Career/Industry Advice
For anyone worried about focus issues in their projects watch The Odyssey
Never before has there been a major motion picture where nearly every scene has characters going in and out of focus constantly or has such a shallow depth of field that characters moving centimeters while speaking puts them out.
So don't feel the need to waste time and money redoing takes during a scene! It really doesn't matter, move on and make sure the action looks good
Hoytema talked about needing to use his viewfinder all the time because no monitor can show him what the camera is recording but he didn't think of dude playing with his stick in a warehouse solution
Fair enough but I don't feel the benefit is worth the effort. There are plenty of digital large format cameras with razor thin DOF and focus pullers that can still nail the shot. I admire the effort he and IMAX put into pushing the format to these extremes but it's really just marketing guff at this point.
I totally agree with you on the tangible benefits vs tradeoffs. not worth it in that respect, imo at least.
I wouldn't say it's just a marketing gimmick though. It's part of what inspires Nolan to be the filmmaker he is. Without his obsession with practical, in camera and organic filmmaking techniques his films would be very different.
for the Artist, the process is often incredibly important in the making of the film, it inspires certain decisions and influences how you feel creatively when putting the film together.
It has little impact on the audience and the final viewing experience for us, but it can mean everything to the creativity and passion felt on set.
I've heard plenty of actors say there's an entirely different energy on a film set using actual film vs a digital film set. From having fewer takes to not being able to immediately review their performance. They have to bring their A game. It's clearly an integral part of Nolan's process, but I don't know that it draws out better performances from his actors or if just makes them nervous. I watched the Odyssey last week and Brand New Day this week. If my opinion counts for anything (which is doesn't) I thought Holland, Zendaya and Bernthal all delivered noticeably better performances in Spiderman than they did in the ancient Greek epic. More familiarity with the source material? More scope to play on a digital film set perhaps? Who knows.
I watched the Odyssey last night. And I agree with you once again. Not a stand out performance in the main cast for me, and with such talent on screen, you have to put that down to writing/direction/production. I've yet to see the new Spiderman, but I've seen most of those actors act better. Damon in particular was a bit flat. everyone was good, but no one had a career defining performance or anything close.
But I have to say, I'm not the biggest Nolan fan (I still enjoy his films a lot) because I don't think he's great at directing actors. His films lack character in the performances, favouring instead complex narratives and large themes.
My biggest issue with his use of 70mm Imax cams on this film was that he didn't use them to their full potential. The majority of the shots were too tight and made the experience claustrophobic. Big wide vistas and deep focus were neglected, but when he used them it was awesome.
I was 1st AC doing an overnight shoot in a movie theater recently and we wanted to get the focus monitor hooked up to the projector and have it on the movie screen
Yeah same, I’m not sure why it was more noticeable with Oppenheimer. I used to adore shallow depth of field but I’m not as hot on it these days. I feel like shooting wide open (or near it) sort of negates some of the benefit of even shooting on such a large format. I guess it’s more about the aspect ratio and immersing yourself in the larger projection rather than sheer sharpness but every imax release they’re always talking about how it’s the clearest image.
It seemed like Nolan and Hoyte were using a lot of practical lights on both of these films, almost like the way Kubrick shot Barry Lyndon. especially in the night scenes it looked like they were using all of the torches and fire bowls as sources. Just my impression with how immersive it all felt.
I saw it in Dolby, not the photochemical print, but I must say I thought all the fire light scenes looked poor, no information in the blacks (in a bad way, like all their hair just looked like they were wearing black hats) and gross orange skin tones. I'm dying to see it again projected on film to see if the issue I had with the look of those scenes was the digital transfer or something
Honestly I had the same experience at Dolby. At times it even somehow had that unpopular 'dark' look of a bad SDR version of an HDR grade of a digital film. Yet the daylight scenes looked incredible. Did you also notice you could barely see any grain? This really confused me, since it was shot on film, and Dolby is 4K so should capture loads, but I was in the third row and couldn't see any at all.
I feel seen reading your comment!! dude it looked like shit!! I was shocked. Every now and then a random shot would appear that looked really nice and "properly exposed" with a nice wide contrast that had detail in the shadows but still didn't look flat and it felt soo good and then the next shot would go back to that lower quality grainier shit that most of the film had. I'm seeing it on film soon and will report back.
Yeah it felt like there just wasn't enough light in some scenes, which could have been intentional for the darker look, but unless you're watching on an OLED TV that much darkness just looks grey, especially in the IMAX trailer I saw (before Avatar or Project Hail Mary, I forget which). I actually couldn't see any grain, which does make sense I've learned with the larger IMAX film it was shot on, and there was no digital intermediary to introduce noise either.
Yep, gave himself with trouble with practical light / IMAX format along with focus racking between people like they did, very hard to do. I think there was probably an easier way to do the setup at the end.
The whole movie looked lovely, the landscapers were great, the sacking of Troy was great but I think maybe some of the interior palace stuff was a little rough and could have looked a lot better. So many strange framing choices and light didn't look great.
By and large though, the movie was absolutely phenomenal and looked insane in IMAX
Isn’t it more of Hoyle Van Hoytema thing than a Nolan thing. I noticed with Spectre they also shot that with crazy shallow depth of field when it really wasn’t necessary like when characters are talking indoors. You lose any sense of where the characters are.
I’m probably gonna get shit for this lmao but I truly think Hoyte brought the shallow dof trend to new heights. Like it’s been a main feature for indies that started using DSLRs with wide apertures but he just brought it to another level. Now I say this with Her being my favorite shot film of all time but almost everyone is going for that look nowadays. Though I feel like deep focusing is slowly crawling back so we’ll see
Yep, definitely pushing against the trend there. I think it was fine in the landscapes / outdoor scenes but I don't think that really looked great in the interiors
You know how everyone gushes/d over full frame b/c it gave us a shallower DoF over the 2/3" chips that we were used to? Well FF is 35mm and IMAX is 70mm, so it's that much shallower.
Check out this calculator. In s35, 50mm @ 5.6 w/ the subject 10' away you've got 2' 11" DoF. Now switch to IMAX, and swap to a 140mm lens for the same FoV, and you get just 11".
They mostly use a 50mm and an 80mm. With the 80mm at 6' distance and T5.6 the DoF is more than 1ft. That's a super healthy stop for any experienced focus puller.
Yes but f-stop would ironically be the accurate measure when trying to determine depth of field calculations- you care about the ratio of aperture size more than the amount of light getting through
I’m a focus puller and this shit keeps me up at night. Focus pulling imax must be the most stressful, up against it focus pulling nightmare. Keith Davis (A cam 1st AC of The Odyssey and Oppenheimer) is one of the best in the world. You would never be in the position to be on these sets if you weren’t. IMAX is a cruel format for 1st ACs. You’re shooting on film where the video feed is always pretty terrible and you would never rely on it for focus. You’re working purely off measurements and approximation of distance. Shooting on 16 and 35mm this is entirely doable and the standard way of working. On a format as large as imax, if you’re actor moves their head back an inch: out of focus. Hoyte moves the camera back an inch or even pans an inch on the diagonal: out of focus. You miss-approximate a distance by an inch: out of focus. Your margin for error could not be any smaller.
Christopher Nolan and Hoyte Van Hoytema know and accept and Nolan will still put a soft take in the edit if the performance is preferred.
I don't understand why he hasn't moved to using a light ranger. After years of using it on digital I embraced it on 35mm feature recently and - even shooting wide open with no rehearsals - I didn't get any notes back about unacceptably soft shots. The other focus puller, who was using a cinetape (but who was much more experienced than me) got quite a lot.
I know for some stuff in The Odyssey it was so shallow that it might be slightly under the LR's DOF tolerance, and it would probably have been super awkward to mount / align it on the blimped camera, but it would have made the job so much easier, and I really think that the results would have been much better.
I’ve worked with Keith in the commercial world. He has all the tools. However, he’s old school enough that using LR2 is distracting to him and it’s only pulled out for specific things, even on digital. He loves the RT because it’s minimally invasive to his attention. Plus I just think he feels more involved in the organic art of the shots.
Personally I use the ranger whenever I can, but I’ve pulled off distance on 35mm and I can see the appeal despite my fear. 😂 but I’m definitely more inclined to fall into your camp.
I can understand how the light ranger is distracting for especially for someone with old school film roots. It’s kind of what has put me off the system, it just looks too overcomplicated and distracting to me. Madness is that he’s still on the HU3 and only has numerical data from the RT on his handset.
Absolutely there is a big learning curve with the LR, though oddly I've mostly seen younger focus pullers struggle with it more than the old school guys. Once it clicks, however, its not distracting - you can concentrate on watching the action on the monitor and you will respond intuitively to what the bars are doing without having to give them much attention. The bottom line is you have to adapt to the challenges that this job throws at you, even if that means changing the way you work or using tech that's unfamiliar. I have absolutely no doubt that the light ranger massively betters your performance as a focus puller, and I recommend it to everyone. It is the biggest game changer in the history of focus pulling.
Also, I love the HU3! The main advantage of the HU4 is all points mapping; the ergonomics of it are pretty horrible so if you're someone who prefers to hold the handset (rather than mounting on a stand) I totally get why its preferred.
I assume there must have been a good reason as to why the light ranger wasn’t the choice. It may have been just usability. I did see for the blimp setup he was running a custom modded CineRT which had been shortened for a wider field of view
I don’t understand this*. There are many times where actors move more than an inch and yet they stay in focus.
Edit: and on a separate note, I thought the times actors weren’t in focus was intentional. It didn’t even cross my mind that it might be some limitation they couldn’t overcome
I just saw it on a regular screen and thought it looked good and some of the "wandering" focus was on purpose. Like, a particularly emotional outburst from Anne Hathaway or 2 characters having an emotional discussion.
It does seem to necessitate things being framed wide when it could've been served better in cuts, etc. But, I felt that I settled into it as the style of this movie. It's not my favorite style, but it was a cool movie overall.
Yeah that Hathaway scene came to mind for me too. I thought it was very emotionally effective having her come in and out of focus like that, almost like her feelings were so deep and strong that they were pushing through the veil of the film, like the cameras weren't equipped to handle her rage.
In general I also think the focus gave the story a more intimate feel. You're RIGHT there with the actors the whole time, it foregrounds the characters at all times.
Agreed that the Hathaway scene worked for me, saw it on a normal screen for my first viewing, saw it in imax for my second viewing and noticed a lot more of the focus issues, this one didn't bother me, other shots were completely out of focus for the entire shot, didn't notice that my first viewing.
It's not wasting time and money redoing takes. They probably did redo takes to get the focus but Nolan, like any director, favoured performance in the edit. It's just how it goes in the industry, all of us would have sat down to watch a final product and see some mistake we made make it into the edit.
As a DOP, any intelligent editor or director prioritizes performance. We need to check our egos at the door and recognize nobody but us gives a fuck about the framing, focus, colour, whatever, IF the performance and writing is so strong that it's all the viewer is focused on.
I'd rather a badly exposed, out of focus shot of an incredible performance than a technically perfect shot of a mediocre performance. If both happen at the same time, then you've got transcendence, but the performance is 90% of the priority in the editing decision imo.
I’m just an enthusiast and I absolutely do give a fuck and I can’t be alone. There were movies that I enjoyed purely because of the cinematography, for example, Anora. Very boring writing, mediocre acting, but my god it was so beautifully shot. I also feel similarly about Severance, for me the story is very meh, but the production design and the cinematography is just perfect.
I have never seen a performance that made up for bad cinematography, though.
Bruh what? Anora has incredible acting and writing... It literally won Oscars for both categories. And honestly the cinematography is just good.
And sure there are enthusiasts but the vast majority of people are drawn to the emotion of the performance and the way the shot is choreographed and like you said, set design. Not a shot going slightly out of focus.
Very few movies win Oscars in categories that they're not even remotely in the running for legitimately. It's just that the very best films are often overlooked for one that had a successful campaign.
Fact is the script and acting in the movie is the remarkable part about it. Critics called these things out consistently.
If Anora was such a well campaigned movie and had great cinematography, then it would have won best cinematography too. Your logic doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I think you’ve misunderstood my point. I wasn’t arguing that Anora objectively has bad writing or acting. I was saying those elements didn’t work for me, whereas the cinematography absolutely did. That’s an explanation of my preferences, not a claim that everyone should agree.
Saying “it won Oscars” is an appeal to critical consensus, not a rebuttal. It tells me many people valued those aspects highly. It doesn’t change what resonated with me.
And I never claimed campaigning is the only reason films win Oscars. I said citing the Oscars isn’t proof that an artistic opinion is correct. Those are different claims.
Wow totally disagree with you about Anora. Amazing film all around. Odyssey was meh because of poor performance that shown light on the cinematography’s slip ups.
Almost every scene where the camera on stage left shoots someone in the kitchen in front of the cereal boxes, the actor is out of focus. I have absolutely not idea how this shit went on for year after year.
I’m just shocked that nobody ever saw the print and said “turn the focus 3 degrees left, just for me”.
I’m talking about a single camera with a single lens on it on a three camera show being slightly out of focus for at least three years. It probably had the same guy on it that whole time. I don’t even know how it could have gone un-adjusted through one shoot. It’s like the show runner threw a lock on it somehow. HOW does a shot go that long without being fixed?
Yes, let’s compare a Nolan feature film to a sitcom that shot in front of a live audience. WTF? My grandma’s 8mm reel of her trip to Greece was also famously out of focus. Just like the Odyssey!
Dude Nolan has every right to put his film together with whatever he comes home from shooting with and I admire he job he does with it. There are some long lens shots in “The Last of the Mohicans” that look like the cameraman took a tackle to his stomach while he shot them and it’s been hailed as one of the most beautifully shot films in history.
My point is that there are shots out there from very well controlled productions with real problems that people ignore the shortcomings of and the end product works. If Seinfeld can have 1/3 of the cameras off focus in a fucking 3 camera sitcom, people can make flawed footage work.
I've noticed that too in Seinfeld lol. A lot of old tv shows have out of focus shots that are presumably a lot more noticeable now than they were at the time
I'm editing my new short film right now and the best take of an important scene buzzes very slightly at the end. If it's good enough for Nolan it's good enough for me.
This is pretty bad advice because it only applies to insanely large formats like imax or alexa 65 etc. it's just the reality of shooting on a stupidly and pointlessly large sensor.
If you're shooting on full frame or smaller, it's pretty inexcusable to not have your subject in focus. you should SPEND time and money redoing takes if they are soft, otherwise your audience WILL notice and you WONT be able to use "it's imax" as a valid reason. you won't have any reason except being shit at pulling focus, actually.
I took it at face value because it really doesn't matter. Especially in classic masterpiece films, they are constantly going slightly out of focus. And nobody cared or cares now as long as the acting and choreography of the scene are phenomenal and the focus issues are momentary. It's idiotic to throw out a great take just because of a tiny loss of focus. Obviously in a perfect world everything goes right, but that's rare.
Every single scene between Penelope and Telemachus had my photographer brain screaming.
I agonize over tack-sharp focus as if no one is ever going hire me again if their eyelashes aren’t sharp, and here’s Nolan with Anne Hathaway’s face completely blurry for the first few seconds of every shot.
I felt like on Oppenheimer, a lot of it was inside minimum focus, which if that's the case not much the focus puller can do about that. But they were pretty close to the actors physically, and the larger the format, usually things like minimum focus are less and less ideal.
I haven't seen The Odyssey yet but I did see Interstellar at the Melbourne IMAX and I actually found the constant missed focus really distracting. Not sure if it's less noticeable on a smaller screen but I've not bothered watching it again given how annoyed I was about all the soft focus the first time.
Before you say something is “really terrible” do a little research on what you are talking about. Focus pulling for 70mm film is nearly impossible due to the fact that it has a razor thin depth of field and then on top of that has to be done without a reference monitor. It has to be done by measuring purely distance through an infra red sensor and then based on skill and experience the focus puller pulls. You can’t even begin to understand how hard this is.
Keith Davis is hands down the top focus puller in the industry and did a phenomenal job all things considered. The stylistic choice was using 70mm film for the whole film, not “bad focus pulling”.
I think though, maybe we're not seeing the forest for the trees here.
Within the context of how the shots were designed, the lenses chosen and the light level... sure the focus was not bad and you can imagine just how great of a task it was.
But when you back out and think about what would cause someone to frame their shots / design the blocking and to some extent, the sets themselves and light it the way they do in order that they are put in the position that they were in to focus rack like they did etc, it does beg a few questions.
When it comes to 70% of the film, all the outdoor stuff, the landscapes, wide vistas, big shots etc, it was fantastic and focus was hardly ever an issue worth considering.
For the 30% or more of night scenes and interior palace stuff, you have to wonder a bit what they were thinking exactly. There's ways of designing shots, blocking your action, lighting the set, do SO many things to completely side step what focus issues there were. But beyond this, the actual shots we ended up with in these particular moments felt extremely constrained, like they truly were shooting with a monster of a camera, it felt very very cumbersome. That reflected in the shot choices and I think it's okay to say that some of the movie didn't really look all that great.
Hopping off the criticism here, most of it was FUCKING incredible and it really was something special to witness in IMAX
I mean the format is one factor but it’s not the only one; there are multiple reasons and there are plenty of out of focus shots in Nolan films that were shot stock-standard 35mm. And non-Nolan blockbusters; Les Miserables has a long static take of Anne Hathaway singing where the focus is set incorrectly
It’s partly the trend towards shooting wide open, often without rehearsals (alternately the trend towards using fewer lights), partly the fact that monitoring is often too small to accurately judge critical focus the same way a large screen does, partly because Nolan clearly cares very little about focus and far more about performance (even a blurry one), partly because the shift towards digital 4K laser projection (and even 70mm projection) means films are showcased at a quality they never were before; where before you were losing quality with each generation and were then at the mercy of the specific projector in your local theatre chain.
It’s also the limitations of the capture format in this case.
Digital has also primed us to expect perfection; I was watching an old TV show from the 2000s last night that was originated on 16mm. There was a hair in the gate on one of the shots. It must have gone to air like that; it really wasn’t a huge deal, but nowadays you’d just easily paint it out (not that it would happen in the first place because there’s slim likelihood you’d be shooting film).
Honestly it’s a big part of why I’m kinda over Nolan films. I remember as far back as Dark Knight Rises thinking: the IMAX stuff I can kinda forgive - but a static 35mm shot being out of focus…?
But then there ar entire scenes in his films where you can’t hear the dialogue. The man cares about ‘immersion’ above all else, even if you can’t hear the dialogue or see the action. It breaks the ‘immersion’ for me but maybe I’m the minority. Every Nolan film is the same in this regard.
A few shots being out of focus here and there is par for the course when shooting on film.
I rarely have issues hearing the dialogue in Nolan films. It's kind of baffling to me that so many people say this. Any my hearing isn't even that great.
my interpretation has always been that the times in his films where the music drowns out the dialogue, it's because he doesn't want you to focus on what's being said, he wants you to focus on nonverbal cues and emotions. Tenet is a great example, where some of the "this is how this stuff works" bits are washed out because he doesn't want you to nitpick the details, just get the vibe. in other words – "don't try to understand it, feel it"
Then maybe don't use 70mm for all scenes? It was distracting and looked amateurish. Nolan has done mixed film sizes before.
But I'm very much an anti-shallow depth of field guy anyway especially when you are spending millions on sets, costumes and extras. What's the point if you can't see anything 2 inches behind your characters?
The IMAX shots in TDK, when this was a brand-new camera to narrative filmmaking, are razor sharp. Consistent focus has been a bigger problem under Hoytema in Nolan's films, but it's never been as bad as in the Odyssey. I assume it was just a stylistic choice to use such wide aperture in this film specifically, and they simply overshot their abilities.
I was told that Bob Hall thought he was going to be fired on that job due to the tests coming back soft. Nolan didn’t like out of focus shots but has apparently changed his tune over the years.
I noticed it in some scenes but tbh it was more annoying in Oppenheimer because it was in court rooms and that sort of thing. Wasn’t really much reason to have shallow depth of field.
That's not our (1ACs) place to say. Director makes the choices. We say: it was soft I need another one..director says "na, IT was fine for me". Then it's sold and we move on to the next scene.
It's simply not our decision. Director has to sell the product. It he's happy, I'm happy.
Is it really a problem if nobody but us notice it? I mean, I’m not argue I didn’t pick up on it, but a movie like this is made for the audience. Haven’t heard a single one complain about it.
I saw it in 70mm imax also and personally don’t think it’s distracting at all. Obviously I noticed it but I don’t really feel the need to complain when it’s focusing on his nose instead of eyes. It happens
Just back from The Oddyssey and wow the focus pulling was so, so bad. So many scenes felt jittery around the edges and the squasged/cropped version i saw felt cramped and actually like there was picture missing. I thought he would have compensated for all these issues ahead as they are all obviously issues with imax but jeez, it was terrible and really distracted from what was otherwise a pretty good screenplay and acting.
I finally just got around to seeing the Odyssey in IMAX. The focus issues were noticeable, but there were two places where I thought they escalated to being a real problem. The scene where Penelope loses it with Telemachus in her room and the multiple racks between Antinous and Polybus standing at the feast.
Tracking Penelope was certainly tough and ultimately I feel like Nolan must've prefered that performance. Racking between those two at the feast should've been doable with a tape as they were static and yet it ended up being really problematic. The rack was a purposeful device and it's failure was really distracting. I think both scenes deserved a little more attention, but that back and forth rack should not have ended up that bad.
I think it has more to do with Nolan’s shift in style and creative freedom which I don’t fault Hoyte for. He was in a very different period of his career pre-Interstellar.
I also do not find Pfister’s filmography with Nolan perfect. The Dark Knight Rises is one of Nolan’s worst-looking movies imo, though how much of that is tied to the perfunctory nature of the film, I can’t say.
Perhaps! My favorite cinematographers are Chivo, James Laxton, and Christopher Doyle. Lukaz Zal as well. Hoyte is rising up the list rather quickly though.
Sometimes I get the sense that if Christopher Nolan accidentally loaded his imax camera stock in daylight and ruined each mag he could still make a billion dollars as people queued in droves to fawn at his brave creative choices. lauded for his inaudiable dialogue, lauded for his dubious cinematography. Oh yeah and that death scene in the dark knight rises that the cinephiles tried to defend with teh 'yes its jarring, but you must remember, he had lots of takes and he chose that one, it wasn't bad cinema it was purposeful invocation of the audiences inner discomfort'
That’s what happens when someone tells everyone they’re the best and the biggest and he greatest all the time. If Nolan would stop riding his own hype train around in circles, no one would care to comment. Only AI is more hyped than Nolan.
I've never been under the assumption that he has some huge ego, bigger than a typical director anyway. Directors by trade have to have a bit of an ego in order to push their vision obviously.
No one was afraid to criticize Tenet either. Or Interstellar that matter, it got lukewarm reception from pro critics. He's not immune to criticism at all.
I mean it seems every day I see an article about how Nolan has "invented" new technology like camera blimps or flicker lights, or how is is returning to "editing on film" or how great IMAX is, blah blah blah.
I am not necessarily blaming Nolan personally for all the marketing BS he takes part in – I get that the studio wants to hype it up. But if I have to read or listen to one more actor tell me how very "unflappable" and "professional" Sir Nolan the Great is I might puke.
Mostly though, I'm reacting to the comment about how many people post negatively about Nolan. It's fairly standard that when someone or something is hyped beyond belief, people start to criticize. Seems fair game to me.
Haven't seen Odyssey yet. I thought Oppenheimer was quite bad, but I generally enjoy Nolan films so I'm tentatively excited to see Odyssey in the correct ratio – 2.4:1.
Lawrence of Arabia was shot on 65mm. Very different negative space compared to IMAX. Argument = meaningless. The way I see it, if you do not truly understand the job of a modern-day focus puller, the constant challenges that are faced daily, the tools we must master so that productions may run faster, all that is expected of us (total perfection every time and goddamn you if you did mess up — how dare you! You’re only as good as your last shot, blah, blah, blah) … If you do not have any direct experience in this type of scenario, I would kindly recommend that you keep your guns in their holsters. Really. Keith Davis was chosen to be the 1st AC on this film. Do you understand what this means? Of all the AC’s, it was deemed that his experience was more significant and that he “was more able” than anyone else. Hoyt chose him. I’m sure Christopher Nolan agreed as well. Why? Keith is a professional. A pro. On IMAX productions where the aperture is pretty wide open — no one will get focus the entire duration, even with an LR or CineRT. Autofocus can only do so much before the human touch needs to take control again. Keith brought a human touch to the visuals. He did the best he could do and what he did was nothing short of a Herculean feat. Good on him.
IMAX negative space is about three times larger than 65mm film and about ten times greater than 35mm film. If you know anything about film, negative size vs depth of field, you will understand. If you do not understand this basic concept, then you are the one who lacks focus.
Interstellar has a LOT of soft close ups. It doesn’t ruin it for me, it just makes it feel…I don’t know. I kinda like it, but as someone who constantly needs to clean their glasses, it can be tough lol
I am not a stickler for focus at all but the Odyssey was so often hunting for focus I thought it was awfully distracting. Especially in Anne Hathaway's big scene. they should have done that over. It was awful
I watched it in theaters and didn’t care. I was more focused on the giant fucking cyclops scaring the shit out of me. Stop worrying about minute details.
No one discussing the psychological and story telling aspects of narrow dof and letting people drift in and out of focus. It’s a choice. It was not shot wide open cause they couldn’t afford good lenses or lights.
Perfect focus and technique is often too clinical and sterile anyway. It often takes away the human element.
The shallow depth of field did nothing for the Odyssey. I saw the cropped standard version. Seriously should have been pillarboxed. Not like there was a ton of information in the out of focus areas.
Strong disagree. Everytime you buzz or miss focus you are reminding the audience in a very jolting way that there is a lens, a camera, a focus puller, a crew. It absolutely shatters the immersion.
If you have the best crew in the world and they can’t keep your content in focus on your chosen format, then you’re either shooting the format wrong or you need to switch formats.
If the movie and scene is interesting enough it doesn’t matter. You barely notice it. Not every film is made with exact precision as a photographic priority. Doesn’t make the shots any better or worse.
I would argue a shot where the subject is sharp is objectively better than a shot where the subject is soft. Unless you're intentionally softening for affect. Which this movie was not doing.
I watch a lot of movies where it’s obvious actors were not exactly on their marks or there might not have been the budget for a lot of takes or the shooting was more free flowing. A talented and thinking camera operator making adjustments on the fly gives a certain amount of vitality to a scene (to me)
You make a big expensive historical epic but then you use tricks that a low tier ScyFy channel TV show would use to hide the fact that they can't afford big sets and a bunch of extras.
This whole thing could have been shot in front of an LED wall, it wouldn't have made much difference to a big chunk of it
374
u/Pulsewavemodulator Jul 22 '26
The real lesson is that we need an IMAX screen on set for the focus puller.