The Loss of Depth in Modern Movies

Comments · 201

• HE

  @henriccarlsson9052 · 5 months ago

  The color grading and lighting of Wicked is a crime against humanity.

  46

• RE

  @retrothing · 5 months ago

  The idea of shallow DOF as a shortcut to <b>sigh</b> looking “cinematic” goes back way before mobile phones. In the 90s/00s lower budget producers wanted to emulate shallow DOF, but with shoulder mounted video cameras with zooms, you couldn’t (unless like you said you set up really far from the subject). Someone invented the DOF adapter which is this massive gimmick you mount onto your video camera, and then you can mount 35mm SLR lenses. This really caught on when HD cameras that could do 24p came along. Just look up some of the crazy setups with a DOF adapter.<br><br>So I think that’s where we saw budget productions embrace this idea that shallow DOF didn’t look like a cheap video production anymore - an idea which exploded when the DSLR revolution started. I think shallow DOF was all about cheap production gloss before it was to conceal LED background screens or to elucidate the speaker for phone viewers.

  14

• WI

  @wildlifefishingshow · 5 months ago (edited)

  Going back and forth from those washed-out shots to the absolutely gorgeous shot of Dracula and his shadow was jarring, lol

  31

• SI

  @silvertube52 · 5 months ago

  I&apos;m a stereo photographer, and 3D photography has always maximized depth of field. You want to viewer to explore the whole scene and all the detail. Shallow depth of field in 2D photography is often a way to imitate depth, but if you have stereopsis you want to see detail. The background doesn&apos;t have to be out of focus to know it&apos;s far away when you have stereoscopic depth.

  5

• WI

  @williammorrell · 5 months ago

  I think a missed aspect of using fast lenses wide open is that films can forgo expensive lighting setups requiring large grip teams and expensive trucks laden with gear. When time is short opening the lens up and getting the desired level in a scene is the path of least resistance and allows you to make the day. I&apos;ve had to make this compromise as a DoP working on low to no budget shorts more often than I would like.

  46

• JO

  @Joshua_Clarke_Film · 5 months ago

  It&apos;s important to note that while digital cameras are shooting in LOG the director isn&apos;t seeing that and the first colour correcting step is generally to &quot;fix&quot; the LOG look before anything else.

  4

• IN

  @innercynic2784 · 5 months ago

  I have to remind myself that back in the day nobody &quot;saw&quot; in black and white. &nbsp;Everything was in color and they lit and decorated to account for it. &nbsp;Today it&apos;s as much an aesthetic choice as anything. &nbsp; In many cases I&apos;d say they&apos;re masking a fuzzy story with fuzzy optics.

  1

• PH

  @Phantom_Corps · 5 months ago

  The Fix it in Post Age

  11

• JO

  @JonahCoe-o2y · 5 months ago (edited)

  I would note, you mentioned the death of natural lighting. But many of the older films are lit with heavily artificial lighting. It was tungsten, hmi, and fluorescent, which does arguably produce a more pleasing, natural look, but artificial nonetheless.

  13

• DA

  @DarkSentinel52 · 5 months ago

  honestly i feel physically ill when watching some of the modern movies due to complete lack of contrast in the lighting shadows and color grading

  27

• VY

  @vycanon7057 · 5 months ago (edited)

  Another great video! Even better than the last. I love the little details such as your talking segments having detail to contrast with the low depth of the samples used to help make the point visually.

  3

• KE

  @kevincoelho3872 · 5 months ago

  I agree with everything you say here. I work as a lighting technician in NYC and it feels so automatic for DP’s to ask for heavy diffusion in front of the lights. I walk through the set and can’t see my own shadow. That’s a wake up call. And yeah they’re always shooting wide open.

  2