Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?

[Brian Drysdale]

Yes, it's a typo.

I'm not sure how Ryan got zoom out of geod, that would be two incorrect characters instead of one.

Although, the zooms you'd probably want to use on a drama max out at f2.8 anyway

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, its just that zooms have a less shallow dof so i thought maybe that's what was meant.

Are there movies that are shot with wide shots like High and Low, but with shallow focus?

[Brian Drysdale]

Modern editing is much faster, although. there are scenes in films with a shallow depth of field with multiple characters in wide shots. "Barry Lyndon" is an example.

There are zooms with shorter focal lengths, so you won't notice a shallow DOF effect at 18nn to 28mm on a wide shot with a 25mm lens at f2.8 and focused at 6 feet the DOF is 4' 3" to 10' 2", with an 18.5mm it's 3' 5" to 23' 8"

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks, I'll check out Barry Lyndon. What does modern editing, have to with it though?

[Josh Bass]

Probably that with few exceptions, wide shots that last long enough to have all that stiff play out and be impactful dont exist now days. If youre cutting every two or three seconds that Kurosawa stuff doesnt work.

[Geoffrey Cox]

Curse of modern cinema relentless editing.

I watched this trailer for a documentary the other day on a subject that really interests me and it is a simple interview to camera but I felt like strangling the editor. Is it just me or do those cuts in and out grate like hell? It didn't need any of them - the first shot would have done for the whole clip to my taste but Ok maybe 2 or 3 would have worked but there are 19 in 1'20"!

Simon Nicol on the Unique Sound Techniques Sound - YouTube

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

What does modern editing, have to with it though?

I'm surprised you're unaware that the pace of cutting has increased in modern films.

[Josh Bass]

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Cox

Curse of modern cinema relentless editing.

I watched this trailer for a documentary the other day on a subject that really interests me and it is a simple interview to camera but I felt like strangling the editor. Is it just me or do those cuts in and out grate like hell? It didn't need any of them - the first shot would have done for the whole clip to my taste but Ok maybe 2 or 3 would have worked but there are 19 in 1'20"!

Simon Nicol on the Unique Sound Techniques Sound - YouTube

sounds like modern corporate video style. Shoot two cams, edit two cams.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

I'm surprised you're unaware that the pace of cutting has increased in modern films.

Oh I didn't understand what you meant. I thought you were saying that the focus has something to do with the editing. But as far as wide shots and editing go, would using Kurosawa's style of editing in High and Low, be too slow paced for today's audience too much do you think?

[Brian Drysdale]

It depends on the content, there are a number of modern films which are "single shot" films. If your actors can give performances (good timing etc) and have enough screen presence. plus your script is excellent, so it that can hold longer shots, it'll work. Although, small screens, like phones do introduce a difficulty, these older films are shot for the big screen, where you can see the details in actors' faces in the wider shots.

Editing is commonly used to cover flaws in the above.

[Geoffrey Cox]

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

sounds like modern corporate video style. Shoot two cams, edit two cams.

Certainly that style but the way it is done here actually distracts the viewer from what the guy is saying and I am sure that is not what anyone wants but it is like the director / editor has got a compulsive disorder to edit come what may.

[Paul R Johnson]

S/he actually cut multiple times within one sentence! What a nutter - It's actually worse because with the two very similar angles, it makes it even more annoying - almost like its snapping between two zoom angles. Maybe the intention was to spice up a boring monologue, when in fact it is the kind of content that's a bit specialist, so the viewers want the info, and this makes there be even less need for rapid cuts. No cuts enables real concentration. If it were for casual listeners/viewer, you could understand the idea to drive it a bit. Just horrible!

[Josh Bass]

Perhaps he stammered and stumbled so much that was the only way to piece it together. If you dont force em to do enough takes to get a good one all the way through or at least several longer chunks solidly, and have bo broll to cover, you could find yourself in that position in post.

[Brian Drysdale]

If you look at other videos in the same series over cutting seems to be a habit. Also, this speaker seems to be very articulate, so stammering etc seems unlikely,

It would be poor filmmaking if you cut together an interview in such away to cover stammering and stumbling, you can do that in radio, but not in a video.

[Josh Bass]

It would but thats never stopped some people!

If the rest are like that its probably a stylistic choice, albeit a bad one. Trying to be “hep” and “wizard”, as the kids say.