"exploiting the extreme narrow DOF"

This is what drives me up the friggin' wall about DSLR video and 35mm adapters. Very few even know when to use DOF properly. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

I think there is a time and place for this type of look. It's not so much in most of the corporate world where my bread and butter is. In the narrative world, or maybe for interviews, it's very nice to have as an alternative.

Ushere makes a good point about being taken seriously by a client. A fully decked out DSLR rig with mattebox, rails, etc looks pretty good. There are some that won't take anything smaller than a full-sized eng cam seriously though. Proof is in the pudding though.

ah cheno,

there you have it in a nutshell - A fully decked out DSLR rig with mattebox, rails, etc looks pretty good.

can't deny that at all - but by the time you've added up the cost of all that, you could probably have hired an si-2k with prime lens and had enough to treat the crew to dinner.

the other point you bring up - Proof is in the pudding though is even more telling. i've seen dv1000 pics shot by a pro that looked absolutely stunning, and digibeta that looked so dull and drab you'd have thought the cameraman had put a silk stocking on the wrong end of the lens....

i know it's horses for courses, but as you point out, dof in the corporate world? more than likely they'd complain about the head office in the background being 'out of focus'. maybe music clips? (where nearly all our technology springs from), and drama? sort of doubt that from a practical pov, eg, sound, panning, etc.,

meanwhile, my renders finished.....

With all of the latitude, can't you crank the f/stop down to 22 and get infinite focus in blazing detail?

Video on a DSLR isn't a fad. I was shooting video on a digital camera I bought in 1999 (for big bucks I might add). The video was crap but it has improved over the years. I bought the Nikon D90 because it can shoot video and personally it has delivered video that I otherwise wouldn't have. As far as using it professionally of course you could. Whether it is the right tool or not is another discussion but I have seen some nice stuff shot with a DSLR. Some of the best footage you ever get can be unplanned and spur of the moment.

I think that even in drama, reduced DOF should be used, like other effects, very sparingly.

I rarely go to the cinema, but last time I did, this effect was done to death, and I was inwardly shouting "for god's sake let me see what's going on in the background!"

If the narrative can benefit from a switch in focus from one character to another, then fair enough, it's a tool that can be used, but generally ... leave it out, guv.

Like in every business or artistic endeavor the given field is mostly filled with talentless hacks and a few pros in between. So yes, most amateurish DPs think that shallow DOF = good shot without much consideration for lighting or what the project requires for that matter. That said though the video on DSLRs is the future. Pros:
-- small camera so you can be very mobile
-- high latitude and brilliant colors
-- very sensitive (about ISO 400-800 is usable on current DSLRs).

Here is my om-hand experience:
http://patrykrebisz.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/hands-on-experience-with-canon-d5-mark-ii/

But don't you think out of focus backgrounds look really good in High Definition :~)

yes, but no so my foregrounds ;-(

Those closeups show exactly the problem.
The face is in focus and the back of the head isn't. So what happens when the talent moves their head as they talks. No one can pull focus that fast, if they could I can't begin to imagine how it'd look if the lens breathed.

During my last shoot my EX1's lens readout was telling me I had a 5M DOF. Bollocks, it was less than 1M. Perhaps the optical DOF was 5M but something else funky goes on with high resolution imaging or the processing of it. Film cameras and lens do not exhibit this annoying behavior of objects snapping into focus.

Bob.

Whoa bro, i can't imagine how bad the ACs you work with are if you think those are hard images to pull focus on - for that focal lenght and that f-stop you get about 4 inches of acceptable error..

It's all about the narrative. Remember that one? The actual story?

Now it could be a story on a par with "War and Peace", or a 30sec advert for Custard, or what I do in-house corpo work, in all cases the story is the thing - "To catch the King"!

I was just thinking of an instance where a blurred background would WORK counter to the Peter Wright's observation (and yes I DO agree with you Pete . . but "walk-with-me" on this one), and that would be where the perp was being interviewed by Horatio (CSI Miami). H would be out of focus but the perp would be clear as day. It would be the inadvertent reactions of the perp we would be hit with. We ONLY need to hear H's questions or "stunning" insightfullness's for this to work. Mind you, H being "out-of-focus"? Can't see it meself . . ?

Great thread this. More like it please!

Grazie

Just because I can drive a nail with a screwdriver doesn't make it the best tool for the job.

Plus ditto on what Grazie said.

Story? You mentioned story??
I've lost count of the number of times I've been told you cannot tell a story unless it's shot on (insert name of camera that's the current fad). So anyway I know what camera it was last year, I know this year what camera has to be written into the script but we will not have funding until next year. I guess it's time to consult my crystal ball.

To put this another way, I really tire of people who ask what tool was used rather than the name of the craftsman wielding it.

As to your point, exactly. If there's a bad guy lurking in the shadows my brain's basic instinct to to try to see him. If my eyes cannot focus I may feel compelled to exit the cinema and seek out an optometrist.
Not to say that a well done rack focus does not have it's place it aiding telling a visual story but I really feel seasick when focus is racked back and forth during a converstion. And yes, sometimes I might watch the person talking or I might want to watch the reaction of the other party. Darn hard to do when they're out of focus.


Bob.

"I really tire of people who ask what tool was used rather than the name of the craftsman wielding it."

Another excellent point.

My students just watched Visions of Light yesterday. A very moving (motivating) documentary by the American Film Institute and the ASC on the history of cinematography. Well worth the time if you can get a copy.

This is an intelligent discussion..

With Phillip Bloom now promoting f-stop academy, the premise is the use of DSLR's so it seems and to use anything else would seem to indicate one cannot create compelling content without the limited DOF. Last year it appeared to be lens adapters. What's the new rage next year???

In the right hands - it looks great, but to impose an artificial limit by subliminally suggesting that DSLR's are the way to go for shooting new emerging content seems a little remiss IMO

Just sayin...

Cliff Etzel
Videographer : Producer : Web Designer
bluprojekt

It will be the right tool some of the time, just like a 1000 fps Phantom camera is the right tool at times.

I toyed with the thought of replacing my Sony broadcast camera with a DSLR, but on investigation I found that DSLRs aren't "general purpose" for video yet.

This means that whereas a "video camera" will give a well known "OK" result at all times, the DSLRs give fantastic results some of the time and unacceptable results at other times.

I think we all wish for some of the lushness of the DSLR videos to make it into sole purpose video cameras, even without the DOF that is a blessing at times and a curse otherwise.

This will take larger sensors (sorry), but I'm hoping that this can be brought down to something closer to 2/3" (which is a fraction of 5D's sensor).

I compared an HPX300 (1/3" 1080p native sensor) camera with a Varicam 2700 (2/3" 720p native sensor), feeding the same HD field monitor. Pointing both cameras at the same face, you could immediately see which camera was which. The 2/3" had a gradation in the face that was just beautiful, and the 1/3" image was muddy in comparison.

Part of it was from the better lens on the 2/3" but there was a component that screamed "large format" (which 2/3" is when compared to 1/3").

"... to impose an artificial limit by subliminally suggesting that DSLR's are the way to go..."

From what I see and read it isn't subliminal at all.

Phillip Bloom, bless his heart, is great at promoting Philip Bloom. If you've seen one his films, you've seen them all. That's just my opinion.

Shallow depth of field is tool--nothing more nothing less. Using a cook analogy, it's just one spice on the rack of many spices. What would it be like if every chef cooked with the same two or three spices?

The odd thing, and I've mentioned this before, back in the day cinematographers busted their butts trying to get a deep depth of field. People like Gregg Toland, George Barnes, and Arthur C. Miller went to great lengths to achieve this. Yes, they used shallow depth of field, but sparingly and when the STORY called for it.

Compare the color red with shallow depth of field. Imagine, if you can, that everything is painted red. If this were the case, what impact would the color red have then? The same holds true with shallow depth of field.

Thanks for your insights Jay.

It seems the folks over at dvinfo are all caught up in the DSLR craze as well. Have quit going over there since it seems everyone now has ot have the latest from Canon in order to appear more professional with the limited DOF look. It's always been my belief it's the operator of the camera that dictates the quality of content - not the tool.

If I want the look, I could purchase a lens adapter for my cameras, or even use my NewBlueFX plugins to achieve a similar look - but to imply that using shallow DOF makes one more professional just seems inaccurate.

I like the look when its appropriate, but it seems that all the wedding shooters now feel as though they need to shoot with one in order to make themselves more cinematic - At least some top end wedding shooters are reverting to shooting super8 and even super 16mm film for their high end weddings.

gimme a solid project shot on a consumer camera over mediocre content shot on a high end camera any day...

Just sayin...

Cliff Etzel
Videographer : Producer : Web Designer
bluprojekt

Where we let ourselves get misled in this debate is calling DOF a "tool". For most of us it isn't, it's an artifact. A tool is something you can control, an artifact is something you simply have to live with.
A stills photog can control DOF fairly easily. Set the stop to get the DOF he wants and then use shutter speed to control exposure.
Changing shutter speed with a moving image is not something one would do for obvious reasons. So the only way to control f stop and keep exposure correct is to control the amount of light.
It's easy enough to reduce the amount of light, a set of good ND filters is not that expensive. If you've got deep pockets one can get a variable ND filter and try to pull of some interesting in camera effects.
Adding more light to increase DOF can be a fairly to very expensive exercise. Going from 1K lights to 10K lights can blow a big hole in the budget.
The Canon DLSRs would seem to have another option, changing the ISO of the digital film. i'm curious about this option. Increasing ISO I'd imagine is the same as increasing gain in a video camera, something I and others do quite a lot to increase DOF when adding light is impossible. However there's the inevitable price to pay of increasing noise. Certainly on my now quite ancient F828 DSC increasing ISO means more noise. The Canon cameras have the Digic II processors. I have no clue as to how good they are at noise reduction with moving images. My experience in the past with digital noise reduction logic in cameras shooting moving images have not been good at all as they introduce nasty artifacts that can really bite you when you try to grade the image. I'm wondering if those compression artifacts that Patryk was complaining about are in fact artifacts from the noise reduction.

Bob.

"Where we let ourselves get misled in this debate is calling DOF a "tool". For most of us it isn't, it's an artifact. A tool is something you can control, an artifact is something you simply have to live with."

So can a cinematographer. To suggest otherwise is totally misleading.

My daughter (who I'm told will actually graduate in December) has fallen very much in love with the Canon for stunning video.

What's interesting is that the university has several Canon Mark IIs that can be checked out, but the students are to supply their own video cameras. Given that most students are using something like a sub $1000 camcorder with few controls, I suspect the DSLR video can look very good in comparison.

Whether they are a fad or not, I suspect they may spur some interesting developments to those of us who can't justify a high end video camera.

"So can a cinematographer. To suggest otherwise is totally misleading"

Please enlighten me. I would love to be able to do this. I thought I'd explained the mechanisms that one can use to control it. If I've missed something I'm all ears.
I'm well aware of the factors that determine DOF but the only one I can think of that only affects DOF is aperature. Changing focal length of the lens changes shot composition and DOF.

Bob.