"not really Bob, thats where red peaking plays its part."

Have that, tried that, doesn't work at all well on faces. It'll tell me the outline of the head is in focus and over a much larger range of focus ring movement than it should.

I've done some rough tests when I've been shooting "still life" plates and I had the opportunity to really fiddle around with my EX1 hooked up to a good 24" monitor. I really should do some more to finally nail what the real issue is. Off the top of my head though I have a suspicion that the detail circuits in the EX1 can have a dramatic affect on the apparent depth of field. Our eyes are very poor at differentiating between resolution and sharpness. The detail circuits seem to be doing things such as adding artifical edges to the pores of skin.

Where I recall really noticing this was shooting a plate of a hand made brass oil lamp. As it was quite small and full frame, the DOF is shallow to start with. But I would see a region where the fine scratches were quite visible and closer or further away they're hard to see. I could move that region with only the tiniest movement of focus that had no visible effect on the rest of the subject. Again only speculation on my part, I suspect part of what I've seen, happens because the detail circuits are working on the uncompressed 4:4:4 image and I'm only recording 4:2:0 i.e. they can "see" more than I can, in the recorded image, they will enhance detail that'd otherwise be lost when the chroma resolution is decreased.

Bob.

DoF is one of those fundamental issues which seems to cause much confusion among "modern" photographers. Back in the dark ages when I got my first 9.5mm cine camera it was taken for granted that users (teenage users, anyway) would learn lens formulas and understanding hyperfocal distances was important when many simple cameras had fixed focus lenses and no automatic functions. I suggest automation encourages technical ignorance. Of course things were simpler when the sensor was film, but the fundamentals haven't changed.
The thing to appreciate about DoF is that it is about viewer perception of the image, their ability to identify when a disk is visually indistinguishable from a point. In other words, how big the disk can be before it is seen to be a disk and not a point. That is the "break point" between in-focus and out-of-focus. So the fundamental parameter is image magnification. Given the same image source a viewer will judge DoF to be much greater on a smart phone than on a 60" screen, but if the angle subtended by the image is the same then so will be the DoF (i.e. if the viewer gets way back from the 60" screen). Given the same magnification, aperture determines the rate at which the cone of rays increases in diameter with distance from the focus point. Big aperture, big conical angle, small aperture, small cone.
DoF tables are constructed around specific viewing conditions including, specifically, the size of the "circle of confusion" (that diameter of disk that is indistinguishable from a point). Over the years this CoC has been reduced as cinema screens became larger and other improvements in films and lenses allowed more critical viewing, and so have the DoF tables changed.
Everything that effects the "quality" of the image impacts on DoF, as Bob has said above. images with high MTF looks sharper than with low even when the resolution is the same and digital in-camera processing confuses perceptions.
I agree that turning detail "off" is preferable (certainly in any capable camera) and the usefulness of peaking depends on its parameters.

One thing which i think i have mentioned in another thread before was the settings within peaking matter a great deal.

Some cameras seem to have it, others not, but if you have 'selective levels' for peaking, it means you can really narrow down the selective range of the peaking displayed. As an example, my Cineroid EVF has this, and you can select levels from 1 to 5. Where 1 is just about off, you need an extremely sharp lens/object in focus to see anything, and 5 is wide where a head in focus shows as a red blob. Setting this to 2 or 3 is great, its really quite accurate. When set correctly, i can focus a head shot from nose to ears clearly, picking out the area of focus in red.
Its a shame they dont put this ability in all cameras.

On the other hand, both my Marshall 7" monitors are dreadful with this, the equivalent of setting 5 on the Cineroid! I never use red peaking in these monitors for that reason. The Sony Fs100 is not bad - kind of mid way.
So i guess it changes form cam to cam. But like a said, a good EVF with red peaking ( and level selection...) can help. Ive always done it this way and its fine, i spent considerable time testing this in the workshop because like most, i did not want to drag a large HD monitor around on location, red peaking was the answer for me at least. I guess expanded focus could be another option for checking detailed focus although it may be necessary to recompose the shot.

Paul.

"I guess expanded focus could be another option for checking detailed focus although it may be necessary to recompose the shot."

Our quite small TV Logic monitor solves this nicely with pan/scan pixel to pixel focus assist mode. Unfortunately not a cheap monitor.

Speaking about getting things in focus I've also become aware of the many issues that afflict the things that are out of focus and I really noticed this in some footage today. Horrid magenta fringes around the OOF lights in the background but no CA on the in focus subject.

For those interested, a quite detailed investigation of OOF artifacts here. In the footage I was viewing the problem pretty much went away in the MCU shots but was really bad in the ECU shots.

Bob.

Hi Laurence -
Hope this finds you well.

OK - here's twenty plus years shooting 35mm film (which actually is slightly easier than 5d, as the sensor size is even larger in 5d than film).

1 - It's your job to come back with the footage
2 - You are shooting video - not stills. Portraits in stills can be quite beautiful with a 105mm f2.4 or even (on arty shots) lower (1.4 - 1.8). The thing is it's a STILL! So the critical areas will always be sharp and look good.
3 - You are now shooting movies - people move.
4 - See #1
5 - If it;s a one person interview, shoot at a minimum of 5.6. If it's a two shot, go to f8. That's all you need to know. If you're shooting with a 200mm or longer stop down even more.
6 - If you want more bokeh (the softness behind the talent that's out of focus - move the talent further away from the background.
7 - Taking a chance on focus for the beauty of limited dof is not a professional technique that leads to longevity in career. Only ONE SHOT of the ceo that's soft will end your tenure with that client.

+1 to vicmilt - it's VIDEO we're talking about ;-)

Which part didn't you understand?

simply agreeing with you entirely!!!!

ahhhh....
ok
:>))

>>>>>> it's VIDEO we're talking about <<<<<<<

Although not stated I believe Laurence was shooting with a Canon 5D so I see nothing in Vic's advice that doesn't apply. Yes, for a small sensor the apertures recommended would be inadvisable, but then it would have been a different question.

well this is purely a personal gripe, and in no way intended as an insult to those who favour shallow dof - however, i am getting really tired of endless interviews where extremely shallow dof field seems to be the only thing concerning 'whoever is in charge'; the content is banal, or badly scripted, and everything seems to depend on tricky-dicky fx, dof, and where necessary, unreadable graphics.

i prefer my viewing to be entertaining / informative / amusing and preferably a mixture of all three, but building a program around bertolucci vistas and miniscule dof headshots without any content does NOT entertain me in the least.

then again, i'm so over the reality-cum-information format, and other mindless pap produced to fill airtime that i think i'm beyond redemption.

[/r]

leslie, this old fart agrees with everything you said 100%

Mike

.. besides, when they interview someone with a bookshelf behind them, I want to see what they read!

You too? And I remember my mother criticising quick cutting because it didn't give her time to examine the room decorations, which, of course, required them to be in focus (as they were in the 50s). There is no question that controlled DoF is a useful artistic tool. Unfortunately often not used well and it annoys me when in (say) a two shot the narrative focus shifts to the guy out of focus but focus doesn't follow. When I criticised a DP for this he said he thought his shot was "interesting" and had no further comment.

Guys (and gals, if there are any of you lurking out there) - all the tricky camera moves, super dissolves, wipes and transitions, all of that will never take the place of a good story (or make up for a bad one).

The movie "Inception" is a good example of that... that is, the effects are stupendous, but it's the story that carries the movie.

On the other hand, there are now (seemingly) dozens of "end of the world" monster and super hero movies filled with super-duper special effects, that all just seem to melt together into one sticky, meaningless mess.

Yah - a good story - that's the key.

>>>gals, if there are any of you lurking out there<<<

hullo! hullo! (waving madly at the bottom of the world).

SERENA!!
(Now THAT's a Woman!)
Looks and brains and a hell of a sense of humor - perfect.

It's so much fun to be back on this site - I have been overwhelmed with business and life in general, and I miss all this banter and camaraderie.

Thank you to all for your unending help and support.
v

This video is playing in my church this morning. It was shot with my Nikon D5100 (APS crop sensor) and a 50mm 1.8 lens at f1.8. It was lit with natural light augmented by two little Z96s on stands. If I stopped down to f5.6, I would have needed a heck of a lot more light. Also, it was shot in a very tight space. The books behind the subjects are about 5 feet away. With a smaller f-stop, I would have needed to shoot in a room bigger than the church library which was all that I had access to in order to get any kind of brokeh at all. Fortunately there was not enough head movement that focus was a problem

https://vimeo.com/48488655

It seems to me that this looks pretty good even with the larger aperture. It also seems to me that you can get away with a bigger aperture with the smaller sensor of an APS camera.

Sorry, for me this is "fuzzy world", not reality.

I do a lot of church and non-profit work. Very little money when there's money at all. I shot an interview about putting extra food in poor student's book bags in a guidance councilor's office. No room for a typical "brokeh" shot with a normal aperture. No room for much in the way of lighting either. That is the interview where I was running into focus problems from her head movement.

Well, Milto, stop watching c r a p movies and come here for REAL stories!!

And yes, narrative is all. But young'uns just loves thems whoop-it-ups and whizz bangs and the like. Of course neither you nor I had our heads turned by such foldirolls - the thought of it!?! Psssht! Nasty!

Give me a good ole wobbly tin trying to be a martian flying saucer; screaming, ankle-twisting, forhead hand-clasping girlies; "Harryhausen" jerky quirky T-Rexs; those tele monitors with all that parallax so that when the camera panned you could almost see the actor on the other side of the display; those cut paper triangles RADAR-sweeps with sona BLEEPS (chuckle); the sound of Professor Léon Theremin's . . er Theremin.

What's my point? There's cheese in all ages. I love the smell of all of it. But that's all it is. Spray some deodorizer and it's gone. What remains is the story . . . . .

And the story can be created from the simplest of things: The smoke from a campfire; the squeal of the fright-run of a hog; the swirling blades of a ceiling room fan becoming the sound and blades of a Vietnam Helo; Jack Nico peering through that door . .. woooah . . . . That same Jack coming into view from the shadows in "The Departed".

Grazie

There are more similarities than differences between still portraiture and DSLR interviews. Lens choices, apertures, lighting requirements, exposure, ISO, shooting distance, DOF constraints, just to name a few "comparable" factors.

One area that is different, and requires special consideration, is the "landscape" format demanded by video (the other one was named "portrait" for some very good reasons!)

Laurence's examples show some very creative use of widescreen format for head and shoulders interviews. Framing, angle, lighting, and even DOF show some sensitive treatment of an otherwise confining aspect.

For one thing, one can't fill a frame properly without longer shooting distances at the same relative focal length as portraiture. For instance, a 105-135 equivalent just wouldn't work unless you wanted to set up across the street. The 75-90 equivalent suggested (which it turns out Laurence is actually using), is the right choice. The portable lighting and f-stop choices are about as close as one can get to nominal without causing other problems. 5.6 is probably too small as was suggested, and f/8 is out of the question. Still photographers shooting with conventional and natural light face exactly the same challenges. The confining influence on DOF should be obvious to experienced shooters of either discipline.

The widescreen format presents other challenges for DOF, esp. with ENG and candid interviews in the field. There are simply huge unfilled areas of screen real estate to the side(s) of the human subject that can entertain everything from embarrassment to real trouble. The fact that one can't read the book titles behind Laurence's subjects is actually a good thing. Opening up for a shallow DOF means one also can't recognize facial features on the unknowing citizen walking behind the interview, who may not want to be seen in that location on the evening news, and the features in the government buildings in the background will be blurred, lessening the chance of a visit from homeland security.

The turn to shallow DOF for interviews isn't for (or for a lack of) artistic effect or substance; it is a legal consideration that anyone who distributes content these days must be critically aware of. Best cure for trouble later is simply to blur the background in the shoot. Put a blur ball on someone's face or teeshirt and that is what viewers will watch, not the interviewee or reporter.

Nice job with your interviews, Laurence. The slight DOF challenge from subject movement is nothing compared to the Dustin Hoffman example that has been cited now more than once on this forum. When videographers (or still photographers) get stuck with a "lesser of two evils" choice, and there are plenty of them, it's all too easy to get caught up in the smallest of problems, and forget just how good the work we're already doing really is. You'll see what I mean when you look at this footage again in six months, and you will come away with a completely different impression. Trust me, I'm a producer.

Here's a parallel thread from someone who was trying to blur the background after the fact, after some truly distracting stuff was going on in the background (too bad you can no longer see the screenshot). This clearly points up the fact that shallow DOF is the lesser of evils in most on-location shoots. Trying to fix long DOF when there is a moving subject in the foreground is a problem nobody wants.
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=683827

;?)