Indeed shallow depth-of-field has its place, but reading most DSLR forums you'd think it's the ONLY thing that matters. A lot of those folks have no sense of film history.
ABSOLUTELY!!! I'm really sick of this obsession with "shallow depth-of-field", specifically among so many DSLR users. I find deep-focus to be a hell of a lot more impressive and interesting.
The human eye obviously is no more equipped to created-deep focus than a manufactured camera lens...but the human brain
compensates for that by making the viewer think
everything's in focus, from the front of his or her field of vision, to the back (unless he or she consciously concentrates on perceiving depth of field). That's why deep-focus is so profoundly useful: it simulates the working, not of the viewer's eye, but his or her brain and the natural perception
of his or her surroundings. Perhaps even more importantly, humans remember
it all being in focus, even if it really wasn't, which is what movies are really
about: the remembering, not the actual experience of watching them.
Oops Department: I shouldn't have cited Super Panavision as the wide-screen process in my set-lighting example of my previous posting. Super Panavision is, of course, a non-anamorphic 65mm process, so comparing it and a camera photographing 1:1.37 Academy aperture is the proverbial apples and oranges. Of course
a 65mm negative, with about three times the area of an Academy frame, is going to require more light for a proper exposure! Please drop the "Super"s from the above paragraph, then.