Why do so many directors love this meme depth of field shit? Its like everyone is afraid of using a closed aperature.Watching TG Maverick and evey scene with people in the camera just always does these " close up with blurry background and then change focus to the guy 1' behind him shit.
blame fincher
Soderbergh too
its like you can pick any old move and you get a pretty nice depth across the shot, no heavily graded colors with "artistic" close up focus of single objects jumping from frame to frame
background and foreground in full focus
>full focus
Nope. Look at the road texture.
Focus is somewhere in the field between K and J.
It's like a painting, man
no it's not, but that's a good thing, not every frame needs to be a painting, sometimes a good old simple shot is all you need
kino
I suppose I was referring to the vibrancy of the color and the clarity of the image, not the content of the shot (a holding pen)
its sad, its like only shallow depth of field shots now are "art" and "artistic" but in the process they ditch 100 years of cinematography
a lens is basically a big piece of glass with a shutter inside that opens and closes (eg f/2 up to f/22 or more). when its wide open you get shallow deapth, like the new camera mode on iphones, where the thing is in focus but everything around it is fuzzy, like pic rel.
when you close the aperature to say f/16 you can everything in focus no matter how far it is. like
thanks for the explanation 😀
That reminds me. I need to read this book about classic American photographers that used high f stops to get super crisp images.
The word you're looking for is deliberate. These shots are framed deliberately to achieve a specific look. JP is one of Spielberg's best shot films. I cannot stand the more contemporary wobbling and shaking shots used to give the viewer that illusion of being there in the moment. It's so cheap and lazy.
>I cannot stand the more contemporary wobbling and shaking shots used to give the viewer that illusion of being there in the moment
>whatistheymoveinherds?.webm
I honestly think it's the rampant amateurism going on these days. All these twenty year old directors excitedly playing with their toys, like that one episode of Home Movies where Brendan is obsessed with using a fish eye lens for as many scenes as he can. No seasoned director that came up when Hollywood had standards would do this shit so gratiutously.
This is likely the real culprit. Talentless hacks allowed to fart out shit everywhere from the writing to the shooting to the color grading.
Wait till these young directors find out about split diopter where you get this weird middle part out of focus.
ah yes featured prominenty in star trek TMP
god, thank you. i've been trying to figure out what this kind of shot is called for a while. it's bugs the shit out of me every time i see it. they use it all the time in star trek.
I always took this to mean Kirk was joyful to see Spock again
Speaking of Star Trek, I just watched an episode of Strange New Worlds, and while I liked it holy hell they kept fricking with the focus in really obnoxious ways. Starting a shot focused only on Pike, then when Uhura says something focus on her in the background and then re-focus on Pike when he responds, all in the span of two seconds. JUST FRICKING FOCUS THE SHOT ON BOTH OF THEM IT'S NOT THAT HARD.
The middle part isnt out of focus, its the background on the close shot.
>depth of field
>closed aperature
qrd?
Using (or not) DoF depends on the screenplay, what are you conveying to the audience. Same as the AI filters that add grain. But these days is most a failure at the creative eye side than the technicalities of capturing the scenes as planned.
You're naïve if you think a professional screenwriter has any say on how the script is shot.
Comparing group and establishing shots to literally a single. Probably a ton of shots from older movies including Jurassic Park when its focusing only on one character where they are the only thing in focus
because most backgrounds are CGshit anyways, why would they want to call attention to that?
This. If not cg, the backgrounds usually are greenscreened in. Post processing is a really powerful tool these days and not so technical that it requires much training or practice to do. The average show or movie has a shit ton of post processing, even if it isn’t a vfx intensive. A director might opt to film a dialog scene on green screen because this moves the visual decision making down the line and means shooting can be done faster. The actual lighting on the character, its intensity, and the color grading can be done on the character individually, since the background is its own layer. It’s basically the difference between painting on a single canvas and being able to tweak individual layers in photoshop. Adding DoF in post is a low effort, high reward method of smoothing out inconsistencies between the background and foreground.
This of course doesn’t look very good, but it means decisions can be made by low-skill workers instead of the cinematographer, which speeds up production. Of course a good director of photography can still get good results out of digital processing.
t. Worked in post processing/compositing even though it isn’t my main discipline
this is why it's a miracle to even see on location shooting at all, much less practical effects.
my opinion is that digital cameras simply pick up way, way too much 'noise.' I can't even watch something if its in 4k. I prefer 720p or 1080p if I have to. Your mind is picking up every blade of grass, every small detail and it's exhausting. When you're just going with the 4k bullshit, you gotta focus the dumb goyim on what you want them to look at. Watching old movies your mind fills in a lot of blanks, it's more engaging and cinematography matters more. If they didn't blur out the backgrounds in these shots you could pick out the nose hairs in the guy 40 ft behind her.
It feels extremely amateurish and like babby's first f/1.2 snapshits. Have these homosexuals just gotten into cinematography?