That's some "Great" depth of field

[Stefan Scherperel]

It seems no matter where I go, who I talk to, where I read on the internet people are always obsessed with depth of field. Now I'm one to appreciate the power of understanding the properties of depth of field, when to use shallow, or deep, but when did the term "Good" come into play here. I'm constantly asked by clients and directors, or reading on the internet people asking for "Good" depth of field. What the heck is that supposed to mean. Even worse is "Great" depth of field. Why don't people understand that the term depth of field is a characteristic neither good nor bad depending on the situation it is used in.
I have gotten to the point where if a director will ask me to give him some "good" depth of field I'll just lay on the :help: and play dumb, even though now the term "good" depth of field seems to mean "shallow". I don't know, maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but it bothers me when specific terms in this art are being lost to the internet.

[Joe G.]

"it bothers me when specific terms in this art are being lost to the internet."

It bothers me when the greatest invention of the modern age (The Internet) is disparaged and blamed for every problem, real or imagined...

[Chris Hagan]

Stefan, I completely agree. "Good" or "Great" are not characteristics of depth of field, they are subjective opinions that don't clearly illustrate one's desired result. I believe you have a valid point.

[Charles Papert]

I also agree. Even though I struggled for years to minimize the depth of field on 2/3" video for commercial and corporate clients, when the time came to shoot an F900 feature I opted not to worry about it and use the focal lengths that best served the visuals, letting the lighting create the depth. Only one shot cried out for a shallower DOF than the camera could deliver and that was fixed in post.

More than anything else, when an AC is having a hard time nailing focus on a given long lens shot that will require an actor to repeat critical performances, if it's a matter of pulling ND and giving a deeper stop, more often than not I'll gladly offer that up. Soft shots and/or boning an actor are not acceptable compromises against shallow backgrounds.

[Shawn Booth]

I think "good dof" came as a result of the lack of dof in a lot of folks' work/careers... Now in the digital age, we have fancy cameras and everyone has a RED - which has great dof, equal to film, blah... Some think/feel that dof makes film and that video with "good" dof looks cinematic...

I see a lot of people assuming they can operate/edit just because they shot something with a prosumer camera/have a laptop and pirated copy of whatever. Same people who post without searching, same who ask questions that can be answered in the manuals or in posts titled along the lines of their problem, same who consider pros elitist...

Jim, is it too late to request EXCELLENT/STUNNING Depth of Field? And make it switchable for those clients without budgets - top quality dof, dof, no dof...

[Charles Papert]

Jim, is it too late to request EXCELLENT/STUNNING Depth of Field?

If Mysterium was considered "great" depth of field, Monstro will be "excellent/stunning" using that particular yardstick.

[Priyesh P.]

I hate the overuse of shallow DOF, it`s most apparent since the 35mm adapters came out, they are used in random situations without any obvious reason.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I hate the overuse of shallow DOF, it`s most apparent since the 35mm adapters came out, they are used in random situations without any obvious reason.

Amen.

Every time I'm asked to watch something and I'm told it was shot with a 35mm adapter, I cringe. My first thought is that I'm doomed to watch over-used shallow DOF with all sorts of artsy-fartsy rack focus moves, dissolves done over a shot being pulled out of focus, etc.. And, sadly, I'm usually right. All valid techniques, but when they constitute nearly every single shot without purpose...

But who am I to complain? All art is subjective, right? So my advice to everyone who thinks they know what "good" or "great" DOF is this: Keep up the good work! All your videos just scream, "Look ma, my student film used that 35mm adapter you bought me for Christmas!". All your efforts to use that "good", "great" or even "awesome" DOF has truly separated your work from mine. And for that, I applaud you. Because, as you have shown us, there is nothing wrong with shooting your lenses WFO all the time. :biggrin:

[Stefan Scherperel]

"it bothers me when specific terms in this art are being lost to the internet."

It bothers me when the greatest invention of the modern age (The Internet) is disparaged and blamed for every problem, real or imagined...

Not blaming the internet, I love the internet, there is an over abundance of information out there. Maybe it would have been better phrased if I had said
"I hate when specific terms in this art are being lost to people who take what is read on the internet for granted".

As far as the whole shallow depth of field comments, I agree 100 percent, and it drives me crazy working with clients that can't acknowledge that a shot can look good without everything in the background being blurry. But thus is the current world we live in, and in all honesty, it's not the worst fad that has fallen into the film industry. There are many fads of the 80's that I'm glad we don't have to deal with today, (Hot red lighting to the left of the face, bright green lighting to the right) :)

[Alex Carr]

100mil at T2 is not that fun...

[Pawel Achtel]

Good point, Stefan.

I suppose, if the director asks you for "great depth of field", they mean f/22, no? http://achtel.com/smiles/rofl.gif I think "good depth of field" starts at f/16 ...try that and see what they say. LOL

Seriously though, there are many situations where deep depth of field is more appropriate and looks breath-taking. Most establishing shots look best with deep DOF. The art of film making is to use right DOF, lighting, framing, camera movements, angle, etc... to make "good" or "great" pictures.

[Shawn Booth]

If Mysterium was considered "great" depth of field, Monstro will be "excellent/stunning" using that particular yardstick.

That was a joke....

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm drooling over the righteous DOF awesomeness that we could get with the EPIC 617. We're talking wicked-good DOF where I can isolate individual nose hairs. :sarcasm:

[Christian Edwards]

I'm drooling over the righteous DOF awesomeness that we could get with the EPIC 617. We're talking wicked-good DOF where I can isolate individual nose hairs. :sarcasm:
How would you go about calibrating this dof do you think ?

over on another thread someone brought to my attention to 28k may be just for image sake albeit a 4k image replicated over the chip to give more res within the 4k framed image (avoiding post processing of the entire 28k image film back ...just the quantization of the 4k field with additional res and @ 28k size). thus really only enabling the same dof you’d get from say s35 image say possibly larger but not to the values express at a 28k film back value ...im not sure on this but yeah please correct me id love to be wrong
:unsure:

[combatentropy]

I am sympathetic to those who crave Shallowness of Field (SOF).

If you grew up watching 35mm movies, but could afford only 1/3" cameras, you may feel a little "jailed" to deep depth of field. Orson Wells used deep focus, sure, but he chose it. The overuse of shallow focus is typical of reactionary behavior and will likely subside some day.

[Isaac Brody]

It is nice this time of year to shoot in New York at night. Lots of christmas and traffic lights.

Yeah, that's some great depth of field. ;)

[Roberto Lequeux]

I am sympathetic to those who crave Shallowness of Field (SOF).

If you grew up watching 35mm movies, but could afford only 1/3" cameras, you may feel a little "jailed" to deep depth of field. Orson Wells used deep focus, sure, but he chose it. The overuse of shallow focus is typical of reactionary behavior and will likely subside some day.

YES... well said. However once you get enough playtime with an adapter, or now a S35 sensor, or even the 2/3" and others big ones, then you immediately begin to develop a style and the mastery of the added tool at your disposal. It has a definite and useful effect, and it is also clearly recognizable by audiences.

It also helps when your art decoration isn't the best, or there at all. When you can't control your location and have people all over the park. And you can use it wisely and help your talent in great way.

[Pawel Achtel]

I'm drooling over the righteous DOF awesomeness that we could get with the EPIC 617. We're talking wicked-good DOF where I can isolate individual nose hairs. :sarcasm:

According to my calculations, if you shoot Epic 617 wide open for a nice face closeup, you will have only ONE nose hair in perfect focus. How do you explain focus puller which nose hair to pull focus to and allow the other hair to fall into nice bokeh? :whistling:

[Tarek S. Kandil]

"it bothers me when specific terms in this art are being lost to the internet."

It bothers me when the greatest invention of the modern age (The Internet) is disparaged and blamed for every problem, real or imagined...

the internet is the greatest invention of the modern age? really?

[Tarek S. Kandil]

I have a 1/3" camera and if i'm using that I just fake shallowness in post. I never had the money to go 35mm unless with stills and dammit it would be soooooooooo nice to capture shallow DOF off camera.

I am however going to keep faking shallow DOF in post till I KNOW how much to defocus according to my distance etc

until I crave the real thing.

I never get my hands on more than one peice of gear at a time. It's really when you feel and live with the pain of not having some feature that you come to appreciate it. Also you stop using a feature just coz you got it, rather you can have a much better sense of where it needs to go concerning subject and task at hand.

Shallow depth of field is sweet. It's a trademark.

I have been working on reediting a short film shot on our 1/3" (or less) fixed lens consumer handycam, and last night I finally finally bought magic bullet frames coz I was CRAVING it by then, and as I"m masking foregrounds and blurring backgrounds I get a call and the original (shitty interlaced videocam) cut won best short at a european film fest (here in beirut its nothing big but its my first)

Made me think. We did this before we knew a third of what we know bout capturing a signal, thought it would bomb, and it didn't.

New version is even sicker I hope, cause it has...


(fake) shallow DOF...

oh wait...

it has GOOD DOF :)

Cheers mates. T

[Tarek S. Kandil]

also, on the fact that i'm still figgering this out.

WHAT IS BOKEH? WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

and most embarrasingly

how do you pronounce it

T

[Roberto Lequeux]

Congrats Tarek

[Tarek S. Kandil]

Dude it came out of the blue. My first flick I did with a friend. He wrote it, directed it and dealt with the actors, I did everything requiring technology. I didn't know a damn thing.

I planned the money, used the cams, edited, aftereffects'ed, and wrote the music and did sound.

Natural light, under 500$ whole thing, most of it went to 25 disposable cameras, with 25 ppl operating lined up to try and do a 'matrix' style camera movement while freezing time between two videos. That worked real nice.

The thing for screening (is INTERLACED). I crunge crange, (cringed? S**t i forgot) with shame.

I didn't know it could be fixed.

Last night, I'm working on some shot, trying to figure something out and I get a call from the person in charge and we won the best short. There were over a 100 films.

Feels weird.

The WHOLE thing is in deep deep deep focus.

I just got to know of Stu Maschwitz I read his blog, and there was somethin terrific he put up and it just puts you in your place before during and after a project. Well worded.

I'll try and find the whole thing...

Thanks mate the ceremony's tonight i'm too nervous to go, director will go.

Cheers

T

P.S. I've never posted on internet. I'm sooooo new to this I'm an audio guy. How do I compress the film to fit online? Our connection in beirut is so slow and I know nothing bout compression and formats still learning bout bitrate and coloring. Can we post stuff here? Or a link?


Congrats Tarek

[Tarek S. Kandil]

Found it.

Feels good to read and think about.

"It's better for a film to have good audio than shallow depth of field.
It's better to have control over your camera than to shoot in HD.
It's better to have good lighting than raw 4K.
It's better to put time into color correction than visual effects.
It's not HD if it's not in focus.
There's no such thing as a rough cut with no sound.
Your story is told using the images you create, not the ones you intended to create.
You're not done editing until you've watched your film with an audience of people who don't care about your feelings.
Your film is still too long.
Your next film will be better. How's it coming?" - stu maschwitz, prolost.blogspot.com

[Tarek S. Kandil]

Applying this to the first, artifact-full film that got some recognition here should be constructive.

"It's better for a film to have good audio than shallow depth of field.

We had no shallow depth of field, I didn't know what it was, the only thing i worried about was composition, I majored in fine arts, so that was my biggest thing. If its composed well, it can work... had no clue bout design elements in film such as DOF ... good idea bout light, but being an illustrator it came out tooooo dark.

It's better to have control over your camera than to shoot in HD.

We shot HD for an SD output. Again didn't know bout depth of field so it was ok to crop and zoom digitally.

It's better to have good lighting than raw 4K.

Natural light

It's better to put time into color correction than visual effects.

We failed this one, skin tones were clobbered, values pushed too far, knew nothing bout any protocol in color correction. VFX were awesome. Color was bad. It was used crudely to identify characters, and very very sparingly.


It's not HD if it's not in focus.

If interlaced counts as out of focus (sure feels like it) then we bombed this one too.

There's no such thing as a rough cut with no sound.

Sound I liked.

Your story is told using the images you create, not the ones you intended to create.

This one hurt too. This one you can only admit to yourself in the dark. We definitely left a bunch of intended stuff out.

You're not done editing until you've watched your film with an audience of people who don't care about your feelings.

Oh yeah. That's when it hurt and I took at the footage again.

Your film is still too long.

The one that screened is 11 min, I'm on thing that's looking like 6.30 now, and i still think a min/half could be shaved off.

Your next film will be better. How's it coming?"

its comin along sweet. Thanks magic bullet, thanks creative cow, thanks prolost and reduser, and thanks WIKIPEDIA.

[Tarek S. Kandil]

... erm, so yeah, DOF, its all about the author's intent and the goal. If its what you need to do something that gets a point across, then do it.

... so what's bokeh then...

[Roberto Lequeux]

It is the optical effect from being out of focus. The bigger the sensor the shallower your DOF will become using the same lens. I'd love to see your matrix shot, and I would love to see your film if you can give us a link to it.

The word is Japanese and you pronounce it something like "Bo-kay", I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

[Tarek S. Kandil]

It is the optical effect from being out of focus. The bigger the sensor the shallower your DOF will become using the same lens. I'd love to see your matrix shot, and I would love to see your film if you can give us a link to it.

The word is Japanese and you pronounce it something like "Bo-kay", I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Thank you... my power went out bout to go out again...

this is a link to the only time i posted the draft that screened. The subtitles are small, and I'm reworking everything. As there is no dialog or barely any, its a bit difficult to follow, i am now doin it over like a silent movie, where dialog is inserted as text.

Also, I know it's dark, and low res, as i really don't know how to approach compression. We're still on 'dial-up' connection here.

Thanks again for the help... would love to know what you think, you're the first person to see my first crack at managing footage to tell a story.

Please be brutal.

Thanks again and all the best,

Tarek

Mitsu Domo

http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=505282542&share_id=19640424779#s19640424779

[Tarek S. Kandil]

If you remember in a couple of weeks, can i show you the later cut? I need to buy magic bullet and get rid of the red x's when i'm done.

Thanks again, sorry if I seem a bit clingy, but I'm new, and no one here really is interested in what i do. Lebanon is busy with political instability tradition and car bombs (haven't had any so far a few months so whew)

Cheers

T