Creating Depth of Field: With Low End Consumer Camera?

Gabriel Yeager · July 25th, 2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Pank

YEahm, sorry Chris, looking at the top topic, this HAS wondered WAY off.

Yes it has...

But it is still following the topic of Shallow DoP. But I already have my answer... So, thank you!

~Gabriel

Steve Royer · July 25th, 2007, 11:30 AM

I'm a visual type... can someone post pictures of the difference between deep and shallow focus? It'd be great to actually put a visual to the technical jargon. THANKS!

Kevin Amundson · July 25th, 2007, 12:18 PM

Hear you go.

First is Shallow Depth of Field. Second is Deep Depth of Field.

Dylan Pank · July 25th, 2007, 01:08 PM

here's another deep focus example from Kurosawa's Redbeard.

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/redbeard1.jpg
every character from the foreground to the background is in focus.

and a shallow focus example from La règle du jeu.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...09_kitchen.jpg
The wall behind the couple and the figure in the background are subtly out of focus.

Often people associate deep focus with wide angle and shallow focus with wide angle shots (as in Kevin's examples above) but you can see in these two cases it is in fact reverse, the Renoir shot is wide-ish and the Kurosawa shot is longer.

Matt Buys · July 25th, 2007, 07:07 PM

Dylan, what a great example. I remember that scene in Redbeard. When the nice basket weaver with the questionable past dies from tuberculosis. How do you think Kurosawa got that much DOF for that scene?

Ken Hodson · July 26th, 2007, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Citizen Kane (that's Kane with a K)

Ouchh. I am truely embarrassed.
While we are so OT, I'm gonna throw out that Touch of Evil is my fav OW film. Great shots a story and acting. A natural hatrick by the big guy.

Dylan Pank · July 26th, 2007, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Buys

Dylan, what a great example. I remember that scene in Redbeard. When the nice basket weaver with the questionable past dies from tuberculosis. How do you think Kurosawa got that much DOF for that scene?

Well he stopped down to f22, must have been lit liken the surface of the sun! Also the characters are all quite far from the lens and not in close up, so he probably focused to infiting, then figured out how far in he could get sharp focus, then worked out his staging from there. There's no special magic just meticulous craftsmanship.

Kurosawa was a master of fulling the scene with detail. In Sanjuro, if memory serves, there's a 10-shot! Everyone lined up behind Toshiro Mifune, in focus, Widescreen anamorphic at that!

Gabriel Yeager · July 26th, 2007, 12:13 PM

Now are we talking Kiyoshi Kurosawa? Or Akira Kurosawa?

Akira Kurosawa is cool... I did not know he made so many movies!

~Gabriel

Cole McDonald · July 26th, 2007, 02:20 PM

One of the reasons we see so much shallow DoF and talking about shallow DoF is examplified by the 2 pix above of the birds. Small format Digital camcorders have a VERY limited number of pixels to represent data...example...Pacman on the atari 2600 was much blockier than Pacman in the arcade. The long DoF shot above "looks" digital because the leaves are each being reduced to a single pixel in the background...making them rectangular.

Film has a much higher resolution due to smaller grain (pixels) than digital...even 8mm has more resolution than most digital...8mm is considered to be 1000 Horizontal lines of resolution...broadcast NTSC is 525, NTSC DV is 640...the first digital to compare to film for real is HD, but it's compressed which removes some information for storage...making film win again (until you compare cost)!

In order to maximize the pixels we're given in a digital camera, we push in to hide the background and maximize represented detail in our subject, so tighter framings...and we blur the backgrounds so the trees don't have rectangular leaves. Yes it's prevalent...and thankfully so. Watch some DV footage with long DoF sometime, and it screams DV at you. Watch Shallower (even just a bit) DoF footage, and the lines start to blur a bit (pun intended).

Gabriel Yeager · July 26th, 2007, 02:32 PM

Thank you Cole, for that excellent insight!

Now I wish I had a HI8 camera back, hahaha! I never thought I would say that..

Love the Pacman comparison. ;)
~Gabriel

July 25th, 2007, 12:18 PM	#18
Kevin Amundson Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Prague, MN Posts: 112	Hear you go. First is Shallow Depth of Field. Second is Deep Depth of Field. Attached Thumbnails __________________ Kevin \| www.kraentertainment.com A picture is worth 1,000 words \| A 2 hour film at 24fps is worth 172,800,000 words

July 26th, 2007, 12:13 PM	#23
Gabriel Yeager Major Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Washington, NorthWest USA Posts: 788	Drifting way off topic now... Now are we talking Kiyoshi Kurosawa? Or Akira Kurosawa? Akira Kurosawa is cool... I did not know he made so many movies! ~Gabriel __________________ Gabriel Photography

July 26th, 2007, 02:20 PM	#24
Cole McDonald Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sauk Rapids, MN, USA Posts: 1,675	One of the reasons we see so much shallow DoF and talking about shallow DoF is examplified by the 2 pix above of the birds. Small format Digital camcorders have a VERY limited number of pixels to represent data...example...Pacman on the atari 2600 was much blockier than Pacman in the arcade. The long DoF shot above "looks" digital because the leaves are each being reduced to a single pixel in the background...making them rectangular. Film has a much higher resolution due to smaller grain (pixels) than digital...even 8mm has more resolution than most digital...8mm is considered to be 1000 Horizontal lines of resolution...broadcast NTSC is 525, NTSC DV is 640...the first digital to compare to film for real is HD, but it's compressed which removes some information for storage...making film win again (until you compare cost)! In order to maximize the pixels we're given in a digital camera, we push in to hide the background and maximize represented detail in our subject, so tighter framings...and we blur the backgrounds so the trees don't have rectangular leaves. Yes it's prevalent...and thankfully so. Watch some DV footage with long DoF sometime, and it screams DV at you. Watch Shallower (even just a bit) DoF footage, and the lines start to blur a bit (pun intended). __________________ Web Youtube Facebook

July 26th, 2007, 02:32 PM	#25
Gabriel Yeager Major Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Washington, NorthWest USA Posts: 788	Thank you Cole, for that excellent insight! Now I wish I had a HI8 camera back, hahaha! I never thought I would say that.. Love the Pacman comparison. ;) ~Gabriel __________________ Gabriel Photography

July 25th, 2007, 11:30 AM	#17
Steve Royer Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 38	I'm a visual type... can someone post pictures of the difference between deep and shallow focus? It'd be great to actually put a visual to the technical jargon. THANKS!

July 25th, 2007, 01:08 PM	#19
Dylan Pank Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Portsmouth, UK Posts: 611	here's another deep focus example from Kurosawa's Redbeard. http://www.davidmullenasc.com/redbeard1.jpg every character from the foreground to the background is in focus. and a shallow focus example from La règle du jeu. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...09_kitchen.jpg The wall behind the couple and the figure in the background are subtly out of focus. Often people associate deep focus with wide angle and shallow focus with wide angle shots (as in Kevin's examples above) but you can see in these two cases it is in fact reverse, the Renoir shot is wide-ish and the Kurosawa shot is longer.

July 25th, 2007, 07:07 PM	#20
Matt Buys Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Asheville NC Posts: 426	Dylan, what a great example. I remember that scene in Redbeard. When the nice basket weaver with the questionable past dies from tuberculosis. How do you think Kurosawa got that much DOF for that scene?