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

I wonder why this car was so distracting. Unless the film was set in another era I have to think people being distracted by any car of any color in the background means you lost them with the story at that point.

My low budget, “didnt realize it til too late” solution would have been to desaturate or alter the color in Resolve. Uniform saturated colors lend themselves well to this type of treatment unless something of a similar color that you DONT want to affect crosses through them.

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

I don't think the same green beetle distracts from the car chase in "Bullett", it's talking point after people have seen it numerous times, but not on the first viewings.


If something like the colour of a car in the background is distracting, there's something wrong with your action.or story at that point. That's unless the car is modern car in a 1960s scene, Green is hardly eye catching, a bight red or pink car might worth consideration as a distraction but not green.

Using a shallow DOF on mid day exteriors is a relatively recent phenomenon, since in the past the standard set of neutral density filters had 0.9 as it's densest, so with f16 being a sunny day (100 ASA tungsten film with 85 conversion filter) that gives you f8. You could get denser ones (eg a ND 1.2 for f5.6 or pack more ND filters in - which can be limited by your filter trays and how much extra glass you want to put in front of your lens - with 100ASA stock, an 85ND9 and a ND9 get f2.8 on a film camera, these filters being part of a standard filter package on a film), but after a certain point you can't see much through the optical viewfinder and today you'd need an extremely dense ND filter if your camera has an ISO of 800 to 2,000 in order reach the shallow DOF stops. With latter you need IR correction with a number of cameras.

Usually, if something in the background is going to be distracting, you frame it out of the picture.

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

Oh okay thanks, but I usually don't know what audiences will find distracting in the background until later. Sometimes in public places, certain things are impossible to frame out though. But it was a bright saturated green car for sure. Do you think that maybe if something is distracting color wise like that, that I should rotoscope out that one object and color it differently in post?

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

I don't think I have ever done anything like this. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Surely as we've said, the scene should be interesting enough to keep people's attention on what the Director planned?

This is frankly a bit silly!

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

Oh okay, it's just I was also learning to use Da Vinci Resolve and some colorists separate the background from the actors and color the background separately, so I thought maybe this was normal practice. Well I could count on the script and acting being interesting enough, that not having full color control over the background of the locations is not an issue then?

I asked the person before what was distracting about the green car, and he said it's because that color seems out of place thematically. He said that each color in the background has to mean something, if that's true. So could that be an issue with uncontrolled colors, is to look at if they fit thematically?

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

In an ideal filmmaking world on a controlled professional set? Yes EVERYTHING in the frame from colors to set design to wardrobe etc. is supposed to be deliberate and therefore meaningful.

HOWEVER you and other low budget filmmakers are almost never working on that type of set/production. You’re working with whatever location you were able to get and sometimes it is what it is. Sometimes there are green cars that dont fit.

If you want to change that, you’ll have to shoot only on locations you can completely control.

Paul and a lot of the folks here dont understand the issues you run into because they dont work on no budget, basically “just for fun” stuff; they only work in a budgeted professional world.

Ive been where you are many times and basically, everything you ask about comes down to, you cant get pro results with non-pro resources and budgets. You have to either learn to live with the (sometimes extreme) compromises or completely rethink your approach. Cant control background in exterior locations? Dont use that location. maybe dont even use exteriors at all. Now that problem is solved.

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

You are getting into a higher level of skills than you probably have with the Resolve, because you can do something doesn't mean that it's done to any great extent because of budgets etc.

I don't know what the colour of a background car has to do with the theme of your film, since given the level of control you have on your budget is pretty minimal, there's a point where the real world comes in and you have to live with them because you can't control it. Plus there's also a certain level of BS can come from some people.

If you want to get a meaning of green try this: https://www.bourncreative.com/meanin...e-color-green/

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

Oh I was just told by a couple of test viewers before who were also filmmakers that colors matter, and not every color is going to go with the look and thematic feel of your movie, so you have to watch for unwanted colors therefore.

Well my former film school professor looked at some of my work and he said that you have to have complete control of the location and be able to paint or make any changes you want to, because when you release your movie, you are not going to be able to explain to audiences, that you didn't have the control. Audiences are not going to want to hear any excuses like that, nor are you going to be able to tell everyone that. Does he have a point?

As for not shooting exteriors and only interiors, that is also a problem because interiors you do not have complete control over either, if no location owners will let you repaint even.

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

With low budget films all you can do is your best. Pick a suitable location and go with it, if someone parks a green car in the location, you'll just have to work around it of it can't be moved.

If the car is near by and obvious in the frame it may be more important than if it's parked way up the street, however, it being an Aston Martin or a Ferrari in a working class area would be more important than its colour.

I would usually more attention to its make and model than its colour, since that says something about the owner. A green car is pretty nondescript colour unless it's a military type 4 x4 vehicle

Given the questions you're asking here, they may possibly be pulling your leg.

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

ah..... one of those Professors. I often think some very famous Directors would sit open mouthed at their lectures, and all the arty-farty claptrap that they have wrapped in educationalist theorems and jargon. My least favourite sessions were on semiotics. I'm firmly convinced that most examples given in the lectures were actually accidental and the creators didn't incorporate these features deliberately, but just as part of the narrative, and the educationalists seized on them as theory.

This sentence sums it up for me. "you have to have complete control of the location and be able to paint or make any changes you want to, because when you release your movie, you are not going to be able to explain to audiences, that you didn't have the control." I think he lives on a nice fluffy, safe cloud somewhere where there are no sharp edges or real life issues.

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

Possibly.

To reiterate what Brian said.

Ok, you don't have complete control of those locations...could be cars in BG outside, can't paint inside...on your low budget, you will then have to find locations that already fit your needs--i.e. the interior already looks close enough to what it should that it wouldn't require painting, maybe just set dressing. Exteriors...I dunno...don't shoot into deep backgrounds you can't control? That's really all you can do. Or risk having these issues again.

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

The car used in Dr No wasn't a grand stylistic decision on colour and model, they wanted Bond to drive a sports car and the only one available on the island was a blue Sunbeam Alpine. It was hardly a huge creative decision. it was a practical one.

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

This professor’s statement reminds me of a quote usually attributed to Yogi Berra:
“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice it doesn’t work that way.”

If and when time, available resources, and money don’t matter... well, that would be different. Realistically, only a very very few people with lots of credibility get to throw money at problems to make them go away.

On the other hand, holding to one’s creative vision is always important, as is knowing when you’ve achieved it. Or when you’ve compromised it, and whether that compromise is significant in the storytelling. That’s true in any level of work, whether student projects, weddings, production services, indie films, streaming reality shows, or high budget features.

Which is, Ryan, an interesting way to look at your many threads and posts that ask for this crowd’s confirmation of what others have told you.

What do *you* think about the green car?

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

Well I didn't really notice the car being a problem until others pointed it out, then I kept looking at it that way.

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

That could mean it wasnt a problem but then again weve had similar discussions on here where something didnt bother you and folks here criticized if. You could post a screenshot and get better feedback here.

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

Yeah and that's just it, is I feel I need to learn what is acceptable and not acceptable to most viewers. I don't feel like treating everything as a case by case basis and wait till you see what works and what does not, after it's shot is best, and feel I have to know before shooting.

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

Ask yourself one question. Why don't you know? You've been doing it for a long time now Ryan.

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

In films everything is case by case, there's no standard template, you have to use your creative judgment on the scene you're filming, If you're shooting near to a green (or any other colour) car, is it going to be distracting in the frame? The same can happen with any other movable objects you may find on a location,

You can't plan everything in advance, a director has to think on their feet, you may suddenly be refused a location, so you may need to quickly find an alternative. An actor may be sick, so you need to find a replacement. The camera might develop a fault that takes time to fix, so you lose half the shots you're were planning because you don't have enough time left. Which ones do you need to tell the story?

As Paul says, you have to ask yourself the question "Why don't you know?".

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

We seem to often have to say quite negative things to Ryan, but in fairness, now I'm getting on I am noticing that it's sometimes me who is now left behind in some ways. I now spend most time managing - so planning, preparing, organising, that kind of thing, but I have always prided myself that come push to shove, I could do the jobs any of the people working for me do. However, things have moved quite fast, and being spread across disciplines that are evolving very fast, I cannot keep up. I now have two of my people that I could not replace with me, or at least, replace them with me doing as well as them. I would now do an acceptable job, but not as well as them - and it really wrangles in my head. I just do not have time to get up to speed enough to be at the top of the job role. I could cover, but that's it! In my real role, it doesn't matter. I don't have the need to be able to do their job, but I have always been able to, and probably this was why I got many of my clients - somebody suggested me as a good solution.

I don't like not being on the mental list of good at X, and good at Y any longer. I've always prided myself at being good (but not exceptional) at loads of things. When the phone rings I say yes, then ask what the job is. Now I have to be careful. I now have to say no to some, and pass on the names of the people who I know can do it. I really don't like this.

Ryan worries me because he's at the bottom and wants really badly to climb the ladder, but using this analogy, is afraid of heights.

Look at the great Directors. Try to understand their personality, their background. There's a good tale about George Lucas, who wanted to make movies, and had so much pressure not to, but he persevered and went from being considered a bit of an idiot with what was near to obsession, to an amazingly respected individual in quite a short period of time. Another good one to study is Gerry Anderson, the Thunderbird creator. He wanted so badly to make movies he took the puppet offer as a 'stop gap', and had a terrible time convincing producers to let him use real actors. With a couple of exceptions, he's still after his death, known for Thunderbirds - yet he did make a real, big budget movie that only the fans know about. Reading his history of dealing with the money people is very sobering. Constant and unrelenting battles with money, and what he considered interference. The Producers wanted to sell to the US - a very important market, so his casting got interfered with, inserting American actors, then even having to fire established characters and use a new Director who just didn't get it - ruining in his words, a second series. There's some great history to read about this guy that would be relevant to Ryan I think. No money, high standards, terrible interference in the art elements and his requirement for very high standards from the team.

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

Oh okay, but is there any standard guidelines then, on how to make a movie? Or is everything we are taught online and in film school, not be relied upon, if everything is case by case?

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

I suppose the question really links to the quality of the film school, and clearly you have been fed very selective information on the movie industry, as have many of your advising friends.

You have a NEED for guidelines. We, on the other hand find them useful, until there is one that just won't work, when we discard it as not applicable. More like if THIS happens, do THIS, unless we know better, when we simply ignore it. Of course occasionally, or regularly depending on your skill or plain bad luck, it comes crashing down. That's how it is. Remember that skills audit I suggested months ago? Did you try it and learn anything?

Over the weekend at a party of all things, a young guy came up to me and started to ask me questions about my career. Very odd really, but somebody had obviously fed him some stories. We chatted for quite a while and he said "So basically, should I do what you do and lie?" He had missed the point. I'd told him that when the phone rings and somebody asks if I can do something I always say yes. If I have stood next to a guy who is using a particular bit of kit I've never ever touched, I watch intently and take it all in, and probably ask a few questions about things I cannot see, or work out. Next time somebody asks if I'm happy with using an old Vinten Plover, I say yes. Never touched one in my life, but I understand the common parts and can adapt. That's how I got my very first TV cameraman job. That job got me another, and that another. The idea of saying no - which would have been the correct answer never occurred to me! That's what I have done all through my life and I have enough confidence and perhaps smugness when it goes well to deal with it. Jump in, both feet is my Moto!

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

Oh okay, I feel I've had the opposite experience some people say I need to learn when to say no.

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

Yes - but with the greatest respect, you are a novice at it, and I'm a grumpy old done it all - however, when I was 18, I started saying yes.

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

There is a basic cinematic grammar, but how you use the vocabulary is up to you and you knowing if your target audience understands it and the emotions this conveys to them.

Unless you're making a soap opera, each scene will be directed, performed and shot on a case by case basis, otherwise you are painting by numbers. As the director you need to know how the scene fits into the whole, not on the basis of shots, but in the emotional "journey" (over used word these days) of every character within the film.

Genres often have conventions, it's how you subvert and hide your use of them that prevents your film from becoming cliche ridden.

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

When I was seventeen, I decided to apply for a job with Singer sewing machines as a salesman. I was young and confident and secured the job. I had to go on a residential training course and learn how to sell the way that Singer wanted me to. It involved learning a script of what to say and how to respond to various questions. We were all required to learn the script off by heart, which was written by a top Singer sales executive. We also learned how to use and service the machines. At the end of the course, we were given intensive training on the brand new innovative 'Touch and Sew'machine which was due to be released, then after testing, we were sent back to our base shops.

A week later, I became the first in the UK to sell the new machine and indeed sold the first six. After 3 months I was the top UK salesmen and was invited to London to demonstrate to all the new trainee salesman exactly why I was the top man. I was sat in the centre of the training room with someone pretending to be an interested customer and told to start my sales routine. I started by asking where they had been on holiday, then about their pets and started talking about my own interests. After 5 minutes I was stopped and told that it was completely irrelevant and to use my sales patter. I replied that I sold the machines by building a relationship with each customer as each customer was different, long before I gently introduced the new machine into the conversation. I also pointed out that I couldn't even remember the script. I was immediately told that the best people in the company had developed the sales script and would I please start using it. I responded that I never used it, and used my own initiative. At this point the proceedings were stopped and I was taken from the room and severely reprimanded for ignoring company policy. That was followed by a written reprimand to my area manager, at which point I immediately resigned.

Absolutely nothing to do with film making, but the point is that you use rules and guidelines as just that- guidance, but every circumstance is different and you have to adapt yourself to the demands that are presented to you. If you only ever do what you have been told is best, you will never develop your own creativity and get yourself noticed.

Roger

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

That's exactly it, Roger! You KNEW you were right, and the fact that you sold loads was the evidence. Clearly the other people only thought they knew better - good for you. I've done similar take a stance things.

Oddly - in my pantomime role, the company owner knows I break all the rules, and took me to one side and said "Your show took 1.5 million last year. I don't care if you break the rules if you can do this again". Next day one of the senior people sent me stacks of new rules and processes, which I will ignore if they don't make sense, and put into action and use them if they do. If I mess up badly, then I deserve to be fired - that's how it works. Like the boss of McDonalds. Or not.

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

Rule: Look at every element in the camera’s frame.

Not a rule: Green cars are bad in backgrounds. It’s situational.

Rule: Step back and try to see each element with fresh and objective eyes. Sometime its called the grandmother test, that is, what would my grandmother get out of this scene?

Not a rule: If I like it, if I understand it, it’s good.

I really appreciate what Paul and Roger wrote of their experiences in the last few posts. Me too.

The question I ask myself is: As a life-long learner, can I learn fast enough to stay ahead of the needs of the role or project?

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

With musicians and music, the saying is “Play to the crowd” or audience. Expanding on that a bit further, one wouldn’t (normally) sing opera in the local pub or play country-western/hip-hop (etc) at the Vienna Opera.

A couple years ago we went to an Elvis impersonator performance in Vienna and it was amazing. Almost as soon as the event (three of them) was announced they were essentially sold out and we got two seats for the last one and my wife sat behind me and I had women on each side. Fantastic stage performance before several thousand people. The performance was very much like those from Las Vegas and the audience ate it up, ending with the encore “Johnny B. Goode” where he walked the aisles with all the ladies coming unglued. Hey, we’re talking 50 years since the real Elvis and his stage presence lives on. Play to the crowd!

With advertising as with video, or movies, it would be something similar. Who is the audience? What will they accept? The Sci-Fi buff wants good animation where as the Saturday morning kid watching cartoons, not so particular. The weekend mechanic trying to figure out how to get the lawnmower running by watching YouTube vids wants the meat about how to fix it but image stabilization with the presenters smart phone (using dumb stabilization, or even with green cars in the background) will continue to watch if the content is there.

Speaking of green cars, a vintage XK120 Jaguar in British racing green is cool so that would be a distraction (for me). Getting back to the thread title about deep focus, I would focus on the Jag. (Sorry actors, but then its not my movie)

Content is king so how the story goes is very important. Scene to scene, does it flow? They’re only a matter of seconds long so there shouldn’t be a lot of time to get too distracted.

Same in live music, if you’re playing something and make a mistake with a note, just keep the rhythm going and don’t miss a beat. If the rhythm changes it will be really noticed.

Got a kick reading everybody’s comments. “No Problem” Paul, Risk taker Roger, and Professor Seth who is still learning!

And there’s one more thing …
Way back when I was talking with a guy who was in the Army about his experience with a major field inspection with a large number of platoons (or whatever they were), and he was in charge of one of them. It was a full dress type of inspection and all the platoons or battalions (whatever) were out on the parade ground in full attention. Everybody lined up in orderly rows looking their best. As luck would have it, it started to drizzle then rain. He ordered his platoon to put on their rain gear and none of the others did. No, he didn’t get reprimanded, he got an at-a-boy (or something like that). What was the rule? Stand at attention. Did he keep it? Well, it’s your call.

Even politicians play to the crowd.
Risk taker Roger did but in one case audience #2 was also listening.

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

Great story. I'll take two! ;-)

We may never have heard this great story if it wasn't for that green car. Maybe the green car should get the lead in Ryan's movie. Reminds me of Columbo's what make was it?

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

1959 Peugeot 403 Cabriolet.

For more info, see https://www.cartalk.com/blogs/jim-mo...-403-cabriolet

Fully agree, Roger told a great story!

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

Thanks for sharing.

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

Oh, I also watched this tutorial on color grading. At 11:10 into the video, the colorist separates the skin tones from everything else in the picture:


So by isolating the skin tone, he is able to give everything else in the picture one color, in this case, a teal color.

So should I do something like that, if I have unwanted colors, is to isolate the skin tone, and then make the background all one color, to make everything blend more, like he's doing?

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

There are lots of tutorials on using Resolve, I suggest you use Google and search for them, rather than expecting people here do the work for you. Steven Hullfish has a book on Digital Colour Correction and some videos online.

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

I think he's asking more of an artistic question as opposed to a technical question.

I used color grading this way (controlling unwanted colors) on one of my recent projects, BUT, I am not trying to produce a professional film project to sell or distribute or use as calling card. It was a silly music video for my band. If I were you, I would, as everyone said, try to control my set better.

Please also note that this stuff is not as easy as this guy makes it look. Notice how even in the ungraded shot, except for his skin tones, it's almost monochromatic to begin with. The walls and environment, even his suit is basically black and white. In addition, he's/his skin is lit and pops out from the background. THAT's why this works so well. If we you were trying to get this look on some shot with green trees and red brick buildings and purple cars, you're going to have a much harder time.

So you STILL need the right set/wardrobe/lighting to make this stuff work or risk tedious rotoscoping unless you get really lucky.

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

Okay thanks. I tried doing the grade myself before on a short film, but the skin did not isolate the best way and there was some definite noise for sure. Some of the objects in the background were a similar enough color to the skin and they stuck out like a sore thumb I thought as a result.

I am just trying to come up with more creative ways to control the color in the background on sets, where I cannot control the color, budget wise.

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

You've clearly got a very different idea of grading to me. I'm rather bad at it, but using it to change the colour of the set is a new one on me. Is that not more of an effect rather than a grade?

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

That book on colour correction goes into that type of stuff, however, it's a lot easier to use gels on your lights. There's a full range of colours available, check out the Rosco Laboratories and the Lee Filters web sites.

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

Oh I'm not sure, I was just going by that tutorial.

Well I thought about that, but when I asked about that before, other filmmakers said it would be strange to light a certain color, rather than painting the walls. For example, let's say I wanted the wall to be blue instead of white. If I light it so that it's blue, I would then have to make sure that the lights on the actors, are brighter than the lights on the wall, which means even brighter lights, if that's okay?

But I was told by others not do that cause the walls being lit blue would look abnormal compared to paint, if that's true? Or at least that is what I was told before on here, in a past thread as well.

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

Yes, lit blue looks different than painted blue or grading for sure. Lit blue is going to literally look like you have blue lights on it. Sometimes that's what you want. Sometimes it isn't.

I think of grading as the more artistic side, bleach bypass look, sepia, teal and orange, etc. "color correction" is the problem fixing, shot to shot matching etc. to make it look neutral/"correct". So yes, you can significantly alter the image with grading and it is a valid approach...SOMETIMES.

Da Vinci and probably any other CC program wants contrast between the things you want to separate from each other (e.g. skin and background). That means color contrast as well as luminance. Either one of those being too similar to the areas of the image around it will cause problems when trying to separate like you want. It also wants a lack of contrast in areas you're trying to make look the same. If you want the background all one color, it needs to be fairly narrow in its color range to begin with, same with skin tones. You can keep applying qualifiers when the differences are too great for one to handle and have them overlap but sometimes it doesn't work well and gets noisy.

I messed with all this on the aforementioned music video and that was my experience. Of course you can mask/power window to isolate, but then you are looking at, again, rotoscoping or at least doing some keyframing if subject/background moves in the shot. You almost have to light everything/dress people/have art direction and set design with the grade already in mind to have an easy time of it ("that red robe won't grade well, let's switch it out for green" or whatever). Fixing it in post on a feature length project will make you want to fling yourself out the nearest window.

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

If you can paint the set that's fine, but you can do a lot with lighting.

Ryan, I suspect you've got little experience with lighting, you can change everything with the lighting. It's how they did it before Resolve etc.there are various shades of blue available and various methods of creating blue on the walls.
If it's a feature film find another location if you want a painted blue wall or paint the wall, Resolve won't do that for you either, since their walls were originally neutral in colour in their example.

Having been in the Bradbury Building, it looks nothing like this in reality: