I just watched the HD trailer for Van Helsing, incredible detail and stunning scenes. I did notice that almost everything was in focus, like NO DOF!

is this a new trend?

I did notice that almost everything was in focus, like NO DOF!
Almost everything in focus would be an extreme DOF. DOF is like a zone of focus. Objects in the scene that are out of focus are outside the DOF. If everything in the scene is in focus you have maximum DOF.

...or a bad compositing team. ; )

Also called Deep Focus, used a lot by Hitchcock. We DV guys & garls do everything possible to avoid it, because it is not "cool" nowadays.

Orson Welles would have killed for the kind of depth of field we get today.

No kidding, Bill. Some folks don't realize it, but some parts of Citizen Kane were shot with multi-plane compositions in-camera (with a matte box) in order to achieve the extreme depth-of-field that the movie is famous for.

Yep. And, I go to a lot of movies, and EVERY shot isn't composed with a shallow depth of field. It's appropriate when it's appropriate, but like anything else, it can be overused inappropriately.

A theory here:

I think that a lot of this "Remove-at-all-cost-Video´s-deep-DOF " obsession, Or "Shallow DOF = FilmLook" might have something to do with a misconception between Deep DOF and a FLAT composition.

Of course sometimes we wish our little cameras could have more DOF, but like Bill said.. DOF is just another aspect of the shot, like lightning, camera movement, etc... It´s there to be used wisely when the shot calls fot it.

I did fall in love with the Deep Focus effect after I watched films such as "The 400 Blows" and "Citizen Kane" a while ago. However, due to the obvious shortcomings of DV, Shallow DOF seems to be the new trend among us.

For the most successful format in a long time, I'm not certain DV has too many faults. It does have its own look but I'm not certain that is a fault. My customers like the results a lot. But then I do middle-of-the-road commercial work.

They darned well love the lower prices that DV allows.

Shallow or deep depth of field isn't a DV issue. It's a chip size (mostly) issue.

Being that DV does not limit itself to shallow and deep focus (because now days you can do both), it does however, in the deep focus area limits itself to portraying an image of reality (the video look). I think the shallow depth of field, somehow creates a metaphysical sensation regarding the subject being observed.

Or in other words, Alain, "better than real."

I think it all depends on how you light it.

One possible reason for the dof issue is the computer graphics involved. From the trailer I saw the cg was very noticeable and not very realistic. This makes me think they didn't have the time or money to properly blend the cg characters into the background so having a flat picture helped in this.

I just talked to the dialogue editor for "Van Helsing" and she showed me lots of clips that weren't finished that she was linking sound too. Great to see people on strings whizzing around and fake bridges for the horses to jump over....a man dressed in blue riding along side the carraige so as not to be seen..lol...every shot in that movie has cg in it. Probably why it's taking so long.