What's with all the accessive rack focusing in modern movies lately?

H

harmonica44

It's becoming more and more common, to the point where I think it's way overdone. In the new Spider-man movie, they do it as the camera follows Peter Parker's dad as he walks into the room. This movie costs millions yet they couldn't get enough light to light the room, so they wouldn't have to pull focus, every couple of feet as someone walked?

In the remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, they rack focused as the most awkward times, that served no emotional purpose it seems. They focus on part of the apartment, then as the woman comes in, they move to her, even though again, she was only a couple of feet away. They also started out a scene, but having a cup on the table in focus, then racking to the main character. Who cares about a cup, was it important? Why not just start out with her already in focus, and open the scene that way?

In The Dark Knight Rises, they also use it a lot more than The Dark Knight. The was a shot with three characters in, maybe more. They racked from one's face, to the next, and to the next. Why not just put them all in focus. Did Nolan see other movies since TDK, and think times have changed, and I need to do what other movies are doing right now?

They even used a rack focus in Family Guy in the episode where Brian and Stewie are locked in a bank vault. This is a cartoon, which is sharp focus all the time therefore, and they decide to use this in a context to create an emotional moment. A deep meaningful rack focus in Family Guy??? A show that is completely shallow and all for immature laughs in the first place. When I saw the rack focus, I just laughed at it.

It seems to me that racking is just spoon feeding the viewer where to look, when you can put all the characters into focus, and enough of the room into focus, so you want have to rack or pull focus every couple of feet. Why not? Sometimes it's done to great effect like in Rambo II, when they focus on the tip of Rambo's arrow head, then rack focus to his eyes, as he aims the arrow. But now it's being used all over the place just because they can it seems.
Why spoon feed the viewer, instead of making the picture, so that they can look at the whole thing as a whole? A lot of older movies understood this, but it's become a lost art.

My friend, who is also learning to make movies says, modern audiences, vision would go crazy since they are not use to that, but I disagree. People still love movies like Citizen Kane and no one complains that it's too sharp looking for them. I guess though you could use the same argument for editing, and say why cut to something specific, when you can see it in a master shot. But I think that a cut still looks better than a re-focusing personally.
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
It seems to me that racking is just spoon feeding the viewer where to look
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point of it. Keep in mind that older movies didn't have fast lenses, or fast stock - so by design they had to keep everything in focus. When you're pumping 10k lights onto a set just to get an exposure on say 12 speed stock at say T5.6, you start to stop down even more if you want anything dramatic/creative.

With the advent of fast lenses, you can direct the viewer where to look, for a much more dynamic experience. You can compress the space, for example.
Now, with the advent of DSLR, you do find it being overdone, because people open up to 1.4 on their 5D because they think they don't have to light anything. Larger sensors also have less/shallower DOF, and Spiderman was shot on Epic - TDKR was shot a lot on 65mm (which is almost double the 'sensor' size of 35mm)

Also, DPs tend to light to a stop, rather than just 'put up the lights and see what the meter says'. DPs often come in and say I want to light this to 2.8. Then they'll often say I want x 1 stop over; y 3 stops under, and z 2 stops over.
Or, they'll find themselves with a Red or Alexa, in an outdoor scene with no lights, or no available power for lights and therefore have to open right up.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that on location shoots you quite often logistically aren't able to put a whole lot of high-powered lights - it's easy to throw up a whole bunch of 5ks in a studio, but in someone's cramped house/apartment, you may struggle just to get the power for a 1.2k HMI, let alone the head room and general space for action, camera and multiple high powered lights.

I've also been pulling focus lately on a Red Epic shoot (shooting at 5k) on Zeiss Standard Speeds which only open up to 2.1. The DP likes to stay wide, and we've tended to stick on 16mm, 24mm, and 35mm - partly due to the DPs preference, and partly due to the fact that we're filming in a small, cramped townhouse. Most of the time, we stick around T2.8. I'm pulling focus subtly for nearly every shot, even on a 16mm or 28mm. A lot of it is handheld, and even the stuff that isn't generally needs a subtle pull just for actor movement, especially when walking down a long hallway. DOF on a Red Epic @ 5k on a 24mm @ T2.8 at a distance of 7' is <3', so unless you have a completely static shot, where both the actor and camera are static, you're probably going to be pulling focus at some point.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I just feel it's being overdone, to the point where it doesn't have as dynamic of effect. And you use DSLRs for example, but these examples I gave are big budget movies that can afford more it seems. They say that the focus puller has the toughest job on set, so why make it harder than it is?

Funny thing is though, I told a DP I was considering hiring, that I wanted no rack focusing done at all in the movie, and all the characters in a scene, in focus at the same time. My reason was that you see all the emotion in them, same time, whenever in the shot. He acted like this was completely amateur, and I do not think wants the job now after his reaction. Perhaps a lot of DPs would react this way (shrug).

I guess I don't feel I need to be re-directed where to look, and can figure it out for myself, especially since I feel in the examples I gave it's done in a trivial way. Such as focusing from a cup to a person, or from person to person, when they are almost lined up. I like when the camera moves from person to person, or when it cuts from person to person, but to rack just looks more unnatural, or spoon fed to me.
 
Last edited:
The other point I'd make is that you need a lot of lights to light a scene.

Let's take a moonlight scene for example. I recently shot a short on an Alexa with a 1.2k HMI PAR as a moonlight, a couple 650w tungsten fresnel lights for different effects, and some tungsten Kino Flo Divas for different effects. I bounce filled the actor's face with a poly board.

I shot open to 2.0. The whole thing was a tad underexposed, but because we were on an Alexa rated at 800, we were able to get away with it really easily.

If I wanted to light to say f/8.0 (keeping in mind each stop is a doubling/halving of light), I'd have needed sixteen 1.2k HMIs, or a 20k HMI. Now, because it was a low budget production and I'm good friends with the guys at the rental house, we were able to rent that HMI for $300 for the week. Any high budget production would've been charged normal rates at $600-700 for the week for the one light. A 12k HMI PAR would cost ~$3000/week, and you'd probably want two of them to light to f/8.0 or higher. That brings it to ~$6000 for the week. Then, you need to power the thing. A 1.2k can go into a normal household socket. A 12k most certainly cannot. A 6.5k generator would cost ~$700 for the week, and that would power half of one of the lights. Oh, you need to run sound? Well, in that case we'll need to run distro from the generator, which will cost more.
It might be easier just to get a Gaffer with his van for $10,000 for the week.

Even on high budget productions you're arguing with Producers about cost. What's the point of spending $5k/week on Master Primes that open up to, and are tack sharp at, T1.3 if you're going to light everything to T8.0, at a much higher cost than lighting everything to T2.0 (for example).

Not to mention the complete impracticality of it. The heat would be ridiculous, the power draw would be ridiculous, and you'd be spending 7-10x what you really need to simply for the sake of making your Focus Puller's job easier. A job you're paying him a large sum of money to do. Honestly, if my Focus Puller couldn't pull off the shot (no pun intended), I'd get someone else who could. Even if I had to pay them a little more, it's going to save me in the long run, because I won't have to light everything to 8.0 (and honestly, if your Focus Puller can only pull focus at 8.0, he's a pretty average Focus Puller).

Now, some DPs will come in and want to light the scene to T8.0. But even then, on a Red Epic @ 5k on an 85mm set to T8.0 at a distance of 7', your DOF is 6". Which means if an actor moves more than 6", you're pulling focus.

Even if you lit that scene to f/22 (eight 20k lights..?), your DOF is still <2' on an 85mm (Red Epic @5k, 7'). Whack on a 200mm lens, and your DOF is 3".

There's a lot more to it than just 'put more lights in'.

Plus it often looks nicer, and does help subtly draw a viewer's attention. Why have the random extra in the back in complete focus if they have nothing to do with the scene..?
 
Last edited:
Firstly, +2 Jax for the phenomenal posts.

harmonica44 said:
Yeah I just feel it's being overdone, to the point where it doesn't have as dynamic of effect. And you use DSLRs for example, but these examples I gave are big budget movies that can afford more it seems. They say that the focus puller has the toughest job on set, so why make it harder than it is?

Funny thing is though, I told a DP I was considering hiring, that I wanted no rack focusing done at all in the movie, and all the characters in a scene, in focus at the same time. My reason was that you see all the emotion in them, same time, whenever in the shot. He acted like this was completely amateur, and I do not think wants the job now after his reaction. Perhaps a lot of DPs would react this way (shrug).

I guess I don't feel I need to be re-directed where to look, and can figure it out for myself, especially since I feel in the examples I gave it's done in a trivial way. Such as focusing from a cup to a person, or from person to person, when they are almost lined up. I like when the camera moves from person to person, or when it cuts from person to person, but to rack just looks more unnatural, or spoon fed to me.
Click to expand...

The thing is, everything being completely in focus with a gigantic depth of field is often considered a hallmark of video. Even as recently as a few years back, before the huge HD and Big Chip pushes, video tended to use really small photo-sensors and really clunky compressions to get the already mediocre footage to fit onto tape. This completely eliminated any real possibility for bokeh in video work, and so a pretty shallow depth of field started to become more and more popular as a result to distinguish film from looking "cheap". As big chip cameras became available, however, (and almost instantly dominated the market) the indie field began to take the idea of shallow depth-of-field and run (pardon the pun) off the deep end with it. Now, with how shallow of a depth of field many indie productions are shot in, it looks very distracting, and amateurish in the exact opposite extreme from what video used to.

Focus should be used, ideally, to help provide a subconscious shift to what the audience is paying attention to. This requires subtlety. In this way, as Jax mentioned, the DP was sorta right about being somewhat put off about what you were trying to achieve. You were essentially looking to significantly complicate his workload for the purpose of making the shots look cheap.

Next time, try approaching with a "I'd like to shoot this with a deep depth of field" or "I don't want to get very shallow" instead of "I want everything to be in focus, and I don't want any focus pulling". It'll go in the style that you're looking for much more, but still sound appealing enough to a DP that they very likely won't flee.
 
Watch a John Cassavetes film sometime. In A Woman Under the Influence (1974) there is a conversation scene around a dinner table, he is racking focus all over the room as each person speaks he'll focus on them. At the time this was a very "out there" technique.
 
I don't really see how deep focus is considered home video-ish because the style the was invented way before home video, and is a part of classic cinema.

I didn't mean to complicate the DP's workload, just wanted to go for a certain classic look for my wide master shots, where you see everyone. Plus I told him I have good lights of my own, if he needs extras. I realize that movies need a lot of light to do it, but you think that a movie like The Dark Knight Rises could afford more lights if they wanted to, since lights are not that expensive, compared to a multi-million dollar budget. But I guess for some reason it's now considered to look home-video-ish. I actually don't mind if the background is not in focus, it's not like I want to do Citizen Kane. I actually like out of focus background cause, it helps to eliminate unwanted product placement and people on the streets, who are not suppose to be in the movie. What looks cheap to me, is the rack focus shift. It just looks unnatural, and I don't get why directors feel it's ESSENTIAL lately, instead of providing enough deep focus just so the characters can occupy the same space, without having to shift.
 
Last edited:
It's just trendy right now, like fake lens flare and that godawful staccato fast shutter speed crap. It will fade back to it's proper place as a technique you use sometimes, for a reason, soon enough.
 
In Transporter 3 it was used to rack from the Statham and woman in the car, as they spoke to each other, for a long take. Pulp Fiction has a similar shot, with Travolta and Jackson in the car speaking. But it does not rack from John to Sam constantly, and keeps them both in focus. And Pulp Fiction is considered to be a big movie, and not home video-ish.
 
harmonica44 said:
In Transporter 3 it was used to rack from the Statham and woman in the car, as they spoke to each other, for a long take. Pulp Fiction has a similar shot, with Travolta and Jackson in the car speaking. But it does not rack from John to Sam constantly, and keeps them both in focus. And Pulp Fiction is considered to be a big movie, and not home video-ish.
Click to expand...

A rationale (how I would use it) for a situation like that is this:

The characters are separated from each other, inhabiting different worlds, or in some other way "distant" from each other. You could emphasize that distance/separation by not having them both in focus. With the rack focus you are moving between their two very different perspectives or points of view.
 
It's a stylistic choice, not a comment on filmmaking constraint. It's the look that the director or DP was going for. It's similar to adding a vignette or tilt-shift effect to a still photograph, a way to draw the viewer's eye in toward a specific subject.
 
harmonica44 said:
They even used a rack focus in Family Guy in the episode where Brian and Stewie are locked in a bank vault. This is a cartoon, which is sharp focus all the time therefore, and they decide to use this in a context to create an emotional moment. A deep meaningful rack focus in Family Guy??? A show that is completely shallow and all for immature laughs in the first place. When I saw the rack focus, I just laughed at it.
Click to expand...

Which was precisely the point. Family Guy is full of visual satire and other jokes centered on movie/tv tropes.

:yes:
 
It's also a stylistic choice that can be made by a Director or DP.

I'll also add that I think deep focus looks different depending on what you shoot on. If you're shooting on S16mm, whack on a 9.5mm lens and stop down to f/4.0, you've got pretty damn deep focus. Now, I wouldn't say that looks home video, but it depends on how you light it, and how you post process it. You could light it and post-process it to look like 35mm (depending on stock, etc. etc. etc.).

You light a Red to f/8.0, whack on a 24mm lens, and walk out into a sunny day, clipping highlights even at an f/8.0, it's going to look much more 'home video-ey' than the same thing on 35mm, or even an Alexa.
The home video argument is certainly an older one, though there are often times when I see footage from a Red that looks no better than something you could've gotten out of a 90's betacam. Though, again - that can be a stylistic choice as well.

If you don't like it, then you don't like it - but some DOF is often warranted, and wanted. To have not one single rack focus is very different to having deep DOF, as a rack focus can be a slight focus pull that isn't even all that noticeable.
Now, if the issue is not wanting to hire a Focus Puller, then that's a whole different ball game, and I would suggest that a Focus Puller is one of those key people that really help your image (well - they keep things watchable/in focus), and the organisation of the camera department in general.
 
Actually Gonzo is right, I totally see it on Transporter 3. I guess I have scene it used for little things too often, and it caused me to misjudge it's use. I was watching and just thought, oh great, another rack focus. But the car scene worked better for it, emotion wise.

I have a project with a similar scene in a car, where a woman is trying to get her man's attention, but he is angry at her and ignoring her. I don't want to rack it though, I think it would be more effective if she's looking at him and he's looking away, and they are both in focus, simultaneously, for the audience to see.

The audience can choose to look at both the whole time, and just observe the acting. I guess it's for this effect, I don't want to use any rack focuses, so you can see both emotionally important things, or people simultaneously, in the moment.

I also feel it's being done so often that, like other common camera techniques, I just feel it's best to do something different.
 
jax_rox said:
..... Keep in mind that older movies didn't have fast lenses, or fast stock - so by design they had to keep everything in focus. When you're pumping 10k lights onto a set just to get an exposure on say 12 speed stock at say T5.6, you start to stop down even more if you want anything dramatic/creative......
.
Click to expand...

There were quite fast lenses early in the history of Cinematography. Cook Speed Panchros (f2.0) date from the 30s . The slow film speeds would have meant a natural tendency to wider apertures, less DOF and using DOF for separation. Citizen Kane (1941) seems like an extreme reaction to that.

Cheers,
Gregg
 
viz said:
There were quite fast lenses early in the history of Cinematography. Cook Speed Panchros (f2.0) date from the 30s . The slow film speeds would have meant a natural tendency to wider apertures, less DOF and using DOF for separation. Citizen Kane (1941) seems like an extreme reaction to that.

Cheers,
Gregg
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't mean that lenses only opened up to T/5.6, indeed Zeiss had an f/2.7 lens in the 30s. It's the days of black and white, however the back light was really implemented heavily - without colour to seperate, you need to other ways, mainly with light.
When you're using high-powered lights and trying to create seperation with lights, it's unlikely you're going to be wide open.

You certainly don't see many older movies with as shallow a DOF as you see even on today's 35mm films shot at f/2.0 - perhaps DPs of the time liked to stay wide, or perhaps being wide open was the exception rather than the norm it seems to be these days...
 
Last edited:
I've considered the online courses. I can't right now, cause I am taking other courses, which is taking up most of my time besides work. But I will look into it. The nearest film school is a few hours away, but everyone who went there, that I met, told me not to go, and it's just a history lesson and you don't really learn what you need to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top