Yes. I just finished a shoestring budget project that didn’t have the resources to get more powerful lights so we pretty much had to shoot wide open in a few of the locations.
Exactly! It’s difficult to fill the whole frame with detail and if it’s a bit of a wider shot, you need a lot of lighting equipment to separate what needs to be separated. I challenged myself a while ago with shooting more with deep focus… it’s difficult! Suddenly you have to worry about the whole frame/scene…
Agreed! What’s cinematic in my opinion is the actual depth of the shot, ie separation between the subject foreground and background. This can be achieved through skillful lighting. Shallow depth of field helps give that appearance , but doesn’t actually make the shot more “cinematic”.
absolutely. an image is always the sum of its parts - going wide open aperture is a cheat code to try and avoid having to deal with all of those parts.
That scene from Arrival is supposed to look like a strange, unreal, dream sequence. The character is imagining herself playing with her daughter but she doesn't even have a daughter.
Funny thing about Sicario and Deakins's habit of deep focus: the interrogation scene where you see the camera being turned off in the background. It happens out of focus, yet the red bokeh of the recording light is clearly visible, up to the point it's turned off. Thought that was a cool trick!
I think you hit it spot on - to me, shallow DOF always feels isolating. Positively like, my entire attention is on you, or negatively, like, look how lonely this scene is. Or even neutral, like your footage where the shallow DOF gives the sense of the car being alone, the woman on the bed being alone - all alone. It's when that isolation clashes with a narrative about multiple people or busy situations that don't make sense to me from a storytelling perspective.
@@RustyShackleford9000 well in the example of the office scene in the movie Seven , the three protagonists are in different depth/levels so not using shallow DOF is mandatory to see all of them at once ... And it's a group shot so it makes total sense. Shallow DOF is supposed to isolate the subject both in the narrative and in the shot itself.
I love that you’re leveraging the gear/ad focused algorithm to make enjoyable films and visual essays around film techniques and your craft. I really enjoyed this post and the 6K pro one and YT wouldn’t have offered them up to me had they not had the gear in them (even though the gear was the least interesting part). Keep up the Indy filmmaking inspiration man 👌🏻
As a macro photographer/videographer, I can’t help but chuckle in amusement at people overusing shallow DoF. Completely agree with most of your insights here, but I’m mainly jealous of the deep focus other photographers get to use. Even at f16, I’m struggling to get more than a millimeter of DoF at higher magnifications.
I agree. Medium and Wide shots should definitely have a deeper focus, since they are establishing placement. Shallow depth of field are more geared for closeups, since this is how our human eyesight receives information. Great vid.
Why is this the case? Why shouldn’t people use f1.8 or f2 for a wide shot? People seem to forget that you can just set focus so the vast majority of the frame is in focus and there a blurred elements in the immediate foreground to show depth. Shooting a landscape at like f1.8 with a 50mm with some long blades of grass in the lower edges of frame blurred with the main landscape in focus is the exact type of shot that shows the whole in this video analysis. Also can be used in scenes where one character is talking to another, and the speaker and background are in focus while the listener closer to the camera is blurred by shallow dof
I'm on a doc series right now where I'm living between f5.6-f11. Shooting on an FS7ii and we're wanting to show each protagonists world around them. Something that's always overlooked!
Sometimes I get taken out of scenes if the depth of field is too shallow bc it feels out of place. When used strategically for narrative, makes a lot of sense as you said. I really enjoy scenes and films shot at a deeper focus because they feel more “real world” to me - similar to what our eyes see in reality. If we’re sitting at a coffee shop, I’m not looking at you at a T1.2. It’s one of the many things I appreciate about 90’s films and prior. The use of practical fx and animatronics with more deep focus gives you a totally different feel than constant CG + over/unnecessary use of shallow dof. I think a lot of us newer age filmmakers fell/fall into this trap. I know I did early on until I shifted my perspective to the gear serving the story instead of the gear producing the story. There’s a time and a place for shallow depth of field, but I agree that choice in depth of field doesn’t make something cinematic, but more so the overall composition which is comprised of location, lighting, blocking/acting, set design, story/writing, etc. The final image we see that serves the narrative is what makes something cinematic. This was long winded. Delete my comment.
@@impatrickt yeah a lot of moments were hard. Most of the film felt like the nightmare sequences in JL - which worked for that scene because of what it was
Thank you! I feel like this is also becoming more prevalent in “prestige TV.” Having a natural appearing shallow DOF can be beautiful, but I see more and more such dramatic limited DOF/ bokeh that it is distracting and unnatural appearing.
Back in the day, while shooting film, the average aperture was 5.6 for movies. They didn't have the technology of monitors, focus assist, and all that. They had to eyeball it to keep the subject in focus and obviously thats easier at f5.6/8 than it is at f1.4.
Shooting The Matrix, with the exception of some closeups, they generally used deep depth of field for scenes inside The Matrix and shallow depth of field in the real world, and the entirety of Terminator 2 was done between 4.5 to 5.6
I’ve come across your videos once or twice and thought oh it’s just another camera channel. Then I watched this video. As a film lover I can relate to what you’re talking about there’s this look that great cinematographers like Deakkns and Fincher does. I can’t put my finger on it but you pinned it. You’re a great explainer thank you!
i vividly remember when i got my first fast lens for my Panasonic lumix, a 25mm f1.8. i couldn't stop shooting everything wide open even though it literally ruined some shots because I was so focused on getting the blurry background that I forgot about my subject. i was also watching various marvel movies lately and noticed how they almost never used a shallow DOF except when they knew the background wasn't important. its important to keep that in mind...
I absolutely agree on shallow depth of field. I feel like everything that is coming out these days relies on it so much. Even the latest season of Narcos did this which I feel ruined it. When I shoot with my Sony A7S3 I like being at f5.0 so the background makes sense. In fact I don't like shooting at f2.8 unless it is at night and I need it for light. Anyhow great video.
Shallow DOF, slow motion, film burns, super 8 overlays, mask transitions. You can tell from a video if a TH-camr filmed it because it has that TH-camy feel to it. Hard to break out of that style once you get in it.
So many great points. Shallow DoF in cinema I always thought as a tool for adding drama, mystery, or vulnerability. At least, that’s the feeling I get as a viewer most of the time this is used. Love your approach to this review brother!
I think the key to using DOF is to have the background blurred enough for separation but clear enough that you can see what things are. Super wide / blurred backgrounds are always distracting. There's a fine balance in my opinion.
I thought i was gonna hate this. But I really enjoyed it. Fully thought out and i agree wholeheartedly. I’ve been talking about this same thing for photography I’ve seen many hide behind the “bokeh” when they can compose the shot a lot better and still keep some things in focus
Exactly! If you use it all the time, it loses its effectiveness when really needed, so the film lacks visual dynamic and becomes flat in that regard. People use all sorts of things just because they're "cool", like wide aspect ratio that doesn't benefit that film in any way, and even worse, often it degrades it in many ways. Thanks for all the amazing videos! 🍀
Good stuff. I just saw the new Top Gun. Omg. Extreme shallow focus. (Not the flying scenes). Every non-flying scene was so shallow/blurry background focused that it became a bit distracting to me.
I cannot tell you how annoying it is when I look up a “Cinematic Video Test” on TH-cam and everything nothing but Low Depth of Field shots and Slow Motion.
Great video, I couldnt agree more. When DSLRs came out, that shallow depth of field helped hide the issues with dynamic range as a signal of not shooting film. But the obsession with getting cleaner bokeh carried on and on, until the next generation of photo and video kids didnt know why bokeh was so important in masking digital flaws for emulating film-- hell they never even shot film. And it just became a sought after technique for the sake of it. I see on these photo groups on facebook etc everyone raving about lower and lower aperture minimums of lenses at the expense of thousands of dollars and im just astounded at the lengths people are going to. Then you look at the imagery and its a menagiere of glowing floating orbs with tack sharp subjects-- it looks overcooked and uncanny. The state of photography and video is a wild realm these days. Im happy for people to have access to such quality, but its videos like this which are needed to remind people theres another end of the spectrum for every feature of a cameras mechanics-- and why thats useful in certain instances.
When im in cinema and the screen is huuge and every shot is in SDF it's not great, because I can only look at the thing in focus and it's not that comfortable. I think I noticed it the most in The Batman, the movie was great but I think the SDF was definitely overused in that movie and it can be quite distracting if it's overused especially when watching on the big screen.
If you have a bad location back up with the lens and do a longer lens wide. It won’t make you add as much production design. Lenses are not about focal length. They are all about compression and how they compress and angle of view.
I was agonizing over a lack of shallow depth of field this week, and then the very next day I shot a scene in which a character picks a pen up off the floor and I noticed the shot was blurry except for the very tip of the pen. This is because the pen was close. So, I would suggest shooting wide open when you want shallow depth of field and if you ever can't get everything in focus, try backing away from the set and digitally zooming. That way, you can still shoot deep focus if you need to (at the expense of some resolution). This is my current workaround for fixed aperture phone lenses (f1.8).
Thank you for this insight. Makes me think that shallow depth separates the subject emotionally from the rest of the world in the frame (and as such narratively). It heightens the emotional "flavor," so to speak. And like salt, which heightens the flavor of food, it's best used sparingly.
I thought i would disagree since i learned that most films use f2.8, but it makes sense. What aperture would you use instead? Should one limit the number of different numbers, like one shallow and one deep focus, or use precisely what fits each shot?
not a videographer but, coming from a street photography background I couldn't agree more. Unless you shoot at night or indoor without proper lighting, deep dof (around f8-11) is paramount to tell the story of your image through the surroundings and even more important for composing image with leading lines. Shallow dof is still useful when you need to single out the subject but that's just not my kind of work.
Great video Patrick, What mic are you using for shooting this video? and do you still use the Shure Mv7 with the SM7B DIY mod? Also, does the lens naturally produce the grainy look we see in the pics, or have you increased sharpness/details in post?
I never used that mv7 again after that video haha.. This is the RØDE videomic NTG - regarding the photos I wouldn’t use them in any sense as a lens sample test. I do heavy editing to all my work. Just more the focal length and bokeh 🙏🙏🙏
Was watching the brilliant Cauron film "Roma" recently and noticed almost the entire film is shot with a wide depth of field, relying on dramatic composition and movement that is heavily motivated by narrative. And yet it's one of the most beautiful films of the past years. Deakins said that cinematography should almost be invisible to story, as just complementary to it. I get what he means.
Okay Honestly I agree with you but you this is the first video I watch from you and I noticed you got the Panasonic S5. So do I but I never in my life have created such nice subtle moody images. Do you do a lot of Colorgrading? If so PLEASE teach me because I feel like grading V-log is a real pain in the ass.
I’ve just today been going through and binging a lot of your videos. You seem very knowledgeable and you’re very clear when explaining things, so I was wondering if you could do a tutorial on blocking? I’ve seen a few videos about it but a lot of aspects of it are still very unclear and I just thought you would be the perfect person to bless youtube with a blocking tutorial/overview
Thanks for watching! I’ve been thinking about dissecting Nolan’s blocking actually. I think he’s pretty terrible at it so it’s good entry point to show what not to do, and how to fix it. It’s on my list!
Is there anyway i can make my stuff look that cineyey? Is is the settings you use? The lense. What is it. Again the intro blee me away, the music was perfect for it. Watched it 5 times
I couldn’t agree more with your title. I’m coming from the photography world and today I’m a filmmaker and I have the same perception. At the very beginning I tried using shallow DoF but now I can’t. It doesn’t connect with my cine worldview and does not connect with my own storytelling. Is it wrong? Not at all.
I wonder if at the commercial/Hollywood level if some of these choices about depth of field (or lack their of) is based on corporate suits who see a shallow depth of field as a shortcut to make a “pleasing image” which translates to getting the attention of the viewer which in turn translates to profit for them. At least from their POV.
I have a more controversial theory that thinks it’s a subconscious insecurity now that everyone has access to a camera that could make the next citizen Kane in their pocket - shallow depth of field is the last lifeboat for the democratization of filmmaking.
Just because you can achieve cinematic shots with 1 way doesnt mean the other way is not cinematic. Shallow dof is one of the most obvious and easy ways to make your footage look more cinematic. The other one is lighting. However the biggest problem right now is. All those people wanting their useless junk to look”cinematic”. “Lets shoot wide open” “lets use back light”” lets do slow push ins”. Making a shot more cinematic should never be your goal. Your goal should be making a shot that cominicates something by it self or in combination with shots before and after it. Any shot can be made to look more cinematic, but that should not be the reason to do it.
Interesting point, but I disagree, shallow depth of field is cinematic because (as you quickly mentioned) separates the subject from the background radically but (and this is the whole point) SOFTLY, you also said that when we shoot wide open we instantly get the feeling of "wow that's cinematic", if we instinctively feel that, there is indeed a reason. You said that the white lotus is too much wide open for no reason, but actually I think since we all acknowledge that wide open is indeed pleasing to the eyes, we must approach the question in reverse: "do I need a deeper focus? And if so, why?" And if we can't get a good answer out of that I see no valid reason for not shooting wide open if I can. Yes, only cause I can doesn't mean I should a priori, but also doesn't mean I shouldn't. Plus, since wide open means more light, and since not everyone can afford expensive lighting setups why would I avoud using it if I don't have valid stylistic or narrative reasons?
laughs in taxi driver Jokes aside, I'd argue white lotus is not "shallow depth to look cool" as majority is deep focus, and shallow focus is only used in close ups to immerse audiences to the character's dark intentions, like the hotel manager scene you showed. He was off drugs in the scene, so it makes sense to blur his surroundings. Otherwise, interesting video take
Hey, mate :D Loved the visual essay! :D Some bloody fantastic points all round - did you use the Meike Lens for the talking head section too (stopped down) or The S5 and kit lens?
That title was a great huck! 😁 I was ready to argue with you, lol. Loved that shot (at the beginning) with the watch on the wrist (beautiful) is the S5 MFT? is that the Meike 50mm T2.1? Thanks Patrick
using a used GH4 with the 7artisans 25mm f1.8, I miss 1.4 bokeh on my old D800!skyfall used the blown out bokeh nicely in the opening shot when Bond jumps into frame out of focus and walking into focus!!
Hi, I saw your Meike 35/1.2 review and I do agree with your point about overusing shallow DoF. However, most of your example footage was shot in very low light conditions - and that is exactly what makes me interested in this lens. I want the 1.2 because I *need* shallow DoF in those scenarios. For shooting families (hand-held, no gimbal) in their homes using natural light only, is this lens a good option? I use Nikon Z6II with 40mm/2 (MF indoors/AF outdoors), but indoors w/o daylight f2 is just not enough. Thank you, really!, for your opinion.
@@impatrickt Unfortunately w/my Z6II it's not enough - f2 gives me ISO 12800 and more, and the HD footage looks unpleasantly grainy. It's the only reason why I am looking for a 1.2 lens to cover these evening/night low light indoor scenes...
How I loathe the word “cinematic” and how it is used. Cinema is an art and “cinematic” is, if such a thing can be defined, the result of the art… Shallow depth of field and 24 fps does not make it “cinematic”… Could we not just ban the word..? Great video by the way!
![ง้อ (ALRIGHT) - FOURTH [ TEASER ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ya6MBfo-Wvg/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT] “อภิสิทธิ์” ครม.อุ๊งอิ๊ง แย่งเก้าอี้กันฝุ่นตลบ “ทักษิณ” บงการเอง Iคนดังนั่งเคลียร์I 21ส.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/a_b-kItw2jY/mqdefault.jpg)
what if its not about the bokeh balls but the sensor dust we shot along the way?
4K crispy version of that footage reel: vimeo.com/587197089
Maybe, sometimes, we tend to use shallow depth of field to hide the lack of production design and bad lighting.
bingo!
Yes. I just finished a shoestring budget project that didn’t have the resources to get more powerful lights so we pretty much had to shoot wide open in a few of the locations.
That was my first thought.
Exactly! It’s difficult to fill the whole frame with detail and if it’s a bit of a wider shot, you need a lot of lighting equipment to separate what needs to be separated.
I challenged myself a while ago with shooting more with deep focus… it’s difficult! Suddenly you have to worry about the whole frame/scene…
Yah, I intentionally blur out bad backgrounds
Agreed! What’s cinematic in my opinion is the actual depth of the shot, ie separation between the subject foreground and background. This can be achieved through skillful lighting. Shallow depth of field helps give that appearance , but doesn’t actually make the shot more “cinematic”.
absolutely. an image is always the sum of its parts - going wide open aperture is a cheat code to try and avoid having to deal with all of those parts.
That scene from Arrival is supposed to look like a strange, unreal, dream sequence. The character is imagining herself playing with her daughter but she doesn't even have a daughter.
i never said that was a bad use of it - it was to pose the question for you to decide. i left my opinion neutral on purpose.
Are there any good movie scenes where there is shallow depth of field?
love it love it love it love this love it
Funny thing about Sicario and Deakins's habit of deep focus: the interrogation scene where you see the camera being turned off in the background. It happens out of focus, yet the red bokeh of the recording light is clearly visible, up to the point it's turned off. Thought that was a cool trick!
I think you hit it spot on - to me, shallow DOF always feels isolating. Positively like, my entire attention is on you, or negatively, like, look how lonely this scene is. Or even neutral, like your footage where the shallow DOF gives the sense of the car being alone, the woman on the bed being alone - all alone. It's when that isolation clashes with a narrative about multiple people or busy situations that don't make sense to me from a storytelling perspective.
Good point
@@RustyShackleford9000 well in the example of the office scene in the movie Seven , the three protagonists are in different depth/levels so not using shallow DOF is mandatory to see all of them at once ... And it's a group shot so it makes total sense. Shallow DOF is supposed to isolate the subject both in the narrative and in the shot itself.
You’re so goddamn good at this, dude. When it comes to photo/filmmaking TH-cam videos, whether it’s related to gear or not, I always enjoy yours.
I appreciate you! thanks so much man.
I love that you’re leveraging the gear/ad focused algorithm to make enjoyable films and visual essays around film techniques and your craft. I really enjoyed this post and the 6K pro one and YT wouldn’t have offered them up to me had they not had the gear in them (even though the gear was the least interesting part). Keep up the Indy filmmaking inspiration man 👌🏻
Appreciate it! Thanks for watching.
As a macro photographer/videographer, I can’t help but chuckle in amusement at people overusing shallow DoF. Completely agree with most of your insights here, but I’m mainly jealous of the deep focus other photographers get to use. Even at f16, I’m struggling to get more than a millimeter of DoF at higher magnifications.
I agree. Medium and Wide shots should definitely have a deeper focus, since they are establishing placement. Shallow depth of field are more geared for closeups, since this is how our human eyesight receives information. Great vid.
Good
Point
Why is this the case? Why shouldn’t people use f1.8 or f2 for a wide shot? People seem to forget that you can just set focus so the vast majority of the frame is in focus and there a blurred elements in the immediate foreground to show depth. Shooting a landscape at like f1.8 with a 50mm with some long blades of grass in the lower edges of frame blurred with the main landscape in focus is the exact type of shot that shows the whole in this video analysis. Also can be used in scenes where one character is talking to another, and the speaker and background are in focus while the listener closer to the camera is blurred by shallow dof
I'm loving this format of mixing essay videos with current tech
glad to hear it!
I'm on a doc series right now where I'm living between f5.6-f11. Shooting on an FS7ii and we're wanting to show each protagonists world around them. Something that's always overlooked!
nice!
The music, the footage… fantastic. Really sound thoughts on framing and depth of field. Keep up the great work!
Sometimes I get taken out of scenes if the depth of field is too shallow bc it feels out of place. When used strategically for narrative, makes a lot of sense as you said. I really enjoy scenes and films shot at a deeper focus because they feel more “real world” to me - similar to what our eyes see in reality. If we’re sitting at a coffee shop, I’m not looking at you at a T1.2. It’s one of the many things I appreciate about 90’s films and prior. The use of practical fx and animatronics with more deep focus gives you a totally different feel than constant CG + over/unnecessary use of shallow dof. I think a lot of us newer age filmmakers fell/fall into this trap. I know I did early on until I shifted my perspective to the gear serving the story instead of the gear producing the story. There’s a time and a place for shallow depth of field, but I agree that choice in depth of field doesn’t make something cinematic, but more so the overall composition which is comprised of location, lighting, blocking/acting, set design, story/writing, etc. The final image we see that serves the narrative is what makes something cinematic.
This was long winded. Delete my comment.
TL;DR
haha but yes. did you see Army Of Dead? I could barely get through it. Way too shallow. They used old Canon F0.95's.
@@impatrickt yeah a lot of moments were hard. Most of the film felt like the nightmare sequences in JL - which worked for that scene because of what it was
The first objective of cinematography is to serve the story, not to make the frame look beautiful. Richard Dawkins
Thank you! I feel like this is also becoming more prevalent in “prestige TV.” Having a natural appearing shallow DOF can be beautiful, but I see more and more such dramatic limited DOF/ bokeh that it is distracting and unnatural appearing.
Amen! I’d argue it’s come full circle and a blanket shallow depth of field is starting to look instantly amateurish. Great video
Thanks dude!
Spot on!
Been digging your work since a while, I love how you light, compose and color.
Please can we get color correction and grading tut!
Agreed. Actually a lot of the shallow depth shots in recent films make my eyes go crossed.
Back in the day, while shooting film, the average aperture was 5.6 for movies. They didn't have the technology of monitors, focus assist, and all that. They had to eyeball it to keep the subject in focus and obviously thats easier at f5.6/8 than it is at f1.4.
absolutely
Shooting The Matrix, with the exception of some closeups, they generally used deep depth of field for scenes inside The Matrix and shallow depth of field in the real world, and the entirety of Terminator 2 was done between 4.5 to 5.6
I’ve come across your videos once or twice and thought oh it’s just another camera channel. Then I watched this video. As a film lover I can relate to what you’re talking about there’s this look that great cinematographers like Deakkns and Fincher does. I can’t put my finger on it but you pinned it. You’re a great explainer thank you!
Love this, man. Really like how you're integrating these points into discussion about filmmaking and the tools available to us now.
Cheers man!
Smashed that! Very true.
mirrors my own recent trials shooting too shallow on FF. well done pt
i vividly remember when i got my first fast lens for my Panasonic lumix, a 25mm f1.8. i couldn't stop shooting everything wide open even though it literally ruined some shots because I was so focused on getting the blurry background that I forgot about my subject. i was also watching various marvel movies lately and noticed how they almost never used a shallow DOF except when they knew the background wasn't important. its important to keep that in mind...
I absolutely agree on shallow depth of field. I feel like everything that is coming out these days relies on it so much. Even the latest season of Narcos did this which I feel ruined it. When I shoot with my Sony A7S3 I like being at f5.0 so the background makes sense. In fact I don't like shooting at f2.8 unless it is at night and I need it for light. Anyhow great video.
_damn. yo. patrick is just firing on all cylinders rn._
this made me blow air out of my nose rapidly
Shallow DOF, slow motion, film burns, super 8 overlays, mask transitions. You can tell from a video if a TH-camr filmed it because it has that TH-camy feel to it. Hard to break out of that style once you get in it.
I feel like a bad human for only have discovered your channel two weeks ago. Great work, explanation, and lesson!
Welcome aboard!
Excellent point, will take this into consideration for a passion project thing I'm shooting next weekend. Loving your content dude.
Have fun with the project!!
So many great points. Shallow DoF in cinema I always thought as a tool for adding drama, mystery, or vulnerability. At least, that’s the feeling I get as a viewer most of the time this is used.
Love your approach to this review brother!
Thoughtful video dude. Love the Deakins references and Seven. Great stuff!
Cheers! Thanks for watching.
I think the key to using DOF is to have the background blurred enough for separation but clear enough that you can see what things are. Super wide / blurred backgrounds are always distracting. There's a fine balance in my opinion.
Good point
Makes a LOT of sense. Very good point that. Thanks
Thanks for watching!
Such an interesting video/essay 👌✨ And crutch or not, that intro had such a vibe!
Thanks!
I thought i was gonna hate this. But I really enjoyed it. Fully thought out and i agree wholeheartedly. I’ve been talking about this same thing for photography I’ve seen many hide behind the “bokeh” when they can compose the shot a lot better and still keep some things in focus
Thanks for watching!
Exactly! If you use it all the time, it loses its effectiveness when really needed, so the film lacks visual dynamic and becomes flat in that regard. People use all sorts of things just because they're "cool", like wide aspect ratio that doesn't benefit that film in any way, and even worse, often it degrades it in many ways. Thanks for all the amazing videos! 🍀
What a good video! A video about shallow depth of field, with a review alongside really complimented each other
Really wonderful observations!
thanks for watching!
Good stuff. I just saw the new Top Gun. Omg. Extreme shallow focus. (Not the flying scenes). Every non-flying scene was so shallow/blurry background focused that it became a bit distracting to me.
I cannot tell you how annoying it is when I look up a “Cinematic Video Test” on TH-cam and everything nothing but Low Depth of Field shots and Slow Motion.
Great video, also congratulations on 100k subs 🎉
Thanks so much!
Yeah totally agree. DOF should be used appropriate to the scene and not as a gimmick or wanting it to look cool.
Real no-nonsense talk Pat, thanks.
cheers!
Great video, I couldnt agree more. When DSLRs came out, that shallow depth of field helped hide the issues with dynamic range as a signal of not shooting film. But the obsession with getting cleaner bokeh carried on and on, until the next generation of photo and video kids didnt know why bokeh was so important in masking digital flaws for emulating film-- hell they never even shot film. And it just became a sought after technique for the sake of it. I see on these photo groups on facebook etc everyone raving about lower and lower aperture minimums of lenses at the expense of thousands of dollars and im just astounded at the lengths people are going to. Then you look at the imagery and its a menagiere of glowing floating orbs with tack sharp subjects-- it looks overcooked and uncanny. The state of photography and video is a wild realm these days. Im happy for people to have access to such quality, but its videos like this which are needed to remind people theres another end of the spectrum for every feature of a cameras mechanics-- and why thats useful in certain instances.
You are really good at talking
When im in cinema and the screen is huuge and every shot is in SDF it's not great, because I can only look at the thing in focus and it's not that comfortable. I think I noticed it the most in The Batman, the movie was great but I think the SDF was definitely overused in that movie and it can be quite distracting if it's overused especially when watching on the big screen.
If you have a bad location back up with the lens and do a longer lens wide. It won’t make you add as much production design.
Lenses are not about focal length. They are all about compression and how they compress and angle of view.
lens compression isn’t a real thing
At first I thought it’s going to be a short movie about a journey and then fast forward to explanation 👏👏👏Love it. (Klaudia)
I was agonizing over a lack of shallow depth of field this week, and then the very next day I shot a scene in which a character picks a pen up off the floor and I noticed the shot was blurry except for the very tip of the pen. This is because the pen was close.
So, I would suggest shooting wide open when you want shallow depth of field and if you ever can't get everything in focus, try backing away from the set and digitally zooming. That way, you can still shoot deep focus if you need to (at the expense of some resolution). This is my current workaround for fixed aperture phone lenses (f1.8).
loved your video!
A few weeks ago I watched A Hidden Life (2019) and all the film had a deep depth of field.
Yeah Malick/Chivo love deep focus.
Great stuff!
Well said!
Impressive work bruh 👏, keep up the good work.
The idea you said of how shallow depth of field is used for the narrative instead of just to look cool applies to every filmmaking technique/decision
Sure does!
Thank you for this insight. Makes me think that shallow depth separates the subject emotionally from the rest of the world in the frame (and as such narratively). It heightens the emotional "flavor," so to speak. And like salt, which heightens the flavor of food, it's best used sparingly.
Grean point Patrick!
Great work. Especially the examples using the movie Seven.
🙏🙏🙏
Sage observation on the craft of cinematography. Camaro in the Belleville Value Village parking lot. Another observation.
I was hating on this lens but after seeing your footage I’m definitely considering it.
What didn't you like about it before?
@@impatrickt how soft and hazey it is wide open.
@@danifortune007 everything you watched was 1.2
@@impatrickt haha I’m sold
THANK YOU!!!
I thought i would disagree since i learned that most films use f2.8, but it makes sense. What aperture would you use instead? Should one limit the number of different numbers, like one shallow and one deep focus, or use precisely what fits each shot?
not a videographer but, coming from a street photography background I couldn't agree more. Unless you shoot at night or indoor without proper lighting, deep dof (around f8-11) is paramount to tell the story of your image through the surroundings and even more important for composing image with leading lines. Shallow dof is still useful when you need to single out the subject but that's just not my kind of work.
thats why i love taking photos with my phone. deep focus!
Great video Patrick, What mic are you using for shooting this video? and do you still use the Shure Mv7 with the SM7B DIY mod?
Also, does the lens naturally produce the grainy look we see in the pics, or have you increased sharpness/details in post?
I never used that mv7 again after that video haha.. This is the RØDE videomic NTG - regarding the photos I wouldn’t use them in any sense as a lens sample test. I do heavy editing to all my work. Just more the focal length and bokeh 🙏🙏🙏
@@impatrickt Haha thanks for your reply! I just spray painted my Shure MV7, it was fully silver so was abit tricky but got there in the end.
Was watching the brilliant Cauron film "Roma" recently and noticed almost the entire film is shot with a wide depth of field, relying on dramatic composition and movement that is heavily motivated by narrative. And yet it's one of the most beautiful films of the past years. Deakins said that cinematography should almost be invisible to story, as just complementary to it. I get what he means.
yes ROMA is a great example!
Okay Honestly I agree with you but you this is the first video I watch from you and I noticed you got the Panasonic S5. So do I but I never in my life have created such nice subtle moody images. Do you do a lot of Colorgrading? If so PLEASE teach me because I feel like grading V-log is a real pain in the ass.
I’ve just today been going through and binging a lot of your videos. You seem very knowledgeable and you’re very clear when explaining things, so I was wondering if you could do a tutorial on blocking? I’ve seen a few videos about it but a lot of aspects of it are still very unclear and I just thought you would be the perfect person to bless youtube with a blocking tutorial/overview
Thanks for watching! I’ve been thinking about dissecting Nolan’s blocking actually. I think he’s pretty terrible at it so it’s good entry point to show what not to do, and how to fix it. It’s on my list!
This is what I am talking about!!! What a great Video thank you very much.
Thanks for watching!
that intro was beautiful. wow
Is there anyway i can make my stuff look that cineyey? Is is the settings you use? The lense. What is it. Again the intro blee me away, the music was perfect for it. Watched it 5 times
Great food for thought! Pls keep being yourself and doing what you do!
I will!
Amen brother!
I couldn’t agree more with your title. I’m coming from the photography world and today I’m a filmmaker and I have the same perception. At the very beginning I tried using shallow DoF but now I can’t. It doesn’t connect with my cine worldview and does not connect with my own storytelling. Is it wrong? Not at all.
Nice video! Great examples.
🙏 thanks for stopping by!
I wonder if at the commercial/Hollywood level if some of these choices about depth of field (or lack their of) is based on corporate suits who see a shallow depth of field as a shortcut to make a “pleasing image” which translates to getting the attention of the viewer which in turn translates to profit for them. At least from their POV.
I have a more controversial theory that thinks it’s a subconscious insecurity now that everyone has access to a camera that could make the next citizen Kane in their pocket - shallow depth of field is the last lifeboat for the democratization of filmmaking.
@@impatrickt bingo.
Just because you can achieve cinematic shots with 1 way doesnt mean the other way is not cinematic.
Shallow dof is one of the most obvious and easy ways to make your footage look more cinematic. The other one is lighting.
However the biggest problem right now is. All those people wanting their useless junk to look”cinematic”. “Lets shoot wide open” “lets use back light”” lets do slow push ins”.
Making a shot more cinematic should never be your goal. Your goal should be making a shot that cominicates something by it self or in combination with shots before and after it.
Any shot can be made to look more cinematic, but that should not be the reason to do it.
Interesting point, but I disagree, shallow depth of field is cinematic because (as you quickly mentioned) separates the subject from the background radically but (and this is the whole point) SOFTLY, you also said that when we shoot wide open we instantly get the feeling of "wow that's cinematic", if we instinctively feel that, there is indeed a reason. You said that the white lotus is too much wide open for no reason, but actually I think since we all acknowledge that wide open is indeed pleasing to the eyes, we must approach the question in reverse: "do I need a deeper focus? And if so, why?" And if we can't get a good answer out of that I see no valid reason for not shooting wide open if I can.
Yes, only cause I can doesn't mean I should a priori, but also doesn't mean I shouldn't. Plus, since wide open means more light, and since not everyone can afford expensive lighting setups why would I avoud using it if I don't have valid stylistic or narrative reasons?
Cuz it looks dog shit and its lazy. Buy a light.
Niceeee!!! Cool video dude.
i'd argue the white lotus being shot that way is to reinforce the self-absorbed nature of every single character
I felt the opposite. it was absolutely a way to not have to show the backgrounds of the resort.
Been watching and enjoying a lot of your videos recently, do you think The Batman is a good example of how to use shallow depth shots?
yes because it serves the narrative
Great approach to your review.
Glad you liked it!
laughs in taxi driver
Jokes aside, I'd argue white lotus is not "shallow depth to look cool" as majority is deep focus, and shallow focus is only used in close ups to immerse audiences to the character's dark intentions, like the hotel manager scene you showed. He was off drugs in the scene, so it makes sense to blur his surroundings. Otherwise, interesting video take
I read an interview that they shot that way because they couldn't shut down the resort. so it was easier to just blur it out.
So the title should be “Deep focus could be cinematic too”. Not this clickbait nonsense… 😔
Hey, mate :D Loved the visual essay! :D Some bloody fantastic points all round - did you use the Meike Lens for the talking head section too (stopped down) or The S5 and kit lens?
I used the XT3 for the talking head. thanks for watching!
@@impatrickt my pleasure :D always love your style and your content :D
Video begins at 2:45 and ends at 3:15.
nobody cares ass hat
@@impatrickt people who care about their time do. All you’re saying is not all movies have shallow depth of field. Thank me later :-)
Thanks for review Patrick. My question is between the TTartisan 50mmf 1.2 and Meike which you prefer overall? I hoped for this comparison.
I don’t compare things I barely even care to review things
@@impatrickt well then have used it ?
If the lens is high quality with everything else on point it adds something special to any subject
I dont think so
That title was a great huck! 😁 I was ready to argue with you, lol. Loved that shot (at the beginning) with the watch on the wrist (beautiful) is the S5 MFT? is that the Meike 50mm T2.1? Thanks Patrick
Not sure what the T stop is - it’s f1.2. S5 is full frame. Thanks for watching! And yeah shallow depth of field SUCKS.
@@impatrickt hahaha.., when used incorrectly
@@topicruben pretty much all the time for me I was just trying to be nice in the video
Your cinematography reel reminds me of 2007 music video
that’s amazing!
Great video, again! Those cars (7:16) look much like model cars, thanks to the shallow depth of field!
Yeah it’s a crazy look!
Where do you get your music. Loved the intro.
musicbed link in description
All of this 👊🏻
yes! the way to make shallow dof cinematic is to use it in a cinematic sense. spitting straight facts!
Everybody talking about DOF... HOW DID YOU DO THAT CRT SKILLSHARE AD????? I need a tutorial!!!!!!!
using a used GH4 with the 7artisans 25mm f1.8, I miss 1.4 bokeh on my old D800!skyfall used the blown out bokeh nicely in the opening shot when Bond jumps into frame out of focus and walking into focus!!
The voigtlander 25mm f0.95 is nice on MFT I used it for a while
Agreed
I wish it had a lower shutter speed. It's a bit distracting.
Hi, I saw your Meike 35/1.2 review and I do agree with your point about overusing shallow DoF. However, most of your example footage was shot in very low light conditions - and that is exactly what makes me interested in this lens. I want the 1.2 because I *need* shallow DoF in those scenarios. For shooting families (hand-held, no gimbal) in their homes using natural light only, is this lens a good option? I use Nikon Z6II with 40mm/2 (MF indoors/AF outdoors), but indoors w/o daylight f2 is just not enough. Thank you, really!, for your opinion.
i wouldn’t bother. cameras are good enough that you don’t need to stop down anymore.
@@impatrickt Unfortunately w/my Z6II it's not enough - f2 gives me ISO 12800 and more, and the HD footage looks unpleasantly grainy. It's the only reason why I am looking for a 1.2 lens to cover these evening/night low light indoor scenes...
@@monaphotography748 i’ve used that camera. that makes no sense
How I loathe the word “cinematic” and how it is used. Cinema is an art and “cinematic” is, if such a thing can be defined, the result of the art… Shallow depth of field and 24 fps does not make it “cinematic”… Could we not just ban the word..? Great video by the way!
I hate the word too
1:30 exactly what I thought 🤣🤙🏼
hahah