I'd say this is a quite good cinematic back shot front lighted. The background in front of the MC should be blurry since the focus is on his neckline and upper shoulders where you can even see how the light seeps through his jumper, or whatever upper body garment he's wearing, to the right. A slight lighting on his right shoulder, to the left ( as he's facing the vehicle ). lit by the spiralling things further to the left.
Even those strings of hair sticking out ( fucking awful haircut Bella spent too much money on ) are, and should be blurred since the "camera" focus is on the vertical centre of that body mass.
I gather, since rendering is not my forte, that The Master Blender Defender would like the whole picture to be razor sharp.
That, my friend, would totally spoil this picture from a cinematographical point of view.
I find Oceans work to be more of a movie flic than just a VN, even the stills have a drive and motion to get the story moving.
That's my humble opinion as a former cinematography student.
Exactly, thank you.
Also, it's not just the cinematographical point of view, but also adds believability,
feeling of reality to 3D CG imagery. A depth of field, the way
all real cameras with any kind of lens work
in reality. It's the way
human eyes work. The way most eyes in the nature work (AFAIK, some very simple life forms do have lensless eyes, some worms or something, able only to make a difference between darkness and light, moving shadows).
The
only place where depth of field can be switched off is
virtual 3D space, making any images with infinite depth of field
looking fake,
virtual, for anyone who "knows this shit", knows how reality looks like.
The only
real cameras without depth of field are cameras that have
no lens - the
pinhole cameras. Some people build and use them to create artistic pinhole camera photos. However, they can not be used for actual normal photography nor cinematography. At least not yet (there was an article about lensless cameras being developed for phones, however, no one has seen a working model yet).
Only someone who has
zero clue about optics, cameras, photography and cinematography and has been likely looking at 3D games without depth of field
a lot more than movies or real photos or "offscreen reality" in general, can possibly say that a 3D CG render that has no depth of field looks more realistic than the one that has. It's simply ridiculous and laughable. Some may like that kind of images, but saying that they look more real is either very dumb or a dumb lie.
