Let's say you're stuck with a terrible camera with all the features of a DSLR HD but everything is in focus, will you be able to make a wonderful video? You are allowed to make post-editing, except simulating depth of field.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Stunning video without shallow depth of field (f/22)
- Thread starter iAppleseed
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you serious?
The shallow depth of field is very overrated in my opinion. The only thing it provides is an easy way to separate your object from the background. If used in wide angles, it actually seems really misplaced at times. So it's mainly important for closeups.
And you can achieve background separation by lots of other means. It starts with lighting and certainly doesn't end with the contrast between an actor's clothes and the wall behind him.
If you shoot outside, it will even be less important since the background is further away anyways and even professional filmmakers will close their aperture down to avoid overexposure (you know, with film, you can't just adjust the ISO on the fly...).
So, what I wanted to say: Almost everything (sound, lighting, framing, camera motion, and especially the story!!!) is more important than shallow depth of field to make a good movie.
The shallow depth of field is very overrated in my opinion. The only thing it provides is an easy way to separate your object from the background. If used in wide angles, it actually seems really misplaced at times. So it's mainly important for closeups.
And you can achieve background separation by lots of other means. It starts with lighting and certainly doesn't end with the contrast between an actor's clothes and the wall behind him.
If you shoot outside, it will even be less important since the background is further away anyways and even professional filmmakers will close their aperture down to avoid overexposure (you know, with film, you can't just adjust the ISO on the fly...).
So, what I wanted to say: Almost everything (sound, lighting, framing, camera motion, and especially the story!!!) is more important than shallow depth of field to make a good movie.
One example tree of life. Luzbeski and Malick attempt deep focus in pretty much every shot and shoot mostly WA meaning even shallow DOF.
Citizen Kane is another obvious example.
28 days later was shot on a prosumer camera with a small sensor which is of similar size to what you might find in your own traditional camera.
Really don't worry about the DOF, a good film can easily be made with deep DOF in every shot.
I was talking about the photographic quality. In this case, the story doesn't matter. Just cinematography. My question was, if you have everything in focus, can you make your footage match the beauty of the others with the shallow depth of field?
I realise that you didn't quote me, but I already sort of answered the question you asked?
