Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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"

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Curse of modern cinema relentless editing.

I watched this trailer for a documentary the other day on a subject that really interests me and it is a simple interview to camera but I felt like strangling the editor. Is it just me or do those cuts in and out grate like hell? It didn't need any of them - the first shot would have done for the whole clip to my taste but Ok maybe 2 or 3 would have worked but there are 19 in 1'20"!

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

I'm surprised you're unaware that the pace of cutting has increased in modern films.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

sounds like modern corporate video style. Shoot two cams, edit two cams.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Oh I didn't understand what you meant. I thought you were saying that the focus has something to do with the editing. But as far as wide shots and editing go, would using Kurosawa's style of editing in High and Low, be too slow paced for today's audience too much do you think?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

It depends on the content, there are a number of modern films which are "single shot" films. If your actors can give performances (good timing etc) and have enough screen presence. plus your script is excellent, so it that can hold longer shots, it'll work. Although, small screens, like phones do introduce a difficulty, these older films are shot for the big screen, where you can see the details in actors' faces in the wider shots.

Editing is commonly used to cover flaws in the above.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Certainly that style but the way it is done here actually distracts the viewer from what the guy is saying and I am sure that is not what anyone wants but it is like the director / editor has got a compulsive disorder to edit come what may.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

S/he actually cut multiple times within one sentence! What a nutter - It's actually worse because with the two very similar angles, it makes it even more annoying - almost like its snapping between two zoom angles. Maybe the intention was to spice up a boring monologue, when in fact it is the kind of content that's a bit specialist, so the viewers want the info, and this makes there be even less need for rapid cuts. No cuts enables real concentration. If it were for casual listeners/viewer, you could understand the idea to drive it a bit. Just horrible!

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Perhaps he stammered and stumbled so much that was the only way to piece it together. If you dont force em to do enough takes to get a good one all the way through or at least several longer chunks solidly, and have bo broll to cover, you could find yourself in that position in post.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

If you look at other videos in the same series over cutting seems to be a habit. Also, this speaker seems to be very articulate, so stammering etc seems unlikely,

It would be poor filmmaking if you cut together an interview in such away to cover stammering and stumbling, you can do that in radio, but not in a video.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

It would but thats never stopped some people!

If the rest are like that its probably a stylistic choice, albeit a bad one. Trying to be “hep” and “wizard”, as the kids say.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Would people watching movies on their phones be a problem? Older movies that have more wide shots in are still watched by today's audience, so they would they have problem with it? Like when people complain about a movie, I never hear them say the actors were often too far away from the camera.

But I also feel that on modern movies, there are a lot of shots where the actors are too close, or they concentrate too much on 'singles', if that is the right term, for one actor in the shot only. So I thought I would do this project in an older style, where you have wide shots with more actors in the frame, more often.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Again, these are decisions for the director of a film. They know the content, we don't

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Makes you wonder how they did it. If two cameras then one would have to be virtually directly behind the other. The irony is that the topic - Sound Techniques studio - was all about spending the most time getting a great sound at source by careful use of microphones, placement of them and using the acoustics of the space, rather than post production work or even much tweaking on the desk. The filmmakers would have done well to take this approach themselves.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Everyone knows that Orson Welles and his cinematographer, Gregg Toland, used deep focus in Citizen Kane. But it requires a lot of light and a small aperture opening.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

The lighting requirements would be a lot less today, they used a 64ASA film stock on Citizen Kane.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Not to mention the best part: some intricate triple-matte rear projection process shots, when nothing else will do.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Thanks for that, I never noticed! Very clever.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

It is one of those "not because you can but whether and when you should" sort of things.

This debate was happening way back when the first home-made and affordable 35mm groundglass based film emulators for 1/3" and 2/3" camcorders became the talking point.

The signature of someone who had just bought themselves one or made one was the extreme shallow depth-of-field shooting going on.

The 35mm groundglass stuff was sometimes spoiled by the same threadbare economics which compelled the use of a groundglass device on a small format videocamera in the first place.

However, there were instances of serious skill, appropriate production values and post-production being applied to groundglass origination and then it looked good.

Three standouts for me were "Merantau", "Dear Wendy" and "Monsters".

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Oh okay. I actually thought about doing rear projection shots as well, like maybe during driving scenes, with car windows, if you don't want to have the actors actually driving a car with cameras attached to it.

One thing about rear projection that looks fake is that it always looks faded compared to the actors. So if you blacken the blacks for the rear projected footage, and brighten the brights, it will look less faded. Will that work better for rear projection?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Video rear projection works pretty well compared to film, which involves going down a generation in film terms with the plate. However, you should run tests with the projection equipment and screen you're planning to use to see if they're up to the job during the planning stage. Doing it during the production may waste a lot of time setting it up.

A low loader with action car mounted on it may work out better if the rear projection doesn't work or you could test green screen. It depends on what you want to do and if you've got the lighting kit to produce an realistic effect. The rear projection would be easier for night shots than day time.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

That's true, I do want to do night shots for one of the driving scenes. What do you mean by 'low loader'?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Not sure what the US term would be, but essentially a very low trailer with the deck as low to the ground as possible, and then you drive onto it and the actors pretend to drive. You fix cameras and audio to it, and then you drive the car on the trailer around giving realistic backgrounds. Much safer than letting actors try to act and drive at the same time.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Oh yes, one of those.

I don't have one of those at my disposal unfortunately. One of shots I want is the camera mounted on the hood of the car pointed at the driver, but a dead on front shot through the windshield. We can shoot it on a road with not much traffic around, but would this be a bad idea, if we mount it to a car and he actually drives? Or perhaps we can pull the car with a pick up truck, rather than a low loader?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Can the actor act and drive? Probably, but if you stick two people in a car and you're not in it as the director, have you got a video/audio link so you can monitor what theyre doing and how well they are doing it? On a trailer, you can be in the towing vehicle with cables between. No point towing them, he still has to steer = and I guess you've never been towed like this, because it's more stressful the driving!

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

rear screen projection is no laughing matter

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Yeah that was the plan just monitor it from the outside. But for the close up shots, I can be in the back seat I think, as long as I am not in the close up shot. No, I've never been towed in a car, I have just seen them be towed. Another thing, is is that if the car is not being towed, you don't hear the truck towing it, so sound is more easier to record, if you don't hear that as well.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

It's nice and quiet with the engine off, but being towed is not for novices. The problem returns to your directing. You NEED a monitor and as you won't have a dedicated sound op, you will need to hear everything too. If you are outside the vehicle watching a monitor and listening to the audio, you also need walkie talkies or talkback so you can direct, and stop things and do re-shoots. You're running, not walking again. I have only done this kind of thing once, and a three minute scene took me all day, and wasn't perfect by any means. Driving around the streets of Cardiff took planning, and the involvement of the Police to ensure it went smoothly.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

I also wanted thought maybe I don't need to have this conversation take place in the car, and I can just skip ahead to after they have parked and exited the car. But I was told by readers, that there is no way they are going to drive through the city and not have this really important conversation that whole time, which they need to have, so I have to execute it in the driving, they said.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Surely this is in the script? Why go to the effort of the car, if all you need is people getting in and driving off and then cutting to them getting out?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Oh they need to have a conversation but the conversation is of the utmost urgency, which means they wouldn't wait till a car drive was over, in to have it.