OT: Depth Of Field - Video vs. Film - "The Train"

Jay Gladwell wrote on 11/30/2009, 3:19 PM

A few weeks back (and long before that, elsewhere) there was a discussion on DoF and how the deep DoF looks like video, in some people's minds.

I just finished watching an excellent film by John Frankenheimer titled The Train. It's been 45 years since I originally saw this movie. The film was shot beautifully in black & white by cinematographers Jean Tournier and Walter Wottitz using mostly wide angle lenses (28mm and 35mm) giving the picture incredible depth of field. There were the exceptions of a 50mm lens for close-ups and a zoom for a few other specific shots.

The film is based on the book Le front de l'art by Rose Valland who documented great works of art had been stolen by the Nazis.

It's usually listed as an "action film." However, the film also deals with a very philosophical question regarding the value of works of art.

If you haven't seen it, or if it's been 45 years since you last saw, I highly recommend the film. And enjoy the deep depth of field.

Comments

Cliff Etzel wrote on 11/30/2009, 5:19 PM

Jay - just today Phillip Bloom posted several instances of his latest short he shot with his VSLR kit and expounding on his ability to control DOF so easily as well as incredible low light sensitivity compared to standard vidcams with or without lens adapters.

I guess you get told enough times about something and you begin to believe it - until someone comes along and brings perspective back into the equation. I have to admit I've felt a little inadequate with all this hoopla around using narrow DOF - it seems like the flavor of the moment. I keep telling myself that it's the operator/content creators vision, not the equipment that makes the visual statement.

Thanks for bringing me back into the real world... :)

Cliff Etzel
Videographer : Producer : Web Designer
bluprojekt

ingvarai wrote on 11/30/2009, 5:53 PM

Here:
How it was made

Rory Cooper wrote on 11/30/2009, 9:46 PM

I am experimenting with my Sony x0.7 wide angle lens on my Canon legria hf s 10, as the thread is the same. The wide angle lens seems easier to set up and control DoF and increase the field

farss wrote on 12/1/2009, 12:08 AM

Watching the Making Of film, those guys took some serious risks. Imagine the insurance company's response today when you told them the scene where two trains collide wasn't going to be done as CGI and how close the cameras and crew would be.

Bob.

JoeMess wrote on 12/2/2009, 1:32 PM

Beautiful footage! It even looks good on YouTube.

Serena wrote on 12/2/2009, 2:09 PM

45 years ago there would have been a lot of steam locos sitting around as scrap, so reality would have been not too expensive to stage. I agree with Jay about DoF. It's a tool, not a talisman.

richard-amirault wrote on 12/2/2009, 3:27 PM

In case anyone was interested ...
the full movie THE TRAIN can be seen on HULU.

ingvarai wrote on 12/2/2009, 4:32 PM

Bob:
Watching the Making Of film, those guys took some serious risks

We old-timers have probably all seen Buster Keaton, when one complete wall of a house falls over, right where he stands on the ground. And he survives because he happens to be positioned exactly where there is an open window in the wall.
This scene is told to be real.
I believe they were brave, yes, and even more excited about the movie making itself. I experience this myself, when the camera is on, I take risks and do things I normally would not [dare to] do.
Ingvar

Coursedesign wrote on 12/2/2009, 7:07 PM

When you are shooting a large image format, you have a choice. You can get either a lot of DoF or a little.

If you are shooting with a 1/6" imager, you don't have much choice.

Even a 1/3" imager is quite small and doesn't give nearly as much choice as a 2/3" or larger sensor.

Patryk Rebisz wrote on 12/2/2009, 7:19 PM

I think it's unfair to say that look at this VERY EXPENSIVE production with tons of extras and action to fill the frame, they didn't need shallow DOF so why should the poor filmmakers. The truth is that unless you are doing an action film (most indie filmmakers don't) with tons of extras (most indie filmmakers don't) and have total control of what's in the background (most indie filmmakers don't) then shallow DOF comes in very handy.

Serena wrote on 12/2/2009, 11:14 PM

Quite right Patryk. A useful tool to deal with that situation; use it a lot myself. But my keeping DoF shallow won't transmogrify my video into a cinematic masterpiece, which seems to be the expectation of many. Citizen Kane wasn't an action film.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/3/2009, 3:40 AM

Serena beat me to the punch, and said it better than I probably would have. Be that as it may, let me say this...

"The truth is that unless you are doing an action film (most indie filmmakers don't) with tons of extras (most indie filmmakers don't) and have total control of what's in the background (most indie filmmakers don't) then shallow DOF comes in very handy."

DoF has nothing to do with budget. DoF has absolutely nothing to do with genre. DoF has nothing whatsoever to do with the size of the cast. Frankly, I am extremely surprised at such comments, especially, "they didn't need shallow DOF so why should the poor filmmakers." Such a suggestion was never made. The director of this movie made the delebrate decision not to have shallow DoF and worked very hard to achieve it.

However, "control of what's in the background" is a legitimate explanation for the use of shallow DoF... to a point.

I would strongly encourage the recent crop of young aspiring filmmakers to do some serious homework. Study cinema history. Expand your viewing habits and watch movies from the past 100+ years of cinema. You're in for a treat!

Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/3/2009, 3:45 AM

"... transmogrify..."

What a wonderful word! Never heard that one before.

Thank you, Serena!

vtxrocketeer wrote on 12/3/2009, 4:32 AM

"
"... transmogrify..."

What a wonderful word! Never heard that one before."

OT: Didn't you ever read the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes?! I learned this dandy verb through Calvin's use of his home made transmogrifier. ;)

Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/3/2009, 7:34 AM

"Didn't you ever read the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes?! "

Rarely, as we didn't/don't subscribe to any newspapers.

It is a great word.

Infinite5ths wrote on 12/3/2009, 8:53 AM

I consider this word one of Calvin and Hobbes's most useful and valuable contributions to my vocabulary. :-D

Patryk Rebisz wrote on 12/3/2009, 10:46 AM

Jay,
I think we are confusing a few issues at hand. DOF is an artistic choice, yes. But also it's a tool to provide last minute defense when you need to get the reaction shot on an actor and have no time to clean up all the crap from the background for instance. Artistry is only one of many factors on an actual film production. We can be all "artists" commenting from the comforts of our living room while in actuality many of the "artistic" decisions on the set are force upon the filmmakers by the surrounding reality.

Suggestion that DOF has nothing to do with genre is absolutely mistaken. In a drama there is usually very little happening in the frame, thus infinite DOF is not necessary while in an action film usually by the definition things in the frame are happening all over the place thus shallow DOF would be totally wrong. And those of cource are only rough guidelines and often the artristy of a film comes from originality and "originality" often happens when the filmmakers go aginst extablished conventions.

Watch any of film from the 60s or 70s on its own and every one of them appears original. Watch it as a group and you see a whole bunch of "original" filmmakers from certain time period following a set of conventions.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/3/2009, 1:16 PM

"Suggestion that DOF has nothing to do with genre is absolutely mistaken."

No, it isn't. The burden of proof is yours.

You need to study, as I suggested, more film history. And I'll leave it at that.

Patryk Rebisz wrote on 12/3/2009, 1:30 PM

How is "the burden of proof mine"? I point out the reasons why the DOF IS relative to the genre and you respond study film history. It's as if a kid got a scratch on his finger and you tell the mother to go to med school to take care of it.

winrockpost wrote on 12/3/2009, 4:46 PM

.....whole bunch of "original" filmmakers from certain time period following a set of conventions
bingo,
lots of sheep out there....shallow DOF is the topic of choice of late...there is a place for it an artistic choice or needed cause the telephone pole is in the shot,, but like every "cool" effect /style it gets beat into the ground