No shallow DoF movie

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

As I am writing this I am watching "Mystery Men" on AMC HD on TV. This is a 1999 movie and was shot on 35mm film. And yet, there is absolutely no shallow DoF to speak about in it. No more than what you can get with an HV camera if you zoom in a bit, or from the EX1. Youtube has a number of clips from this (flopped but somewhat cultish) movie. And yet, it does feel like a movie and not like a home video.

[Erik Bien]

And more currently, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was shot 90%+ on 2/3" cameras (primarily the Thompson Viper, with the Sony F23 used for the hospital scenes during Katrina), a substantial portion of Slumdog Millionaire was shot on the SI-2K, while The Wrestler was shot on 16mm film — considering all three are up for multiple Oscars, I wouldn't say the lack of 35mm depth of field is exactly holding any of them back ...

[SenorKaffee]

They say deep DOF is dead...

Deep DOF is not dead! Deep DOF is LIFE!

[Ian-T]

Yeah but...um...Afros are....lol

[Braceface]

It's more of a choice, than a necessity. With a lot of moving camera shots a shallow depth of field is a bad choice if you don't have a focus puller, AND, it's not really mandatory to use shallow depth of field.
I've started moving into a new phase now, where I'm thinking less about DOF, and more about what is appropriate for the certain shots. When you have the ability to always shoot with shallow depth of field, it loses its charm after a while anyhow. Although I am still a huge fan of the look. I really just like being able to use the 35 mm. lenses. It's neat. I'm debating on whether or not my film " The Passage " will be shot on an HV20 with no adaptor, an HV20 with Letus, or the Nikon D90. I'm seriously thinking about the HV20 with no adaptor for the look I want.
It's all about story, lighting, acting, set, cinematography, and costume,. Frame rate and DOF are much further down on the list.

[blondandfun]

Which do you think is easier... framing a shot with good composition, or turning the wheel of a camcorder to blur out stuff?

I think it's the former.

It's not a movie, but in the last episode of "The Sopranos" in the diner everything should be shot like that, with all the different shots and views inside the diner.

Many directors who love DOF don't ever show the surroundings... Maybe it's just me but I'm not an "all into myself" type of person I always examine my surroundings, even when I'm with people.

[wildside50]

Thanks for pointing that fact and example out, Eugenia. I found it very interesting.

[Braceface]

Which do you think is easier... framing a shot with good composition, or turning the wheel of a camcorder to blur out stuff?

I think it's the former.

It's not a movie, but in the last episode of "The Sopranos" in the diner everything should be shot like that, with all the different shots and views inside the diner.

Many directors who love DOF don't ever show the surroundings... Maybe it's just me but I'm not an "all into myself" type of person I always examine my surroundings, even when I'm with people.

I don't think its either or, but both. It depends on the shot, or style. Without good composition everything falls though, so I agree with you. First things first. Good shot, composition........ A shallow DOF is sometimes part of that, but not often or even ever depending on your style. I like both and its an obstacle for me to decide when to use what, where, and why.

[fishops]

As I am writing this I am watching "Mystery Men" on AMC HD on TV. This is a 1999 movie and was shot on 35mm film. And yet, there is absolutely no shallow DoF to speak about in it.

I remember that film. I remember it looked a lot like a comic book. It's a good look for a technicolor comedy romp. Certainly not how I would want to shoot an intimate drama scene or claustrophobic horror film.

[wildside50]

I remember that film. I remember it looked a lot like a comic book. It's a good look for a technicolor comedy romp. Certainly not how I would want to shoot an intimate drama scene or claustrophobic horror film.

Interesting point. Everything I write and shoot is comedic, so I had never thought of that prespective. You're right, depth of field can do a lot to a horror scene to create tension.

[CWildenradt]

It really just boils down to the aesthetic one is after. That's really how I try to shoot. I don't much try to sit and flesh out numbers, formula, etc. I basically just try to let my eyes be the judge. What works for this piece? What doesn't? Forget about the finite technicalities behind it.

I've seen tons of big screen films where numerous scenes were shot with deep DOF and only tight dialogue sequences had shallow DOF.

In music, there's often a huge preoccupation with gear, "acceptable" settings, "tube tone," etc. There's a saying that I enjoy: "Forget about what's inside the equipment, what's written on the outside, or where the knobs are. What does it sound like? If it's good, go with it." I think this translates well to film. Forget about the extraneous B.S. and just make it look good.

[previdman]

In music.....There's a saying that I enjoy: "Forget about what's inside the equipment, what's written on the outside, or where the knobs are. What does it sound like? If it's good, go with it." I think this translates well to film. Forget about the extraneous B.S. and just make it look good.

Truer words...

[dWyZaK]

I'm still less than a year into this game, ive just started noticing DOF in what i watch, Prison Break and Star Trek use insane amounts of the stuff lol.
I literally only started noticing last week, hope i havn't spoilt my ability to watch TV without breaking everything down.

Lost looks astonishing in places, sorry, getting of topic.

Ive not been tempted to get a dof adaptor yet, i think its something you can use creatively once your on top of your game, otherwise, to me, it just looks gratuitous.

[Braceface]

Gratuitous, maybe, or not. I don't think there has to be a reason for everything anyhow. It's art. I think it can be used in a way that confuses the audience though for sure, and that also goes for using a deep DOF.
After so much time on these boards I'm starting to now wonder how shallow DOF became such an in demand thing. I got hooked into it too. Now I like the 35 mm. adaptors, and DSLR cams primarily just so I can have the ability to change lenses. Still, however, I like a shallow depth of field a lot, but angles and the rest of the set up in a scene take priority over that. I do however ultimately think that the general look of 35 mm. lenses and 24fps, give a nice filmic look more so than a straight vid camera. But looking like film isn't always my top priority either these days, although I usually do go for it.
I'm probably going to be using the D90 on " The Passage ", but DOF is the last thing on my mind. Low light is the thing making me lean toward it. I'll use the focal length for each shot depending on how it fits in the movie. I'm still debating using the HV20 bare though too, for it.

[Rumpelgeist]

Same talk different day. We had this gazillion of times. If you can clear up and then fill up the wide frame, if you have enough action forth and back, if the camera does not move much, then do the long DOF. If you have to move camera then shallow DOF is a necessity to reduce stutter, and also to blur stuff that you could not remove from the frame. For all artsy-fartsy talk, shallow DOF is a technical necessity.

[CWildenradt]

After so much time on these boards I'm starting to now wonder how shallow DOF became such an in demand thing.

I think it's because the more "pronounced" or apparent the DOF is, the more three dimensional the image looks in most cases. 9 times out of 10, shots that have deep or infinite DOF look flat and two dimensional. They need to be composed very carefully to look interesting.

There's this common correlation that people make between shallow DOF and "film look," but I don't share the same view. I don't feel that "film look" is dependent on shallow DOF at all. Conversely, I don't think that deep DOF makes an image look like video. I simply think that pronounced DOF tends to engage the sense of sight more. And I think that engaging characteristic, or, aesthetic if you will is what draws people to it.

[leepback]

There's this common correlation that people make between shallow DOF and "film look," but I don't share the same view.

I may be way wrong here but I thought shallow depth of field was used to duplicate how our eyes actually work and therefore to look more natural.
It just seems easier to achieve with film hence the correlation.

If I now hold up my hand in front of my face and look at it, then the computer screen behind it is out of focus, If I look at the screen then my hand is out of focus.

If I look down the street then most of what I see is in focus (allowing for my failing eyesight.)

Isn't this mimicking of the eye what we are trying to achieve and the reasoning behind it or am I totally off course?

EDIT (I think I'm sort of agreeing with some of what Wildenrat said)

[fishops]

I may be way wrong here but I thought shallow depth of field was used to duplicate how our eyes actually work and therefore to look more natural.
It just seems easier to achieve with film hence the correlation.

that is totally correct, and is exactly why some people say video tends to look more "unnatural" and "sterile".

I think instead of "shallow depth of field" we should strive for "natural depth of field". Since we can naturally change our field of view and depth of field with our eyes and brain, it makes sense to mimic that with our camera technique.

[CWildenradt]

I may be way wrong here but I thought shallow depth of field was used to duplicate how our eyes actually work and therefore to look more natural.
It just seems easier to achieve with film hence the correlation.

If I now hold up my hand in front of my face and look at it, then the computer screen behind it is out of focus, If I look at the screen then my hand is out of focus.

If I look down the street then most of what I see is in focus (allowing for my failing eyesight.)

Isn't this mimicking of the eye what we are trying to achieve and the reasoning behind it or am I totally off course?

EDIT (I think I'm sort of agreeing with some of what Wildenrat said)

Absolutely. That is how the eyes perceive. And that is why DOF that is more apparent gives a more three dimensional characteristic to an image. And on the flip side, deeper DOF tends to "flatten" an image because it is more unnatural to the eye.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

I have thought about this in the past, and I think it would require a camera lens that distorts somewhat the places that the director doesn't want us to look at, but still be perfectly in focus.

[fishops]

I have thought about this in the past, and I think it would require a camera lens that distorts somewhat the places that the director doesn't want us to look at, but still be perfectly in focus.

So, a 50mm prime on a 35mm film back then?