Talk:Deep focus

message: Most early (and consumer camera made) fotos/movies are deep focus imho (as amateur cameras don't allow to produce narrow depth-of-fields), therefore I wonder a movie as young and late as Citizen Kane popularized deep focus. --Abdull 23:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  But most amateur/home movies do not exploit that deep focus in a way that Kane does. Welles uses deep space in addition to deep focus.  That is, there is significant action going on in the foreground plane and background plane simultaneously.  In contrast, most home movies record action on a single plane--like Junior's birthday party  being all shot in medium shot or a pan over a distant mountain range from a family vacation. The earliest "professional" movies made by the likes of Lumiere brothers also have deep focus (due to small apertures), but, again, there's little use of deep space. --Jeremy Butler 12:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Citizen Kane'' and amateur photography 

message: I am sorry, but the explanation for deep focus being in relation to the resolution of the medium is just plain wrong. By that logic, ISO 400 film stock would have less DOF than ISO 100 film stock. Or an 2k sensor less than one with 4k. It all depends on the size of the sensor or film and is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_vs._format_size . This is even quoted in Dion Beebes comment on Miamy Vice. Could someone with better english skills than me rewrite that? Cheers, Joris  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.95.220.10 (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Explanation for Deep focus on different formats 

message: I removed the "Principle [sic] Films" listing because it implies that most shots in those films exemplify deep focus. Many of those films do have striking deep-focus shots, but they aren't dominated by deep focus. (Also, the list needed to be properly formatted to fit Wikipedia style.) --Jeremy Butler 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Principle Films" 

message: I take issue with the two Star Trek screenshots as examples of how different formats lend themselves to deep focus differently. For this to be a proper comparison, the f-stops, amount of lighting on the sets, and the focal lengths of both lenses should all be given. If one were to go just by the captions, you'd think that depth of field was inherently related to the area of the film stock itself, and not the focal length of the lens. When I read this example, I was very confused. It should be a clearer that the inverse relationship between the size of film format and depth of field exists only because smaller formats use shorter lenses, or am I missing something here? Also, the explanation given on the depth of field page is not very clear either, but then again that article deals with very technical aspects of DOF.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.234.154 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek Example 

message: SchuminWeb -- the salt shaker image doesn't seem to be the right one for "shallow focus" -- both shakers are fairly well focused.  Perhaps something like this might be a better example (demonstrating f/5 versus f/32):
-- Autopilot (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Images 

message: In many pages on Wikipedia there is discussion about what is an appropriate number of examples; and additions are often refused because it is considered that there would be too many examples. Having said that, Kubrick/Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" is probably well worth including, because not only does the "Through the Star Gate" component of the film use this effect very heavily, some might even say "to extremes",  Kubrick even went to the trouble of having a special slit-focus camera built for the occasion to allow the massive depth of field to occur. This is well documented in the book "The Making of 2001", where there are even pictures of the special camera.
101.174.209.37 (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent example omitted. 

message: It seems that the article is strongly, almost exclusively, focussed on "Deep focus" as a cinematic term and technique. Nothing wrong with that, but "photographic" should therefore logically be removed from the intro. I've already done some simple tidy-ups, but this seems a bigger step, so I'll leave it to others. Snori (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographic?

message: I added The Rules of the Game to this list.  I was very surprised that it wasn't on the list, since it is often the film that film historians talk about when they talk about deep focus. I would think that there should be some criteria for including a film on the list, and I would propose that if a film's wikipedia article mentions deep focus being significant, that would be sufficient.  If there is no mention, some external reliable source should mention the significance of deep focus for inclusion.  -- SamuelWantman 09:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example list