[G.C.]

Overall, if the stunt person can do the stunt in one unbroken action, you have to consider respecting that and capturing as much of the action as you can it in one shot. This way, cinematography and editing do not take away from the action. There’s a power and immediacy to seeing the whole stunt unfold in front of you without any visible tricks. This approach lends itself to wider shots with more stable camerawork.

If on the contrary the stunt person cannot do it in one instalment, and you have to break it up in different shots to create the illusion, or there are parts of the action you can’t film, then the approach changes because you have to use the camera to hide things instead of to show. This lends to using longer lenses in order to cheat the distance between things, and various tricks such as handheld work to help carry the energy and hide defects in motion blur, for example. You can also use center framing, for easy readability of the images when they are going to be edited fast.

It is very important to make sure to properly spacialise the action (the space must be known and that we always know who’s where).

[G.C.]

First, I have to say that I do enjoy using larger sensors for human-interest documentary work. The compact zoom lenses I work with are never faster than a F:2.8 aperture, which equals approximately to a desirable F:2.0 aperture on a Super 35mm sensor. This means that while using a zoom lens in small interiors, I can still get some separation with the walls when I am (literally) backed into a corner. If I have to work with some ugly background, I have more leeway to throw it out-of-focus. And outside, I can close down to a healthy T4 or T5.6 and not ask too much from the variable ND.

But this is my internal, personal process and I agree the depth-of-field question is a concern sometimes. I was preparing a documentary recently, and the request from the (Emmy-award winning) director was: “Can we have as little depth of field as possible? Remember last time? Well, I want less depth of field than than.” What he was referring to, was a wide open lens on a super 35mm sensor. The problem: this was the fullest extent of our discussion about the look of the piece. It was literally, quite shallow, if you pardon the pun.

So I shot the whole piece consistently wide open on a full frame sensor. Not that it wasn’t pretty at times, but it was pretty without a reason. At the end of the day, this is a job, so I consider it part of my duties to honour the request and deliver the desired look, but not without attempting to steer the conversation towards more fluid, constructive and inspiring language and concepts.

The point of this anecdote (and I think of a lot of the pertinent answers here) being that the talk about depth-of-field and other techniques (let me put the use of vintage glass in this bag!) becomes a problem only when it takes center stage and replaces the more fundamental and important conversations about emotion, mood, flow, and point of view.

The pendulum always swings, trends come and go, so I am sure that there will be a comeback of deeper DOF and deep staging! But trends are not a concern when you follow the rules you make for yourself for a project.

[Author]

Replies