Arguably more is written about Depth of Field (DoF) on the DV Info net than any other subject. This is my attempt to provide the ultimate discourse and treatment on this subject. All misconceptions, hearsay, rumors and innuendo will be laid to rest. My motivation for doing this is to avoid future disagreements and confusion among our community. By posting all the variables and examples in one place, novices and old hands can benefit and apply the newly gained knowledge in the field. Dre...., Good Dog and myself argued over confusion with the english language, semantics etc. Dre....is the retired Chief Technical Officer and VP for Research and Development for Barco. Good Dog has 20+ years in the photography field (cinema, video, etc). I have a BS in Physics and I've taught Photography for 22 years (not full time). We should combine our considerable experience, knowledge and expertise for the benefit of the community. So, with that all out of the way, let's get started.

I will start with the formula for DoF as it appears in the "American Cinematographers Manual" 8th edition pages 698, 699.

Hyperfocal Distance

H= F^2 / (f)(Cc)
F=focal length of lens
f=f-stop number
Cc=circle of confusion

Depth of Field

Near limit
(H)(S) / H+(S-F)

Far limit
(H)(S) / H-(S-F)

Where:
H=HYperfocal distance
S=Distance from camera to object
F=Focal length of lens

What is Depth of Field?

The distance range between between the nearest and farthest objects that appear to be in acceptably sharp focus in the image plane. Depth of field involves one image plane and the area between two target planes (in front of the lens).

What is Hyperfocal Distance?

The nearest object distance in sharp focus when the lens is focused on infinity. It varies with each F Number. When the lens is focused on that distance, everything from 1/2, the distance to the camera to infinity will be in sharp.

Depth of Field (DoF) is dependent upon the following variations:
a. The focal length of the lens.

b. The diaphragm opening (effective aperture).

c. The distance from the lens to the object that is focused on.

d. The distance from which the image is viewed.

e. The viewer's personal standard of the permissible degree of sharpness (or unsharpness).

Other variables in the formula remaining constant, it follows that:

a. The shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater the DOF.

b. The smaller the diaphragm opening (larger F Number), the greater the DOF.

c. The greater the distance to the object being focused on, the greater DOF.

d. The greater the distance from which the image is viewed, the great the "apparent" DOF.

e. An often used standard of acceptable sharpness is the reproduction in the image of a small point in the object plane by means of a "Circle of Confusion" or disc not greater than 1/100 of an inch. This is often expressed as 1/1000 of the focal length. Sometimes a figure of 1/300 of an inch or 1/3000 of the focal length is used.

At this point in the discussion the image size will not remain constant. If you change the focal length, in the above example, the subject (target size) will get larger or smaller depending on the change in focal length.

How do I apply this in the real world?

Much of what is written above is common practice for many of us. I want more depth of field so I increase my F Number to F11 or F22 or even higher. If I want less depth of field I lower the F Number and /or add Neutral Density filters and polarizer to reduce the light, thereby forcing the F Number lower (less depth of field).

Move the camera closer for less depth of field, further away for more. But if you zoom the lens at the same time (to maintain a constant subject size) the depth of field will stay the same. If the target size remains the same, by moving the camera all you have done is change perspective. In the real world (News Anchor at desk) the size of the head needs to remain the same size. As you move closer, to decrease DoF, image size increases, you decrease the focal length to maintain the same head size. The two variables (distance to subject and focal length) cancel themselves out (Law of Reciprocity).

What's all this I hear about 1/3 inch chips having more DoF than 16mm or 35mm film?

Just as the subject size (Target Size) can vary in the above paragraph, so can the size of the CCD or film stock. If the Target Size (News Anchors Head) in front of the lens is to remain the same size when we change chip sizes, DoF will change. Why, what happens when we change chip (format) sizes? If the focal length of the lens stays the same (100mm lens on 1/3 inch CCD, 100mm lens on 35mm film) Target Size (anchors head) will increase 7.2 times (chip is 7.2 times smaller). To maintain the same Target Size, lens to subject distance must be 7.2X greater or reduce the focal length 7.2X By either increasing the lens to subject distance or reducing the focal length, the DoF is increased. If all formula variables stay the same and the Target Size (CCD) behind the lens changes, DoF will not change. If the Target Size changes in front of the lens (change focal length or change camera to Target distance) DoF will Change.

Bring me back to the real world. What does all this mean to me? The real world is that under most conditions (TV set, product shots, speaker at podium) the subject must stay the same size. It stays the same size because of rules of composition, head room for subject, or the Art director says the box will be so big. The Art Director also wants less DoF. So you move the camera closer. Now the AD says the box is too big. So you zoom the lens wider to make the box smaller. Then the AD says hey, you got too much DoF again. By moving closer and zooming wider you cancelled out the change in DoF. Law of Reciprocity. The only effective way to reduce DoF and maintain the Target Size is to lower the F Number (F2.8, F2.0). In a well lit scene you will need to use ND filters.

I want to play with DoF and I don't have one of those cool Palms. How about a link?

http://www.dof.pcraft.com/dof.cgi

So, what is next? This is it. You may need to read it several times to really grasp it. I'm still having trouble, HELP. Reread both sets of A to E points above. Remember, in the A to E examples the Target Size will change. In the real world, Target Size usually stays the same.

Questions that may come up and I'll answer if anyone is interested, would concern Circle of Confusion (Cc) and proper viewing distance of a TV monitor. Cc is a formula variable that I did not discuss. Viewing distance affects "apparent" DoF.


Jeff Donald

Holy cow Jeff, this is so well done, many thanks. Perhaps we can add it to the website, along with your other lens articles, here in the very near future? This is great stuff, as always!

Well done, Jeff. Thanx.

THANK YOU!

It is very very helpful....

Thank you for the kind words. Dre..... emailed me a couple more interesting links http://www.shuttercity.com/DOF.cfm and http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/dof.html The second link contains some generalizations that could be confusing. However, it covers some interesting material in regards to diffraction and small chip cameras. Diffraction could be my next topic like this if people are interested.

Jeff

Jeff

Thanks for posting your info on depth of field, I think it's of great help to both the neophyte and the more experienced among us to have this information. When you first posted the ACM data, I noticed that there is one factor missing that surprised me. In some ways, it is similar to (D) distance from which the image is viewed, but I think it is distinct, so I'll add it here

F) Freguency or resolution of the output medium.

I first noticed this back in college when playing with an obscure kodak special order film that later became known as technical pan. Using a homemade soup one was able to produce a negative that was virtually grainless...and one of the first things I noticed was that it had almost no depth of field (even at f16), especially when compared to the same image on triX (for non photographers, a much grainier film). In essence, all things being the same, the film itself actually affected the depth of field.

This effect can also be seen when one compares a photographic print with the same size image rendered with a 65 line litho screen (newsprint). The newsprint will show substantially more depth of field than the original higher resolution print.

As we move into the cinematography realm, this effect could in theory be seen in varying amounts between film stocks, although the result would probably be too subtle to notice. But in the digital realm it should be visible when switching between monitors of different resolution, given the input resolution is sufficient to cover the highest res monitor....One would probably see a difference between a SD monitor and an HD monitor if given the same HD signal. More dramatic would be to have 35mm film projected side by side with the same image on an SD monitor (at the same size).

While this effect is certainly more subtle (and less important) than issues of focal length and subject distance...it is probably on par with, or even more noticeable than "viewing distance".

Thanks again for the time and energy you put into this thread and the forum as a whole.

Cheers.

Barry

What your getting into is several factors that relate in one way or another to Circle of Confusion (E). Factors affecting Cc are human visual acuity, sharpness at DoF limits, diffraction, lens aberrations and film properties (and in the case of film, film flatness). Several of these factors can be measured with MTF (Modular Transfer Function).

MTF is not the same as grain. Grain is analogous to noise in video terms. MTF is more like bandwidth in video. The greater the bandwidth the greater the resolution. Resolution being the ability to distinguish line pairs per length (usually mm). Kodak has devised the Print Grain Index http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e58/e58.shtml Certainly grain and perceived sharpness go hand in hand.

In the early '80's I did a great deal of B & W photography with Agfa Pan 4x5 sheet film (ISO 25). It was exposed around F22 (diffraction limited) with Rodenstock APO lenses. Processing was done in Rodinal at 25:1 (if memory serves me) and virtually grainless negatives were obtained. My negatives show normal DoF and virtually grainless 8x10 prints. The answer to your lack of DoF may be in 35mm film flatness.

Jeff

Jeff, I get that the Circle of Confusion is basically a fudge factor used to represent a number of traits of the equipment and media used to capture the image, but do you have any information on a break down of the CoC and the maths to go along with relavent, various factors?

Your information was excellent and got me to looking around for more into on DoF. Then just for fun and to cement things in my head a bit more, I ended up writing a small utility (PC Windows only at mo, until I learn java and stick it on a web page:) ) for calculating Depth of field, given certain inputs. There are quite a few utils like this around but my one shows a 2d, side on, view of Lens, object and far and near depth of field and is basically a "slider fest" where you drag ftop, distance, focal length sliders willy nilly and watch the DoF change, you can then select another camera (I have info for Gl2, Xl1s, 16x manual Xl1s, 3x Wide angle and a few others in there) and actually get to "See" what it means and how different the different cameras are. It was interesting to see the proof (Short of having the camera and adapter myself) that with the 3x Wide angle adapter on, the depth of field increases a lot. ANd in some settings the Gl2 had shallower far Depth of Field than the xl1s with standard lens as certain settings.

Anyway, I'll stick the utility up on a page soon (once I find one) for people to download and play with (And validate my maths ;) ), and I'm working on a Java version so that any platform with Java support will be able to use it.


Thanks again Jeff, great info.
Aaron


[edit] I'm still a bit lost on this Viewing Distance thing you're all talking about. I don't see how looking at a projected image from a different distance can alter DoF?

Aaron,

I'm glad the information proved helpful. The utility your designing sounds really cool. It'll be much more fun than the charts you plug numbers into. I hope you get it all worked out.

Circle of confusion is a whole topic in itself. I'll tackle this in the next couple of weeks. I have another long post due in another forum, first. The easiest way to think of viewing distance is the image on a billboard. When viewed up close, the image is clearly lacking apparent sharpness and appears to be low resolution (lacks detail). It looks out of focus. But when viewed from the proper distance the scene appears in focus. Take a small print, like an 8x10, and view it held just inches from your face. The image, again will not appear to have good sharpness and resolution. It looks out of focus. Now put the picture on the wall and stand back 5 or 6 feet and view the same print. Remarkable difference. All you did was change viewing distance.

Jeff

In theory, a perfect lens brings all incident light rays to an infinitely small point of light at the focal point. Since we all know theory is subject to the imperfections of a real physical world, lens polishing imperfections, inclusions, etc, we never really see an infinite point at the focal point. What we see is kind of a blurry circle. As kids, I'm sure most of us held a piece of paper under a lens aimed at the sun to try to set the paper on fire. Did you notice that you had to move the paper back and forth ever so little to try to find the smallest spot? Did you also notice that there was also a range in which the spot seemed to not change? This is an experiential definition of the circle of confusion and depth of field.

I'd love to see your program Aaron. If you want anyone to take
a look (I can't test your numbers, but I can test user interface
and such) please send it to visuar@iname.com. Thanks.

Aaron,

I missed the first part of your reply. Do you still need the math and figures for Cc? Some of it is just personal standards (you say the image is sharp, I say it is not or vice versa) but common figures used today are 1/300 and 1/500 of an inch. Anything smaller than your choosen standard, the human eye will perceive as a point (sharply focused) and anything larger is a circle that is perceived as unsharp.

Jeff

Hi Jeff, I was just wondering if there is some way to break down the CoC rather than have a single "subjective" value? It's probably not a big deal but if I have more inputs into the CoC calculation I might be able to make my little utility a bit more accurate, and above all it will help me understand how this CoC is worked out.

Cheers
Aaron

CoC is a function of several things, some quantifiable, some not. The part that is not quantifiable is the eye to eye variations in what is perceived as out of focus.

Which Xl1 lens has the best depth of field

If you mean the most (largest DoF) the lens with the smallest aperature (largest F number) may have the most DoF. On the other hand if you mean least (smallest DoF) the lens with largest aperature (smallest F number). The F number express' a ratio which is why the inverse relationship to large opening and small F number. This example assumes your are trying to achieve a constant target size as outlined above. You might want to try reading sections A to E above and see if that helps. If you're not findding your answer, post back and I will try to help.

Jeff

well when i saw a 35mm lens demo for the t+s technik they said that 35mm has a very shallow depth of field, I'm not quite sure what that meant, but if I can get the best as possible results that are reaching for the 35mm depth of field, then I'd like to know what lens is best for the XL1 which has similar qualities.

They were referring to the format size, NOT the lens focal length.

Ok Jeff, just one more clarification due to my sad maths ability to work it out myself, but if you had 2 cameras with different CCD sizes and framed a subject identically and for some reason had the fStop at the same number, then would you always get more DoF with the one with the smaller CCD's no matter what you tried to do?


Cheers
Aaron

The smaller CCD would have more DoF if all other factors (A thru E above) and target size stay the same. If you haven't seen this thread yet, http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4103
you might be interested in the answers at the end.

Most of the situations presented talk about a constant target size (subject). The target size isn't always fixed. The Director or DP may decide that the target size can change to allow for more or less DoF. This is a creative decision and it's what film making is partly about. That's why it is important to understand DoF and how it works when the target size is not fixed.

Jeff

Thanks for that Jeff, it's what I thought. The reason I was asking is that I was interested in whether focal length was an "absolute" for any lens, ie does a 50mm focal length on one lens ALWAYS produce the same size image (Assuming everything is else is same, distance, aspect ratio etc) as any other 50mm lens. It seems from what I've tried to find out that they are.

Thanks again

This may sound flippant or rude and I don't mean for it to be, but . . . a millimeter is always a millimeter. Josh asked about what the focal length really is on this thread http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&postid=25113 You might be interested in some of the definitions.

Jeff

Don't worry no offense taken. Thanks for that link it explained everything cause it was the definitions I wanted to know, so I could actually understand what XXmm meant in real terms.

Thanks

I recently received an email from Jean King concerning DOF and with her permission I am reprinting it here with my reply

Hi Jeff,
I too, am wanting to achieve a shallow depth of field effect where a focal
point is razor sharp but everything around the subject is blurred. I read
your posts with much interest, as far as the controlling and independent
variables that are in place. Without insulting you, I however, need the
"dumbed" down version, relative to using a Canon GL2. In other words, to
achieve shallow DOF, with a GL2 are there some basic steps that I can
perform, given the presets??
(i.e., adjusting f-stop and aperture, the general distance I need to be from
subject). Thanks for your help.

Jean King


The three basic things (A, B, C above) that affect DOF are focal length of the lens, taking aperture and distance to your subject. In some cases focal length of the lens and distance to subject cancel each other out. How do they do that? As you move further from you subject, by picking up your camera and moving it away from the subject, you increase depth of field. However, depending on your subject, the subject may get too small. That's only common sense and easy to demonstrate with your camera. But how do we get the subject back to the same size? We typically zoom the lens until the subject is larger. By zooming and making the subject large we have decreased the DOF (longer focal length, less DOF). The Law of Reciprocity cancels the two changes out (longer focal length=less DOF and moving away from subject=more DOF). Your DOF says exactly the same if the subject size is the same.

How do I change DOF? In most case if your subject size has to remain the same size (say a Models head size) decreasing the aperture (small numerical F Number) will decrease the DOF. Use aperture around F1.6, F2, F2.8 to achieve a shallow DOF. If your scene is too bright, using a Neutral Density filter (ND) will decrease the light entering the lens and forcing the aperture to go numerically smaller.

The subject size does not always stay the same size. If I just move the camera further from the subject (and not zoom back in) DOF will increase. If I zoom in (and not move the camera back) DOF will decrease. Combine those changes with changes to your aperture and large changes in DOF can be made.

Why do you dwell so much on subject size? In the real world, the subject size (persons head size) is dictated by the TV set or the script for the movie. Who would watch the news if the persons face was the size of a quarter? Or who would be afraid of Dirty Harry is his face were small on the screen? So, in conclusion, size does matter.

Jeff

A couple of months ago, this is what I posted about DOF (sept 25)
"Getting a given depth of field with a wide angle lens is just as easy/difficult as getting it with a zoomed in lens and back of to keep the same object dimensions. Only the F-number and the target(CCD)dimensions determine the DOF. Given the fact that a zoomed-in lens generally has a higher F number than when zoomed out, the DOF can even be shallower in wide mode (and getting close to the object), if other constraints allow close setting"
All established members seemed to disagree... now everybody seems to know and agree that, if target size must be kept constant, focal length (wide or tele) doesn't play any role in the DOF equation.

Jeff,
Thanks a lot --that helps a great deal. I will experiement with those three variables when I rent a camera. You might have guessd by now that this effect is important to me. So, which camera in your opinion, would offer the greatest flexibility to "play" with depth of field?? (XLS1, PD150, GL2, etc.)
Thanks
Jean

The CCD size is important for DoF, the bigger the CCD size the shallower the DoF. So the PD150 and Xl1s would be better than the Gl2. Also, from what jeff said above, then the Xl1s might be better if you can live with the subject being bigger than what you would have envisaged, because then you can utilise the bigger zoom on the xl1s (Am I right here Jeff?). Also if you have the budget and consider it important, rent a mini35 Adapter and get 35mm style DoF.

This information will help me narrow my camera choices. Wish me luck in shopping!
Jean King

Yes, as Aaron points out, the larger chips in the PD150 and XL1S will provide a shallower DOF (everything else being equal). More things go into a film look than just DOF. Some are camera techniques involving settings and filters. Part is lighting, part is motion and in my mind (and eye) part is DOF. There are many threads on it here http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=34. As far as playing with DOF I think the XL1S with a manual lens will give you the most control and flexibility with DOF.

Jeff

I have been trying to get the camera to focus on people a few feet away and then blur the background.

What is the trick to this with the GL2?

Jason,
It's called shallow depth of field. There's a nice explanation here: http://www.dvcreators.net/media/depthoffield.html

Better yet, check out Jeff Donald's comprehensive Ultimate Depth-of-Field Skinny (http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/optics/dofskinny.php) on our own site. Hope this helps,

If you move farther from your subject, like 25-30 ft, and then zoom in on your subject, it will be sharp and the background will be soft to give you the desired effect. If you move back too much, everything will be sharp defeating the effect.

Thanks guys!!

Im a newbee and working on learning this camera and how to ge the desired effects.

That flash tutorial of depth of field was excellent. Thanks again!!

Still having problems using the GL2 to get this effect. It seems i have to do it in post with mask and gaussian blur.

ROTO-time or is there a setting on the camera im forgetting?

Jason,

Don't laugh, but one place I found useful to practice this effect was at the local zoo. Keep your camera on manual exposure and manual focus, keep f stop low as possible (aperature wide open) and if outdoors you may need to use the ND filter to lower exposure. Zoom in on subject, adjust focus, reframe and background should be out of focus.

HTH
Bob

ill take a trip to the zoo definetly b4 the mosquitoes come out here in toronto to much with the nasty "west nile viris" thats going around.

In regards to your advice im not sur ewhat u mean when u say reframe.

When i zoom in and focus on the object..do i then zoom out which is called "reframe"?

That's right, zoom out a little but not all the way or you'll lose the shallow depth of field.

thanks for your patience. I appreciate all insight.

Controlling your aperture will give you the most control over DOF. You must force the aperture to be wide open(F1.6, F2, or F2.8). Try to avoid anything higher than F2.8. Use the built in ND filter, set gain to minimum (if you can control gain). Read the article Chris Hurd pointed you to. Most people don't understand DOF. Backing up and zooming in will not give you a shallow DOF. That's why it's not working for you. Backing up increases DOF, zooming in decreases DOF. The net result is no change in DOF. Only the aperture will give you control over DOF.

THat is the ticket!

Ill try it tonight at home. Ill write you back 2morro.

Thanks for your tips. I love details like that!

When all else fails optically and you just have to have that background blurred "silking" is a trick that is sometimes applied in video shooting. Silking is basically the placement of some type of translucent material (sheer fabric, plastic, et.al.), usually stretched on a frame, behind your subjects to blur the background. It can be a very time-consuming production process to ensure that the material is invisible in the shot. Lighting and material selection are critical. But it can be very effective on small, controlled scenes.

Other than for Ken's last post, I get the feeling you guys are leading Jason to believe that there is actually something he can do to create a narrow depth of field with a quarter inch chip camera, and that simply is not going to happen in a real world situation. (I am not talking about shooting extreme close-ups of the head of a coin) Here are some real world figures to consider:

Using my PD150, (a one third inch camera with LESS depth of field than the Canon at one quarter inch), I shoot a talking head at fifteen feet with a focal length of 12mm at f/2.8. If I were shooting this in 35mm, the lens equivalent would be about 85mm (a good portrait lens). The depth of field in 35mm terms would be: near limit, 14.35 feet. Far limit would be 15.7 feet, for a total depth of field range of a mere 1.34 feet. Great for those who like narrow depth of field. Now back to the PD150 with one third inch chips.

The near focus is 7.5 feet and the far limit is (are you sitting down?) 1015.94 feet! Yipes. If you stop down to 1.4 you can get the limit down to around forty feet, but you will still have most background objects in focus in normal interiors. And remember, that far limit does not mean things are immediately a blur in the background; rather they slowly fall off focus. And f1.4 can cause other problems, since it is certainly not the best aperature to shoot at with a zoom lens.

Where do I get these outrageous numbers? A very handy depth of field guide from Panavision, to be found at: http://www.panavision.co.nz/kbase/optics/calcFOVform.asp
There simply is no way to get around the numbers. But I am sure someone will find a way to argue the point.

The Panavision site uses non-standard values for CoC. The use of non-standard numbers gives exaggerated values. None the less, Wayne is correct in asserting that shallow DOF is difficult to achieve. One method is to use physical effects as Ken suggests.

Another method is to cheat your focus. Wayne's example assumes that you focus on your subject at a distance of 15 feet from the camera. But if you deliberately focus in front of your subject, say 8 feet away, (with your subject still 15 feet from the camera) DOF is from about 5 feet to 16.8 feet. This results in anything beyond 17 feet being out of focus (even with their non standard numbers). If you opened the lens to F1.4 and deliberately focused at 11 feet (with your subject at 15 feet) DOF is from 8 to 17 feet. This is not extremely shallow, but you can knock the background out of focus and a portion of the foreground.

This technique will not be very helpful for rack focus etc. But it is one method to use to get a more limited DOF with the tools you already have.

That is a pretty sophisticated regimen you are recommending, Jeff. It assumes you have a lens with incremental markings for focus, something I haven't seen on the cameras we are talking about. Even the DVX100 would only give you an approximation of the exact distances you are talking about. And that camera won't iris to f1.4, nor will most of the cameras. Even the PD150 will only go to f1.6, and certainly does not perform optimally at that stop. And again, as I mentioned earlier, the background does not become the classic "blur" that most young filmmakers are interested in, but rather, slowly goes further out of focus as the background distance from the subject increases. Very difficult to make this happen in an interior setting.

Basically, I am saying that with small chip cameras, shallow depth of field is not difficult to achieve, it is virtually impossible under normal shooting conditions. The problem is that some of us are creating a false impression that maybe, just maybe, if you wish really hard, and knew the secret tricks, that you will be able to get blurry backgrounds with these cameras, and it simply is not going to happen.

I wish there was as much interest in proper lighting techniques, composition, and art direction. But of course these require study and constant practice and offer no "magic bullet" to master. Deep focus is not the enemy to creating striking images. See the movie "Signs" for some great examples in a contemporary film. Additionally look up chiaroscuro.

Go to the site below and once there click on the GL. Next click on the view 360 info. Next, click on documents and after that opens, click on the .pdf and scroll down to page 5. It shows a picture of a couple in focus and the background soft. I think this shows what Jason is trying to achieve.

www.canondv.com

Yup, the images are meant to highlight the AV (aperture priority) mode. Notice that they are at a marina, and there are no objects in the background for some distance. That would require a technique similar to what I describe. If you focused on the people, you will achieve some pretty incredible DOF and the boats in the background might be in focus.

Working with DOF is a sophisticated regimen, just like lighting, composition and art direction. It's not easily mastered and requires the right tools. The techniques do not work in all situations. A run and gun production is not ideal for a methodical approach to DOF. It requires a tape measure or optical distance finder, DOF Chart or PDA with DOF program, and an external monitor. The external monitor, though not required, makes checking DOF much easier (especially if your lens lacks a distance scale).

Once you have the required tools assembled, it's just a matter of plugging in the aperture, focal length of lens, and different camera to subject distances to learn the DOF limits. Then place your subject at the limits of the DOF. The closer you set focus, the shallower the DOF. Read the article to understand how changing focal length and distance to subject can cancel each other out (Law of Reciprocity).

This work method is best used on a set where you have greater control of lighting and other important elements. It requires a slow, methodical approach to your work. Again, it's not a method for run and gun or ENG type production.

you guys are coming out of everywhere. Wayne, your absolutely right. It is near impossible to get results indoors. I was trying everything last night at home with a big bluesitup ball about 10 feet away from me and the background around 10 feet behind it. I tried using everyones tricks on here. Im going to give it another go this eve. But probably end up doing it in post if i cant figure it out. Guess it goes with the first thing i read in this forum "shoot, shoot and reshoot!".

Thanks for all the pro-tips guys!

I have read the article in DVinfo which clearly states that zooming in will not affect DoF as it cancels out the net effect. The only way is to open up the aperture.

But a website suggested from previous posts, http://www.dvcreators.net/media/depthoffield.html suggested that we zoom in as much as possible to get shallow DoF.

Are they mistaken?

It depends on how important the object size is. In their examples, notice how the size of the persons head increases in size. If you can work with your subject size being larger, then changing the focal length will decrease DOF. If the subject size must remain the same size (News Anchors head size) then zooming in (decreasing DOF) will be offset by changing distance to subject. The key is if the subject must remain the same size or not.

DV Creators is correct in a limited way. They do not explain the consequences of changing subject size and the Law of Reciprocity. They are repeating the same misconceptions most people have with DOF.