Cinematography

As cinematographers, we are called upon to help directors tell their stories through manipulation of visual images. Human beings "see" things through a combination of the optics of the eye, the brain and the connections to the brain which filter and focus our attention on the things we are seeing. A camera does not have this eye/brain connection and so a cinematographer uses light, lenses and composition to mimic human visual perception.

Just one example is white balance. The eye/brain constantly adjusts our vision so as to see objects as if they are lit by white light. Without some type of auto white balance, a camera does not make that kind of adjustment and accurately reports the amount of red, green and blue light reflected from an object. Therefore, a cinematographer adjusts white balance so that the camera records what a viewer might see if they were standing in that location. If he does not, the room will appear reddish or bluish or greenish and will appear unnatural to a viewer. This is a bit of a simplification and ignoring artistic
considerations to make the point that cinematographers adjust camera and lights to record the perception of a place, not the physics of a place, to help directors tell their stories.

Another tool for adjusting the physics of a place is depth of field. Cinematographers will often use shallow depth of field on a close up. This mimics the perception we have when we are in conversation with someone. We focus on the person's face and the rest of the location we are in tends to disappear from our perception as we converse. In another post, Rakesh made the point that he hears cinematographers claim that shallow (or deep) depth of field makes a film more "cinematic". He goes on to say -- I believe quite correctly -- that depth of field is just one tool in a cinematographer's kit.

So, when would you use shallow or deep depth of field to tell part of a story? Would there ever be a case where you would use deep depth of field on a close up?

So, when would you use shallow or deep depth of field to tell part of a story?

I learned composition using large format cameras, shooting landscapes... so I tend to gravitate toward extremely deep focus. The down side to that is that there's a lot more stuff in the frame to see, and therefore to draw the eye away from what matters. IMO that's the main reason that there's such an obsession with shallow depth of field; it hides those distractions. In other words, it's a crutch for the cinematographers who haven't progressed beyond the training wheels... by which I mean the rule of thirds.

So I use deep focus quite a bit, but not always.

Would there ever be a case where you would use deep depth of field on a close up?

Yes, and by coincidence a situation where a deep focus closeup would be useful came up in a discussion about a film idea last night.

One example... you want to show a person in close up to enable the audience to connect with them. At the same time, you want to show the audience something in the environment (movement, person, etc) in the frame that you don't want the character to see (think Hitchcock with his bomb under the desk example). With a deep focus close up, you can show the environment and use the movement of a background character or object draw the viewer's eye to the background.

If you use the formulaic approach, you'd use a longer lens, shallow depth of field, and make a close up that shows the character but doesn't allow the viewer to see the environment the character is in at the same time.

So, when would you use shallow or deep depth of field to tell part of a story? Would there ever be a case where you would use deep depth of field on a close up?

I tend to deep focus, and for narrative work, there should be no reason to use shallow DoF to 'cover' distracting background. That technique is useful in event photography were one does not have the choice, or the time, to select different backgrounds or the like.

The only time I 'live' with shallow DoF is when I don't have enough light and need to shoot at a wider f-stop than I'd usually use, which is f/5.6-f/8.

I think lighting is a far better way to reduce 'distracting' elements in the background. And I really don't like something blurry in the foreground, such as a blurred over the shoulder shot. I'd probably live with it because of how DoF 'works', but perhaps I'd frame for a mid sized shot rather than a close up... but that may be a story point, so could not back off to maintain the story element.

So, when would you use shallow or deep depth of field to tell part of a story? Would there ever be a case where you would use deep depth of field on a close up?

I tend to deep focus, and for narrative work, there should be no reason to use shallow DoF to 'cover' distracting background. That technique is useful in event photography were one does not have the choice, or the time, to select different backgrounds or the like.

The only time I 'live' with shallow DoF is when I don't have enough light and need to shoot at a wider f-stop than I'd usually use, which is f/5.6-f/8.

I think lighting is a far better way to reduce 'distracting' elements in the background. And I really don't like something blurry in the foreground, such as a blurred over the shoulder shot. I'd probably live with it because of how DoF 'works', but perhaps I'd frame for a mid sized shot rather than a close up... but that may be a story point, so could not back off to maintain the story element.

What about focus pulls?
Your opinion is contrary to everything I see in film making, from the past to the present, Hollywood and arthouse. Use of shallow dof is still widely popular. It's aesthetic appeal and usefulness as a narrative tool will keep it that way I'm sure.

What about focus pulls?
Your opinion is contrary to everything I see in film making, from the past to the present, Hollywood and arthouse. Use of shallow dof is still widely popular. It's aesthetic appeal and usefulness as a narrative tool will keep it that way I'm sure.

First, where did either of us say that shallow depth of field is a bad thing?

Second, your assertion that our opinions are contrary to anything make no sense whatsoever, since neither of us criticized the use of shallow depth of field, but rather the obsession with and OVERUSE of it... because the reality is that most wannabe cinematographers don't use shallow depth of field to control the eye, they use it to hide lousy art direction and camera work.

A lot of very well known movies have several shots that are so famous that film history teachers pick them out as examples of cinematography that have very deep focus.

Besides, if you obsess over shallow depth of field, then the audience won't be able to absorb the environment the characters are in.

The truth is that in the higher end of filmmaking, deep focus and shallow focus are both common.

What about focus pulls?
Your opinion is contrary to everything I see in film making, from the past to the present, Hollywood and arthouse. Use of shallow dof is still widely popular. It's aesthetic appeal and usefulness as a narrative tool will keep it that way I'm sure.

First, where did either of us say that shallow depth of field is a bad thing?

Second, your assertion that our opinions are contrary to anything make no sense whatsoever, since neither of us criticized the use of shallow depth of field, but rather the obsession with and OVERUSE of it... because the reality is that most wannabe cinematographers don't use shallow depth of field to control the eye, they use it to hide lousy art direction and camera work.

A lot of very well known movies have several shots that are so famous that film history teachers pick them out as examples of cinematography that have very deep focus.

Besides, if you obsess over shallow depth of field, then the audience won't be able to absorb the environment the characters are in.

The truth is that in the higher end of filmmaking, deep focus and shallow focus are both common.

I was replying to this by John Clarke, not you Rakesh.

"there should be no reason to use shallow DoF to 'cover' distracting background. That technique is useful in event photography were one does not have the choice, or the time, to select different backgrounds or the like."

So, when would you use shallow or deep depth of field to tell part of a story? Would there ever be a case where you would use deep depth of field on a close up?

I tend to deep focus, and for narrative work, there should be no reason to use shallow DoF to 'cover' distracting background. That technique is useful in event photography were one does not have the choice, or the time, to select different backgrounds or the like.

The only time I 'live' with shallow DoF is when I don't have enough light and need to shoot at a wider f-stop than I'd usually use, which is f/5.6-f/8.

I think lighting is a far better way to reduce 'distracting' elements in the background. And I really don't like something blurry in the foreground, such as a blurred over the shoulder shot. I'd probably live with it because of how DoF 'works', but perhaps I'd frame for a mid sized shot rather than a close up... but that may be a story point, so could not back off to maintain the story element.

What about focus pulls?
Your opinion is contrary to everything I see in film making, from the past to the present, Hollywood and arthouse. Use of shallow dof is still widely popular. It's aesthetic appeal and usefulness as a narrative tool will keep it that way I'm sure.

John C. has a valid point, in the use of deep focus in Narrative story telling and documentary work, that can have very dramatic and effective in a film. The "Search for Private Ryan" used both shollow and deep DOF to a very effective use. I agree, both are needed, and have their use. Some shots require deep DOF, and to answer your question Ivon, some close ups require deep DOF to get the entire face in focus and have a recognizable slightly soft background to keep subject separation. Gentlemen, we need both, and each has its use in documentary and story telling work.

You can't have a discussion on cinematography without first understanding that the only definite thing is that it is all entirely subjective. Give the same script to 4 different directors and you will have 4 very different movies. A Kubrick film might treat the interior landscape of a building with deep focus with the human characters very small in the frame to show the overwhelming size of a place, whereas Paul Thomas Anderson might not go wider than a medium shot with a very narrow depth of field so the focus is always on the characters. It just depends.

We cinematographers been using the same tricks since motion pictures were invented, only nowadays some of those tricks can be done faster and less chemically with digital. But the idea of using light and composition to communicate visually to an audience has been the point of photography since 1826. And you know what? At the same time none of it matters and all of it matters. What doesn't matter is how deep your focus is or if or when you pull focus or what lens you're using or filter or when the cut happens, or any of that. They are the same tools, techniques and tricks that we all use all the time. What matter is, when you're deciding on what you're going to do, how you're going to do it and WHY you're going to do it, the simple idea is when you do it, is it appropriate to the project?

Deep focus worked in Citizen Kane. It probably wouldn't have worked so well as a story-telling device in The Avengers. But it worked great WITH shallow depth of field in Saving Private Ryan, a movie which also benefited from the reintroduction of the Japanese technique of bleach bypass, which is now just a button you push in an NLE. Is it appropriate to the story, to the project as a whole? That's what matters. If it doesn't feel right, don't do it. If John Clark wants to shoot everything in deep focus, then that's his style and he should do whatever he wants because, to him, that's what's appropriate. Give the same script to Paul Knapp and the same scenes would be shot with very fine shallow depth of field where only the eyes are in focus. You're BOTH RIGHT. Now Ivon is completely confused.

TL;DR

I was replying to this by John Clarke, not you Rakesh.

"there should be no reason to use shallow DoF to 'cover' distracting background. That technique is useful in event photography were one does not have the choice, or the time, to select different backgrounds or the like."

Actually, his statement is one that I would consider absolute. If you're using shallow DoF to hide a distracting background, you're not using it as a storytelling technique.

When you're working on a scripted narrative, you should always have control over your frame, so you should be choosing whether to use a shallow or deep depth of field based on how it benefits the storytelling, not to hide careless art direction or sloppy framing.

Let me submit a new point for discussion. My HDTV is nestled into a huge entertainment centre with windows on the same wall behind the unit and small windows high to the left. There are certain shows that I'm forced to watch late in the evening when there's no significant light coming into the room because nearly everything on the screen is at a very low light level. An example is Game of Thrones. Even at night, it's not easy to see any details as almost everything is in shadow. Great for creating the desired mood and so on, but do you think this tendency to broadcast ultra dark scenes is going too far?

The TV does have a Movie setting that helps as the Normal and Gaudy Saturated Sports settings crush the blacks further.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Let me submit a new point for discussion. My HDTV is nestled into a huge entertainment centre with windows on the same wall behind the unit and small windows high to the left. There are certain shows that I'm forced to watch late in the evening when there's no significant light coming into the room because nearly everything on the screen is at a very low light level. An example is Game of Thrones. Even at night, it's not easy to see any details as almost everything is in shadow. Great for creating the desired mood and so on, but do you think this tendency to broadcast ultra dark scenes is going too far?

The TV does have a Movie setting that helps as the Normal and Gaudy Saturated Sports settings crush the blacks further.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've noticed this too... and I don't have anything remotely like a full blown Home Theater... so, I have to deal with large dark areas, and a less than display...

I've held off getting a better display until there really was better displays... as in better dynamic range... real dynamic range...

In any case the Wife and I get into serious arguments about whether the DVD and now BD transfer is 'good' often because of noise in the dark areas. Was it in the original film, Film film for older movies, or Digital film + Post for newer ones, or is it a crappy transfer. Since we don't have a Film film home theater... we can't just project the older films and compare...

But in any case, the dark zones in frames often show noise from some source.

I have been tending to light things a bit higher than I would and then using 'curves' or whatever to push the darker areas down to where I want them. I've not shot a narrative with the Pocket as yet so, I don't know if I'll do that, as I have tested 'dark' with the Pocket and it seems better than the GH-1, and infinitely better than the HMC-150 I used about now 7 or so years ago...

I usually adjust the display using the individual controls rather than the various 'ugly' canned modes. I've also debated about how much ambient light to have while viewing the display. Displays have brighter values in terms of Footlamberts than theater screens, which run about 14-16 for 'open gate' projector lamp. These days digital projectors also have a problem getting 'black'...

Now Ivon is completely confused.

TL;DR

Fear not, Jason. This was intended to spark a conversation, I wasn't necessarily looking for a definitive answer. My own feeling is that DoF is a tool and has been said before, the combination of story and artist will dictate how it's used. I do think there is an overreliance on shallow depth of field these days, but that's just my opinion. My favorite filmmaker is Stanley Kubrick and he loved wide angles and deep depth of field. Somehow, he made that work no matter the story.

This thread was started based on Rakesh's comment that very little cinematography is discussed in this forum (per the title). It's mostly talk about gadgetry. I think a little talk about applying the gadgetry to the artistry is in order

Fear not, Jason. This was intended to spark a conversation, I wasn't necessarily looking for a definitive answer. My own feeling is that DoF is a tool and has been said before, the combination of story and artist will dictate how it's used. I do think there is an overreliance on shallow depth of field these days, but that's just my opinion. My favorite filmmaker is Stanley Kubrick and he loved wide angles and deep depth of field. Somehow, he made that work no matter the story.

IMO being confused is a great way to start. It forces you to start thinking about what you don't know. The biggest detriment to learning is knowing... because so many people are coddled these days, they grow up believing that they know a lot, and it prevents them from learning anything at all.

This thread was started based on Rakesh's comment that very little cinematography is discussed in this forum (per the title). It's mostly talk about gadgetry. I think a little talk about applying the gadgetry to the artistry is in order

I'm glad you did. The gadgetry is so easy to learn that I laugh at people who tell me that they don't want to learn to use a new camera, it's too much (that was from a wannabe DP who relies far too much on autocrapic focus). It wasn't even a difficult camera to learn, it's so ridiculously user friendly.

Here's ARRI's representative taking about everyone's favourite pastime, resolution and perception, with some twists:

http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/08/14/a ... e-arri-65/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

An interesting read isn't it Rick?

It certainly gets you thinking about whether 4K may end up being the ideal resolution once HDR display devices are rolled out. The cons of higher resolutions (6K+) seem to outweigh the pros.

Interesting comments, thanks Rick.

I understand Japan and South Korea have a different opinion about 8K as a national pursuit. Of course there are RED shooters who are eager to get at a Weapon armed with a Dragon 8K sensor. There are undoubtedly advantages in capturing at a high resolution. But when it comes to delivering a digital film to the viewer, over the next five years or longer, even 4K will struggle to become the format of choice. I've been watching some SD movies on DVD, quite happily engrossed in the story, not the technology.

I'm not sure I agree with all the conclusions in that link, particularly with the suggestion that shooting and displaying 60 fps or 120 fps may be key at higher resolutions (48 fps just wasn't enough it seems). But I'll leave testing that to the experts since I simply have no access to the display equipment needed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I apologise, don't mean to be the one to say... but it's ironic that a thread headed Cinematography comes down to talk yet again about resolution and pixels.





Even when there's no one in it, looks amazing:



I'm finding, maybe its the circle I'm in, everyone wants to hold a camera but very few can paint with light. Or is this just me?

I could watch the above movie and marvel at it from a SD DVD any day. Anyone know the movie?

Jules

Yes, absolutely beautiful, Jules. Are you going to tell us the film or do we have to guess?

I sure this the Italian classic "The Conformist" by Bertolucci and lensed by Storaro.

The Conformist, Bertolucci/Storaro.

Thank you for the clip, Måns. Wonderful hearing those artists discussing their collaboration, their inspirations, their methods, their intentions, their inventions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You're welcome, Rick! This also if you liked that one:

And this is wonderful if you haven't seen it:

The Conformist, Bertolucci/Storaro.

Yes, that's the movie.

I've run out of prizes though.

Jules

There is a neat documentary by Jon Fauer, ASC, publisher of Film & Digital Times, called "Cinematographer Style" where he interviews 110 living (as of 2006) cinematographers, most of whom are active or past members of the American Society of Cinematographers – quite a few of whom are legends in the filmmaking community – about what it means to be a cinematographer. Storaro and Gordon Willis both stand out as having the best presentations and best quotes. It's interesting watching the guy who photographed The Godfather playing with a little LED kicker. If you haven't seen it, check it out.

Here's an outtake with Roger Deakins:



Trailer:

Here's another possibly useful overview of cinematography which includes lots of links to more depth videos and tutorials for each topic. There's even a picture of the URSA on the main page.

http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cinemat ... otography/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Apart from the Roger Deakins website and David Mullen threads, a great cinematography (and film in general) resource is http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/category/technique-cinematography/. Thompson and Bordwell are pretty much the only film academics that would be of any use to someone who wants to learn more about making movies.

If you don't feel like actually reading the texts, you can just look at the pictures! There are always lots of great images from the films they write about in their blog posts. All you ever wanted to know about composition and lighting is in those pictures! Add Deakins and Mullen, and you've got all the film school a cinematographer will ever need. Apart from actually shooting...

Good to see Bordwell quoted here

Thompson and Bordwell are pretty much the only film academics that would be of any use to someone who wants to learn more about making movies.

+1

How to tell a story. I wonder how many Oscars this Revenant will pull in.

https://twitter.com/screendaily/status/ ... 1687469056


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How to tell a story. I wonder how many Oscars this Revenant will pull in.

It's an amazing picture. I was in the first audience to see the completed picture about two weeks ago. It's shot like a cross between BIRDMAN and CHILDREN OF MEN. Many Oscar noms in the offing.

The director spoke afterwards and said most of the movie was shot on 14mm and 16mm lenses, which gives it that wide goPro look.

Filled with spectacular sights and breathtaking surprises. See it on the biggest screen you can find.

This looks great. But I dont understand the use of the wide lenses. It feels wrong in a way when the camera lens makes a statement like this, in this type of movie. It seems to noticeable for the general audience. Maybe they think that the massive exposure to go-pro images lately have made people so used to the wide distortions that they won't notice, just subcontiusly register it as the normal imagery of today? I dont know. Personally I hate go-pro and everything it represents, so maybe its just me. My point is that I feel this is a classic narrative film, with a focus on the story, I would expect cinematography to parallel the story in a subtle way, as usual, and not make a big statement about its presence.

I think in the classical approach, watching a movie is akin to the proscenium live theatre where the audience is in one area and the stage is set back for all to observe. In The Revenant, I think the director's intent is to immerse you in the action. If there's a fight, you're so close to it, you might be hit or bit too! The wide lenses handheld give you a completely different perspective than using a long lens on a tripod that may show someone's head at the same size, but our brain still knows we are safely 5 meters from the action.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, I have to agree.You make a good point. Watching this on the large screen might bee a great experience.

The more I learn about cinematography more it appears to be like any other art, just the informal exploration of the human empathetic response.

Revenant looks extraodinary. Goes to show the blend of art and tech (reminds me of Mad Max and how some cried too saturated).

Any have any interviews or pieces about the cinematography of it?

Note, did you read the ScreenDaily link I posted above? There was some talk about the cinematography there. Better than anything I found trying to search the general Internet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The director spoke afterwards and said most of the movie was shot on 14mm and 16mm lenses, which gives it that wide goPro look.

Wait, seriously? Are you sure he didn't mean lenses with a FOV equivalent to a 14mm or 16mm on S35? It would make sense if he said that since anyone in the audience who understood what he was talking about would likely be used to working on S35, not 65mm. I mean, it was pretty obvious from the trailer that it was pretty much ALL wide-angle lenses (ALMOST distractingly so, but the film looks amazing), but it didn't look THAT wide. I thought it looks about like what you'd get in the 20-24mm range on an I35-sized sensor or the 16-20mm range on an S35 sensor, but 14-16mm lenses on the Alexa 65 would have FOVs wider than an 8mm lens on an S35 sensor. That's ludicrously wide, but I guess the larger sensor would allow it to go that wide without having to resort to such short focal lengths and huge amounts of distortion, so... Maybe? I don't know, I'll have to go watch the trailer again and pay more attention. What do you guys think?

I'm not completely sold on what your showing - Admittedly I've not seen the film but that second image is too abstract to be effective unless your terribly interested in the door screen right. If it takes away from the story its not doing its job. That's not to say all cameras should be invisible - the running ground camera in Evil Dead was brilliant for a small budget film.
Regarding shallow focus Jasons early point regarding it being subjective is probably the most important. To me when you trying to show a character being introspective its most effective.
Regarding style I sat through Taken 3 yesterday and it amazed me how someone could cut and jump a camera if Liam Neeson made so much as a cup of coffee.

The director spoke afterwards and said most of the movie was shot on 14mm and 16mm lenses, which gives it that wide goPro look.

Wait, seriously? Are you sure he didn't mean lenses with a FOV equivalent to a 14mm or 16mm on S35? It would make sense if he said that since anyone in the audience who understood what he was talking about would likely be used to working on S35, not 65mm. I mean, it was pretty obvious from the trailer that it was pretty much ALL wide-angle lenses (ALMOST distractingly so, but the film looks amazing), but it didn't look THAT wide. I thought it looks about like what you'd get in the 20-24mm range on an I35-sized sensor or the 16-20mm range on an S35 sensor, but 14-16mm lenses on the Alexa 65 would have FOVs wider than an 8mm lens on an S35 sensor. That's ludicrously wide, but I guess the larger sensor would allow it to go that wide without having to resort to such short focal lengths and huge amounts of distortion, so... Maybe? I don't know, I'll have to go watch the trailer again and pay more attention. What do you guys think?

They shot a lot with the Alexa M and ST (Master Primes, 12mm to 21mm, and Leica, 16mm), not only Alexa 65 (Hasselblad 65, the widest is 24mm).

http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/news/shoot/revenant-inside-film-s-cold-wet-dirty-determined-production/612126

http://soc.org/project/the-revenant-shooting-in-the-elements/

Note, did you read the ScreenDaily link I posted above? There was some talk about the cinematography there. Better than anything I found trying to search the general Internet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, I was hoping for a bit more. specifically in how they shot in natural light. Thanks though

One of the most valuable sites I know!

http://evanerichards.com/cinematographer_index

Study & Practice.

Favorite Cinematographers
Gordon Willis: The President's Men, Godfather, Annie Hall
Roger Deakins: The Prisoner, Sicario, The Shawshank Redemption
Conrad Hall: Road to Perdition
Emmanuel Lubeski: Children of Men, Tree of Life, The Revenant
John Toll: The thin red line(my Favorite)
Vittorio Storaro: Apocalypse Now

Can we add The Revenant to Lubeski's credits?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Can we add The Revenant to Lubeski's credits?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure, just from the trailer it looks amazing, can't wait to see it! I was mostly going by films on the website.

http://evanerichards.com/cinematographer_index

Well now, let's take a look at lighting. I think this helps explain how to achieve a cinematic look when your imagination is your only limit:

http://www.theasc.com/site/blog/thefilm ... g-spectre/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well now, let's take a look at lighting. I think this helps explain how to achieve a cinematic look when your imagination is your only limit:

http://www.theasc.com/site/blog/thefilm ... g-spectre/

Thanks Rick. It would be lovely to have those sort of budgets!

Yes, and have weeks to setup for a single shot! Very sobering to see the number of lights involved in shooting the scene with the huge table. And knowing that much of the lighting was significantly dimmed to create a room of ambient light to provide fill to get everything clearly defined when wanted in addition to the directed lights on individuals.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, and have weeks to setup for a single shot! Very sobering to see the number of lights involved in shooting the scene with the huge table. And knowing that much of the lighting was significantly dimmed to create a room of ambient light to provide fill to get everything clearly defined when wanted in addition to the directed lights on individuals.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, amazing. Thanks for sharing that, Rick.

Gene, so much to consider indoors and outdoors for just a few seconds of an interior controlled shot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk