Question about filming technique

POSTED BY: est120
UPDATED: Monday, August 28, 2006 05:55
VIEWED: 3814
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE

EST120

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:48 PM

I was watching the Angel episode "Conviction" from season 5 yesterday and I had a question about how some of these things get filmed. At the end of the episode, after

Select to view spoiler:

Spike reappears because of the amulet

there is a shot that has three characters in it. Wes, Angel and Harmony. All three of them are in focus but Angel is in the front, Wes is a few steps behind him and Harmony is a few more steps behind Wes. How is this accomplished? Something about the way the shot looks makes it seem a little "off" meaning that it kind of looks like a digital effect but maybe that is just my brain playing tricks on me. Anyone know how this is done? Is it very simple and common?

REGINAROADIE

Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:40 PM

I remember that shot, and it doesn't seem like the three are too far apart so that they're all in focus. But I know exactly what you're talking about.

In those cases, that kind of shot where both the foreground and the background are in focus is accomplished with a diopter in the camera. Half or a third or whatever of the lens is covered up so that they can get the one person in focus. They film that, then they shift it around so that they can film the other person. Then they take it to a processing lab and combine the two shots together, thus making it look like the entire shot is in focus.

I'm not sure if I've explained it correctly, but it's how a shot like that is accomplished. If you rent the DVD for SOMEWHERE IN TIME, there's a part in the making of featurette that explains this process when they're talking about one of the most important shots in the whole film. And if you look at CITIZEN KANE, there's tons of technical shots in there that stagger the mind. It's actually a pretty heavy special effects movie.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"There's only one "Return" ok, and it ain't "of the King", it's "of the Jedi."

"Maybe we should start calling your friend 'Padme' because he loves 'Mannequin Skywalker' so much, Right? (imitating robot) Danger...danger...my name is Anakin...my shitty acting is ruining saga."

Excerpt of internet teaser for CLERKS 2.

DOPEYNAME101

Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:43 PM

Is everything in the shot in focus (i.e. background and all?)

It could be a wide-angle lens, which would also explain for the "offness." If it is, it's a very commonly used technique.

I'm not sure, I'd have to see the shot you're talking about. Any chance you could screen-cap it?

DREAMSOFTHESPIDER

Monday, August 21, 2006 4:12 PM

dunno about with film, it could be exactly as the second post explains, but in single lens reflex cameras, a still-photograph having the same effect would be achieved by increasing the depth of field, which, if my rusty memory serves, means opening the aperture wide to let in more light and focusing about midway.

I'm probably way off, though.

~Tzegha

TRAVELER

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:22 AM

The longer the lens the more you get in focus. A 50mm lens has a short range. A 200mm would have much more. Sports photographers use a very extreme lens to get any shot they require. Like the lens used in the most powerful observatory telescopes they use mirrored len's to bounce the image back and fourth inside the main lens. This keeps the lens short while increasing its focal length.
Even in portrait photography the popular lens is 135mm, so they can capture all the features of the subjects face. But with electronic technology we have today I suspect the answers preceding mine are probably what was used. I just wanted let you know you could produce this effect yourself, if you can get your hands on a 2000mm lens. I would not even guess the cost of such a lens. But they do exist and I'm sure even larger than that from some of the shots I've seen taken at auto races.

Traveler

DREAMSOFTHESPIDER

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:26 AM

*head spins*

All's I know is that with the basic lens with my little ancient Minolta I got wicked depth of field.

~Tzegha

TRAVELER

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:39 AM

It may be ancient, but I bet it is a one nice lens. Quality counts. Also the farther away the subject is the more focal length you get. If your taking pictures of a mountain a 50mm will actually work fine. But the if you want to take a picture of three people, standing close together, then a longer lens is the way to go.

The clerk at your local photo store can explain this better than me. I'm a little rusty. As I said I can only imagine what photographers at autoraces use. I've seen some amazing shots from these guys.

Traveler

DOPEYNAME101

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:23 PM

Generally, the longer the lens, the shallower the depth of field, so it's actually less you get in focus.

However, the other aspect that contributes is the distance from the subject. If you set up a short lens and a long lens at the same point, the images will not be the same size. The long lens will fill more of the frame, but have a shallower depth of field and have less in focus.

Basically, if you want to get the same image size with a short lens that you do with a long lens, the short lens would have to be moved closer to the subject, which would, in effect, make it have the same depth of field as the long lens, making the point truly moot.

Hope that makes sense.

Any chance at all of a screencap?

GIXXER

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 2:02 PM

Just a second there while I don me brown anorak.

Pre-Digital photography and Auto-everything 101...

Short focal length (front to film) lens (say 35mm or less for 35mm film) = Wide angle. Will have a lot of Depth of field. eg focus on 10 feet and pretty much everything from about 3 feet to Infinity and beyond will be in focus.

They do distort, though, close up stuff gets big very quickly, far away stuff gets small very quickly. Look at yourself in a shiny hubcap. No dude, dab antiseptic on the cuts and try it again with a stationary car...

Wide / short lenses are bad for portraits. Nose like a moose, ears like a Minbari.

Longer lenses 100mm+ focal length on 35mm film have a narrower depth of field. Focus on 20 feet and you'll get a sharp image of everything in the 19 to 21 foot range. Better for portraits, since you'll be further away for a given image, and so the relative difference in distance between nose and ears doesn't cause so much of a ballooning effect.

Back to the hubcap. Gross disortion if you move back and forth close up to it. Stand a 20 feet away, and the same degree of motion will case less ballooning (and not just because it's dificult to see at that distance. We could use binoculars, but really, I think that would be a little over complicated...

For any given lens, if the aperture is wide open, (f2.8 or less), you'll get a smaller depth of field than if the lens aperture is closed down (f11 or more) The f = "factor"

The hole in the front of a 50mm focal length lens at f2.8 is 17.8mm in diameter 50/2.8(lots of light gets in) at f11 it is 4.5mm wide 50/11(not much light gets in).

That buzzing noise is either a synchroniser going bad, or the last of the audience has dozed off, so I'll stop.

Cecil G DeMille

TRAVELER

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:57 PM

Yes. Well you have to stand farther away as your lens gets longer, unless you like nose hairs.
After all are jargen you can see why I think they used hitech computer imagining. They probably would have had the poor cinamatographer pressed against the back wall of the sound stage if not even farther than that.

I bet your glad you asked this question?
But it was fun. I haven't pulled my Minolta out for years.

To many hobbies.

I aim to be impulsive
Traveler

1 2 NEXT PAGE