I like it cause in a mastershot, you don't have to rack focus to who you want to look at all the time, and you can choose to look at whoever you wish, just like in a lot of older black and white movies.

I watched an interview with Brian De Palma, and he even said he hates rack focusing in mastershots, which is why he shoots his with a split diopter lens, so you can see more than one character in focus in a master. I won't use a split diopter of course, but would just light and expose for deep focus.

But why do so many filmmakers hate it now it seems?

A wafer-thin depth of field seems to be fashionable at the moment. Perhaps people think its 'Cinematic' (whatever that means) and that they just have to do it.

Occasionally you see a really great shot with a razor-sharp subject and the background a complete blur but it gets tedious when the effect is over-used, and it is.... A lot.

My question is always: if you don't want us to see the background why didn't you chooses a plain background for your shot - you should be in control.

But my pet hate is watching documentaries shot on hand-held DSLRs with the iris wide open and a depth of field so shallow the operator can't find focus, let alone keep it.

In the future, when we are all using light-field cameras, we'll be able to choose the depth of field in post, or just have everything in focus!

Oh well it's not so much that I wanting viewers to pay attention to the background, but if I have a few actors all in a shot, and I want them all to be in focus simultaneously, doesn't that background have to be focus, so everyone else can be, when they move around, and are all at different distances?

It's a fashion, the shallow DOF was associated with shooting 35mm film, when many were shooting with 1/3" cameras. I was assumed that's how you direct attention within the frame, but that's more a stills concept, since the human eye is directed towards movement and whoever is speaking, which is the normal content in a film.

Some of the most cinematic films have deep focus.

Regarding shallow DOF you really need to consider what it implies about the characters and how they relate to each other. However, I suspect many use it because it looks pretty.

Fashions tend to come and go, for a quite a few years zooms were all the rage, now they're more restrained and are buried within camera moves or used with more thought.

Well I could have shallow DOF if that's what it's in fashion now, but if I shoot a movie with lots of moving master shots, with multiple actors in them and it rack focuses from actor to actor, would an audience find this distracting though?

Do YOU find it distracting when you watch "real" movies and TV shows? Do you even notice it? Probably not. Chances are the rack happens at the same time that each actor becomes the "focus" of the scene, so your attention and eyes shift to that person, and the rack basically becomes invisible.

Well the thing is, is that I don't recall seeing movies that do it that much with multiple characters in a master shot. Directors hardly use masters anymore, and back in the older days when they did, the masters were usually in deep focus it seems.

Are there any movies with shallow focus master shots that I can check out?

Higher end cine prime lenses tend not to breath (the zooming action when pulling the focus) when you pull focus, which may be an issue with stills lenses, for which this isn't an issue in their planned market. Zoom lenses can also breath during focus pulls, anamorphic lenses can have quite noticeable breathing at times.

The thing about masters is that they often don;t get used in the final edit. Masters tend to use shorter focal length lenses and not as tight on the actors, so there's less of a shallow DOF effect.

With shallow DOF you need an extremely good 1st AC to keep things sharp, so given the level of experience of your crew and the tight schedule, I wouldn't go near very shallow DOF. Shooting at f2.8 will be giving them a hard time, never mind wider apertures.

If was watching the trailer for at new one shot war movie where from what I saw it looks amazing and totally immersive. I never r watch movies any more. Netflix has a small handful for films I can tolerate. I have a big screen, I like to be able to see things, and I don't mind gentle guidance, but so many good movies need the viewer to find the clues, and notice things. The arty directors are not new, and I remember being projectionist of British 'art' films in the 70s, usually shot on 16mm. I hated them, because as a non-art school graduate I didn't have the instruction book for appreciating them. Nothing has changed. Throwing focus from person to person can be a really good directorial move, but it can also be a disaster when it's done ineptly. The director and editor work together on telling the story. Nothing is more important. A real skilled DoP will use the best technique for the movie's individual scenes. Those that pick a technique and pick an equipment list then work out how to shoot with it are stupid. How many of us have seen what we're supposed to shoot, then looked at the equipment to hand and though "oops,bad choice"? Then, because of logistics and budget, we do the best wth it, when we already know results will be compromised. I've never had quite the right equipment, so it's the right technique with what you have. I cannot imagine being able to shoot something with a DSLR with wide open iris, with subjects at different distances and be able to throw focus from person to person accurately without lots of rehearsals, tightly controlled actor blocking and a lot of camera tape on the lense. A real lens, note, not one where the focus ring is uncalibrated and unrepeatable.

The first thing you'd notice about 16mm of the 70s would be the grain and the lower resolution compared to 35mm films, rather than the shallower depth of field of the latter.

Apparently (I was always being told) grain = art. I suspect the fads of today were just as common in art films back then. I showed one a week for a year and hated all of them. Then I went to see 2001 at the real cinema, and it had an arty-farty goes on and on sequence in it too! Kubrick must have seen the same movies I did in the studio, and thought he'd include something similar. Now, being old, I quite like that movie!

Higher end cine prime lenses tend not to breath (the zooming action when pulling the focus) when you pull focus, which may be an issue with stills lenses, for which this isn't an issue in their planned market. Zoom lenses can also breath during focus pulls, anamorphic lenses can have quite noticeable breathing at times.

The thing about masters is that they often don;t get used in the final edit. Masters tend to use shorter focal length lenses and not as tight on the actors, so there's less of a shallow DOF effect.

With shallow DOF you need an extremely good 1st AC to keep things sharp, so given the level of experience of your crew and the tight schedule, I wouldn't go near very shallow DOF. Shooting at f2.8 will be giving them a hard time, never mind wider apertures.

That's true, do you think that audiences would mind that zooming action when pulling focus on a lower end lens?

But why do so many filmmakers hate it now it seems?

Not all do. Director Director Giuseppe Tornatore and DP Fabio Zamarion used great depth of field to great effect in many of the shots in 'The Best Offer" some of which can be seen in the following clip. You really do have to see the whole film though to see where their uses of a deep field of focus both indoors and outdoors really make this film a bit of a visual feast.

Chris Young

The Best Offer Official Trailer #1 (2013) - Geoffrey Rush, Jim Sturgess Movie HD - YouTube

That's true, do you think that audiences would mind that zooming action when pulling focus on a lower end lens?

It depends how bad it is, most 2/3" zoom lenses breath as do many cine zoom lenses. If it's a hard focus pull from infinity to close they may sense something, but when it's between two object close together it will less. You have to do it on a case by case basis. If the content is strong enough they should be more involved in that than the breathing, as long you don't put a rough focus pull in the middle that doesn't carry with the action.

Oh okay.

But as far as deep DoF goes, even on here i was told on my short film before that the DoF was too deep, as if that was bad, so if i decide to use it how do you make it look good, where people will not see it as unintentional?

Did someone say deep focus?

https://youtu.be/iTAys_KR1B0

You select your DoF to tell the story Ryan. You know this, pick what you need. Isolate or give them everything - you pick

You start with the creative vision to tell your story so that viewers will see it the same way you do. The technical serves the aesthetic. The audience doesn't automatically recognise what you have achieved. You need to provide guidance via publicity and marketing, else risk sinking without a trace like so many worthy others. So you may have to shift some of your focus from technical and creative to publicity and marketing. There's a reason studios may spend more on marketing than production. As well as highlighting your creativity, appropriate marketing can cover many mistakes, make virtue of necessities. The masses prefer the opinions of the outspoken to the effort of developing their own. After all, what is truth? Thus: "the director's use of deep focus lifted what may have been a mundane scene into a gripping vision of delight". Oh, and careful not to overdo it.

Oh okay, you are saying that if the movie is marketed well, than people will not be bothered by the deep DoF near as likely?

People are more interested in a good story well told (as one ad agency had as its slogan), your actors are way more important than deep focus or shallow focus. They watch many films and even love some films that have deep focus without thinking about it. If you don't have the key stuff, they'll start walking out, no one has walked out because of deep focus or shallow focus.

If I recall you shot an interior scene at f11, that would only be necessary if you're shooting models, f5.6 has the lens working at it's best, if you want a general deep focus effect. I know of one DP who always used that stop, it was the cause of some banter with the 1st AC guessing his stop.

Ryan you've gone back to your rule bookagain. How many times must we warn you that in art, rule books don't work, or evolve fast than ink dries. People give you advice, you convert to a rule. Don't do it. Think about the law. There are rarely laws that are specific, they just provide frameworks for people to wok inside of. They're the hard edges not e centre point. Our audience are like any group. You went to college to learn film making but your audiences didn't! Audiences only notice bad movies, not bad technique making them.

I mentioned that one shot war film. Almost all will be lens to Infiniti sharp, because the technique makes shallow focus technically different. You could imagine some benefits from having sharp focus on the subject in a big busy scene, but could you actually do it?

I assume you're talking about "1917".

1917 Trailer #2 (2019) | Movieclips Trailers - YouTube

Yep = look at this clip for some amazing behind the scenes shots of the camera transfers.
https://youtu.be/Oq4t3f6LmDA

Yes, you're right I shouldn't turn everything into a rule, I got to change my mindset. It's just when people tell me something like I shouldn't have used such a deep DOF, it comes off like it's a rule then for example.

When it comes to 1917, what am I looking for exactly, the rack focusing?

But I suppose there is no rules right, cause in the 1917 trailer, I felt that a lot of the shots were over exposed, and the sky was too blown out. But it's still a professionally made movie, and a lot of people might not mind that technicality compared to me.

You probably won't see any breathing, it's mostly exteriors, so will be mostly deep focus. With 1917, it's the use of deep focus.

You can;'t always tell from a trailer what the final grading of a feature film will be like because specialist companies make them.

The skies will possibly blow out on overcast days because that's your light source and you can't put grad filters on in a film that's all "one" tracking shot without the risk of them looking fake. However, I see detail in the skies, so they're not blown.

deleted message

In the behind the scenes clip, you'll see they waited for just the right skies.

In the trailer and the behind the scenes, you can see so much the vistas, the use of empty space, the smoothness of the shots despite the terrain and the actors in it. You can see exceptional skill levels in everything, and watch people quickly getting out of the way. You can see how proper planning really works, and you can see narrative with no words, an it's not boring. The Director's plan to tell the story seems to break loads of our usual conventions, but it's very powerful. If I could devise, let alone make that movie, I'd be a very happy man. Just watching how they made should give Ryan some clues I think.

Oh okay. I noticed that in the featurette, they used both a gimbal and a steadicam to make it with. Was there a reason they used both, as oppose to choosing one over the other?

When you have this level of budget equipment choice is simply down to which one will do a better job. That's a decision made on analysis of the scene. A gimbal mount can be passed on, a steadicam can't, a steadicam will be more'aimable' manually. The way they stabilise is very different. Physical things too, can the post clear obstacles, weight is important, the gimbal could be too heavy for some shots etc etc. Best camera, best lens, best technique for each setup.

Did you take the point on depth of focus though? It's a huge vista and there's something new to see on each play of the clip. Did you see anything that shouldn't have been in frame.

Did you consider sound? What exactly would that boom have been recording? Especially as so many wakie-talkies with no headsets/earpieces are visible? I looked for production compromises and saw very few.

For me the most impressive thing was the safety coordination of the pyros. The risk assessment would necessitate very precise firing and I wonder how they did that. I suspect they'd need a very high shot camera and then grids to enable safe zone firing. I'd love to get some detail on that. I do a bit of pyrowork and while nothing this scale, I find safety zones for firing quite tricky to control, and this has them multiplied in quantity and duration. Pyros are reliable, but actors are not!

They needed to quickly switch to various other mounts without stopping the action, which you can't do with a Steadicam, so a Gimbal type system can be used for those parts. Their Gimbal will have remote control. so that pan and tilt can be operated etc and probably has gyro stabilisation, The film was shot with an Arri Mini LF, which weighs nearly 6 lbs, plus a lens of 4 lbs, then you need the battery, lens motors and other accessories, plus the mounting system. All this means you need two people to carry it and do a safe transfer.

WW1 trenches are too narrow for two people, plus a camera between them, so the Steadicam is ideal for filming in tight spaces..

Oh okay, and yes I noticed the deep focus, but they show mostly action scenes though. Isn't deep focus more accepted in action sequences, compared to dialogue sequences?

I was also told that a deep DOF will not work for me wanting to shoot in the same style as High and Low, cause High and Low had expensive sets, where as shooting in real non-cinematic looking locations, will not look good for a deep DOF, if that's true.

As for what that boom would have been recording, what do walkie talkies or head sets have to do with what a boom mic records?

Walkie talkies are used in by assist directors and other crew members, if they don't have head sets the boom mic is likely to pick up any radio chatter during a take.

Why are you shooting at non cinematic locations? Art direction is key to a scene working and you have to really work hard to find locations that fit with your story.. Even white walls can be cinematic in the right story,

Dialogue heavy films have been shot with deep focus, "Citizen Kane" is hardly an action movie. Quentin Tarantino is hardly dialogue light. No one here suggesting you do or don't shoot deep focus, it's you that seems to be obsessing about it. !917 is being given an example of a contemporary film that has deep focus.

Again, its up to you and your DP to decide which is right for your film..

Oh it's just in the past, DPs did not to shoot deep focus with my projects.

As for cinematic locations, the problem with real locations is they were not designed for movie shooting un mind if course, so it's almost impossible to find cinematic looking ones, hence i was advised to put them into shallow focus.

It's your art director's job to make them cinematic, they can turn the most bland looking place into something completely different. They spend money building sets that look like real locations in studios. What is something else in reality can be changed into a completely different environment, that's what your crew is for.

It's up to you, as director, to decide if your film needs deep focus. The past doesn't mean the future is set in stone.

Apparently (I was always being told) grain = art. I suspect the fads of today were just as common in art films back then. I showed one a week for a year and hated all of them. Then I went to see 2001 at the real cinema, and it had an arty-farty goes on and on sequence in it too! Kubrick must have seen the same movies I did in the studio, and thought he'd include something similar. Now, being old, I quite like that movie!

Perhaps you should re-evaluate your whole approach then.

To watch 52 films and hate very one of them because they are 'arty-farty' suggests a rather prejudiced world view. Some of the best films ever made are what you would call art movies. My beef is with much of the commercial world that churns out 90% good looking, expertly made, drivel, that makes a shed load of money because people are like sheep.

Sadly - Netflix is filled with movies I don't want to watch, and I'm happy with my history of hating art movies. I worked for the Royal Shakespeare Company for 6 months, and have to say I've hated Shakespeare ever since.

Watching a 30 minute short of a dead dog decomposing in a wood, or one that seemed to all about coloured dye in water, filmed in slo-mo have stuck in my head for 40 years+. I just don't like this kind of stuff, no matter how popular it is. I'll happily watch a few movies in a series if it clicks with me, but my switch off moment always comes very early. I'm sure my film club experience hindered my appreciation of movies, and tarnished what other people like - but I see no need to try to convince myself art movies are good - just not my cup of tea!

But 'art movie' would include 2001, Paris Texas, Seven Samuri, Walkabout, La Dolce Vita, Once Upon a Time in the West, Naked, Solaris, etc etc

You seem to equate the term with the ultra avant-garde which is obviously a very niche area.

Maybe it is par for the course for this forum which has fantastic technical and industry advice but little insight into the real art of cinema (ducking quickly - I know, an exaggeration...)

I just watch movies to be entertained. If they also happen to art it up, more the better.

I think I’m a pretty good judge of what’s a good movie, might not be in the mood for a particular movie or care for a genre but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. I am still shocked to this day the wildly different ratings on IMDB.. Find either the best or worst you can think of and there will be people on both extremes loving or hating it. Often movie reviews reveal more about the reviewer than the movie. While I enjoy occasionally junk/fast food I wouldn’t consider it a culinary masterpiece. Die Hard is great movie in it’s genre which I could watch many times where as 2001 is a classic that is better but not as easy to consume and has its place in movie history which warrants respect whether you care to watch it.

Im not saying a movie has to be Die Hard or a Marvel movie. Plenty of lower key quieter movies are entertaining to. But there’s definitely a point where stuff is just too out there for my tastes and I’m not interested in trying to divine whatever message the filmmakers are trying to convey.

It's your art director's job to make them cinematic, they can turn the most bland looking place into something completely different. They spend money building sets that look like real locations in studios. What is something else in reality can be changed into a completely different environment, that's what your crew is for.

It's up to you, as director, to decide if your film needs deep focus. The past doesn't mean the future is set in stone.

Oh well I want the movie to have a lot of wide shots of all the actors in with a lot of moving around and blocking like High and Low. So with those kind of shots, would shallow or deep focus be better? Or could either or, work?

Would these shots in High and Low work, if they were shallow focus and you could only see one actor in focus at a time?

3 Brilliant Moments of Blocking (in Kurosawa's High and Low) - YouTube

You can use either, but you'd need wide aperture lenses to have a shallow DOF effect with the wide angle lenses you'd probably be using for those type of shots, The downside is that geod lenses, which don't go soft when using suitable stops are expensive, so shooting at something like f2.8 - f3.5 is a good balance.

Since you've got a camera with a similar sensor size (unless they're using full frame) shooting tests would be the way to go. Pose some people and see which you like.

Oh okay, I don't think they were using full frame since it was shot in a scope ratio, but that is my guess.

When you say geod lenses, I tried looking it up, but could not get a definition. Do you mean zoom lenses?

Im not saying a movie has to be Die Hard or a Marvel movie. Plenty of lower key quieter movies are entertaining to. But there’s definitely a point where stuff is just too out there for my tastes and I’m not interested in trying to divine whatever message the filmmakers are trying to convey.

Well it's horses for courses I guess. I like films that stay with me long after the closing credits and I invariably find that is the type of film where a certain 'divination' is required by me - not everything is served on a plate, and to some extent, it therefore isn't just about entertainment.

I can read a novel, say a good crime thriller - I enjoy it but ask me about it a year or even few months later, and I could tell you very little about it, but a more 'difficult' novel where I am scratching my head a bit, but persevere - then they can be remembered and drawn on for a lifetime. I read a Samuel Beckett novel that was almost like a nightmare to read (no paragraphs and for much of it and almost no punctuation - it was mercifully only 100 pages long) but it was like a challenge and I finished it - something kept drawing me on. I came to the conclusion it was a work of genius and I am very glad I bothered. The fact that one of the repeated phrases in it was “You must go on. I can't go on. I'll go on” sort of helped.

Oh okay, I don't think they were using full frame since it was shot in a scope ratio, but that is my guess.

When you say geod lenses, I tried looking it up, but could not get a definition. Do you mean zoom lenses?

He meant “good lenses”. It was a typo.

Yes, it's a typo.

I'm not sure how Ryan got zoom out of geod, that would be two incorrect characters instead of one.

Although, the zooms you'd probably want to use on a drama max out at f2.8 anyway

Oh okay, its just that zooms have a less shallow dof so i thought maybe that's what was meant.

Are there movies that are shot with wide shots like High and Low, but with shallow focus?

Modern editing is much faster, although. there are scenes in films with a shallow depth of field with multiple characters in wide shots. "Barry Lyndon" is an example.

There are zooms with shorter focal lengths, so you won't notice a shallow DOF effect at 18nn to 28mm on a wide shot with a 25mm lens at f2.8 and focused at 6 feet the DOF is 4' 3" to 10' 2", with an 18.5mm it's 3' 5" to 23' 8"

Oh okay thanks, I'll check out Barry Lyndon. What does modern editing, have to with it though?

Probably that with few exceptions, wide shots that last long enough to have all that stiff play out and be impactful dont exist now days. If youre cutting every two or three seconds that Kurosawa stuff doesnt work.