[bambax]

> multiple scenes that specifically required a very thin depth of field

The images at the end of the post are indeed amazing, but I find it funny that we're so obsessed with shallow depth-of-field as a sign of "quality" and/or meaning.

For most of the history of moving pictures, cinema had the exact opposite problem: it looked for the deepest depth-of-field possible in order to make every part of the image count and not waste it to blurriness.

It's a weird reversal of expectations.

[niccolove]

> we're so obsessed with shallow depth-of-field as a sign of "quality" and/or meaning.

Nicco here. I didn't use a shallow depth of field here for either reason. I wanted it because all of those scenes are memories of years ago compared to the main events. Thus, I wanted to give the feeling of details blurring out as memories fade. By contrast, I shot the main events at ~f8 on the Helios, so the background is quite sharp.

[bensyverson]

Nicco, I'm here to peer pressure you into shooting 8x10 sheet film. :)

You're gonna love it.

[niccolove]

Ah ah ah I totally should get into it! When time allows it :-)

[bensyverson]

It takes less time than building a camera! haha

Unless you find yourself building an open source rotary film processing system, which is a possibility we can't rule out. :)

[miladyincontrol]

The advances of modern AF and focus pulling systems truly has led to a world of consequences in amateur and even professional film making. In a world where anyone can take half decent video with the phone they always have, its a sign of "I have dedicated hardware to have taken this". The chase for toneh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8VodC19-g

Not only do many see it as a sign of quality, it lets you ignore the set and stage more than ever. Imperfections? Anomalies? Bah they're blurred out of recognition. Of course it can be used still mindfully and tastefully however such nuance is ever more rare.

Most of my cameras both digital and film alike are medium format. While I'm more of a photographer than someone who does much with video it pains me to have to remind people regularly, just because I can get insanely shallow DoF with the creamiest bokeh they've seen doesn't mean it always makes sense to. Theres a story to be told with foregrounds and backgrounds, and how they can be used to guide the viewer.

[Retr0id]

> we're so obsessed with shallow depth-of-field as a sign of "quality" and/or meaning

It's not necessarily a sign of "quality", but it is something we see less often, which makes it more interesting. Phone cameras can't do shallow depth of field, for example.

And of course, the human eye also has a limited DoF range. It is interesting to see things in a way that we cannot directly perceive.

[jtbayly]

Isn't it also related to wanting images to appear how we would see them in person? Our eyes blur everything we aren't looking at directly, don't they?

[niccolove]

To be honest, the aperture of our eyes is so small that, yeah, we do blur background, but nowhere an near as most lenses do.

[Lerc]

The harder to achieve has prestige due to rarity. When the rarity goes away the prestige makes whatever the item was highly popular before the prestige fades. Then the older form becomes more rare and valued by some, in a manner not quite the same as prestige but as a sort of decerning choice.

White bread did this, as did purple dye, and synthetic materials.

[kouru225]

It’s annoying because it’s scarcity for scarcity’s sake. The reality is that low depth of field cameras constrict the actors and make them unable to perform naturally. Blocking out the background is also just hyper-convenience for the audience IMO: you’re telling them exactly where to look. It’s visual handholding.

The only reason why people think this is valuable is that it’s scarce, and scarcity is a terrible metric for art

[hdndjsbbs]

Technically the images look great, very impressive. Production-wise I can also see how this could be useful for low-budget interior dialogue scenes where you don't want the set dressing to distract. It really draws focus to the actors and lets the director paint a more impressionistic backdrop.

The exterior shots I've got more mixed feelings about. I think these shallow lenses work best when you have a very controlled backdrop that can be deliberately staged. Using it in a wide outdoor shot feels like a real risk unless you're doing some Kubrickian blocking to make sure everyone is arranged just-so. Or you're making them stand stock-still.