A Case for Deep DOF

Shallow depth of field is cool but have you tried deep depth of field?

My Gear:

#depthoffield #cinematography

[BigBlobProductions]

I'm so exhausted by the shallow DoF overload in movies, commercials and YouTube, this is a huge breath of fresh air!

[SpencerSnyder]

When a shot is nicely composed (set design, framing, lighting etc) you don’t have to rely on shallow DOF to make a pretty image.

[newnickfb]

Thank you! I’ve always loved shooting with a deep depth of field. I feel like a lot of people lean on bokeh as a crutch (not that it doesn’t have its place) but deep DOF requires you to be a bit more intentional with how you organize the elements in the frame. More people ought to try it.

[emersonsenseman]

An amazing example of this is A Hidden Life. Shot on ultra wides 12-14mm and stopped down. One of the most “cinematic” movies I’ve ever seen.

[closeoutentertainment]

I hadn't realized the connection between DoF and negative fill. That's a great nugget to remember. Thanks!

[J_HNP]

To me, it’s pretty straightforward… chose what you want people to focus on, and capture it. Shallow DOF is used a lot because it helps focus the viewers attention. You can use a deep DOF to show the world around the character, or the world as a character itself.

In Zodiac, I interpreted the use of a a broader DOF as a way to show the killer in “everyday life.” -- No creamy Bokeh, just an average, mundane world.

I also think that doing a film about a different time (and all the set design that goes with it) requires you to “show it off” a bit more to ensure you encapsulated the vibe you’re going for. In this case, the environment seems just as important as the characters when creating the mood of the film.

[ALifeWithoutBreath]

Sooo~... I don't think that shallow DoF is "cinematic." Whatever that word means by now... In some cases—like the Revenant—a lot of the time everything is in focus. It's just that super35 cameras have always been able to create a blurred background which is why shallow DoF is associated with movies. Add to that that the DSLR revolution suddenly made it possible to blur the background and that lenses with a wider aperture tend to be more expensive which makes them more desirable. Of course, shallow DoF had to become a big deal with DSLR shooters. It was kinda inevitable.

Personally, I've been not only filming but also taking photos with deep focus for a while now. When taking photos on vacation or on a trip I always just close down my aperture until I reach the diffraction limited aperture and that's it. It used to be f/10 and now—because of an increase in resolution—it's f/7.1. The idea of being able to blur the background with a wide-open aperture... for separation... and not having to think about it is also false. Even when the background is crazy blurry it still has to be considered. I don't know why but for some reason I've seen way too many photos of events in parks where the photographer took photos of people with a wide-open aperture and the background was a brownish-greenish muddy mess—and surprisingly off putting. Conversely, a blurred background with some bokeh balls can be quite lovely. So yeah, you always have to consider the background.

Regarding your examples/tests: What's more cinematic isn't really all that interesting I think. Rather, what do the different shots communicate. The one where the bg is just slightly blurred seems to put us (the audience) with the dude (you) at the table. When the bg is completely in focus it conveys a different impression/idea. The location feels very much like a proscenium arch, like a theater stage in front of us. There's almost a promise that something will happen in this place. (Of course all this is subjective, context can change everything, and you may feel different about your footage.)

When you blur the bg the most in your test it almost feels like the shot wants to pull us (the audience) into your subjective world but the framing doesn't let us because the camera (i.e. the audience) is not close enough to you and remains outside of your personal/intimate space. However, the clip with Dave Bautista does this. (Or that's how I remember the couple of seconds at least. 😉) The bg blur pulls us into his head space. There's danger coming but we don't have a good grasp of it... no overview. The blur isolates us (the audience) and Bautista in his head space. The blur is like a veil that keeps us from getting a grasp on the situation.

TL;DR — Rather than asking which shot looks aesthetically most like the movies we currently recall, I'd try to figure out what the shots convey/communicate in their respective context. That's how I'd make sense of it all. My 2 cents. 😊🙌🏻

[scotey]

I love this video. Important topic in a creative world where so many people are mimicking each other (subconciously or no). There is a time and place for shallow DOF. But it's hard not to notice many example of shallow DOF that seem oddly purposeless.

[soybrunomarin]

I am happy because about a year ago I started feeling exactly this way, taking notice that in many movies you can actually see everything. Then I see you talk about Zodiac and I think damn! I thought about this watching that movie too. The background is on focus and it still looks great. Then when The Batman came out I was like man this is just too much. Enough is enough. I love anamorphic but this is too exaggerated (and of course it wasn't Greg's idea, it was the director's. Greg's work is amazing). And then I started studying this thing of not letting the background get too blurry, let it live a little more. And I am happy because I see you now saying exactly the same thing and I think to myself well, if Spenser agrees, that must mean something. Great video, as always, great examples, keep it on.

[edwardcrockett]

I really enjoyed the thoughtfulness of this video!🙏🏼 bravo

[yannickmondoux]

Interesting experiment. I really like when the entirety of the sudject is in focus, it looks like it's cut out from the background. In combination with a clever backlight, it adds that element of pop the image.

[MoCo_Filmmaker]

What was weird to me is that at T8 the background almost felt fake, because it was in focus and so sharp. But now I'm thinking more and more about shooting like this, especially to reveal a killer at the backdoor. I love these videos and when you introduce ideas with actual test footage!

[AlpacoFilms]

Great great video Spenser! I say this ALL THE TIME! I even made a video a while back titled "Full Frame is NOT Cinematic" simply because everyone seems to just go after that look. But Cinematography in the Narrative Space is MUCH MORE about the story and the Cinematography shouldn't be a stand out feature unless the story or source materials asks/demands for it.

Roger Deakins does state in both his podcasts and his forums that he does close down in bright sun because that's what the eyes do. Even in 1917 he would open up the iris in the lower light shots but close down as he moves to exterior shots. This is text book practice in nearly all classic cinematography books and it's one of the reasons why Cinema Glass has a click-less aperture, for a smooth transition from light to dark just as our eyes would do.

I've made an example before but fantastic films were shot on Super 16 and that's similar frame size as the Viper camera (only slightly larger) But films shot on Super-16 are beautiful. Fruitvale Station is a prime example. El Mariachi another. Even The Walking Dead up until the most reason couple seasons I believe were shot on Super-16 film. All beautiful frames with a deeper depth of field.

Again great video Spenser!

[justinlaturno]

I would also like to add that shooting at a deeper focus could improve your composition overall. With more information in your frame, you get have more to manipulate and enhance your visual storytelling

[nmatthes]

Nobody can say "Shallow depth of field is better" or "fully sharp image is better" (or more cinematic). Because it depends of the goal you want to reach with a shot.

Shallow Depth of Field can be used narratively so well and you can be so creative with it: Holding back an information, or slowly revealing an information for example. Just like perspective or the area which is covered by the image this is a tool. Also it helps to focus the viewers focus on an object, so they do not get lost in the image.

I think as often as a filmmaker can use a shallow depth of field for a purpose, they can use it as often as they want.
It can also be used to show isolation in one or the other way.

But if you want to introduce a location, or you want to use leading lines or many other purposes the full sharp image is better.



I would not say one is better than the other. It depends on the intention.


But just based on optical opinion... I really like a nice bokeh more if the background is not looking very good. IF the background is looking good, then go for sharp image maybe

[TyroneLT]

Would it be fair to say part of what makes the Zodiac still stand out even with a deep depth of field is the production design? It's not just about an in focus BG but what they fill it with.

[davidmultimedia]

Spencer, i've been having the exact same reflections lately. You can easily get a shallow DOF using a 85mm at 5.6, and not much background distance is even required to achieve it. I want at least my talent eyes to be completely in focus, no matter if he/she moves, turns the head or whatever. Ideally, as a one-man-band, I want to only have to rack focus when my talent is walking. As for the background blur, i always try every aperture (using NDs if required) to achieve the look that i'm after, depending on the scene (do i want people to look at the background and notice things, or not?). Most of the time, I close down the aperture but separate my talent with distance instead of wide aperture (when possible). I will always prioritize perfect focus on the subject before making my bg shallower. Lens performance is also improved a lot doing it that way. So yea, small aperture is indeed very cinematic. To me, a true ''cinematic'' image is mostly about cinematography (lighting, color palette and showing only the important things in the frame and nothing else), framerate (24 fps only because it's always been that way) and story telling (the effect it has on our perception of the content). DOF has absolutely nothing to do with cinema IMO... just use the aperture that is appropriate for the shot. I try to always keep in mind how long a shot typically last within a scene (only 1-4 seconds in average). Of course, I'm just a hobbyist with a strong passion and years of experience obsessing about the technicalities of filmmaking... I'm not a professionnal in any mean.

[ankaicai]

It really depends on the context. If the background tells a part of the story, I think it's important to have that deep focus. If the background doesn't matter or related to the story, I think f2.8 is good spot to have that separation. Separation usually results in a more cinematic result. However, when you have lightning contrast between the foreground and the background, that's a different story for deep focus.

[ChadSchrandt]

Great video. So many youtubers say stuff like, "ShOot @ f1.2 to loOk moRe CineMAtiC gUYs!" When in reality, most cinematic footage is not shot wide open. What people fail to realize is that subject separation should be used to assist in telling the story, not just make something "look cool." Even these tests don't make may say, "yup, that shot is definitely more movie like" because in film making, context matters as you aptly point out in a lot of your examples.

My point is this: Don't shoot wide open to make something look "cinematic", instead shoot at an aperture that best tells your story. There's a time and place for ever technique, and shooting wide open is not a technique that needs to be constantly used.

[noahjstein]

Just last week I read that EXACT Deakin’s forum about what he tends to set his Aperture at, so a very timely video for me and I totally agree with ur ideas on this!