With Arrival, the way the 'flashback' scenes were filmed helped to reinforce that illusion to the first time viewer. As we later find out they were flash forwards, it was so convincing to our brains as we have all seen such flashbacks many time previously we had no reason to doubt what we were seeing on screen.
In the "present tense" parts of the film there are also a lot of 'over the shoulder' subjective shots where the back of the head of the main character is in focus while the environment in front of her is blurred; this slightly frustrating effect perhaps suggests a sense of not clearly seeing what lies ahead, metaphorically expressing our limited experience of time.
7:02 I think this is unimaginably true. You watch any video on tik tok with a shallow depth of field, and even though the video resolution is always limited on tik tok, people will comment "this video looks like it was shot in 8K" or "bro used the human eye to shoot this video", not knowing that they simply perceive bokeh to be "high quality" video
You have very accurately explained point 4. Sensor Size. Many videos exists which get this explanation incorrect by mentioning that large sensor size creates shallow depth of field and more bokeh. They fail to explain the reason correctly for this effect. You nailed it.
I'll have to look into that (intended). So, speaking of scintillators, in general, I am recalling the scintillators in the cell phone cameras used in Yemen to record bunker buster detonation/aftermath events along the mountainsides near the "cities." The scintillators in the cell phone cameras recorded radiation particles striking them (directly, not being focused by the lens) as thousands of little sparkles all across the screen, just as the explosion event being photographed as a movie was unfolding. But, I get carried away. M
Though I already know these facts, your way to explain things in such a clear, organized, and thorough manner (coupled with the visuals) is truly enjoyable! 🏆🙏 I could listen to you talk about cameras, lenses, and lighting in filmmaking forevermore. 😎 Thank you for another great video! 👍💯
10:00 This is why I love directors and cinematographers who have an obsession (some might call it a fetish) for deep depth of field. Having shots full of details that an observant audience member can explore for meaning just makes my day.
What bugs me is when someone says that a shot looks nice because of the bokeh. Bokeh can be cool, but if you're gonna judge the entire shot because it just has shallow depth of field: you need to look more into it. What about composition, lighting, blocking of subjects, angles, etc.? It has its perks; Scorsese using it to great effect to convey isolation in Taxi Driver; but personally, I think if you get too shallow you become remote with everything - because the world is what forms the characters in the first place and having all of that in focus can be important.
Zack Snyder’s “Army of the Dead” on Netflix is a good example of what you’re describing that movies SHOULDN’T be doing. The depth of field is too shallow throughout that entire movie, making almost every blurry image look amateurish.
@@bcdside OMG! I was thinking the EXACT SAME THING. FYI... if I remember correctly, Snyder was his own DP on that project. I usually love the way his films look, but clearly, he needs to let someone else be DP. I never saw the full Army film, but every clip I ever saw looked like shit because of the bokeh. Even the clips were unwatchable.
Always excellent, intelligent videos, thank you very much. As a stills photographer with nearly 50 years experience, what more could I learn about DOF? A lot! Especially the subtleties of use in cinematography...Hands down the best cinema channel on TH-cam:)
Shot with one during my MFA program and it is beautiful. The focusing is simplistic by 35 mirrorless standards but it’s fast and accurate. It’s absolutely a tank. It feels like shooting with a brick. Twice as heavy as a 1 series. It feels less intuitive and camera like because it’s so advanced. It comes across as a computer that can take pictures. The Hasselblad H series is much more camera like, ergonomically sound and easier to pick up and use. Handling aside, there is nothing like a 100mp MF image. Resolution zoomed in at 100% looks flawless. No pixelation. This is what they use to shoot those 8ft images in store windows. 16bit files produce amazing colors. Dynamic range is unbeatable.
This video was some jam-packed with good info that it feels like I'm going to have to rewatch two or three times before I can remember everything. I had no idea that lens characteristics are accentuated when shooting wide open. Makes sense, but I never thought about it like that.
Lens deficiencies too - not just the nice parts! For instance you're going to get much more noticeable chromatic aberration at more open apertures unless your lens is really good
@@Millie-um2bi Right, so that knowledge can both be used reduce the effect of a low quality lens or bring out the effect of something with some attractive quality. Cool!
Thanks for this video! I had been wondering whether a larger sensor / film format inherently produces shallower depth of field or if that comes from the longer focal length - now I know! :)
I saw the movie “Klute”an old detective thriller that had an uncomfortable way of shooting where those intimate tight shots with two characters with what seemed like they should have been shot with the camera in close to the action with multiple over the shoulder takes yet these shots were shot with the camera way-way back with a long focal length. The movie goers became aware that something was wrong with the point of view. Even later toward the end of the movie you became aware that in the long focal length shots there was a nearly invisible over the shoulder almost invisible blurred object at the very far outside edge of the frame. In the end you learned that there is a voyeur keeping a close watch on the actions in hopes of controlling the ultimate outcome. It was exciting yet imperceptible technique utilized.
Wedding videographer here. I’ve only been in the game 6 months and this video explained so many of the difficulties I experience on the day. Being the: cam op, focus puller, gaffer and soundie all at once; it’s relieving to know that my IS hard and I’m not just an idiot. Thank you for such a well laid out video.
Hey, In Depth Cine. Loved the video. Hope you don't mind but I'd like to comment on my own point of view regarding shallow depth of field. I don't disagree, but I feel even more strongly about it being over used. I feel like cinematographers have been over using it and trying harder and harder to make the background as blurry as possible. My breaking point was with Top Gun Maverick. There's a scene in the movie where Maverick reunites with Penny at her bar. The conversation has them in focus, but everything else is out of focus. So much so that it took me out of the movie and I felt distracted rather than immersed. The rest of the movie was shot well. It was just the one scene that distracted me. I hadn't even noticed the use of DoF until I saw The Batman earlier this year. Again, love the video.
Great point. Like any seasoning, it cannot be overused. I've also seen some local dramas where everything was bokeh-fied, I struggle to see the reason for them to shoot on set. Just green screen the series with zoom backgrounds instead.
Hi I work in film and work for one of the companies that worked on Top Gun so I feel I have the ability to speak on this. DOF is more than just bokeh and a more "cinematic" image. The reason how come faster lenses are becoming much more widely used and popular isn't necessarily their ability to create more dof, but more so their ability to take in more light, allowing DOP's to not spend as much time lighting a scene or having to create very strong lighting like used in a studio. This wasn't necessarily the case for Top Gun as they shot on Sony Venice's which were some of the best cameras for latitude at the time (all you Red lovers calm down, the cameras have been debunked for their latitude multiple times and do not hold up to other industry standards or competition) so the need for fast lenses for light wasn't so much an issue. They chose a lot of vintage lenses and some newer FF lenses that are known for their softness and fast stop. A lot of the time this is a style choice that is becoming increasingly more popular. For DOP's and those of us within camera we look at these images and lenses all the time and can often be misswayed by our own bias of what looks good in replacement of what looks different to us. So tighter frames and deeper stops are becoming a lot more popular and will probably lose their popularity just as fast as it came. As vintage lenses are quickly being rehoused into FF formats, and the Alexa 35 has quickly popularized the use of older S35 lenses expect the next resurgence of popularity to be a mixture of wonky lenses with lots of character and distortion, as well as very soft lenses with deep stops and large latitude.
I personally love deep depth of field and think it offers all kinds of interesting possibilities for blocking and camera movement. It's never felt like television to me, quite the opposite. It makes me think of Gregg Toland.
Shallow depth of view kind'a got out of hand during the Canon 5D MK2 era. Not surprising considering that was the first time we could actually achieve that look at a reasonable price! Will throw this up on the big screen later. Thanks, Bud.
So if I wanted to make two subjects in focus, one close to the camera and the other behind the first subject by say 5-10 meters, with a shallow field of view, meaning a long lens, I’d have to use a high/closed aperture to extend the depth of field so that the distant subject is also in focus?
Another reason for deep focus is how it changes colour and light. With deep focus everything will look more dark and intense. Films by Douglas Sirk are a great example
I think you misunderstand what deep focus is. Moving focus deep means having your focus, the area that is sharp, sitting at a far away length. This does not change the light and the only way this changes colour is by where the focus sits on a subject and the colours of the lens. Most lenses have red and green tones that you can see shift on a focus chart for example when you rack your focus across it. This is very very hard to see by the eye but can be seen easily with a lens projector.
@@oriheller2852 If you read my comment again I specify how racking focus changes colour in a very subtle almost impossible to see way. Focus and the exposure of the lens are two different things. Colour is light, of course changing exposure will effect this, but a bigger effect on this will be what type of coating a lens has or the chemical composition of the glass.
"Depth of field" - a curious expression: what is the word "field" doing there, what does it mean, what does it contribute to the concept ? Wouldn't saying just "depth of focus" be better, and avoid cumbersome terms like "shallow / deep depth of field", instead of the clear and simple "shallow / deep focus" ?
These are all terms that were defined in early 19th and 20th century photography. The field is not the focus. Focus is a clear point where everything within a line of measurement is sharp and can easily be seen. The field is what is behind this measurement of focus. To define shallow focus would mean the focus is set to a near mark like 5 feet for example. To define deep focus would be like 20 feet up. Depth of field is used to describe how big that area of focus is and the resulting effect this has on the field behind this area. Shallow describes the small area of focus, which translates to shallow depth of field meaning you can see very little into the field behind the area of focus.
@@Mssmilelovejoy Hmm .. sorry if i'm being too literal, but i'm still not clear on what this "field" is supposed to be: first you say that focus is a clear *point* and then you speak about the *area* of focus .. then you refer to the field *behind*, but the split focus example in a two-shot shows that there is also an *in front of* there .. your example (re)definition of shallow and deep focus as being at 5 and 20 feet is also not very natural - that situation would be better described by the terms "near and far (distant)" focus
@@DamjanB52 Because in industry terms we think of the focus of a lens as one point. Your clarification is correct, it's an area of focus with a centre point. The field is used to describe what is behind this area of focus because more often than not that is the area behind your subject and the area where you can see the largest distortion caused by the depth of field from the lens. Haha not very natural is pretty funny as I used to be a focus puller and we would use terms like this, they're interchangeable and I had hoped they would help you understand the difference between focus and field. by 20 feet up I mean 20 feet an beyond if that caused more confusion. There are some better explanations out there that can describe the significance between using field rather than focus. They mean two very different things for those of us within the industry and are therefore not interchangeable.
@@Mssmilelovejoy Right, i get it that "field" and focus, or area in focus, are different, actually opposite or complementary things, the field usually being the background behind the subject .. except in the case of split focus in two-shots .. and when the subject is not standing in front of a field :) .. i was just wondering if the historic DoF terminology can be improved by dropping the reference to fields, which leads to clumsy expressions like "deep depth of field"
@@DamjanB52 I'm a storyboard artist in the film industry. these lingo are just there so people doing the job can understand quickly. I'm so used to using these terms, so are the directors I worked with. it's not meant to be "accurate" so laymen can pick up and make sense of it. So I don't see the point to improve this language.
Great Great Video! I’d like to open up a question that I’ve been looking all over for an answer to: Does a t-stop rating convert like an f-stop would between sensor sizes? (Like how f1.4 on super35 is pretty much f2.8 on full frame). If an FF lens has a t-stop of T2.0, will a super35 sensor still receive the same amount of light as a full frame one would? I appreciate it. Cheers!
Hi! No lens should lose stops when jumping between formats. FF & S35 lenses are designed to sit differently on different sensors as they're covering a different size. Putting a S35 on a FF sensor would require what's known as an expander to use the full range of the sensor. Say you're shooting on 8k for example, you can shoot on 5-6k and use the S35 lens on this resolution as it's S35 size and using less of the sensor, but you would not be able to use the S35 lens at open gate without the expander. The expander pushes the lens further away from the sensor which allows the lens to cover the entire FF sensor size. Because this pushes the lens further away you lose light through the t-stop or f-stop, which can be calculated through the type of expander you're using as there's different lengths. The lens, no matter what size, will be the same speed no matter the type of stop as long as no expanders or adapters are involved. So if you used a S35 on an 8k FF sensor but shot at 5k, the stop would remain the same. Lenses do not lose light unless the distance between the back element and the sensor changes. Similarly adapters or expanders will cause a change in focal length as the back element is changing where it's sitting in relation to the sensor.
@@Mssmilelovejoy perfect!! I appreciate the insight. I shoot social projects and campaign videos on a mirrorless camera and have been in the market for some cinema glass. Also just have a HUGE fascination with lenses and how they work so I def appreciate it
To be clear, a 1.4 lens on s35 is a 1.4 lens on FF but… if you are looking to match DOF and HFOV you can use a slower on a FF sensor. Hope that makes sense.
You match blur, by using a relative fstop... as you are using a longer lens on FF / 135 compared to S35 or MFT. By stopping the lens down, (to match blur) you are reducing the exposure. Mount a 25mm T2 lens on MFT and it has the same angle of view and exposure as a 50mm T2 lens on FF / 135. The 25mm lens however has twice the depth of field (because you are using a focal length half the length on MFT, compared to FF / 135). Mount a 25mm T2 lens on MFT and it has the same angle of view and DOF as a 50mm T4 lens on FF / 135. By stopping the 50mm lens down to match the blur, you have lost two whole stops of exposure.
For some reason, some sports broadcasters have begun using a shallow depth of field for courtside/pitchside shots of players, and I just can't stand it. It looks absolutely dreadful. Waaay too cinematic/plastic/cheap-looking for TV and live streaming. Great for storytelling though, interestingly.
Anyone else finding their eyes get crossed when looking at shots with super shallow a depth of field? Particularly shallow depth of field is used on wide lenses? I find 3d films to be similarly hard on my eyes.
A shallow depth of field rather brings the sharper image of the subject right into the "room with you." Temporarily, in order to bring you into the picture, you are "visited" in the audience by that sharper image subject, and also, you may range the focus from near to far. Or versa visa... 🤥 M
@@flyingfox2005 The Circle of Confusion depends on the size of the sensor. And DoF depends on the CoC - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion#Adjusting_the_circle_of_confusion_diameter_for_a_lens%E2%80%99s_DoF_scale, unless I'm missing smth. ('affect', btw).
With Arrival, the way the 'flashback' scenes were filmed helped to reinforce that illusion to the first time viewer. As we later find out they were flash forwards, it was so convincing to our brains as we have all seen such flashbacks many time previously we had no reason to doubt what we were seeing on screen.
In the "present tense" parts of the film there are also a lot of 'over the shoulder' subjective shots where the back of the head of the main character is in focus while the environment in front of her is blurred; this slightly frustrating effect perhaps suggests a sense of not clearly seeing what lies ahead, metaphorically expressing our limited experience of time.
7:02 I think this is unimaginably true. You watch any video on tik tok with a shallow depth of field, and even though the video resolution is always limited on tik tok, people will comment "this video looks like it was shot in 8K" or "bro used the human eye to shoot this video", not knowing that they simply perceive bokeh to be "high quality" video
idiots frankly
You have very accurately explained point 4. Sensor Size. Many videos exists which get this explanation incorrect by mentioning that large sensor size creates shallow depth of field and more bokeh. They fail to explain the reason correctly for this effect. You nailed it.
I'll have to look into that (intended). So, speaking of scintillators, in general, I am recalling the scintillators in the cell phone cameras used in Yemen to record bunker buster detonation/aftermath events along the mountainsides near the "cities." The scintillators in the cell phone cameras recorded radiation particles striking them (directly, not being focused by the lens) as thousands of little sparkles all across the screen, just as the explosion event being photographed as a movie was unfolding.
But, I get carried away.
M
Though I already know these facts, your way to explain things in such a clear, organized, and thorough manner (coupled with the visuals) is truly enjoyable! 🏆🙏 I could listen to you talk about cameras, lenses, and lighting in filmmaking forevermore. 😎 Thank you for another great video! 👍💯
10:00 This is why I love directors and cinematographers who have an obsession (some might call it a fetish) for deep depth of field. Having shots full of details that an observant audience member can explore for meaning just makes my day.
I love how specific this topic is. Great stuff here 🤝🏽
What bugs me is when someone says that a shot looks nice because of the bokeh. Bokeh can be cool, but if you're gonna judge the entire shot because it just has shallow depth of field: you need to look more into it. What about composition, lighting, blocking of subjects, angles, etc.? It has its perks; Scorsese using it to great effect to convey isolation in Taxi Driver; but personally, I think if you get too shallow you become remote with everything - because the world is what forms the characters in the first place and having all of that in focus can be important.
Zack Snyder’s “Army of the Dead” on Netflix is a good example of what you’re describing that movies SHOULDN’T be doing. The depth of field is too shallow throughout that entire movie, making almost every blurry image look amateurish.
@@bcdside OMG! I was thinking the EXACT SAME THING. FYI... if I remember correctly, Snyder was his own DP on that project. I usually love the way his films look, but clearly, he needs to let someone else be DP. I never saw the full Army film, but every clip I ever saw looked like shit because of the bokeh. Even the clips were unwatchable.
Always excellent, intelligent videos, thank you very much. As a stills photographer with nearly 50 years experience, what more could I learn about DOF? A lot! Especially the subtleties of use in cinematography...Hands down the best cinema channel on TH-cam:)
Shot with one during my MFA program and it is beautiful. The focusing is simplistic by 35 mirrorless standards but it’s fast and accurate. It’s absolutely a tank. It feels like shooting with a brick. Twice as heavy as a 1 series. It feels less intuitive and camera like because it’s so advanced. It comes across as a computer that can take pictures. The Hasselblad H series is much more camera like, ergonomically sound and easier to pick up and use.
Handling aside, there is nothing like a 100mp MF image. Resolution zoomed in at 100% looks flawless. No pixelation. This is what they use to shoot those 8ft images in store windows. 16bit files produce amazing colors. Dynamic range is unbeatable.
This is video is a very powerful masterclass about deep of field and how to use it as a tool for your storytelling!! Thanks for your great job 🙌🏼
Holy sh!t, I just noticed my focus rig is pictured at 3:20. What an honor :)
The best cinema channel on TH-cam. Thank you
This video was some jam-packed with good info that it feels like I'm going to have to rewatch two or three times before I can remember everything. I had no idea that lens characteristics are accentuated when shooting wide open. Makes sense, but I never thought about it like that.
Lens deficiencies too - not just the nice parts! For instance you're going to get much more noticeable chromatic aberration at more open apertures unless your lens is really good
@@Millie-um2bi Right, so that knowledge can both be used reduce the effect of a low quality lens or bring out the effect of something with some attractive quality. Cool!
I always loved the way he explained every bit of a topic he did. So understandable, I only managed to learned from his videos.
Thank you!
Thanks for this video! I had been wondering whether a larger sensor / film format inherently produces shallower depth of field or if that comes from the longer focal length - now I know! :)
I saw the movie “Klute”an old detective thriller that had an uncomfortable way of shooting where those intimate tight shots with two characters with what seemed like they should have been shot with the camera in close to the action with multiple over the shoulder takes yet these shots were shot with the camera way-way back with a long focal length. The movie goers became aware that something was wrong with the point of view. Even later toward the end of the movie you became aware that in the long focal length shots there was a nearly invisible over the shoulder almost invisible blurred object at the very far outside edge of the frame. In the end you learned that there is a voyeur keeping a close watch on the actions in hopes of controlling the ultimate outcome. It was exciting yet imperceptible technique utilized.
As an amateur photographer I must say this is a great presentation👍
You deserve 10x the amount of subs you have
This was enlightening! Keep it up!
Wedding videographer here. I’ve only been in the game 6 months and this video explained so many of the difficulties I experience on the day. Being the: cam op, focus puller, gaffer and soundie all at once; it’s relieving to know that my IS hard and I’m not just an idiot. Thank you for such a well laid out video.
Who's your producer?
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 for what? Weddings?
@@thereidmcgowan how did--oi... you got a camera operator, a focus puller, a gaffer, a soundie, so who is your producer?
Hey, In Depth Cine. Loved the video. Hope you don't mind but I'd like to comment on my own point of view regarding shallow depth of field. I don't disagree, but I feel even more strongly about it being over used.
I feel like cinematographers have been over using it and trying harder and harder to make the background as blurry as possible. My breaking point was with Top Gun Maverick. There's a scene in the movie where Maverick reunites with Penny at her bar. The conversation has them in focus, but everything else is out of focus. So much so that it took me out of the movie and I felt distracted rather than immersed. The rest of the movie was shot well. It was just the one scene that distracted me. I hadn't even noticed the use of DoF until I saw The Batman earlier this year.
Again, love the video.
Great point. Like any seasoning, it cannot be overused. I've also seen some local dramas where everything was bokeh-fied, I struggle to see the reason for them to shoot on set. Just green screen the series with zoom backgrounds instead.
Hi I work in film and work for one of the companies that worked on Top Gun so I feel I have the ability to speak on this. DOF is more than just bokeh and a more "cinematic" image. The reason how come faster lenses are becoming much more widely used and popular isn't necessarily their ability to create more dof, but more so their ability to take in more light, allowing DOP's to not spend as much time lighting a scene or having to create very strong lighting like used in a studio. This wasn't necessarily the case for Top Gun as they shot on Sony Venice's which were some of the best cameras for latitude at the time (all you Red lovers calm down, the cameras have been debunked for their latitude multiple times and do not hold up to other industry standards or competition) so the need for fast lenses for light wasn't so much an issue. They chose a lot of vintage lenses and some newer FF lenses that are known for their softness and fast stop. A lot of the time this is a style choice that is becoming increasingly more popular. For DOP's and those of us within camera we look at these images and lenses all the time and can often be misswayed by our own bias of what looks good in replacement of what looks different to us. So tighter frames and deeper stops are becoming a lot more popular and will probably lose their popularity just as fast as it came. As vintage lenses are quickly being rehoused into FF formats, and the Alexa 35 has quickly popularized the use of older S35 lenses expect the next resurgence of popularity to be a mixture of wonky lenses with lots of character and distortion, as well as very soft lenses with deep stops and large latitude.
@@Mssmilelovejoy ok
@@Mr_Movie_Fan 🙃 it's called ✨conversation✨
@@Mssmilelovejoy ok
I personally love deep depth of field and think it offers all kinds of interesting possibilities for blocking and camera movement. It's never felt like television to me, quite the opposite. It makes me think of Gregg Toland.
Thanks so much so this video. Very inspiring.
Great video as always!
Your videos are top quality!
Shallow depth of view kind'a got out of hand during the Canon 5D MK2 era. Not surprising considering that was the first time we could actually achieve that look at a reasonable price! Will throw this up on the big screen later. Thanks, Bud.
So if I wanted to make two subjects in focus, one close to the camera and the other behind the first subject by say 5-10 meters, with a shallow field of view, meaning a long lens, I’d have to use a high/closed aperture to extend the depth of field so that the distant subject is also in focus?
great video
Another reason for deep focus is how it changes colour and light. With deep focus everything will look more dark and intense. Films by Douglas Sirk are a great example
Not necessarily (I can think of a few examples) but it is an interesting take
I think you misunderstand what deep focus is. Moving focus deep means having your focus, the area that is sharp, sitting at a far away length. This does not change the light and the only way this changes colour is by where the focus sits on a subject and the colours of the lens. Most lenses have red and green tones that you can see shift on a focus chart for example when you rack your focus across it. This is very very hard to see by the eye but can be seen easily with a lens projector.
@@Mssmilelovejoy changing the amount of light entering through the lens alaways effect colour.
@@oriheller2852 If you read my comment again I specify how racking focus changes colour in a very subtle almost impossible to see way. Focus and the exposure of the lens are two different things. Colour is light, of course changing exposure will effect this, but a bigger effect on this will be what type of coating a lens has or the chemical composition of the glass.
@@Mssmilelovejoy I understand you, I think we just disagree on how and what is deep focus, but thanks for the remarks.
"Depth of field" - a curious expression: what is the word "field" doing there, what does it mean, what does it contribute to the concept ? Wouldn't saying just "depth of focus" be better, and avoid cumbersome terms like "shallow / deep depth of field", instead of the clear and simple "shallow / deep focus" ?
These are all terms that were defined in early 19th and 20th century photography. The field is not the focus. Focus is a clear point where everything within a line of measurement is sharp and can easily be seen. The field is what is behind this measurement of focus. To define shallow focus would mean the focus is set to a near mark like 5 feet for example. To define deep focus would be like 20 feet up. Depth of field is used to describe how big that area of focus is and the resulting effect this has on the field behind this area. Shallow describes the small area of focus, which translates to shallow depth of field meaning you can see very little into the field behind the area of focus.
@@Mssmilelovejoy Hmm .. sorry if i'm being too literal, but i'm still not clear on what this "field" is supposed to be: first you say that focus is a clear *point* and then you speak about the *area* of focus .. then you refer to the field *behind*, but the split focus example in a two-shot shows that there is also an *in front of* there .. your example (re)definition of shallow and deep focus as being at 5 and 20 feet is also not very natural - that situation would be better described by the terms "near and far (distant)" focus
@@DamjanB52 Because in industry terms we think of the focus of a lens as one point. Your clarification is correct, it's an area of focus with a centre point. The field is used to describe what is behind this area of focus because more often than not that is the area behind your subject and the area where you can see the largest distortion caused by the depth of field from the lens. Haha not very natural is pretty funny as I used to be a focus puller and we would use terms like this, they're interchangeable and I had hoped they would help you understand the difference between focus and field. by 20 feet up I mean 20 feet an beyond if that caused more confusion. There are some better explanations out there that can describe the significance between using field rather than focus. They mean two very different things for those of us within the industry and are therefore not interchangeable.
@@Mssmilelovejoy Right, i get it that "field" and focus, or area in focus, are different, actually opposite or complementary things, the field usually being the background behind the subject .. except in the case of split focus in two-shots .. and when the subject is not standing in front of a field :) .. i was just wondering if the historic DoF terminology can be improved by dropping the reference to fields, which leads to clumsy expressions like "deep depth of field"
@@DamjanB52 I'm a storyboard artist in the film industry. these lingo are just there so people doing the job can understand quickly. I'm so used to using these terms, so are the directors I worked with. it's not meant to be "accurate" so laymen can pick up and make sense of it. So I don't see the point to improve this language.
Great Great Video! I’d like to open up a question that I’ve been looking all over for an answer to: Does a t-stop rating convert like an f-stop would between sensor sizes? (Like how f1.4 on super35 is pretty much f2.8 on full frame). If an FF lens has a t-stop of T2.0, will a super35 sensor still receive the same amount of light as a full frame one would?
I appreciate it. Cheers!
Hi! No lens should lose stops when jumping between formats. FF & S35 lenses are designed to sit differently on different sensors as they're covering a different size. Putting a S35 on a FF sensor would require what's known as an expander to use the full range of the sensor. Say you're shooting on 8k for example, you can shoot on 5-6k and use the S35 lens on this resolution as it's S35 size and using less of the sensor, but you would not be able to use the S35 lens at open gate without the expander. The expander pushes the lens further away from the sensor which allows the lens to cover the entire FF sensor size. Because this pushes the lens further away you lose light through the t-stop or f-stop, which can be calculated through the type of expander you're using as there's different lengths. The lens, no matter what size, will be the same speed no matter the type of stop as long as no expanders or adapters are involved. So if you used a S35 on an 8k FF sensor but shot at 5k, the stop would remain the same. Lenses do not lose light unless the distance between the back element and the sensor changes. Similarly adapters or expanders will cause a change in focal length as the back element is changing where it's sitting in relation to the sensor.
@@Mssmilelovejoy perfect!! I appreciate the insight. I shoot social projects and campaign videos on a mirrorless camera and have been in the market for some cinema glass. Also just have a HUGE fascination with lenses and how they work so I def appreciate it
Stops will remain the same no matter what sensor you are on. A 1.4 on s35 does not become a 2.8 on FF.
To be clear, a 1.4 lens on s35 is a 1.4 lens on FF but… if you are looking to match DOF and HFOV you can use a slower on a FF sensor. Hope that makes sense.
You match blur, by using a relative fstop... as you are using a longer lens on FF / 135 compared to S35 or MFT.
By stopping the lens down, (to match blur) you are reducing the exposure.
Mount a 25mm T2 lens on MFT and it has the same angle of view and exposure as a 50mm T2 lens on FF / 135.
The 25mm lens however has twice the depth of field (because you are using a focal length half the length on MFT, compared to FF / 135).
Mount a 25mm T2 lens on MFT and it has the same angle of view and DOF as a 50mm T4 lens on FF / 135.
By stopping the 50mm lens down to match the blur, you have lost two whole stops of exposure.
There's a fourth variable. The camera-to-subject distance
For some reason, some sports broadcasters have begun using a shallow depth of field for courtside/pitchside shots of players, and I just can't stand it. It looks absolutely dreadful. Waaay too cinematic/plastic/cheap-looking for TV and live streaming. Great for storytelling though, interestingly.
Yeap , I noticed it in La liga . It looks very unnatural.
Audience loves it though. Majority of people watching see it as new tech.
Anyone else finding their eyes get crossed when looking at shots with super shallow a depth of field? Particularly shallow depth of field is used on wide lenses? I find 3d films to be similarly hard on my eyes.
pleasee do cinematography style of claire mathon
"A subject far away"
The subject: .
Omg, I love this channel, but please stop spreading fallacies, it's very disappointing
A shallow depth of field rather brings the sharper image of the subject right into the "room with you." Temporarily, in order to bring you into the picture, you are "visited" in the audience by that sharper image subject, and also, you may range the focus from near to far. Or versa visa... 🤥
M
And you forgot about
4. Sensor size
He explained that
@@flyingfox2005 The Circle of Confusion depends on the size of the sensor. And DoF depends on the CoC - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion#Adjusting_the_circle_of_confusion_diameter_for_a_lens%E2%80%99s_DoF_scale, unless I'm missing smth.
('affect', btw).
I miss the south african accent