A Case for Deep DOF
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 сер 2022
- Shallow depth of field is cool but have you tried deep depth of field?
Join the Patreon and Discord community - / spensersakurai
Get a free trial and 10% off at Squarespace -squarespace.com/spensersakurai
Colored with my "Cine Vibes" LUTs - www.spensersakurai.com/pocketlut
Take your films to the next level with music from Musicbed. Sign up for a free account to listen for yourself: fm.pxf.io/c/2370680/1347628/1...
Watch my "Cinematic Lighting Basics" Workshop - bit.ly/2WFSChn
My Gear:
The camera I recommend to everyone! - geni.us/IehTv
My favorite lenses - ebay.to/2ZQQdRg
My cinema lenses - bit.ly/3mDwe4u
My favorite light - geni.us/8BRPOB
Vlog camera - geni.us/9BJQi (youtube camera)
Portrait lens - geni.us/LEMih
Vlog lens - geni.us/S7TmA
Tube lights - bhpho.to/3dRnORw
Camera Monitor - geni.us/dkqaV
My favorite cinematic lens filter - geni.us/p519aA
Rode Video mic - geni.us/3d39z
Rode Go Wireless Mic - geni.us/BOkBruB
Moment ND Filter - geni.us/uMX9
#depthoffield #cinematography - Фільми й анімація
When a shot is nicely composed (set design, framing, lighting etc) you don’t have to rely on shallow DOF to make a pretty image.
Exactly but when most of us consumer pro consumer even semi pro.
You wont have accesss to good production design sets , sometimes it saves the thing.
If i manage to shoot in a very nice location and i make a convenient lighting , i love to have some wide shots at f4 and then some medium at 2.8 , only goes for fast aperture .
Can't blame on people to try to shoot with fast aperture, at least it will look good straight out of box.
I'm so exhausted by the shallow DoF overload in movies, commercials and UA-cam, this is a huge breath of fresh air!
Thank you! I’ve always loved shooting with a deep depth of field. I feel like a lot of people lean on bokeh as a crutch (not that it doesn’t have its place) but deep DOF requires you to be a bit more intentional with how you organize the elements in the frame. More people ought to try it.
An amazing example of this is A Hidden Life. Shot on ultra wides 12-14mm and stopped down. One of the most “cinematic” movies I’ve ever seen.
To me, it’s pretty straightforward… chose what you want people to focus on, and capture it. Shallow DOF is used a lot because it helps focus the viewers attention. You can use a deep DOF to show the world around the character, or the world as a character itself.
In Zodiac, I interpreted the use of a a broader DOF as a way to show the killer in “everyday life.” -- No creamy Bokeh, just an average, mundane world.
I also think that doing a film about a different time (and all the set design that goes with it) requires you to “show it off” a bit more to ensure you encapsulated the vibe you’re going for. In this case, the environment seems just as important as the characters when creating the mood of the film.
I hadn't realized the connection between DoF and negative fill. That's a great nugget to remember. Thanks!
What was weird to me is that at T8 the background almost felt fake, because it was in focus and so sharp. But now I'm thinking more and more about shooting like this, especially to reveal a killer at the backdoor. I love these videos and when you introduce ideas with actual test footage!
Interesting experiment. I really like when the entirety of the sudject is in focus, it looks like it's cut out from the background. In combination with a clever backlight, it adds that element of pop the image.
I love this video. Important topic in a creative world where so many people are mimicking each other (subconciously or no). There is a time and place for shallow DOF. But it's hard not to notice many example of shallow DOF that seem oddly purposeless.
Would it be fair to say part of what makes the Zodiac still stand out even with a deep depth of field is the production design? It's not just about an in focus BG but what they fill it with.
I was about to say the same, deep focus means you need to be more careful on what’s in your frame. It also means shallow focus is useful when you are in a boring space and eliminate the background
So you basically saying we should start looking at M43 cameras like the the new GH6 and the Almighty Bmpcc 4K?
I love my GH6 and f/1.7 zooms!
I tend to shoot around f/2-2.8 on the 10-25mm and f/2.8-4 on the 25-50mm and haven’t once wished I had a faster lens, although there are faster native lenses or even those T1 Mitakons should one want even less DOF.
What's an M43 Camera?
imagine if people realised they dont actually need a speedbooster and couldve saved a bunch of money all along
@@OlegUstimenko I literally got called a hipster yesterday for suggesting using native m43 lenses on the bmpcc 4k. The guy was saying you "need to buy" a speed booster if you use the pocket 4k because only hipsters use m43 native lenses and NO ONE uses them commercially.
@@ledheavy26 i hope that guy was recommending a pl mount speedbooster at least in that case. :)
never really understood why that format is disliked so much, since you can replicate basically everything you can do with academy 35, super 35 or even ff if you were to use faster wider lenses. Even if you were using lenses around the T2 mark, chances are that it would look slightly better on mft since its only a stop deeper than s35, and i tend to like seeing some of the background.
I would also like to add that shooting at a deeper focus could improve your composition overall. With more information in your frame, you get have more to manipulate and enhance your visual storytelling
I come from the tiny sensor era. Deep DOF is much more demanding of careful composition, lighting, makeup and set design. You'll notice anything out of place, dirty, broken, etc... By the same token, higher frame rate shooting (48p or 60p) requires absolute PERFECTION in camera movement or it'll look like hot garbage. There's no charm in handheld 60p footage, hehehe.
Reading this and looking over at the Panasonic dvx100 on the shelf thinking how big of a deal it was when it came out with real 24p. I still think the footage from that camera looks sweet.
I am happy because about a year ago I started feeling exactly this way, taking notice that in many movies you can actually see everything. Then I see you talk about Zodiac and I think damn! I thought about this watching that movie too. The background is on focus and it still looks great. Then when The Batman came out I was like man this is just too much. Enough is enough. I love anamorphic but this is too exaggerated (and of course it wasn't Greg's idea, it was the director's. Greg's work is amazing). And then I started studying this thing of not letting the background get too blurry, let it live a little more. And I am happy because I see you now saying exactly the same thing and I think to myself well, if Spenser agrees, that must mean something. Great video, as always, great examples, keep it on.
Nobody can say "Shallow depth of field is better" or "fully sharp image is better" (or more cinematic). Because it depends of the goal you want to reach with a shot.
Shallow Depth of Field can be used narratively so well and you can be so creative with it: Holding back an information, or slowly revealing an information for example. Just like perspective or the area which is covered by the image this is a tool. Also it helps to focus the viewers focus on an object, so they do not get lost in the image.
I think as often as a filmmaker can use a shallow depth of field for a purpose, they can use it as often as they want.
It can also be used to show isolation in one or the other way.
But if you want to introduce a location, or you want to use leading lines or many other purposes the full sharp image is better.
I would not say one is better than the other. It depends on the intention.
But just based on optical opinion... I really like a nice bokeh more if the background is not looking very good. IF the background is looking good, then go for sharp image maybe
I've always preferred deep focus, because it more-so forces you to be intentional with blocking, and it lets the audience be more of a participant by letting their eyes move around the frame to the various elements of the image. Shallow focus for EVERYTHING makes for a flat viewing experience, because what you see is essentially just what it is, and there's less involvement from you the audience.
That's not to say I dislike shallow focus, but perhaps it might be used more effectively as a select choice that stands out from the rest of the film/video. Perhaps if the audience simply MUST see this piece of information, or this facial expression, or this certain movement of the body, then it could be a smart usage.
Shallow depth of field is also used to convey a character that feels isolated from the world around them. Alone. Like any technique, it depends on the purpose of the shot and needs of the scene.
the times the client hires an expensive location and asks you to make the background as blurry as possible and you're like -_- Okay.
It really depends on the context. If the background tells a part of the story, I think it's important to have that deep focus. If the background doesn't matter or related to the story, I think f2.8 is good spot to have that separation. Separation usually results in a more cinematic result. However, when you have lightning contrast between the foreground and the background, that's a different story for deep focus.
I really enjoyed the thoughtfulness of this video!🙏🏼 bravo
Love this journey.
Loved this one. Thanks Spenser!
A commercial movie that looks great shot on a tiny sensor?! Say it ain't so! /s
I also thought the 5.6 and 2.8 were the shots I preferred, I agree t4 would've been a good sweet spot. It's not a coincidence that the vast majority of lenses perform their best in the 2.8-8 range on the iris, it's probably also not a coincidence why Deakins likes being there, it looks great.
I got pretty bored of everything being super shallow depth of field all the time quickly after the Nikon d90 came out and everyone had out of focus and shaky footage. Shallow depth of field should be used more sparingly to emphasize a key aspect or in a more creative manner but it shouldn't be the essence of a shot imo. I LIKE seeing things in focus in movies, the atmosphere, the environment they've worked to set up to tell the story, etc. Imagine if all you saw in Blade Runner was a shallow depth of field shot of a characters face 85% of the time, boring.
LOVED this insight! ❤️❤️❤️
Great great video Spenser! I say this ALL THE TIME! I even made a video a while back titled "Full Frame is NOT Cinematic" simply because everyone seems to just go after that look. But Cinematography in the Narrative Space is MUCH MORE about the story and the Cinematography shouldn't be a stand out feature unless the story or source materials asks/demands for it.
Roger Deakins does state in both his podcasts and his forums that he does close down in bright sun because that's what the eyes do. Even in 1917 he would open up the iris in the lower light shots but close down as he moves to exterior shots. This is text book practice in nearly all classic cinematography books and it's one of the reasons why Cinema Glass has a click-less aperture, for a smooth transition from light to dark just as our eyes would do.
I've made an example before but fantastic films were shot on Super 16 and that's similar frame size as the Viper camera (only slightly larger) But films shot on Super-16 are beautiful. Fruitvale Station is a prime example. El Mariachi another. Even The Walking Dead up until the most reason couple seasons I believe were shot on Super-16 film. All beautiful frames with a deeper depth of field.
Again great video Spenser!
As always, great work Spenser!
I was just having a similar conversation with some friends. For me I think the difference comes down to delivery color rendition, resolution and sharpness. Higher resolutions and higher levels of sharpness always cheapen the image for me, DOF rarely comes to my mind when I think of what makes something cinematic.
Great video. So many youtubers say stuff like, "ShOot @ f1.2 to loOk moRe CineMAtiC gUYs!" When in reality, most cinematic footage is not shot wide open. What people fail to realize is that subject separation should be used to assist in telling the story, not just make something "look cool." Even these tests don't make may say, "yup, that shot is definitely more movie like" because in film making, context matters as you aptly point out in a lot of your examples.
My point is this: Don't shoot wide open to make something look "cinematic", instead shoot at an aperture that best tells your story. There's a time and place for ever technique, and shooting wide open is not a technique that needs to be constantly used.
Very interesting topic!!
Just last week I read that EXACT Deakin’s forum about what he tends to set his Aperture at, so a very timely video for me and I totally agree with ur ideas on this!
Just coming to a conclusion now that Netflix and other streaming services are pushing shallow DOF, not just because it’s more corporately viable in commercial production across all genres and show/movie formats, but also because that focus plane shifting across shallow fields looks better on mobile devices more than big screens! Shallow depth of field works better to distinguish elements of a video when watching something that fits in your hands, but in Cinema, the deep DOF works best as your eyes scan a greater physical distance as they would in real life.
This feels analogous to looking at a monitor vs looking through a window, or “screen” if you prefer.
Inspiring
I think depth of field comes down to the needs of the scene. The purpose of the shot plays a part in how in focus the background is behind a subject. If you're shooting a narrative story, a background that is very much out of focus would be useful if you're trying to convey a character's state of mind or feelings of being separate from the world around them. Feelings of isolation. Deep depth of field. Shallow depth of field. Depends on the purpose of the shot.
Perhaps unsurprisingly (since I'm a middle of the road guy when it comes to DoF); I gravitated to shots at T2.8 and T5.6. When I did more cinematography in film school, I actually liked T4 on super 35 because is isolated the subject but still let me appreciate the background. The T8 shot I could definitely see being better if there had been someone or something important in the kitchen or laundry room (it's a matter of composition). The T1 was actually rather offputting though I could see it being valuable if I wanted a scene to feel claustrophobic, confusing, or perhaps surreal. All that said, "cinematic" is still a word I hate to use because it can mean so many things to so many different people and really isn't descriptive in a meaningful way.
Shallow depth of field is mainly useful in close-ups, I think. If everything has shallow focus, the novelty wears off quickly, but if used sparingly, it should still have the desired impact. It also comes in handy if you're on a budget and can't afford a great location. But I agree with you that if you have a great location, why not show it off by using deep focus?
I try to use DOF with purpose, not just because how it looks. Storytelling first .
With the nice weather I’ve been doing more street photography and it has reset my eye away from really shallow depth of field. Using the whole frame to tell a story instead of focus to highlight a subject.
Haven't seen the video but I agree 👍🏼
Spencer, i've been having the exact same reflections lately. You can easily get a shallow DOF using a 85mm at 5.6, and not much background distance is even required to achieve it. I want at least my talent eyes to be completely in focus, no matter if he/she moves, turns the head or whatever. Ideally, as a one-man-band, I want to only have to rack focus when my talent is walking. As for the background blur, i always try every aperture (using NDs if required) to achieve the look that i'm after, depending on the scene (do i want people to look at the background and notice things, or not?). Most of the time, I close down the aperture but separate my talent with distance instead of wide aperture (when possible). I will always prioritize perfect focus on the subject before making my bg shallower. Lens performance is also improved a lot doing it that way. So yea, small aperture is indeed very cinematic. To me, a true ''cinematic'' image is mostly about cinematography (lighting, color palette and showing only the important things in the frame and nothing else), framerate (24 fps only because it's always been that way) and story telling (the effect it has on our perception of the content). DOF has absolutely nothing to do with cinema IMO... just use the aperture that is appropriate for the shot. I try to always keep in mind how long a shot typically last within a scene (only 1-4 seconds in average). Of course, I'm just a hobbyist with a strong passion and years of experience obsessing about the technicalities of filmmaking... I'm not a professionnal in any mean.
I prefer deep focus significantly. I'll even introduce noise if I don't have enough light in order to obtain deep focus for narrative films. Obviously for commercial work, that'd probably be a bad decision. But for blocking and telling a story, deep(er) focus almost always wins out. Shallow DOF is for punctuation. It's crazy to think how much light older films had beaming in to obtain deep DOF on like 50 ASA film. I'm surprised golden age hollywood stars didn't all become blind or get lit on fire. Deeper focus changes a lot. It changes blocking, it changes the actors mobility on set, it gives them a bit more freedom to move. And realistically, while not everyone is Orson Welles shooting with ultra deep focus, most films (with exceptions of course) are certainly shooting in that 2.8-8 range. It's one of the gripes I have with the popularity of full frame sensors. It's encouraged even more shallow DOF shooting at the expense of narrative tension. Obviously it's all up to person taste, but... a DP's goal is always to help tell the story, not to make things look pretty (in narrative filmmaking, that is).
Deep depth of field is more "Cinematic" 🔥🔥🔥
Shallow DOF is a clutch fad for digital hybrid-camera shooters. Film directors always used it sparringly
1 or 4 looked most cinematic to me, 2 looked like it was from an interview or Netflix doc
S35 is definitely the sensor size for narrative content. You opened my eyes....i shoot a lot of commercial stuff, low budget a lot too........but if i have a scene production crew($$ budget) in a narrative purpose, for sure, S35 is the way to go:)
if a character is in a space that is theirs, like a kitchen or a bedroom or an office, the set design is saying things about them. is it messy is it clean? and if you throw it out of focus you miss out on all those details. when roger deakins shoots in the middle of two characters instead of over the shoulder he allows the characters surroundings to be at play. whats on their desk? what's on their nightstand? it creates context for the character or characters. we have to see their environment with them in it.
DOF is important to decide which subject gets focus. If the production has a big budget, lighting will help to create an unique scenery in the shot. But in no budget filmmaking, sometimes the only thing or the easiest way to attract attention is by shot with wide aperture. There’s more than just creating bokeh to make the shots feel cinematic in the no budget filmmaking. It’s just in reality, people shot open wide because it is the only way that the shot could have enough light. It’s all based on my exp.
new vid lets goooo
The reason why shallow depth of field is considered “cinematic” is because film stock used to be super low iso so the filmmakers HAD to shoot wide open.
Lights have existed on film sets for over a hundred years.
Number 2 is just the Netflix documentary look. Every interview is shot like that, it's painful. Very much the Chef's Table look.
T4/5.6 are good. Plus if you could have an anamorphic lens the better
I think too often people who have little experience take the approach of "open the lens as much as possible", whereas a better approach is "close it down as much as possible".
Would love to hear your thoughts on the lighting & camera on Tales from the Loop✌️
Sak attack!
That deep focus as you know takes so much more work to dress and light the set especially background… Check out “All the President’s Men” very similar…
It does make you really look around at the locations but it’s probably going to cost a ton and you’ll need more help…
7D days! yes!
Clip 4 for me.
That's true, the T 5.6 and 8 look better because we've been prostituted for 15 years and abusing shallow depth of field, like in that awful garbage of Army of the Dead you showed.
shallow depth of field becomes a visual desire that would bring new value to the content without a story and justification of existence, which easily leads to the definition of camp, but thati is it defines our time, form without content or form before content that arises in the mass of possibilities offered by the digital age.
Fixating on shallow DoF is a gimmick at best, and covering for laziness in composition at worst. Moreover, shooting wide open will be a major pain in the ass for the focus puller and will slow the production down.
The funny thing is that there isn't a whole lot of bokeh in real life.
As there is no slow motion and definitely no music in the background when we go to the market. Yet every Joe on UA-cam has to come out with a beautiful girl who does nothing else but try to seduce you by playing with her hair and giving you suggestive looks, while being filmed in slow motion with an erotic soundtrack, and all that drenched in a dream like bokeh.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that real life is far from being Cinematic. Then again when people go to the cinema, they don't want to see what they experience in their everyday lives. So to help them déconnect with reality we give them bokeh, rarely slow motion but a lot of music. In fact I would say that music is Soooo important that it can probably save an otherwise bad movie. I must admit that I am becoming quite allergic to the term Cinematic. It's used so much that it doesn't mean anything any more. It's purely become a marketing stratagem. In closing I think that if you have a good, strong story to tell, that is still the most important aspect of a successful cinematographer.
Are you sure Seven bluray is open gate and not just zoomed in and edges cropped off?
2.8
4
T5.6
none of them!