Shallow depth of field interviews and moving heads

Comments

musicvid10 wrote on 9/2/2012, 9:33 PM
+1 laurence

Sounds like Tamron has come a long way since the sixties. I had a couple of zooms and wide lenses in their universal adapter series while in college. The Tamron 28-80 was my grab-n-go choice for years in college publications (clunky Pentax screw-mount).

Laurence wrote on 9/2/2012, 11:53 PM
The Tamron 18-50mm f-2.8 zoom isn't by any means perfect. Autofocus is slow, the Tamron VC (vibration reduction) is a lot louder than the Nikon VR. You can hear it on my Rode Videomic Pro during b-roll shots if you listen closely and it is quiet. At f-2.8 there is some noticable vignetting at the edges of the frame.

I really like the lens though in spite of these issues. When I open up to f-2.8, I am after a depth of field look anyway and the vignetting looks attractive and is quite slight. The VC stabilization may be loud but it is also very effective on hand-held shots. The lens not only opens to 2.8, but it also stops down to f32. I have found that this is really useful for avoiding aliasing and moiré since the chromatic aberration introduces just enough blur to get rid pixel skipping problems. Bricks, roofing, branches, siding in a wide shot... no problem at f-32. Sure it would look soft at 16 megapixels, but at 2 megapixels it looks great!
Laurence wrote on 9/3/2012, 10:18 AM
(r)Evolution, I really like everything about your piece. the shots, the b-roll, the audio quality, and especially the content. Just awesome work!
musicvid10 wrote on 9/3/2012, 10:38 AM
yep, liked your composition and editing pace, (r)evolution.
I had to look up bokeh (brokeh). I don't think that term was even around in my day.
;?)
Laurence wrote on 9/3/2012, 10:54 AM
I like to use them there sophisticated words and stuff.
musicvid10 wrote on 9/3/2012, 12:00 PM
Like "erudite"?
;?)
paul_w wrote on 9/3/2012, 12:40 PM
Laurence, you got me inspired to check this further. So here is my contribution.

https://vimeo.com/48751232

I'm a firm believer in doing! but its subjective.

Paul.
Laurence wrote on 9/3/2012, 1:24 PM
Thanks so much for posting that Paul. What camera did you use?
paul_w wrote on 9/3/2012, 1:33 PM
FS100, theres a full breakdown in the description. Our sensor sizes are pretty much equal so i hope this replicates your setup - :)

Paul.
Laurence wrote on 9/3/2012, 1:39 PM
Another thing when I like at your demo Paul, the f1.8 shot makes the lady's skin look really smooth and is quite flattering even though it is not razor sharp. By the time you get to f5, you can really see skin imperfections and although the subject is sharper, it is less flattering.

How much lighting did you use on this test?
paul_w wrote on 9/3/2012, 1:51 PM
Thats true, a certain amount of defocus can help skin. Famous [and more mature] actors in movies usually get a certain amount of 'off focus' for that very reason! Its flattering.
If this was not just a test ( and if i was not so brutal on my g/f's skin!) , i'd probably either apply Cosmo or a 'slight' blurring to her face. But 1.8 with its critical focus does a similar job. Sharp focus can be brutal! I did get her approval before uploading :)
The lighting was two sets of z96 panels. I have some custom made banks i use with a couple of manfrotto umbrella tilt clamps on tripods. Some cooking grease proof paper as defusers (the white clear stuff, not the brown!).

F1.8 was a nightmare to nail, her head had to be within about 1 inch of tolerance. Any movement and she's gone.

Paul.
Laurence wrote on 9/3/2012, 2:34 PM
F1.8 is pretty unforgiving, yeah. On th DSLR you are trying to judge focus on the little articuble display and hopefully it will look sharp on a 50" HDTV. I move the little focus squar over the eyes and nose and half press the shutter button as a push to autofocus. That or digitally zoom in and get the eyes as sharp as I can. Since I'm always the one doing the interviews and really, things like bringing them out of their shell and getting good content is really the most important thing, i do the shutter button "push to auto focus" a lot. The subject moves a little. I look over at the screen that is turned towards me, half press the shutter button and keep on asking questions. Usually I nail it, but if somebody sits back when you focus and leans forward as the get into what they are saying, it can be a problem.
[r]Evolution wrote on 9/3/2012, 2:35 PM
Although not ashamed, I hate to admit how far over my head this discussion has gone.

I've never measured the distance to my subject or the distance to the background or any of that. I guess I just know and use the basics of placing the subject closer to the camera and adding more space between the background if I want it blurred more. If I don't have enough space to do this, I try to use more direct light on the subject and off the background so the edges fade out. Kind of a faux bokeh. Maybe the shots in the video I posted above are not consistent because I am not as technical and do not measure?

The hope with the sounds of the action were in an effort to make it sound 'alive'. The edit seemed to come together once I had the right music & vibe for the piece. I do NOT feel that the DOF added anything to the piece except as an example for discussions such as this but I am glad I could pull it off since that's what was asked for. I fell in love with the school's philosophy and really tried to tell their story with the same emotion I felt in the pre-production and visitation meetings where DOF was highly requested.

In the time passed since shooting & editing the video I posted, I can see lots of things that I wish I had done differently. Trust me, I can really tear my pieces apart. All in all, the decision maker/client (not the school, but a photographer) was happy with the results and there does come a time when we have to 'walk away'.

I would say, learn the mathematics of DOF if you desire knowledge.
Learn the mathematics of people and storytelling if you desire to produce good video.
As others have hinted, DOF/technicalities will never take the place of a good subject or story.
Laurence wrote on 9/3/2012, 4:04 PM
As others have hinted, DOF/technicalities will never take the place of a good subject or story.

Let me disagree slightly. Here's my take on this. I am not after technical perfection. If I was I wouldn't be using a DSLR. What I really believe in however is flattering looking shots of people. Let me tell two different stories that illustrate my POV.

1) I was told about a guy going to a workshop with a really well respected photographer. Apparently the main message of the seminar was this: if there is a woman in the shot, you want her to look really good. If you make the women you shoot look good, people will seek you out as a photographer. They will insist on using you instead of any of your competition. They will pay extra for you. They will fly you out to locations instead of using people that are perfectly competent that are nearby. They will work their schedules around when you can fit them in. The most important thing is that you make any woman you shoot look really good. I agree with this except that I expand it to men as well. People want to look good. They want to not cringe when they look at themselves in a video or a photograph. They want to see themselves as attractive. Translate that to my own work and I don't care if I am doing an ad for a local business or a church non-profit group. If I can make the people I'm shooting look really good, I have a future. If not, I will stay small time forever. I don't care if the books in the background are slightly out of focus or way out o focus. What I like is the way the large apertures make people look.

2)There is a story that was in the News a few months ago about a photographer who realized that dogs and cats in the local shelter were being put down rather than adopted because of the pictures that were running in the paper advertising their availability. This photographer saw pictures of dogs and cats with their tails between their legs and their ears down, cowering in cages. She thought if she only fixed them up a little, combed their fur, posed them in nice family friendly environments and poses, that animals that might otherwise be ignored might instead be adopted. This effort was an amazing success. The adoption rate went way up and the at first skeptical shelter staff became converts.

This last story made a real impression on me. I have traveled around the world and visited charities and orphanages everywhere. I see tiny little organizations working away with limited finances doing tremendous good with next to nothing, meanwhile large charities with their glossy brochures and heart rending videos pull in huge amounts of money and pay their leaders obscene amounts of money. It's not just the story. The most successful stories are just rehashes of the same couple of basic stories. Pocahontas, The Last Samurai, Avitar are all the same story. They were all successful even though they were just rehashes of the same old story because of the way they looked. If I just tell the story of these little but wonderful organizations and charities, I will have no impact at all. The trick is how to make a small church or charity sexy. If I can do that, my work might actually have an impact. It's just like gussying up a stray but great hearted animal. I want people to see these little organizations the way I do. I want them to not just be educated about a cause. I want them to fall in love with it.
farss wrote on 9/3/2012, 4:06 PM
"As others have hinted, DOF/technicalities will never take the place of a good subject or story."

Indeed.
Things I've learned watching and reading through this thread.

A cluttered background is a cluttered background. You can throw it out of focus but all you have is a blurry mess, it may even be more distracting.

Colour space matters. Keep shifting the pallet and it is very distracting.

Images when cut togther have a rhythm, they have to dance to a beat.

Fixing what is in front of the camera with lighting or by set decoration is way, way more productive than trying to fix it in the camera.

As they say in the real estate business, location, location, location.

Lots and lots of "money" shots adds up to a pile of loose change, not a bar of gold.

Of course saying all that is simple enough, as I learned recently doing it is another matter entirely. Having a real budget, a crew, the energy and working with people who see the value of your knowledge is another matter entirely.

Bob.

[r]Evolution wrote on 9/3/2012, 6:49 PM
I say, "It's all about the Story", because I feel as though a good story should sound just as good on a CD as it looks on a DVD. Meaning, without the visuals... a good story is still a good story. That's why we make Movies from Books/Scripts not the Reverse.

When producing multi-purpose media, I try to write with both TV & Radio in mind. DOF is another tool/skill in our arsenal. It has it's place & time.

I agree with farss summary of this thread thus far. Especially, "Having a real budget, a crew, the energy and working with people who see the value of your knowledge is another matter entirely.

'Managing Client Expectations' seems to be my biggest hurdle.
Serena wrote on 9/3/2012, 7:28 PM
>>>>>> they have to dance to a beat<<<<<<

I would prefer to rephrase that to 'visual rhythm'. Cutting to the beat of the bg music is a common mantra among short film makers (short films rather than short makers), which completely ignores the natural rhythm of the images. Every cut is "on the beat" and very quickly I'm anticipating the next animated slide (beat/cut, beat/cut). Comments such as "good cutting to the music" are made in praise. I think many choose their music track before they start cutting, and while that is sometimes appropriate (e.g. music video) I say that the music comes later to support the visual story. There will be adjustments when the music is incorporated, and sometimes editing with a temporary track of popular music results in no other music matching so well. But the cutting doesn't dance to the beat of the music.
farss wrote on 9/3/2012, 7:51 PM
"I would prefer to rephrase that to 'visual rhythm'"

Thank you, much better said than the way I put it.


Going back a step, my best production tool isn't a big sensor, it's a couple of cheap 3M x 6M muslin backdrops.


Bob.
vicmilt wrote on 9/3/2012, 8:47 PM
I feel like I'm at a campfire with old friends...

anyway, here are some samples of stuff I've shot in the last few years, since my career was resurrected by my stock broker in the crash of '08.

For those that don't know, I had a long and glorious career where my typical 30 second commercial cost anywhere between $60,000 to $175K. (Ah those were the days, terrified art directors, incredible actors and a top NY crew of 25 to 50 guys and gals, with trucks and trucks and trucks).

I retired to Florida and put all that behind me. When forced to return to a commercial life, I had neither the clients nor budget to resume my old ways. So in most respects, I am financially at the same limitations of most of you - one to four man crews, two to four small lights and my camera of choice:
Canon 5d - at the time I purchased it (about 10 minutes after it came out) it was the only game in town - today there are lots of others.

So first - here is a demo I shot shortly after I got the camera - to demonstrate the "new look" - today it's passe, I know - but I shot it all with available light and one tiny Lowell 250 as a backlight with a one man crew (me):


Here's a spot I shot about two months ago - same specs - two lights - three man crew:


and here's one more - this one I had a Fischer dolly and 8 man crew:


And finally, here's my current reel which illustrates some of the scope of my career. With the exception of the older 35mm spots, nothing I'm showing was done with anything most of you don't already own.


Rules I break freely -
I don't stress about color correction once I've got the humans right.
I regularly shoot at ISO 1250 and occasionally at 2500 without a care.
I use kit lenses all the time:
24-105, 70-300, a 200 2.8 prime, a 50mm 1.8 and my only L lens the fantabulus 16-35. I recently bought the Zacudo EVF and would never shoot another video w/o it. That's it.

If I can help any of you, please don't hesitate in writing me directly, as I don't spend nearly enough time here anymore - I will try to but have time issues.
vicmilt at VictorMiltAssociates.com
Also, feel free to friend me on Facebook.

I sincerely love you all.
Rory Cooper wrote on 9/4/2012, 4:05 AM
Good informative discussion folks and a big bonus to have Vic back. Love back to you as well.

From a different perspective altogether = post production.
2 Seconds original clip, I create a mask with fade around the general area of the talent = don’t mind some hand gestures going out from mask.
This will allow me to add de focus, reduce light on the background relight and sharpen talent.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R7JxswVCOs&feature=plcp
paul_w wrote on 9/5/2012, 12:43 PM
If anyone is still interested, i just updated my test video with the application of some Cosmo skin smoothing. The idea was to allow for head movement using f5.6, while at the same time retaining some of the smoothing effect as mentioned from 1.8. Best of both worlds i hope. I quite like Cosmo, never really used it much before so this was a good workout.

Paul.
Laurence wrote on 9/5/2012, 1:42 PM
I like the Cosmo filter addition. Your girlfriend looks very pretty. I didn't meant to be critical, but it probably is good that I was because it looks better with the filter. My favorite is probably the f2.8
paul_w wrote on 9/5/2012, 2:31 PM
Yep, she's happier with it too :) Its fine Laurence, shes a photographer and makes the odd video too, so she totally gets the test and didnt mind getting subjected to HD close ups!. All in the name of science. She's a trooper, what a star.. So yes, we both think it looks better and i can see Cosmo being very useful in the future..

Paul.
robwood wrote on 9/5/2012, 7:12 PM
Rules I break freely - I don't stress about color correction once I've got the humans right. -vicmilt

that's a great rule