’m but a humble photojournalist but I primarily shot with a Nikkor 16-35 mm and 80-200 mm. I rarely used anything in between. Except an 85mm, f/1.4 that I often used wide open to shoot basketball in dim high school gyms. Nothing like manual focusing moving targets with a DOF of about a foot. I loved the Sports Illustrated photographers who shot basketball wide angle with high-power strobes in the rafters.
With this idea of avoiding shallow depth of field, even a smartphone camera without post Bokeh, but with camera moving skills, can create a good involving storytelling.
This is the main reason why I've always wanted Spielberg to do a comic book movie. His visual style is perfect for capturing the essence of framed illustrations IMHO
He did Tintin, which is a Belgian comic book series.
I don't understand the technical terms at all, but I feel smarter for having watched this.
I learned photography using a large format camera, and for a long time followed the f/64 club method. I usually shot photographs at f/32 or more.
I didn't start using shallow depth of field until I got into cinematography, but I still favor deeper focus that allows the environment to play a major part of the story. It just requires learning how to manage the frame to control the viewer's eyes, which includes combining lighting and the fine art photography composition techniques.
Hey man, I just recently stumbled across your channel and your videos are great. You really fill a niche discussing cameras and film stocks in a way I haven't seen before and I really enjoy it.
wonderful video wolfcrow! if not one of your best :) I enjoyed every second of it, so well explained!
Excellent work as a photographer i only use 8 or 5.6 aparture, which is not totally the same for T but provides excellent work if you use a very good lense.
Wonderful analysis of one of the great film directors of all time. I make videos of my city of Toronto and surrounding nature and I’m definitely influenced by Spielberg and how he frames shots and moves the camera. Another big influence is Kubrick. You want to learn how to shoot and do interesting framing, watch the films of these two brilliant filmmakers. That’s your film school right there.
Wide open apertures really dont show up in big budget movies that much at all. To me, it feels like one of those things ppl get obsessed with when they first start getting in to videography. But then eventually grow out of.
It hides bad set design; which big budget movies are not at a loss for.
Dune seemed to have a lot of shots with shallow depth of field. Sometimes it’s more about lighting as you need a lot to get small aperture especially if you’re shooting film.
@@kronk358 rewatch blade runner, 1917, Dune 1, Dune 2, Alien, Saving Private Ryan, etc……….
@@fd3871That makes sense; it would do that. Is that what they teach in film school? Use shallow depth of field to hide a lack of budget by blurring out background elements inconsistent with the story? I would have thought the more important limiting factor would have been the lack of budget for lots of light to light up the set so the lens can be closed down for a bigger depth of field? Or a lack of an experienced DP / gaffer to know how to get the most out of what you do have?
I used strobes (in combination with a 1970s era Mamiya RB67 camera that used a leaf shutter in the lenses not a curtain shutter in the camera body … such a shutter could synchronize at any shutter speed) almost entirely so I could usually get the DOF I wanted except on very large sets.
lighting and professional light design
I’m an entirely self-taught still photographer and I manipulate depth of field in order to draw attention to places in the frame I want it to be. Or not to be. Or create an overall visual experience in the frame by having most, about half, or almost none of the visual elements of the frame in focus. That kind of thing.
I worked on a couple of TV commercial sets (beer commercials I appeared in, shot in overnight after closing in a bar I also managed to keep my photo studio lights on in the daytime!) and watched the director / DOP do the same thing essentially during the filming / videography, using some pretty clever dolly or jib arm camera moves combined with zoom and focus pulling on the hero product and in another shot the same kind of thing on them. hero character / bartender (me). It was a clever visual trick I think the director was kind of a bit in love with that day (I’m sure it was in the story board somewhere) since he did it so many times on so many shots that ended up in a beer commercial a couple months later. It looked pretty cool when it worked “right” according to him when I had a peek at the video playback of a few of the good takes.
It almost convinced me at the time I should have gone back to some school or other for a little bit more schooling to meet some connected relevant people and learn motion picture camera systems and a bit about lighting for cinema… and become a director then maybe get a job at a little specialty film company that made creative music videos for fun and TV commercials for money instead of just toughing it out sticking it through the transition film to digital in commercial still photography! I’d spent so much time in school already and wound up in photography of all things (which had nothing to do with my university degrees) by the mid-1990s. So … no … no back to a little bit of intense and focused film school for thirty year old me to learn to be a director! Couldn’t bring myself to do it and spend more on school I wasn’t sure would go anywhere.
Digital killed so much basic commercial photography work though … and then the internet drove a stake through the heart of the need for professional looking highly produced printed corporate communications and the conceptual product catalog, etc. for any but the wealthiest of clients. Stock digital photos of character actors and just plain amateurs, instead of produced on. location custom concept shoots of models. So many things just got … cheap. And not very much fun. And not at all profitable.
It was a rough time for commercial photography, the era from 1995 to 2005. It was like a pandemic went through and killed two-thirds of the models, beauty and styling professionals artists and many others who lost the entirety of their living to the internet and the digital camera and DIY advertising and marketing. Still immensely profitable for the clients of course, although a few of them disappeared too particularly the ad agencies and design firms.
But it was like the Black Death went through but it didn’t really make the value of the laborers who survived any higher … almost all the extra profit just got scooped up by the biggest and most successful of the clients.
And so that phenomenon continues to this very day.
Sorry for the digression.
Isn’t it just mostly caused by the fact that novice directors and DPs don’t have enough light on their sets to allow them to close down their lenses sufficiently to give them the deep depth of field that a Spielberg takes for granted because if he sticks his light meter toward his camera from all the key areas of the frame on his set and if they’re too dark to show up as he wants them to on the film or the sensor he just adds the little spot lights he needs until they do. And if the whole set is too dark when he measures the whole scene overall to give him the f-stop on the lens that gives him depth of field he wants then he just adds broad lights until he gets there?
Or the other way around? Broad lights first, spots second?
Either way, I would think that starting DOPs fart around with story telling using narrow depth of field or by moving the tiny area of focus in a shallow depth of field frame during a filmed sequence because they just don’t have enough expensive and complicated lights and the light modifying equipment (and the experienced people who know how to set them up so they still look natural … or simulate whatever look the director wants to simulate on film or sensor … then monitor the lights and meter them all and do the calculations, etc) to light up a big set … or even a medium sized set.
And they “ grow out of it” when they get good enough to merit a budget that includes money and people for these lights. Or they develop a style that doesn’t need them at all and still looks professional anyway. That’s gotta be tough I should think though!
Beside all the technical reasons, i think it also comes down to trusting his audience and his material. He respects his audience. If the subject matter is captivating by itself, you don’t need as many tricks to draw the audience in. The human eye is the ultimate camera and it will naturally assign things to the foreground and background on its own.
I think wolfcrow hits the nail on the head when he says the viewer can focus on anything they want in the frame at any time. To use zoom lenses far narrower than the human field of vision, or to rack focus between subjects in the foreground and background, are “special effects” that foreground the artifice of cinema. Spielberg is a naturalist, and wide lenses with wide open apertures is the best approximation for the human eyeball, so the viewer can feel like they’re in the movie, rather than watching a movie.
Deep focus is what I like doing but the amount of lighting for a small budget project doesn’t really work. But using duel iso sensor makes a world of difference. Your videos take me away from all the rubbish content out there. We need more of these insightful content. Keep it up bro, you have my support.
This is somewhat overstated as there are many many singles and two shots in Raiders alone that have shallow depth of field. Rarely do cinematographers shoot wide open simply because it’s the softest part of the lens. But shallow depth of field is achieved all the time without being wide open with 35mm / anamorphic.
I love how you dropped in 'Stranger Things' on E.T!
My cinematography teacher maintained that shooting T5/5.6 was the best aperture to film at because you will always get the best performance out of your lenses there. I was always a fan of shooting close ups at lower apertures to emphasize and isolate the character, but I get why Spielberg does it his way. It pulls the audience more into the film as if they're right there with the characters.
John Frankenheimer had a similar philosophy. He shot wide and with deep focus fields because he wanted the viewer to choose where to look in a wide scene. He wasn't beyond a shallow depth of field when the moment required it but so many wide scenes with everything sharp was a trademark of his.
You have given me something to think about, thank you.
5:18 Fascinating to see a Redhead (800W lamp) attached to the camera crane during the famous drinking-game one-er. Going to go and rewatch the shot to see if it’s detectable (moving shadows etc)
Love your videos and content, subscribed immediately! More of this sort of content pls!
Duel is really great debut feature
This is a brilliant analysis. It would be wonderful if you made a comprehensive analysis video on the Master John Milius! Sincerely, BEAR.
I've seen people doing "how to" videos on UA-cam at f1.2 and half the stuff isn't even in focus. Just because you can doesn't mean you should! I always assumed Spielberg shot everything how you'd see it if you were there in person. Somehow the shots are fascinating without being distracting. He pretty much always chooses the perfect focal length and depth. My favorite director of all time, by quite a bit!
This is an example of excellent documentary film making for the masses online
Fascinating info, read beautifully and executed bang tidy.
Spielberg himself would be more than happy with this study of his huge body of stunning work. 😉
I'm so glad that in recent years there has been a serious reclamation of Spielberg as an American cinema master. There seemed to be a period that peaked during the early and mid 2000s where ppl turned against him and no genuine, thoughtful analysis of his work - let alone his masterful formalism, was ever given.
Luckily we've all learned our lesson.
@@nope5657 this did not happen. Pretty sure he's been taught in film school since he started.
@@aperson4640 I mean, it quite literally did. Both in the casual online space and in critical circles. It took off when Terry Gilliam slagged Spielberg in an interview. And there was a wider critical note of "Spielberg is just populist schmaltz" going around for some time.
Being taught in academic settings does not negate wider conversation.
I felt the same way, but to me it was mostly regarding certain frustrating endings (The War of the Worlds) or editings (Minority Report, Munich) at that time, that were below its usual standards.
But I do not think someone serious ever questioned the quality of its staging and framing capabilities.
@@quentinrenard2402 I've never once heard anything about the editing in Munich being below par. Munich is probably his most acclaimed post-2000 film.
@@nope5657 then maybe its a cultural difference, looking at French film revews, it's one of its worst rated movies in the 2000s (along with The Terminal an AI, that were not that great either to be honest)
Camera movement is key to the "language" of a given film. Spielberg uses it to switch the viewers' perspective from narrative, observational and participant in the story. He takes into consideration which point of 'participation' he wants to have the viewer 'participate' in. It's a much more complex visual structure which draws the viewer into the story as a participant rather than just an observer.
Wolfcrow you’re so legendary. Incredible lesson thank you
My pleasure!
I was born in 1981 and Empire of the Sun is one of the most influential films I have ever seen
From a photography perspective: Many of these shots would work great as photos, but not all of them. For video, you do have motion to help with subject seperation. Obviously you don't have motion in photography, so you have to use other tools.
A shallow DOF is one of these tools, but I think using other tools can really help with creating excellent pictures: lines, shapes, color. A shallow DOF is basically a subject seperation cheat button.
spot on👍
I have always love the way these movies looked compared to newer movies, but could never put my finger on what made them different
Many of the shots you’ve referenced aren’t wide angle lenses - they’re 50mm-100mm lenses with wide angle framing. There’s a key difference there. He rarely went lower than a 24mm lens.
Great video!
I was always a promoter of this kind of lens. The advantage is that most cameras today come with a lens like this as their kit.
@6:27 I see what you did there. Agreed 100%
Spielberg uses shallow dof sparingly and purposefully. The scene in ET where Elliot cuts his finger and ET heals it has some closeups as delicately shallow as any low budget indie. It reminds me of how in THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL, Wes Anderson's "memory" closeup of Agatha spinning in front of colorful bokeh stands out in a film full of deep focus tracking shots.
I have a 1.4 lens. Initially, I loved it. Now I only use it for portrait shots and night time shooting.
I love how it says "Why would he skip that cool blurried background look" at 0:04, and then immediately shows the blurred background look at 0:09, ha.
I apprenticed with and then assisted a well known still photographer back in the 1970s who taught me what attracts the eye compositionally more than anything is strong contrast with the background, why faces in portraits are illuminated with a “mask” of highlights on forehead, eyes, cheeks,
mouth and chin on darker backgrounds in portraits.
In movies movement relative to the background is a very effective eye catching form of contrast because of the way human vision functions. The rod cells in the periphery of the retina only detect a narrow band of greenish light but are 3000x more sensitive than the RGB sensing cone cells concentrated around the optic nerve in the center 2° of the field of view. So if something moves the rod cells react and the brain directs the eye there and then the brain tunes-out the signals from the rod creating the sensation called “tunnel vision”.
For that reason keeping everything in a cinematic frame is focus and causing the eye of the viewer to react and follow movement is a strategy which mimics how our eyes and brains work subconsciously. In person we rarely perceive with the same shallow DOF of a wide open camera lens aperture because our eye constantly and subconsciously shift focus based on whatever moves and catches our attention.
What shallow DOF does is mimic the sensation of “tunnel vision” where the brain ignores the periphery. Again that’s very effective in still photos to pull attention to a focal point and keep it there but isn’t as necessary in a movie because the fact the focal point is moving will cause actual tunnel vision to kick in if viewing on a large screen making focus shifts with narrow DOF unnecessary and distracting if overdone.
I do find it interesting how a lot of modern filmmakers argue that wide DoF and wide lenses look "amateurish" while shallow DoF and long lenses are more "cinematic", completely ignoring the fact that some of the greatest masters of cinema did the opposite. This is another reminder that it's not about the technique or the tools, but rather how/why you use them. Anything can become a strong style when done with purpose and intention.
Really interesting. So glad to hear you say this in a time when know-it-alls will judge us by our bokeh. I shoot lots of stills in classrooms, where the environment is important to tell the story. In my amateurish videos, depth is welcome - e.g., in music groups where the faces are wonderful and it would be a loss if too many were out of focus. So I understand why Spielberg would want depth for reality and immersion, since it's the way our eyes see the world.
Thank you so much! So much of film is too blurry nowadays, and so many UA-cam camera channels spend so much time poo-pooing on camera gear with greater depth of field, however, as you said, so much of the greatest cinema doesn’t use blown out blurry backgrounds.
@@3dtrip870 “greater” depth of field does not convey any specific meaning. DOF can be either deep or shallow. Also “blown out” means too bright/overexposed, and does not refer to aperture or DOF.
@@RustyShackleford9000 greater means “more”: of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average. Stop being nitpicky, you obviously knew what I meant.
@@3dtrip870 I actually have no idea what you meant. What does “more” depth of field mean? There is deep or shallow focus/depth of field. When you say “greater”, are you saying deep or shallow DOF?
@@3dtrip870 “more” of what? I have no idea what you mean. Are you saying shallow or deep DOF/focus when you use the word “greater”?
@@RustyShackleford9000 you don’t understand greater (more) depth of field, vs less. Let me try to explain this to you 12” of DoF is greater than (>) 1” of DoF. I understand I did not give a baseline number, however, the discussion was started by the video about Spielberg and his use of DoF, which was more, (or greater) than many filmmakers today use. Hope that helps
you know how theres sometime two different perspectives in one shot, i like that in his shots you can see that the camera works extra hard to focus on the subjects and see blur
but you see out of focusing w the frames on long lense also i count tell the difference or what it was
As a former m43 user I often thought how odd it was that so many were so obsessed with a shallow DOF that was rarely ever a part of the great masterpieces. I then moved to FF and while neat I honestly end up shooting stopped down most of the time. It’s just too much razor thin DOF. Ironically while m43 is less sensitive I always felt the lenses could be used at f2.8 vs the f5.6 of FF which kind of balanced them out in the end. The sensors are 2 stops less sensitive but the lenses can be used 2 stops more opened up.
I’m not saying m43 is superior just that people make way too big of a deal about FF and razor thin DOF. Spielberg had a DOF m43 can very easily manage and yet it doesn’t get much more cinematic than his work. My point is people need to stop making such a big about FF and razor thin DOF. Any m43, APSC, s35mm or FF camera is perfectly capable of creating fine art.
In fact considering how much light he needed to use because of stopping down so much ironically m43 would be better for his style. M43 could be shot f4 with the same field of view type lens vs f5.6 he shot on film. This would let in a whole extra stop of light for similar DOF. That extra stop of light would mean not needing as high of output of lights.
Kind of ironic in a way. In this case m43 is actually easier to achieve that same look and FF is actually more difficult. Larger sensors are not always superior. FF would have to be stopped down to f8 for that same look which would mean needing even more light output and a higher cost with no gain.
The thing is I also think that having things all in focus is more like how our eyes see. Anything more than 10 inches away is usually always in full focus. So it feels like you are there and not looking at a photo with everything in the background blurred out.
Spielberg uses various focal lengths to point the audience's eyes to the location in the frame he wants you to hone in on. It's painterly. Whereas, a lot of filmmakers use shallow depth of field only because they think it looks "cool."
No question that Spielberg is in the top 5 directors of all time, but I would argue that Hitchcock was better at blocking his scenes.
That's a crazy coincidence. The focal lenghts I love the most are 16mm, 32mm, 40mm FF equivalents. I shoot 32mm FF Equi. 80% of the time.
I also just doscovered how much of a massive difference stopping down my already crazy sharp 2.8 zoom lens to 4 increases the image quality. It's like a brand new lens. This is on a APS-C body.
But for those special shots where I really need the shallow DOF, i have my full frame body as a b cam
It's really strange this is out, normally I shoot at f2 or 2.8 but there was something I wasn't happy with, using manual focus I found it difficult plus whilst I got better DOF I was never blown away.
So with a client I shot at F4 and I was much happier with the image. Less stressful on focusing and I didn't miss the DOF.
Excellent video! Thanks for making!👍
Fantastic video and incredibly insightful. Thank you!
Leon in the professionnal : The rifle is the first weapon you learn how to use, because it lets you keep your distance from the client. The closer you get to being a pro, the closer you can get to the client. The knife, for example, is the last thing you learn.
Same thing with cinematography … everybody can shoot a zoom lens with a narrow DOF … but it takes a master to use a wide angle lens
Fascinating video! One of my favorite from you
The use of thin DOF all the time and everytime is a sign that you are only at the starting line. We all have to start from somewhere😅