Thank you to the DSLRguide Patrons for supporting these videos, and a special thank you to: Florian Kustermann, Eric Lovrien, Gabriel Criado, Gaffa Garage, Jarred Cordova, Nick Brengle, Peter Camilleri, Peter Rittinger, Yusuf Raja, Lili Design

I believe that it is the colour, composition and lighting that makes something look what is typically considered "cinematic" rather than the depth of field of the image.

I'd love to have a statistic like this on newer "netflix"-like movies. I feel that they overdo it a bit with the blurry background in there

"Cinematic" is a quality achieved by taking advantage of every aspect of filmmaking to communicate a feeling or a story effectively to the audience. If that depth of field (or lack thereof) contributes to the conveyance of the shot, then that contributes to its "cinematic" quality. Shallow depth of field, deep focus, or any other choice of aesthetic are all just part of the broad vocabulary of cinema. The quality of being "cinematic" is not defined by a set standard of aesthetics, but through the iconography of the filmmaker's culture expressed through every aspect of the film's drama.

Unless I missed it, the video seems to overlook a very clear reason for that impression: the fact that shallow depth of field has historically not been as easy to recreate with the point-and-shoot cameras the general public had access to, so over time we associated it with movies and other professionally filmed material because that's where we usually saw it. Of course that's now changing with the digitally emulated shallow DOF in modern smartphones, but even the demand for that feature only exists because it's become such an established hallmark of "classy" footage. But yes, obviously in the context of an actual film there's a lot more that makes a shot """cinematic""" - lots of people spend thousands on a professional camera just to become frustrated when their images don't look like a movie, because they're still clueless about the other components such as lighting, visual storytelling and so on.

the use of shallow depth and deep focus have far more to do with the focus distance in these movies than the aperture. I reckon if you made a pie chart of all the close, medium and long shots, you'd get a similar pie chart.

I think it “feels” cinematic because it used to be difficult to create at home. Only in recent years it becomes easier and easier to create. I’m wondering if this feeling will change in the future, now we will see it in non-cinematic videos.

Short and sweet and a reminder that all techniques should be tools to achieve a goal, not fluff.

Shallow depth of field can be frustrating for action sequences, as it makes it difficult for the audience to understand the geography a character is moving through. On the other hand, shallow depth of field is great for character portraits within crowds. We can isolate our protagonist by blurring out all the other unimportant faces.

Depth of focus is a tool and a stylistic choice. Wes Anderson always has big wide open shots that are completely in focus and look great. I just think calling got “cinematic” on your phone or “portrait” is an easy one word way of marketing it to potential consumers more than an actual cinematic analysis.

In my film history class, deep depth of field was highly sought after back in the early days of film because the fastest films stocks were extremely low ASA/ISO compared to today's highly sensitive digital sensors. For example, in Citizen Kane there are several deep depth of field shots that were seen as technical achievements during the time. They had to use huge bright lights in order to achieve that look and that storytelling tool. Another commenter here made a good point about the fetishism of shallow depth of field and blue anamorphic streaks. If we look at the history of independent motion pictures, shallow depth of field definitely separated 35mm film and other Hollywood formats from smaller, lower costs formats like 8mm, 16mm, or video cameras before the 2000's. Video cameras before the 2000's had really small sensors and were very obviously video cameras. Independent and low budget filmmakers of those times did everything they could to try to get a more cinematic look on their low budgets. So part of that was trying to create shallow depth of filed as opposed to a 4:3, interlaced, image where everything was in focus at a very low resolution. So when tools like the Canon 5D Mark ii came out, it helped democratize a look and a tool that appeared "cinematic" but was also literally used on Hollywood productions like House M.D. and as a crash cam on some Marvel productions. But to your point, nowadays depth of field can be used as a storytelling choice as opposed to an obligation or a default. But filmmakers of every budget now have access to that as a choice. It wasn't always the case.

Deep focus makes it feel more real like real life location and shots are in 'normal' angle in Dead poets society and in Blade Runner locations shots are tilted or eye-of-god (from high angle) to get away from normal real life and that's why Blade Runner is way more cinematic than Dead poets society. Shallow shots are not very real life so it is looks more dreamy, more cinematic. In you are using Blade Runner as example for deep vs shallow you need also to fog the room and do the low-key lighting to hide background even more.

Shallow DoF is a perfect example of something that people discover and beat the literal hell out of until nobody likes it anymore. Everyone on youtube be like "Ooh, blurry background, that means I'm an award winning filmmaker." Suddenly they're all filming their "how to clean a fish bowl" videos at negative f/1.4.

Many filmmakers agree that f/2.8 on a Super 35 sensor crop is sufficient; many go to f/4-f/8 without hesitation when the scene warrants it. I think it's very rare to go to f/1.8 on a FF sensor- that's a KZfaq thing, not cinema.

Good video. IMO it boils down to one of two things. 1) The creative decision for shot composition calls for shallow depth of field 2) The DoP just likes the look of a shallower depth of field I personally love shallow depth of field. An extreme use of it was in Army of the Dead. That entire film was shot on vintage lenses. I personally very much enjoyed it. It doesn't look like a typical studio film that has your establishing shots, and then your close ups. It was Zack Snyder, being unleashed. Radically different from what I had seen in the past.

Shallow DOF is nice. It stops being so when people just go "WOOOOOOW Let's make EVERYTHING blurry, so cinematic!" The sweet spot, as usual, is in using the tools and techniques to direct attention, not just what "looks cool"

I think it's easy to overdo shallow dof when you're starting out because it's an "easy" way to get some sort of background separation before you actually go and learn composition and lighting (or rather the use of shadows and light direction) to get separation that way.

Just because phones fake it doesn’t mean it’s a “fad.” It has always been a part of photography. And long shot close ups with city lights in the back look neat.

Hey there. First. I have a 25mm f1.7 for my lumix, and im also a film student. I can say it depends. If you have a complex background that can distract viewers, shallow depth could help focus your audiences attention. Remember film is telling stories. Whats the best way to do that

THANK YOU! I literally had this conversation with another Cinematographer buddy of mine earlier this week! (that's probably also why it popped up in the algorithm too). I usually never shoot below f 4.5 for movies/film. But I definitely stay away from f.8 - f3.8 unless I have a very specific reason. It's about the same for T-stops too.

When I took film studies in university, we saw that the deep focus was a big thing back before 1980s. Think Citizen Kane etc. But after 1980-1990 and deep into the "new hollywood cinema" era, when filmmakers got very influensed by european filmmakers from the 1970s and 1960s, filmmakers started to experiment with different lenses and techniques and using that as a film story technique. You should check out David Bordwell to see more shot and style analysis.

A shallow depth of field is technically used as a separation device from the subject and it's background/foreground, but still must be used in conjuction with rich set design deep composition. As a stand alone tool it's very weak when lacking in other departments. Best case scenario it should be implemented as a psychological representation.

You're right, its not a coincidence that the wide shots are deep focus and the close-ups are shallow, but not because they draw the attention one way or another, but because technically its very difficult to achieve those shots any other way. Long shots by their nature are usually at infinity focus, and close-ups are close focus.

I always feel like lighting and color grading/film stock really help make a film look more cinematic. I’ve seen movies shot on iPhone that look great because lighting way more than depth of field of the shot.

Hey man, Hope you're doing great in your filmmaking journey. It's lovely to see you keep being consistent with youtube over the years. And best of luck with everything and hope you enjoy the whole process :D! you've been a great inspiration.

Shallow depth of field in most of a cinema is a result of using telephoto lenses rather fast glass. There are different visual stylistics but common practice is using lenses with 1-2 times of magnification ratio as a normal lens, usually it is 35-50mm which determine such DOF even at T2.8-T4. With introduction of "full frame" cinema cameras lens range displaced to even more telephoto.

Most cinematographers in the past would shoot at between f2.8 - f5.6 on Super 35 size film (closest to APS-C digital camera). So the depth of f4 - f8 on full frame 35mm. This is to balance the speed of the films, lighting packages and the need to pull focus on actors who are moving. As well as composition. Notice how rare it is for an actor's full face in movies to not be in focus? That means they're shooting stopped down unless at a large distance from the actor. Use a depth of field calculator to confirm this, don't take my word for it. Most of the shots that seem "shallow" are just short telephoto 75mm - 100mm lenses shot at f4 - f8 for close ups (usually the lens stopped down a couple of stops). Anamorphic also gives the impression of a shallower depth of field, due to the separation from the wider background. The f2 and wider open apretures on a full 35mm frame are a photography look, not cinema.

I think is not only the depth of field, but also the color correction and the other aspects such as lighting, composition, location, etc. Nice video tho, i've been waiting for more content!!

I think knowing and using shallow DoF in the right places is what makes something cinematic. Making everything shallow all the time is, well, shallow filmmaking. But using a shallow DoF to emphasise something, to focus on an idea or theme or character is good filmmaking. My two cents.

Something to consider is that these two movies where shot on film. 30 to 40 years ago. Everything was analog and manual. Having a shallow depth of field would have been a pain in the ass to get focus right. Something I've only recently learned (biproduct of understandning how a flash works with a camera) is that in moviemaking (at least in the olden days) they overexposed the lighting in the scene so they could underexpose it in camera with a deeper focus. I've always wondered why BTS-clips were so bright, expecially indoor scenes. As a photographer I would say that a shallow depth of field is more professional/cinematic in photos than in film. The biggest factor to make footage look cinematic is the 180 degree rule and a high dynamic range. I watched a review of Sony Xperia IV yesterday and the footage looked incredible using ND-filter and the 180 degree rule.

Every time i need you, i don't know how but you upload... Thanks man

Spielberg has talked about this before, he likes to use deep focus and minimal cuts because he doesn't want to overdirect, and these are ways to let the audience's attention wander around the frame as they please, making Them feel like the director.

When I clicked this video I thought "It depends" and you said it in way better terms. Lol. Loved how you got straight to the point with no fluff. Well done!

there are some closeups in blade runner where the depth of field is so shallow that they missed the focus entirely. When you see it on the big screen it’s really obvious, but not really clear on a monitor or TV at all.

I think shallow DoF is a lot like any cool new trick, ability or piece of equipment we get. It's tempting to put it on everything, but it's better used in moderation with intention.

I also think that depth of field is more like a tool that you can use to achieve emphasis on a subject, but you can get this emphasis using other tools too, such as lightning, color/texture contrast or composition. At the end, the tool that you chose depends on the nature of the scene.

Interesting little study. I would add that deep focus also takes the background to consideration as a potential character to the scene adding depth to the story and the shallow being the alienation of the character and his environment and or pure focus on a subject for the scene.

backgrounds depends on which subject u are focusing, if its a single person or object, a shallow dof might be the choice, if its a wide shot with lots of subjects being focused, no dof is really the choice or just deep. personally, without dof, u cant sometimes focus on the main subject of the scene. but what really makes things cinematic is how the camera angle is placed, the color grading, lighting and such

Shooting everything with very shallow depth of field is a trend that come from digital photography, bokeh wasn't even a thing until late 90s or early 2000s, many people when they got their first dslr and a 50mm 1.8 started to shoot everything at f1.8, at least for a while until it gets boring. Shallow depth of field used to be use with more purpose, like for dream scenes, hallucinations or to show isolation, etc. Nowadays you see on tv or Netflix very mundane scenes of 2 characters just talking with super shallow depth of field, sometimes it looks so weird.

I vaguely recall seeing a clip from Sherlock (never actually seen the show) where they were somewhere in London, and the background was so blurry it was nearly impossible to tell where they were. This was at the height of that first 5D-mark-2-shallow-dop crazy. I find the shallowest of focus to be distracting, it almost looks like greenscreen with the subject isolated beyond a nearly disconnected background. Not always, but thats how it usually makes me feel.

shallow depth of field can be a mark of more professional/specialized filmmaking lenses/cameras. The most common consumer cameras, smartphones, have small camera sensors and high apertures. Therefore, the depth of field is very very wide. One of the distinct differences cinema cameras and lenses have are wider apertures and larger sensors, which produce blurrier backgrounds. So, we associate blurry backgrounds with being cinematic.

Great thought-provoking question regarding WHY filmmakers use depth of field rather than how often.

I guess, depth of field is a matter of storytelling. Remember the Citizen Kane shot of the long table with a lense just produced for that shot. 8 meters of focus with a little blurry background. That's love for the detail.

i believe the use of shallow depth of field for many of the adopters of DSLRs back in the day wasnt truly at fault of "just because i can" but it was sometimes an unconscious decision, because at the time anybody could then make decent video with decent lenses, the "budget" of going out and making a movie wasnt focused on what was in front of the camera but the camera itself, so lighting compositions, having an art department, was mostly out of the question, so what happens if u are at a location and u have no budget for set design, vfx, lighting, and location control, the easiest thing to do at the time was just to blur it out

We have Apple to thank for the over used and IMO misused phrase cinematic as it pertains to DOF and arguably other photo/video tools. It's a buzzword used and a look implemented (sloppily I might add) in the iPhone line and the artificial software DOF used on their phone cameras. Even worse, others have copied and hijacked the term similarly. Thank you for pointing out it's a tool, used for practical reasons as well as intentional creative reasons, and not used to create "cinematic" scenes or imagry. Just using the technique, doesn't make a video "movie" more "cinematic". As a matter of opinion it's gratuitous or miss-use can actually make it appear less professional and more cheesy over all.

In the past 5-ish years, I've gone from a musical and audio background to doing a lot of video work to complement it. I know a ton of audio people getting into the video field and the thing they want more than anything is the blurry background cause it's "cinematic". I think this video addresses that specific issue perfectly. Cheers!

I absolutely love this breakdown. I’ve been following you for years and you never cease to amaze me, Simon!

These are all great points. However, there’s one major consideration that tends to get overlooked in these conversations and that has to do with budget. For amateur filmmakers like myself, we don’t have the money to buy and f4 lens for now then sell it at a loss to buy and f2.8 or f1.4 lens later. In most cases, if you’re deciding on renting or buying a lens, it makes the most sense to get the best lens with the widest aperture you can reasonable afford. You can always add ND or close down the iris if appropriate, but you can’t create a shallower depth of field if you can only open the iris so much. This is particularly true with wider angle lenses which naturally tend to keep more of the frame in focus. So, while a shallow depth of field may not be needed for a cinematic image, being able to achieve shallow depth is important to telling the story. Making the wrong lens choices in the beginning can be detrimental to that goal in the long run. Just me take….

Finally someone points it out! Whenever i see a movie and notice blurry backgrounds at a high frequency i immediately know not to expect much.

My take on this.. Like anything else in filmmakers metaphorical tool-belt shallow depth of field is a specific technique that when used properly feels cinematic.. when not used properly feels out of place. In my mind what makes something cinematic is even good DP / Directors or videographers use the correct technique to tell the viewer where they want them to look in the scene to help further the story / mood whether that is shallow or deep it depends in the frame/scene and what they’re trying to convey.

I think you missed the answer to your original question, why do we equate shallow depth of field with being cinematic, especially recently on camera phones? It’s because it’s not been accessible for a long time on smaller sensors so we use it as short-hand to suggest cinematic and stand out amongst all the other, non blurry images.

I don’t know the stats but the movie Taxi Driver uses the shallow depth of field look so well. Love the look of that film, it’s like a time capsule.

In my opinion, shallow depth of field is often overused by filmmakers who can’t do proper set Dec or lighting. Back in the day, when camcorders were the only common consumer camera, people started to say that deep depth of field looked cheap, but now that DSLRs are the new cheap filmmakers’ camera, the standard seems to have reversed, and people say that a film made up of mostly shallow DOF looks cheaper. In the end it’s all a matter of taste tho

You always have great videos. I think it’s the delivery of the info as well as the info actually being thoughtful and applicable. I don’t make movies at all. But these concepts work for music too. Just exchange sound for light and I have a new creative stream to enjoy. Oh and I still think about that movie you made where the girl dumps here date and walks home alone at night. Perhaps we will need a concealed ketchup license? Great work.

I understand and appreciate the desire to bring a different visual aesthetic to film by exploiting what were once considered negative artifacts of the process. The same thing has happened in music, where trends such as lofi, glitch, vinyl, and cassette tape noise are popular. The reason for this is easy to understand- in the old days, everyone was striving to eliminate artifacts and produce the highest quality end product possible while contending with less a than optimal recording medium. Now that digital technology has sufficiently matured, we can all of perfectly clean, pristine audio or video recordings anytime we want them. In a perfectly clean but sterile world, we turn back to the artifacts of older technologies for nostalgic reasons, and apply them as an intentional effect. Scratchy 8mm film or cassette tape can impart distinctive textures and aesthetics, and can be applied for to make an artistic statement or to further the narrative. It’s possible that we’re still in an era where these effects are being overused, just as in the early days of desktop publishing, when “designers” would use as many different fonts as possible on a single page of text. Nevertheless, I do think there is a time and place for film looks which stray from the technically perfect.

I think that yes - it can be. It is a very good technique when showing close ups or/and when you want to separate or focus on an important object/subject in your frame. But you have to be careful with it. You can't use it everywhere because it get tiresome and it takes the audience away from the setting. Why would anyone want to watch a film with 75% blur in every frame? It is dull, unnatural and just takes you out of the scene completely. This is not how human eyes work and your brain immediately sees it as fake. You don't see that much blur in your everyday life. Try to focus on a small object for a moment, bring it close to one eye and close the other. You will see the background becoming slightly blurry. That is natural. But when you observe the environment as a whole, everything is in focus. Heck, I even started to hate excessive blur in still pictures recently. Some photographers really get carried away with it. Is it really worth it when 45% of the frame looks like incomprehensible mess? Looks like you gave watercolors to a toddler. If I ever get married, I will say to the photographers that I will check every picture's metadata and if I see anything different than f8, I'll not be paying. That's how mad I've become over this. Just stop the excessive "bokah" or whatever you want to call it. It does not make you a better photographer. I am an amateur photographer and I can do it 100% of the time. It's not making me a professional.

Back in the old days when this video would end with the peculiar apple biting shot. Growing up is a treat!

Batman 2022 was almost always shot with shallow depth of field.. it was one of the best looking movies i have seen. Joker movie had so many shots with shallow depth of field. And they were all amazing. Depth of field is made shallow to isolate subject. Its the colour tones and the smoothness (not sharpness) of the image that gives the cinematic look.

You could also think the Handmaid's being in focus, when others are not, shows the 'us and them' showing the Handmaids as different and seperate group (in addition to showing that the world as a fuzzy unseen for them) Anyway good example on focus being more than just a way of choosing what the viewers pay attention to. Got me thinking :)

Thanks for the share. I judge movies with shallow depth of field and composition. If I watch a trailer and it’s all deep focus. I usually just don’t watch it. My brain usually just takes it as if it’s going to be low budget. I know it’s nothing scientific. Probably I shouldn’t judge movies like that :)

Anyone who's been to any film classes or taken a course knows that every component of the film-making process is to serve the narrative, including depth of field within the cinematography. It alienates your subject to serve to that greater end. To just throw it in a film to be "cinematic" is Zack Snyder's bag.

It seems to me that the obsession with shallow depth of field is based on a limitation that film makers had to put up with back in the day that has become a style in itself. If you wanted to do a close up of an actors face without the camera being close up you’d have to use a telephoto lens. But the longer the distance the less light so the faster the aperture needs to be to compensate. Fast aperture creates the shallow depth of field. There was no real choice for the director trying to balance the exposure triangle. I don’t think anyone thought about it as this ultra desirable look back in the day. It was just the only way to it. I just think when digital cameras started taking over the big difference between them and film cameras was sensor size. And sensors size is one of the things that effects this look. And since then it’s become the holy grail of photographers and subsequently with dslr video, photographers have taken that obsession to film making. Especially as it’s the only obvious differentiation the average person can tell between expensive and cheaper digital cameras. I just don’t think it was anything film makers cared about until dslr photo people came into this mix really. It wasn’t like it was hard to pull Off back in the day. Much harder to get a deep depth of field at a longer focal length before. It’s funny with YT film makers say they need the full frame look when films never used that sensor size anyway. They were mostly 35mm aps-c from what I understand. Dslr Photographers have imposed their preferences on film making is what it all looks like.

I think wide open aperture is a crutch for not being able to control your background. It has its place. But its really a budget way to solve a problem.

Such an interesting way to compare films. Great vid. I used to watch you years ago when I was in high school doing short films constantly. You're still awesome just fyi

This is an eye-opening video. We are conditioned to believe narrow DOP is the way to make videos better. But as you have mentioned, that is not always the case. Thank you for the great video.

I think Dynamic Range is one of the most underrated things when it comes to making a shot more "cinematic". Maybe it's underrated because you can't circumvent it, you just need a better, more expensive camera with a better sensor. For example you are subconsciously used to the way your phone takes videos, the high contrast, the inability to show dark and light areas at the same time. When you see a high DR shot, you might not know straight away what's different, but since it looks closer to what you see with your own eyes, it looks more "cinematic". You can see more details in the sky/ground, you can see details in objects that would normally look just like silhoutettes, stuff like that. For me a deep DoF shot with high DR will look infinitely better than a shallow DoF shot from an iPhone with crappy DR.

Depth of field helps and can drastically improve the shot. However, it alone isn't enough to make an image cinematic. It can even be detrimental at times. Just look at in-game DoF filters that make you feel myopic. I think the combination of lighting, color, framing, etcetera all work together to create a professional looking image that tells a clear story and grabs the viewer's attention.

Just as there was overuse of lens flares in 2010s, there is an overuse of shallow depth of field nowdays

Shallow DOF is also a natural consequence of the lens you choose for a certain situation. So if you have a close-up you're probably gonna go with a 75mm + therefore creating more shallow DOF (and the opposite for wide shots with wider lenses). Plus the closer you film an object the bigger shallow DOF will be

Fantastic video. Shallow depth of field is highly fetishized. Growing as a creative, especially someone like myself who didn't get a formal education, is realizing that each of these techniques is a tool. Not a trope to be overused or a cheat code to "cinematic" footage... whatever that even means, lol

I really appreciate your content! Thank you!

The "few" shots with shallow depth of field are the long lens shots, genius.

I think the three category or shallow, medium, and deep is actually oversimplified. I think a four category breakdown is better: shallow, medium-shallow, medium, and deep. I say this because there are some shots that I would say are shallower than the examples you used here for medium but they do have a deeper focus than the ones you said are shallow. For example with your headshot you compared f/1.8 to f/8. My ideal for a closeup head and shoulders shot with a blurred background is around f/2.8 or f/4 which I guess you would call medium. In a head and shoulders tight shot then the three category option works. However if you have the full body head to toe of a person in the frame or the subject is smaller in the frame than I think the four category classification is better. At that framing of the subject I would consider f/1.2-f/1.8 as shallow, I would classify f2-f2.8 as medium-shallow, f/4-f/5.6 as medium, and f/8-f/11 as deep. The exact numbers aren't important but I think there are focus uses that will fall inbetween a broad three category classification depending on the frame and how much of the frame you are filling with the subject.

Absolutely agreed, striving for more depth of field just cause is a naive mistake. I remember watching a video that accidentally portrayed a perfect example of this. Going for a medium depth of field allows you to retain some color and lighting details in the background that would have otherway been completely blurred out, thus making for a less exciting and less cripsy image. Then it all depends on the context of the scene and what you want to communicate, and of course taste. To see it with your eyes look up on youtube "Sigma 56mm F1.4 vs Sigma 60mm F2.8 Lens Comparison" by Arthur R, and go to 5:44, then tell me which one you prefer.

You are back!

Split focus diopters used to be pretty common, so you could argue that for a while (some) cinematographers really wanted deep focus in spite of light limitations. Personally I think the look of a split diopter is often ugly and distracting. I much prefer a rack focus shot, although it doesn't exactly tell the same story.

Another reason for deeper focus filming is the fact that almost all lenses, being still or cine lenses, perform better once you step down the aperture. Less light diffraction, therefore less aberrations. Also if you look closely even the shots with a more shallow dof aren’t really shot wide open but stepped down 1-2 stops. Of course there are exceptions, especially if it serves the narration.

Zach Synders recent Netflix zombie movie had so much shallow depth of field for absolutely no reason. I usually love the look of shallow DOF, but in that movie it was obnoxious.

What's frustrating here I'm not seeing is that DOF is not just due to aperture. The focal length of the lens is probably a better indicator. I guarantee you the proportion of shallow, medium and deep is exactly the same as close, medium, wide focal lengths respectively. The reason why you see shallow dof is probably because it's shot on a 50mm, 85mm, or even 200mm etc. So naturally these close-up shots would have shallow dof. But most movies probably have a lot more establishing shots, use of wide space, that uses wider focal lengths which obviously would have deep dof. It's the variety of shots as a storytelling device that is cinematic.

I think it all depends on how you use shallow dof, you can tell a story with how you focus in on your objects, but it doesn’t make a cinematic feel, it just looks cool when u first do it but after a while it gets stale and u need add more aspects than just a blurry background like lighting, contrast, composition, etc

True, I have been telling directors this for ages, the background is part of the story and as a DP everything you can use to create a narration you use it!!!! Thank you for this video. Love this video.

What u just compared is just wide, medium and close shots. The blurry background just adjusts according to these field of views

Even on wide angle, deep focus shots, the sensor size is still the same so it'll definitely have a more natural falloff and smaller depth of field than say a phone.

I think “cinematic” depends. If you can afford to have an amazing production design team then you can shape an image around the environment and use a large depth of field. If it’s lower budget you can use the depth of field to guide users to a certain place in the image and if used correctly can greatly enhance to image

hey presenter, would want to know how to write an academic article on the art of focus pulling or depth of field in relation to what you explained here. i would be grateful sir

I may be talking way off base here but in my opinion, I think it’s unfair to chose a film that was shot on celluloid film to critic it’s shallow or deep DOF. When you shoot motion picture film you have to also consider the work flow it brings with it. More commonly back then, DOPs tend to stop down either to counteract the softness of the emulsion or to assist with focusing the lens, as they primarily pulled off of the barrel and with a cinetape alternative for distance read out. They stopped down so the DOF increases in size giving the 1st more wiggle room to nail focus. I don’t know, I may be taking out of my back side. Still a great and informative video, as usually they tend to be from Simon. ❤️

got through 30 seconds. I anticipate there is very high odds that your pie chart could easily be renamed with (wide shots, mediums and close ups) close ups are generally used to convey small details or actors emotion. so they tend to have shallow depth of field so the viewer knows what's important in the frame.

I have all ways luved blurred backgrounds/depth of field in images and videos for the most but yes now that most of our phones and creative programs offer this etc it’s way easier and more common

There's a new Australian courtroom drama series called The Twelve which uses very shallow depth of field for much of each episode. It's actually very annoying, and made very conspicuous in contrast with classic contemporary cinema like Blade Runner or even Dark Knight.

My biggest pet peeve is when people shoot wide shots at f2.8 or lower. There's not even anything to put out of focus, so you're just going to miss focus and have weaker optic quality.

You know, I feel that lighting is the king of cinematic shots.

A shot is cinematic when the focus of the camera lens matches the focus of the story at that point in time.

It depends. If I want the focus to be on the actor and the moment I'd intense and heated then the blurry background with accentuate what's happening dramatically. It will force the audience to confront what the characters is going through, it can also highten intense feelings like when the character is confused or angry. Everything comes out of focus as the characters world spins. I wouldn't use it all the time though.

What i see here is f1.8 when it's a close up, and f22 when shot on wide angle, much like you would do making a portrait and a landscape photo

If I had multi-million dollar productino design budgets, I'd use deep focus a bit more. But shallow focus is a much cheaper way to make a shot feel cinematic.

Thanks! That was fun to watch and enlightening!

I love this. I've been a critic of shallow DoF over-use for a while. Never-_ever_ imitate an art form or style because it's "cinematic" or "pro" looking. That's called the "appeal to authority fallacy." Do what _you_ like, because _you_ like it. Love shallow DoF? _Spam it all you want!_ Love deep DoF? _Use it for any scene you feel like!_ Do whatever you want. Just don't do it because the "elites" do it. Do it because you love it.

From the few scenes at the beginning of this video, there seems to be a pattern for which kind of shots you use shallow, middle, deep depth of field. And it has also to do with the lens you use for different shots and of course the amount of light that passes the aperture. That said, now I‘m going to watch the rest of the video. 😉 And is the use of only 75% of the area of the frame a hint on what‘s coming next?

Production design is the biggest thing that makes things look “cinematic” in my opinion. Think about it - you can have perfect lighting, perfect depth of field, but if you skimped on your location or production design and are filming in a bare room that’s supposed to be a lived in location, it’s going to look bad no matter what you do. That’s why cameras are ironically some of the least important things in filmmaking when it comes specifically to the image as long as you have a camera that can capture an image decently well (like modern smartphones). Even audio can be more important because people will more often watch bad footage rather than listen to bad audio.

Honestly, it's about whatever serves the scene/shot best. If directors and director of photography just try to blanket use shallow depth of field due to laziness then it's probably not a film worth watching.