Blurry Backgrounds Are (Not) Cinematic

How often do movies really use a shallow depth of field?

Host and Creator - Simon Cade
Florian Kustermann
Eric Lovrien
Gabriel Criado
Gaffa Garage
Jarred Cordova
Nick Brengle
Peter Camilleri
Peter Rittinger
Yusuf Raja
Lili Design

[DSLRguide]

Thank you to the DSLRguide Patrons for supporting these videos, and a special thank you to: Florian Kustermann, Eric Lovrien, Gabriel Criado, Gaffa Garage, Jarred Cordova, Nick Brengle, Peter Camilleri, Peter Rittinger, Yusuf Raja, Lili Design

[sachatend]

I believe that it is the colour, composition and lighting that makes something look what is typically considered "cinematic" rather than the depth of field of the image.

[felixkramer]

I'd love to have a statistic like this on newer "netflix"-like movies. I feel that they overdo it a bit with the blurry background in there

[nikkoXmercado]

"Cinematic" is a quality achieved by taking advantage of every aspect of filmmaking to communicate a feeling or a story effectively to the audience. If that depth of field (or lack thereof) contributes to the conveyance of the shot, then that contributes to its "cinematic" quality.

Shallow depth of field, deep focus, or any other choice of aesthetic are all just part of the broad vocabulary of cinema. The quality of being "cinematic" is not defined by a set standard of aesthetics, but through the iconography of the filmmaker's culture expressed through every aspect of the film's drama.

[DodaGarcia]

Unless I missed it, the video seems to overlook a very clear reason for that impression: the fact that shallow depth of field has historically not been as easy to recreate with the point-and-shoot cameras the general public had access to, so over time we associated it with movies and other professionally filmed material because that's where we usually saw it. Of course that's now changing with the digitally emulated shallow DOF in modern smartphones, but even the demand for that feature only exists because it's become such an established hallmark of "classy" footage.

But yes, obviously in the context of an actual film there's a lot more that makes a shot """cinematic""" – lots of people spend thousands on a professional camera just to become frustrated when their images don't look like a movie, because they're still clueless about the other components such as lighting, visual storytelling and so on.

[theodorbrinch]

the use of shallow depth and deep focus have far more to do with the focus distance in these movies than the aperture. I reckon if you made a pie chart of all the close, medium and long shots, you'd get a similar pie chart.

[noahpettibon]

Short and sweet and a reminder that all techniques should be tools to achieve a goal, not fluff.

[Wp]

I think it “feels” cinematic because it used to be difficult to create at home. Only in recent years it becomes easier and easier to create. I’m wondering if this feeling will change in the future, now we will see it in non-cinematic videos.

[TenThumbsProductions]

Depth of focus is a tool and a stylistic choice. Wes Anderson always has big wide open shots that are completely in focus and look great. I just think calling got “cinematic” on your phone or “portrait” is an easy one word way of marketing it to potential consumers more than an actual cinematic analysis.

[OrigEntertainmentOfficial]

In my film history class, deep depth of field was highly sought after back in the early days of film because the fastest films stocks were extremely low ASA/ISO compared to today's highly sensitive digital sensors. For example, in Citizen Kane there are several deep depth of field shots that were seen as technical achievements during the time. They had to use huge bright lights in order to achieve that look and that storytelling tool. Another commenter here made a good point about the fetishism of shallow depth of field and blue anamorphic streaks. If we look at the history of independent motion pictures, shallow depth of field definitely separated 35mm film and other Hollywood formats from smaller, lower costs formats like 8mm, 16mm, or video cameras before the 2000's. Video cameras before the 2000's had really small sensors and were very obviously video cameras. Independent and low budget filmmakers of those times did everything they could to try to get a more cinematic look on their low budgets. So part of that was trying to create shallow depth of filed as opposed to a 4:3, interlaced, image where everything was in focus at a very low resolution. So when tools like the Canon 5D Mark ii came out, it helped democratize a look and a tool that appeared "cinematic" but was also literally used on Hollywood productions like House M.D. and as a crash cam on some Marvel productions. But to your point, nowadays depth of field can be used as a storytelling choice as opposed to an obligation or a default. But filmmakers of every budget now have access to that as a choice. It wasn't always the case.

[jesseyules]

Shallow depth of field can be frustrating for action sequences, as it makes it difficult for the audience to understand the geography a character is moving through. On the other hand, shallow depth of field is great for character portraits within crowds. We can isolate our protagonist by blurring out all the other unimportant faces.

[ZvilgantisKailis]

Deep focus makes it feel more real like real life location and shots are in 'normal' angle in Dead poets society and in Blade Runner locations shots are tilted or eye-of-god (from high angle) to get away from normal real life and that's why Blade Runner is way more cinematic than Dead poets society. Shallow shots are not very real life so it is looks more dreamy, more cinematic. In you are using Blade Runner as example for deep vs shallow you need also to fog the room and do the low-key lighting to hide background even more.

[mikal]

Shallow DoF is a perfect example of something that people discover and beat the literal hell out of until nobody likes it anymore. Everyone on youtube be like "Ooh, blurry background, that means I'm an award winning filmmaker." Suddenly they're all filming their "how to clean a fish bowl" videos at negative f/1.4.

[ShawnShaman]

Good video. IMO it boils down to one of two things.

1) The creative decision for shot composition calls for shallow depth of field

2) The DoP just likes the look of a shallower depth of field

I personally love shallow depth of field. An extreme use of it was in Army of the Dead. That entire film was shot on vintage lenses. I personally very much enjoyed it.

It doesn't look like a typical studio film that has your establishing shots, and then your close ups. It was Zack Snyder, being unleashed. Radically different from what I had seen in the past.

[alternativepathproductions]

For me it's what's in the frame. If you don't have the time or budget to create epic spaces, shallow depth of field can hide background elements that aren't pleasing to the frame. You could call it a, 'cheat code', but then again, it could also be seen as just another tool at our fingertips that we could use to create a cinematic image.
'Hidalgo', is a good example. According to IMDB it was shot on S35 and they used T2 - T2.8 lenses. I can often get obsessed with wanting T1.5 or wider lenses only. Movies like Hidalgo prove that although wider lenses do offer more options in terms of low-light and depth of field options, T2 - T2.8 lenses can still achieve very cinematic images. It's up to the user to create/find them.
ps: I haven't seen one of your videos for a while DSLRguide, I appreciate your attention to detail. Great video mate!

[joaovictornave]

Shallow DOF is nice. It stops being so when people just go Let's make EVERYTHING blurry, so cinematic!" The sweet spot, as usual, is in using the tools and techniques to direct attention, not just what "looks cool"

[imagenatura]

Many filmmakers agree that f/2.8 on a Super 35 sensor crop is sufficient; many go to f/4-f/8 without hesitation when the scene warrants it. I think it's very rare to go to f/1.8 on a FF sensor- that's a YouTube thing, not cinema.

[DestinyCreatesEntertainment]

Hey there. First. I have a 25mm f1.7 for my lumix, and im also a film student. I can say it depends. If you have a complex background that can distract viewers, shallow depth could help focus your audiences attention. Remember film is telling stories. Whats the best way to do that

[BriceHoward]

THANK YOU! I literally had this conversation with another Cinematographer buddy of mine earlier this week! (that's probably also why it popped up in the algorithm too). I usually never shoot below f 4.5 for movies/film. But I definitely stay away from f.8 - f3.8 unless I have a very specific reason. It's about the same for T-stops too.

[DavidSattler]

I think it's easy to overdo shallow dof when you're starting out because it's an "easy" way to get some sort of background separation before you actually go and learn composition and lighting (or rather the use of shadows and light direction) to get separation that way.