Oh okay. Well as far as framing goes, I've always felt more comfortable trying to frame it right during production, rather than pulling back and allowing more room. But that is just what I've been comfortable with so far.

When it comes to filling in space, here is a sample from an earlier short film I did, where I decided to shoot it in 2.39:1. I didn't do the shooting, just the directing:

2.39 example - YouTube

Do you think that there is more deadspace that needs filling compared to 1.85 though? For example, the first office scene, at 0:34 into the clip, you see a guy at his desk and there is a printer behind him on the shelf. If I shot it at 1.85, the frame would be taller and you might see what is on the shelf above him more in comparison.

You might also see more of his desk at 1.85, and we would have had to decorate the desk more probably. So does 1.85 really hide more space to fill, as people say, compared to 2.39?

It depends what you mean by "dead space" a blank, white wall may mean more than the wall covered in decoration in story/character terms. .

Manhattan (4/10) Movie CLIP - I Can't Have This Argument (1979) HD - YouTube

For what it's worth, it doesn't look like a movie, it looks like TV. Headroom seems to be a problem in that you have a very tight top to bottom crop. For me the worst thing is stability, the sequence on the stairs wobbles and in wide screen it's very obvious. The over the shoulder shot so common in TV doesn't work very well in widescreen either - too much of what we don't want to see. Not sure if it helps.

Oh okay thanks. I didn't think the OTS shot looked like TV though, cause Michael Mann used them a lot in Heat and Collateral and those movies were shot in 2.39:1. But I didn't think it looked like TV since the OTS shots on TV are 16:9 almost always, unless I missed something?

Yeah I agree about the shakiness in the staircase sequence, hence why I want to use a gimbal for future projects for sure, when tracking along with actors.

By deadspace, I mean space that probably could be filled with something so it's not so blank, if that makes sense?

TV is not just a frame size. It's the look and the feel. On to we often have film style programmes, usually drama, and it looks different. Over the years many look like TV. Dr Who, a wonderfully British, quaint concept has been on TV for ever and a movie a few times. Everything isndifferent. Movies can be big in every department. Is stranger things a movie? It's shot like one. It looks like one, but it's shown on TV?

By deadspace, I mean space that probably could be filled with something so it's not so blank, if that makes sense?

No, everything provides information to the audience, so it must be there for a reason. Filling for the sake of it can just produce a cluttered frame, which may say that this character has a lot of clutter in their life. While a bare white background may suggest that their life cold and clinical or that they're in an institution that controls their lives.

THX 1138 (1971) - Original Trailer - YouTube

Oh okay, that makes sense. There are also scenes in my script where I have people protesting in the streets for example. If I were to shoot those scenes, in 2.39, I would probably need more extras compared to 16:9, I am guessing, and therefore 16:9 could save money, on extras, if that sounds right?

Use as many extras as you can afford, it's up on the screen, save on what you can't see on screen (except food for the cast and crew),

TV is not just a frame size. It's the look and the feel. On to we often have film style programmes, usually drama, and it looks different. Over the years many look like TV. Dr Who, a wonderfully British, quaint concept has been on TV for ever and a movie a few times. Everything isndifferent. Movies can be big in every department. Is stranger things a movie? It's shot like one. It looks like one, but it's shown on TV?

Oh okay thanks. What am I doing that makes my OTS shots look like TV OTS shots, rather than movie OTS shots?

One difference is that "Heat" is shot with Panavision anamorphic lenses, so for the same angle of view, they will be using a lens with double the focal length that you will be using, if shooting with flat lenses. For large screen shots, I would tend to go one wider than for TV eg MCU instead of a CU, although perhaps less of a thing today with large screen TV compared to the smaller CRT sets.

Oh okay, but what if I wanted to CUs instead of MCUs? Some movies have CUs and still don't look like TV. Like this scene here in Collateral has CUs. I couldn't attach a still for some reason but there are CUs at 2:21 into the clip:

Collateral - Jazz Club Assassination [1080p HD] - YouTube

How do they do CUs like that and not have it look more like TV?

Use anamorphic lenses and shoot film.

Failing that:

Don't over light your scenes, use open ended scrims etc on C stands to control your light so that you don't have a distracting highlight as seen on the side of your male actor.

Use a wide aperture on your lenses to control the DOF.

Okay thank you very much. Do I have to shoot anamorphic to look cinematic though? I was told to shoot anamorphic before, but a lot of DPs just don't have anamorphic lenses, so do I have to shoot with those lenses to avoid looking like TV?

...they're in an institution that controls their lives.

As a prime example, you've included the trailer for THX 1138 -- bravo, sir. I applaud you. Well done.

That's the second-best movie George Lucas ever made... the first being American Graffiti, of course.

I can also blur the background more. I shot with a deep DOF so the actors would not go out of focus at any point, but if shallow DOF is better I can. However, if it's not a close up, and a mastershot, with lots of actors moving around, is a deep DOF where you see the background walls in focus as well, bad?

How do you make deep DOF look good like in Citizen Kane, if you want more actors in focus?

The answer is usually lighting, that's been the traditional reason for the difference between cinema and television drama. However, modern TV dramas are much better in this regard and the market for Independent feature films is broadcast TV and streaming services like Netflicks and Amazon .

The modern trend is to have a shallower DOF, but deep focus has been used on extremely cinematic films. They use the same stop for the both the wide and closer shots, pulling focus as required.

Selecting cameras that have more colour space and dynamic range and record log or RAW will give you more control over the look when grading.

Blimey Ryan, we thought you got the basic stuff sorted. For many people depth of field is the key feature of real movies from the past because of the physics of film setting well, everything! You do not select a deep DoF to make focus easy, that's why focus pullers were/are essential members of the camera team in movies, but rare in TV. Shallow DoF also needs real lenses, not autofocus doesn't it!

However, the other essential identifier of movie style is lighting. Carefully applied and controlled lighting, done by somebody with an eye for detail. Somebody who understands the needs of camera stock. Now we do clever stuff with camera tweaks with loads of profiles, and before that the lighting cameraman (note the 'lighting' in the title) would consult with the director and spend time choosing the right stock for the right look. Pick a stock that doesn't pull out details in the shadows, and the lighting budget goes up to lighten the dark areas, or pick one that works well on bright keys means outside you'll have loads of reflectors.

Don't get caught up on his DoF thing as an effect, it's not, it's just an identifier. Each scene and maybe each shot has DoF selected deliberately. In movie land, each camera move also has a lighting reset applied to it. The lighting in these examples is worthy of a credit. In your examples everything is flat and reminiscent of the lighting in doctors surgery waiting rooms. Flat bright and even. Shadows draw the eye to the brightest areas, shadows create tension. Look up the steps each medium can resolve from black to white and compare them. Compare the DoF of movie cameras and lenses and their video equivalents, then compare the one you used. The clues are easy to see. Every piece of kit, every location, every set, and how the people use them will dictate the end result. See if you can compare Star Wars with red dwarf and spot the differences. Red dwarf is shot for TV in space ships some very similar shots to Star Wars, yet the differences are blinding. It is NOT about blurring the background, it's about using the physics that makes the background blur. I have never recreated shallow DoF in the edit, I don't know how I would even do it realitistically.

How do you make deep DOF look good like in Citizen Kane, if you want more actors in focus?

Actually that particular movie cheated its way to deep focus. The best-known deep-focus shots in Citizen Kane were achieved by process photography. In other words, optical trickery. You have to keep in mind that Orson Welles -- who was only... what, 26 years old when he made that movie? -- Orson Welles was a talented magician, as in, an actual magician with a top hat and rabbit and all, who basically transferred his keen ability in sleight-of-hand first to stage, then to radio, and then to cinema. And he had a lot of fun doing it. That is, up until the point that he put Ambersons in the can and went to South America. After that it kinda went downhill. But I digress.

There is a ton of learning to unpack in Citizen Kane, but the most spectacular deep focus shots, like the spoon for instance, would not be easy for you or me to replicate. Each of those three elements -- the spoon, Susan, the door -- each is a separate pass with the plane of focus adjusted for each, which are all combined together for the deep-focus effect. And that's just Orson winking at you as he plays with his giant electric train set, his very first feature film. The whole movie is a long series of optical illusions. And it's also Gregg Toland. If you liked Kane, then you should see Grapes Of Wrath from the year before... that's a more conventional Gregg Toland, working under a stolid John Ford, but the look and the lighting of Wrath has a lot in common with Kane.

Here are a few thoughts on Kane and deep focus:

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/how-to-citizen-kane-your-film/

Oh yes, I know Orson Welles cheated the deep focus, it's just I thought I could get deep focus without cheating, since I was using the Sony A7s II, which has a lot of exposure in the gain to work with.

However, let's say deep focus is not good, and I should just get a good focus puller and shoot with a shallow DOF. Why didn't Welles shoot with shallow DOF and get a focus puller instead?

Isn't the point of deep focus photography to be able to have the actors in focus at all times, so the viewer doesn't have to be directed where to look, and they can decide for themselves I thought?

For a serious and in-depth examination of "how they did it" with a chapter devoted to its cinematography, I strongly recommend this book: The Making of Citizen Kane (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520205677/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0520205677&linkCode=as2&tag=din02c-20&linkId=31c327e74f8dbe3173e71247d1362c33) by Robert L. Carringer.

Why didn't Welles shoot with shallow DOF and get a focus puller instead?

You mean why didn't Toland shoot with shallow DOF. The answer is basic deep focus serves a particular purpose, just like shallow focus. As Paul states above, it's an identifier. In the famous spoon scene, in which Susan Alexander attempts suicide, all three elements of the frame (the spoon with the bottle, Susan, and the door) carry equal importance, so Welles and Toland devised a way to have all of these things in sharp focus together.

I think the better question is, why didn't Toland rack it? The answer might be that pulling a rack wouldn't have been as effective (even with Charles bursting through the door the instant it comes into focus... that's the modern way this stuff is done). A rack looks great when it goes from point A to point B but when there are more than two elements involved, I think it's "over-directing" the audience a bit too much. When you see this scene for the first time, you sort of have to figure it out yourself because there's no rack focus to guide your eyes. In my opinion, it's better that way.

Keep in mind that even though this was Orson's very first movie, RKO pretty much took the leash off and turned him loose, so he and Toland had the freedom to explore a lot of interesting and unconventional ideas. I believe a large part of why they shot with such deep focus is that it was an unusual practice at the time; neither one of these guys was interested in doing something "the usual way." Orson wanted to experiment and Gregg Toland was happy to oblige. From a visual perspective, it was an excellent collaboration.

By the way, there was indeed a focus puller on Citizen Kane. His name was Eddie Garvin. He did a lot of work with Gregg Toland including Grapes of Wrath and The Best Years Of Our Lives. He also assisted on Magnificent Ambersons. Most of his work is not credited on the screen, but he was definitely there.

why didn't Toland rack it?

"You mean why didn't Garvin rack it."

Yes, I can be a smart-ass even to myself sometimes. In fact, that's probably when it's most appropriate.

Here's the man in his own words:

Realism for Citizen Kane

Toland, Gregg, American Cinematographer

During recent years a great deal has been said and written about the new technical and artistic possibilities offered by such developments as coated lenses, super-fast films and the use of lower-proportioned and partially ceiled sets. Some cinematographers have had, as I did in one or two productions filmed during the past year, opportunities to make a few cautious, tentative experiments with utilizing these technical innovations to produce improved photo-dramatic results. Those of us who have, I am sure, have felt, as I did, that they were on the track of something really significant, and wished that instead of using them conservatively for a scene here or a sequence there, they could experiment free-handedly with them throughout an entire production.

In the course of my last assignment, the photography of Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, the opportunity for such a large-scale experiment came to me. In fact, it was forced upon me, for in order to bring the picture to the screen as both producer-director Welles and I saw it, we were forced to make radical departures from conventional practice. In doing so, I believe we have made some interesting contributions to cinematographic methods.

Citizen Kane is by no means a conventional, run-of-the-mill movie. Its keynote is realism. As we worked together over the script and the final, pre-production planning, both Welles and I felt this, and felt that if it was possible, the picture should be brought to the screen in such a way that the audience would feel it was looking at reality, rather than merely at a movie.

Closely interrelated with this concept were two perplexing cinetechnical problems. In the first place, the settings for this production were designed to play a definite role in the picture - one as vital as any player's characterization. They were more than mere backgrounds: they helped trace the rise and fall of the central character.

Secondly - but by no means of secondary importance - was Welles' concept of the visual flow of the picture. He instinctively grasped a point which many other far more experienced directors and producers never comprehend: that the scenes and sequences should flow together so smoothly that the audience should not be conscious of the mechanics of picture-making. And in spite of the fact that his previous experience had been in directing for the stage and for radio, he had a full realization of the great power of the camera in conveying dramatic ideas without recourse to words.

Therefore, from the moment the production began to take shape in script form, everything was planned with reference to what the camera could bring to the eyes of the audience. Direct cuts, we felt, were something that should be avoided wherever possible. Instead, we tried to plan action so that the camera could pan or dolly from one angle to another whenever this type of treatment was desirable. In other scenes, we preplanned our angles and compositions so that action which ordinarily would be shown in direct cuts would be shown in a single, longer scene - often one in which important action might take place simultaneously in widely separated points in extreme foreground and background.

These unconventional setups, it can readily be seen, impose unsurmountable difficulties in the path of strictly conventional methods of camerawork. To put things with brutal frankness, they simply cannot be done by conventional means. But they were a basic part of Citizen Kane and they had to be done!

The first step was in designing sets which would in themselves strike the desired note of reality. In almost any real-life room, we are always to some degree conscious of the ceiling. In most movies, on the other hand, we see the ceiling only in extreme long-shots-and then it is usually painted in as a matte shot. In the closer angles, the camera seldom shows the ceiling, or even anything suggesting it. On the contrary, conventional interior lighting-effects, since the light is projected from spotlighting units perched high on the lamp-rails paralleling the sets, come from angles which would be definitely impossible in an actual, ceiled room.

Bolded parts are mine, as they relate to this discussion.

There's more to it than just this excerpt, which is a short part of a longer piece. It's a re-print of Toland's original 1941 article that was re-published in the August 1991 issue of American Cinematographer.

Isn't the point of deep focus photography to be able to have the actors in focus at all times, so the viewer doesn't have to be directed where to look, and they can decide for themselves I thought?

The viewer is being directed, but not by the shallow DOF, but by the composition, the action of the actors and the lighting. Humans are attracted by movement and whoever is speaking in a scene.

A number of films still use deep focus in some shots, if not the entire film; https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/deep-focus-shot-camera-movement-angle/

However, you seem to be using deep focus for utilitarian reasons (not needing to pull focus), rather than for creative reasons.

I go away for a couple weeks and I mis out on another Ryan thread. Interesting topic but I’m curious about the progress and stage of this film. At one time it sounded like he was editing, then filming, distributing... The questions seem all over the place. Wouldn’t you have determined the aspect ratio before filming? You could re crop but nothing too dramatic otherwise it mess up the composition/quality. I can’t imagine the aspect ratio making or breaking his movie.

Pretty sure the film is still in preproduction.

I thought he was in pre-production.

Yeah I'm planning it all out, raising money and in pre-pre-production I guess you could say. I want to wait till spring for actual production cause more time for nicer weather.

The viewer is being directed, but not by the shallow DOF, but by the composition, the action of the actors and the lighting. Humans are attracted by movement and whoever is speaking in a scene.

A number of films still use deep focus in some shots, if not the entire film; https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/deep-focus-shot-camera-movement-angle/

However, you seem to be using deep focus for utilitarian reasons (not needing to pull focus), rather than for creative reasons.

Yep that's true, the DP/focus puller was not available that day so I decided on deep focus so I could still get the shoot done. I will go for more shallow DOF from now on, in close up shots. Is deep focus during action shots, where there is a lot of movement between the actors okay though, as long as it's for the artistry of seeing action in focus without having to pull?

It's whatever works, just don't change the ISO of the camera for more DOF. Usually you tend to keep the same stop for a scene for a consistent look.

The focus puller should be able to follow the fast action as long as they've got a reasonable stop on the lens. Often action is in a wider shot, so it's not usually a problem, unless you're dealing with tight shots

Oh okay, but I thought the the aperture does change in a lot of movies, cause in a lot of movies, the aperture will be very deep for the master shots, but then shallow for the close ups. So don't a lot of movies change it in that sense?

Check your depth of field tables, look at the relationship between focus distance and focal length of the lens plus the stops. For wide shots you commonly have a shorter focal length and/or film at a greater distance, while for the CU a slightly longer one and/or move in to be closer.

For practical reasons, you don't want to do a major change of lighting levels when shooting interiors, Higher lighting levels add to your costs, so you wish to keep that down. plus in the past, it increased the heat on the set. The stop used will vary, but f2.8/f3.5 is traditionally a good one because you can use a zoom lens, although with primes f2.0 - f 2.8 can be used. These stops also gave the focus puller a bit of a chance to keep focus, however, they'll need to be on the ball, Although I know one DP who was always f5.6.

Note they will be using T stops on cine lenses, but the difference won't be much with modern lenses, plus we're talking abut DOF.

Oh okay. What you mean is, is that the closer you put the camera to the actors, the more the background will go out of focus right?

How come the background is still in deep focus on the actresses close up in mine though? Why didn't it go out of focus more, as I got closer?

What was your aperture setting for that shot, Ryan?

Well since the focus puller couldn't make it that day and I didn't want the actors to go out of focus I think I set it around f11 to be safe. To deep to get shallow DOF in a close up?

There's your answer, with that stop you'll be into deep focus territory.

Here's a DOF calculator, so you can see the difference changing the aperture makes. https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html.

Yes, at f/11 your depth of field easily extended all the way to the background.

The focus puller was absent, so you just changed the iris setting to prevent you having to focus while shooting? Come on Ryan - we are not talking about shooting on a Panavision camera, we have viewfinders and a ring to rotate - any cameraman worth his salt should be able to focus. The TV guys do it all the time, and they don't have somebody to focus for them. If you don't have a focus puller it's hardly the end of the shoot!

In his defense pulling focus on small sensor cams yourself is no easy feat. Unless it’s something you’ve practiced repeatedly I wouldn't think you'd able to do it accurately.

Well, I've been using ⅔ and ⅓ sensors for years and years and never had a pro camera with autofocus and I've managed perfectly well - even shooting with the lens wide open. It's part of the standard camera operating practice. Ever watch golf, cricket or baseball on tv outside broadcasts and watched the cameraman track a ball in flight on a very long lens in perfect sharpness. Pan, tilt, zoom and focus all at the same time. In the studio, if you are a bit soft, you scan the image and if the background is sharper, you focus forward, and if the background is softer, focus back. It just needs practice.

...years and years...

Well, Paul, that is indeed the whole point.

You've had years and years. He has not.

In my opinion he did the right thing. His hands were full enough as it is.

It amazes me how you do what you do, and I'm honored to have shooters of your caliber participate on this forum. Professionals with your level of experience lend great clout and veracity to this community. But I don't think I can do what you do. I don't have those years and years of experience. Neither does the OP.

I certainly agree with you that he could benefit greatly from practice.

That was my mistake, I meant LARGE sensor cams. Which I think he is using. Much easier with 1/3 or 2/3 inch sensors.

I will say that if the cam is on sticks and locked down you can use markers (sticky arrows like you'd use for contracts to indicate where to sign) to mark your focus points on the lens itself, and pull at the appropriate time, but if you're handheld? Or need to follow action (two instances where you really can't look away from the image to look at your marks)? Very tough. Not saying impossible but yes, you need a lot practice. And with DOF so shallow it's very easy to over or undershoot just a bit and have a slightly soft image and look like a jackass. And you can't even always tell, even with a monitor (a small one anyway) and peaking, 'til you're home and looking at it on a larger screen.

There is a long Ryan thread which covers this subject.

That was my mistake, I meant LARGE sensor cams. Which I think he is using. Much easier with 1/3 or 2/3 inch sensors.

I will say that if the cam is on sticks and locked down you can use markers (sticky arrows like you'd use for contracts to indicate where to sign) to mark your focus points on the lens itself, and pull at the appropriate time, but if you're handheld? Or need to follow action (two instances where you really can't look away from the image to look at your marks)? Very tough. Not saying impossible but yes, you need a lot practice. And with DOF so shallow it's very easy to over or undershoot just a bit and have a slightly soft image and look like a jackass. And you can't even always tell, even with a monitor (a small one anyway) and peaking, 'til you're home and looking at it on a larger screen.

Yes I was using the Sony A7s II. On the shot where it's the two of them, the wide shot, I wanted them both in focus so I set a deep DOF. Then I did the close ups of both of them, but I was working in a hurry, and didn't change the DOF to shallow for the close ups.

However, it was said on here not to change the DOF and keep it consistent. So if I want a deep DOF to have two actors in focus in a wide shot, should I then not change it for close ups.

In the wide shot though, the male actor walks in the room and walks over to her, and it's about maybe 10 feet to her at least I think or more even. So I would have to have it in deep enough focus for 10 feet, wouldn't I?

You usually pull focus for a walk into a room like that.

Stopping down can change the characteristics of the lens. DPs select lenses on how they look and this can change depending on the stop used.

You plan the lighting levels depending on the DOF you need, so the stop usually doesn't change. It's only with the greater camera sensitivity now available that you could even use f11 on an interior without blasting the subjects with light (and heat). Today, neutral density filters are used with modern cameras to obtain the wider lens apertures.

Oh okay thanks. Well because the Sony A7s II has really good qaulity ISO, I didn't need bright lights for deep DOF.

However, if I were to do what you say and shoot with a shallow DOF as I pulled focus as the guy enters the room and walks towards her, then she would be out of focus while he walked in. I kind of feel both actors should be in focus for the audience in a shot like that, unless I'm wrong?

I mean is the Citizen Kane type style with every actor in focus in a shot, really that bad of a style nowadays?

If you wish to use deep focus, there's no reason why you can't, other than current fashion. It really depends on the story, although I wouldn't go to f11, setting around f5.6 or f8 at the most would usually get the best out of the lens,

How soft she is would depend on the factors given earlier in the thread, however, you may wish to have the focus on her as he enters the room or switch from him to her as he walks towards her, It depends on the story, their relationship and what is happening dramatically.

The choices are yours.

this goes back to art, Ryan. Technology has given you far more choices, but you cannot write a rule book to follow, which is what you always strive for. Shot 3 has problem 201, turn to 201 in the book and apply rule. shot 4 has problem 22, and so on. You cannot work like this. Whenever people give advice, you add it to the rule book. However - every single piece of advice has a context, and you miss this.

You nearly got it here.I kind of feel both actors should be in focus for the audience in a shot like that, unless I'm wrong?
You had it, but then added the "unless I'm wrong". You felt they should be both in focus. That's an executive decision by the film maker. YOU made the decision so go with it. Why would other people have better judgement than you? I really cannot imagine on the Citizen Kane set the man in charge wondering if he was wrong? He knew he was right. Almost certainly people on set thought he made very odd decisions, but he didn't - he had the vision.

We're very good at answering questions, but we are not always right. Perhaps technically, we are - but part of being in charge is having the courage to collect viewpoints, and then do what you think best, and not constantly double-check every decision. I work for very big production companies, and in my role make on the spot decision that have big implications. My contract essentially says make it happen, and the bosses support the decisions I make on their behalf, even when later it turns out I was wrong. you are in this position apart from you have no boss.

If you want a shot to have shallow DoF, then in your head you already know why this is. Maybe to hide the background, but probably to pull people's attention to the things in the frame you wish them to be looking at. A fully sharp image can present them on the big screen with a jumble of things to look at. Is this good? Only you know!

Paul's post directly above provides the best advice possible.