• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Shallow DOF

C

ChimpPhobiaFilms

Why do filmmakers care about shallow DOF so much? I know they are trying to get a filmic look, but what is wrong with the look of digital? When I think about it, I would prefer to have a full image showing the whole area I am in, not blurring it out.

Also, what are some good wide angle lenses for Canon DSLRs?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
ChimpPhobiaFilms said:
Why do filmmakers care about shallow DOF so much? I know they are trying to get a filmic look, but what is wrong with the look of digital? When I think about it, I would prefer to have a full image showing the whole area I am in, not blurring it out.
Click to expand...

DoF is simply a tool. One that helps you guide the audience's attention to where it is supposed to be. There are many other ways, Citizen Kane was shot with very deep focus and used light and shape to direct the audience's eyes. Colour, movement, lines, the different types of space one sets up, staging, all these things help focus the audience's attention.

When we were shooting on video cameras with tiny sensors, we just couldn't get the DoF that the large "sensor" on film could. Now that we can, there's been a huge push to go as shallow as possible, frequently just for the sake of being shallow!

It's just a tool, use it where appropriate for the image/scene/story. Or choose not to. But remember it's purpose, to provide clues as to where the audience should be focusing (no pun intended).

CraigL
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree it's being shallow of current filmmakers, since it's become such a cliche now. A lot of aspiring filmmakers tell me they don't like deep DOF cause it looks home video-ish, but yet they still recognize Citizen Kane as cinematic looking.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Orsen Welles was a pioneer, who did things his way, because he knew exactly what he wanted and why he wanted it that way. Shallow depth of field is 'pretty much' inherent in film cameras, even those used to shoot Citizen Kane. That film got its deep depth of field, in a lot of scenes, by layering different shots, all with a different focal length, on top of each other, to allow the whole scene to appear in focus.

As filmmakers, we aspire to create films that look like those produced by the big players, with their film cameras, but on a small, digital scale. Audiences also expect a certain look from 'film', so we try to give in to those expectations.

There's no reason you couldn't shoot your film with a deep depth of field, and have it look pretty nice, but it wont look like 'film'. That's what we aim for.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DOF is a curse of DSLR filmmakers. Simply because people can expose with just natural lighting.

In order to get deep focus you need lights and wider lenses.
And also note the difference - 5.6 on film camera is insane depth,5.6 on DSLR is probably a minimum
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It depends :P What do you need it for? What do you want to achieve?


I would say the lower your budget the more tele your lense should be ( unless it is outdoors/nature)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sometimes you really want the nice shallow depth of field . When you want your audience to be fully focused on your character you want shallow DOF , deep DOF will distract your audience , not to mention that if you go deep sometimes it will look extremly unprofessional especially if you're shooting with DSLR .

Sometimes you need shallow , sometimes deep .
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I liked shallow DOF, and I sometimes still like it, but I feel like it is becoming overused. A large majority of the people using it are trying to get the "film look". I'd like to stop trying to get the film look, and get the digital look. And I'd like to see if the image is good, and if it seems cinematic with a deep DOF.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shallow dof is not film look it is what people call cinematic look . To get shallow dof on film is much harder than on digital.

There is nothing wrong with shallow dof in close ups,but I am mostly adressing extreme shallowness when a person moves 10mm and he is OOF/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Raynox makes some nice add on lenses: http://raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/egindex.htm

Your T3i has a 58mm filter thread.

I've made a test video for mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCQvBberpK4

Regarding the current obsession over shallow DOF: beats me.
I really don't care.
I just like the way it looks when I need it.
Haven't had much of a reason not to utilize it when shooting my nature videos.
http://www.youtube.com/user/placesofnature/videos

Honestly, the best thing to do is simply grab your camera, tripod, lenses, filters, gear bag and go shoot for an hour (or two) at least every other week, in different lighting conditions, and for different subjects. Then edit what you shot.

Shane Hurlbut promotes an exercise where you find a location, shoot for ten minutes (I think you're supposed to stay pretty much in the same immediate location), then edit what you just shot into a one minute video.
I can't find either of the two examples I've seen, but it's a sensible exercise.

Largely, these help you get faster* with your equipment and allow you to explore different ways of looking at situations.

* Directors and DOPs dicking around with the equipment is one of the greatest buzzkills for actors waiting for you guys to figure out WTH you're doing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shallow DOF is popular simply because up until a few years ago it was nearly impossible to achieve on a low budget. It's a tool like any other, but for most low budget filmmakers it's the newest, coolest tool they've got so it's natural it's going to get the most use. A couple more years and it'll become less common as everyone moves on to manipulating dynamic range in odd ways with their new raw cameras.

That said, it's usefulness is in helping to convey the impression of a 3D space in a 2D medium. You can also use lighting and perspective toward the same goal, generally you'll combine the three in some way to achieve the look you're going for. While it seems like people may be getting tired of the super-shallow look, it's important to remember that the alternative is not deep depth of field. There's not an on/off switch between deep and shallow - there's an entire range that can be used to great effect; try working in the f/4-8 range where your background still softens up but doesn't just become a smear of colors.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
baoliun said:
I would say the lower your budget the more tele your lense should be ( unless it is outdoors/nature)
Click to expand...

I've got to say I can't figure out how this makes any sense. What does your budget have to do with the focal lengths you select?

In fact, my suggestion would be entirely the opposite. Get some decent wide angle lenses, especially for inside work. One of the visual hallmarks of bad low-budget filmmaking is uninteresting, flat, tight/small-feeling indoor work. Think a close up on a character with a flat wall behind them. This is often what you get when you have to shoot in real indoor locations, which are frequently too small to create a good sense of depth or environment with the longer focal lengths typical of most video cameras. A lens in the 24-28mm range at f/2.8-4 in a tight room will make the environment feel bigger, while also slightly softening the background even if it isn't too far away. It gives you a far greater range of options to play with for perspective, and helps to bring in more of the environment into each shot.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
I've got to say I can't figure out how this makes any sense. What does your budget have to do with the focal lengths you select?

In fact, my suggestion would be entirely the opposite. Get some decent wide angle lenses, especially for inside work. One of the visual hallmarks of bad low-budget filmmaking is uninteresting, flat, tight/small-feeling indoor work. Think a close up on a character with a flat wall behind them. This is often what you get when you have to shoot in real indoor locations, which are frequently too small to create a good sense of depth or environment with the longer focal lengths typical of most video cameras. A lens in the 24-28mm range at f/2.8-4 in a tight room will make the environment feel bigger, while also slightly softening the background even if it isn't too far away. It gives you a far greater range of options to play with for perspective, and helps to bring in more of the environment into each shot.
Click to expand...


Talking from perspective of a bum filmmaker (me :) ) if I use wide angle in my room it will look like a very shitty room - because it is. So unless I spend a lot of time/money on set design/props my wide angle shots will look quite meh. While if I use 50mm it will be a face of an actor and a bit of background which is much easier/cheaper to control. I.e take a look at Tarantino's first feature where he literally crams 3 actors in one shot and focal length is quite tight.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top