Learn how to add depth of field to photographs with this tutorial by Karsten Hoehne.
Karsten writes:
Hi Everyone,
i have created a Videotutorial on faking a Depth of Field effect in Blender using the Bokeh Blur Node. By inserting key frames into the right values, you can even fake a rack focus effect.
I hope this will be usefull to some of you.
7 Comments
That’s not adding depth of field, that’s removing depth of field. Depth of field is when things at a wide range of distances from the camera are in focus, not blurred. When objects at only a narrow range of distances from the camera are in focus, then you have a shallow depth-of-field.
By the way, making the depth of field shallow is a great way of making the scene look like an artificial miniature.
I think he means adding "depth-of-field effect", which usually removes depth of field.
Because “depth-of-field effect” means the opposite of “depth of field”, right?
I must remember that in future, that “x effect” means “the opposite of x”...
Technically, you are correct; depth of field is the distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a scene that appear acceptably sharp. When most people use the term "depth of field," however, they simply mean a shallow depth of field, because it is a noticeable effect.
People forget that the “effect” was the other way round: it was quite an achievement to get both near and far objects in focus in a photo at the same time. See this discussion of the “deep focus” effects in Citizen Kane.
Fascinating article; thanks for the link! I learn something new every day.
I think it's fair to assume that the original poster does understand what depth-of-field (DOF) actually is. It is perfectly clear what they mean and what they mean to achieve. To refer to their work limiting the DOF as a "DOF effect" is not, I think, unreasonable in context.
It depends I think on what medium we hope to replicate through CG. As a general rule this is not actually the view of the human eye. Only our personal experience can tell us what that is and to see it reproduced somehow would be rather odd.
Renders are displayed through monitors, theatre projections and in print. If these were to be literal reproductions of how our eye would see things, it would be as if looking through a physical window or portal, where more than likely one should not exist.
Our most eye-like depictions are recorded through a lens, be it photo or video. The finest renders are complimented as being "photorealistic". This is a grading of how believable they are, not because it is as if we are there, but because we believe the camera was there.
The basics of any rendering system produce a final image of limitless DOF. This is not in common with photo realism as the viewer typically knows it. The DOF "effect" is therefore to reassure the mind of the viewer by supplying the anticipated limitations of the "camera". This by emulating these flaws within our render system, which uncorrected had limitless DOF. It is a trick, extra work and in this context an "effect".