Fei Meng |
March 2nd, 2010 10:36 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Jay
(Post 1493771)
To add, in my mind the chief reason for a video enabled DSLR is to get the shallow DOF look. The 5D2 gives you the most Bokeh for a given lens, it basically is VistaVision.
|
What is this obsession with shallow DOF? Now I'm certainly not saying that shallow DOF is or should not be desirable, but the case that so many 5D users seem to be making is that the shallower the better. In that case, the holy grail must be, like, one inch of focus at all times...
So deep DOF is worthless or just inherently inferior? If that's so, then much of the work of Gregg Toland, Orson Welles, and Jean Renoir must be unwatchable. Come to think of it, the popularity of shallow DOF in 35mm cinematography is a fairly recent phenomenon, so does that mean that none of the directors and DPs up to the Depression Era knew how to make good pictures? I wonder why VistaVision didn't last very long, or why filmmakers never demanded to make all of their movies in 70mm...
I thought that the point of HDSLRs, and the 35mm adapters that came before them, was to make images that more closely resembled movies that you see in a theater. The goal was shallower DOF, not shallowest DOF. How did people lose sight of that along the way? In the movies, pretty much nobody shoots at f/1.4. If Kubrick used f/0.7, then it was only because he wanted to shoot candlelight, not because he was striving for shallow DOF.
I can understand the argument that the 5D allows you more options with shallow DOF, just like it offers more options with wide-angle lenses. But unless someone really needs those options, or specifically going for a certain look, then I just can't understand such blanket statements about shallow DOF and HDSLRs or the need to spend so much more money on something that might not actually be in line with a shooter's original goals.
|