This is actually a very informative video on cinematography for new filmmakers,but minor correction:Fallen angels was shot mostly on a Kinoptik Tegea 9.8mm rectilinear lens with an adapter that turns it into a 6.8mm lens,it is not fisheye.
"If lens are a way of capturing the world, then 'which lens' you choose says a lot about the kind world you are trying to capture" is going to be my next tattoo, might go for the neck this time.
This video is quite confusing. Sometimes you're talking about specific lenses and their actual physical focal length and other times it sounds like you're talking about full frame equivalency. You said 50mm looks natural and close to how the human eye sees, but that's only on full frame (it's actually closer to 40mm if I'm not mistaken). On Super35 that would more be something in the range of 28-35mm.
Please do make a video on Satyajit Ray . The way you explain everything is great and very helpful and it seems that you will do justice to Mr. Ray's films too. I hope you recognize him. Greetings from Calcutta,India.
Do you plan to make a video about the cinematographer Benoît Debie ? If not, it would be very great to consider it, thank you ! 😁 Very interesting channel
That interlacing in every second clip killed the atmosphere for me. I guess I'm too visually focussed, but this also is a video about visuals. Personally, I'd appreciate some deinterlacing next time to get rid if the arctifacts. Let interlacing die :P
Very informative video 👌. Thanks for making it. Is it safe to assume that one can identify the lens used (wide or long) in an image by looking at the depth of field and amount distortion in it?
Right, those are two factors which can be used to identify a focal length. I'd say another important factor in identifying a focal length is in how the background of an image is compressed. In a film like The Revenant you see a lot of the background, even in close ups, which means it was shot on a wide lens. In a close up where the background is more compressed (you see less background width) it was shot on a longer lens.
@@InDepthCine Right👍. I didn't find the image that distorted even when they went close with wide lens. Is it because of the camera they used. I'm curious to know your thoughts on how they achieved it.
@@bhargavvramm I've thought about the case of The Revenant a lot over the years as the apparent lack of distortion puzzled me too. I think the eye is adapting to the distortion and accepting it because it's always present. Certainly there is a great deal of 'massive front shoulder' effect in the closer shots. By and large, faces are kept near the centre of the frame which makes the distortion less obvious but look at still frames and you'll really see it. The use of the wide lenses in The Revenant is a topic all in itself.
@@Tom_RU-vid_stole_my_handle The Revenant used a 24mm lens on the Alexa 65. On 35 a 12mm lens has the same AOV... 18mm on a VistaVision camera. So the lens is wide, but not too wide. A 12mm on VistaVision would show considerably more perspective distortion for example.
So many errors in this video. Focal length is meaningless without knowing the sensor size. Both are needed to define the field of view, which is the relevant metric. Long lenses don't cause more background blur. The only thing affecting background blur is the distance to the subject and the effective entrance pupil size. Why do you teach about lenses to others without first learning the basics yourself?
There is a school that does not agree with your analysis in the opening section of the video. The position of the camera vs the subject defines most of the look and feel. The lens choice drives the FOV, no more. As you touch on later If you want for example to feel intimate you might place the camera at 3 feet from the subject, this may then drive you to choose a 16.. but it might not. The three foot is what drives the intimacy. Again be 100foot back and the shot will feel 'remote' even if you fill the frame with a 500mm.
I love you so much. Thank you for making this so calming and easy to listen to. It takes what could be a daunting subject and makes it clean and clear to understand.
Awesome! Thank you so much for including Fallen Angels in this. I really love every single frame in that movie and never understand why it is not used as reference more often!
Awesome work man. I know how much effort and time it takes to make a video like this. I appreciate this a lot. Thank you and Good luck with your endeavors.
Man your channel once again blows me away. Other cinema topical channels made me aware of storytelling techniques in the past, but you have opened my eyes towards cinematography like no one else ever did. Really, fantastic job.
Loved this, just what i was looking for, but i need more. Is there a book that teaches cinematorgraphy techniques this way? I would like to learn the standard techniques, when to use which lens and WHY. For example, the shot of Gene Hackman in this video using a long zoom lens, it makes us feel as if we are spying on our subject - i get it, but is there a book that covers these concepts? A lot of books are about how, but the books that tell you WHY are very scarce. Sorry about the long-winded question, just trying to teach myself cinematography :) Cheers!
Is that compression effect also equivalent to equivalent focal lengths when it comes to smaller sensors? For example, my point and shoot has a 8-132mm lens, but is equivalent to 24-360 due to its smaller sensor. Would the compression at 132/360mm be equivalent to a 360mm full size lens, or a 132mm one?
Yes, in terms of "the portion of image that will get in the sensor". But not regarding the depth of field. Depth of field will be shallower on the full frame camera, for the same aperture.
"Compression" is entirely to do with your field of view and distance to your subject, as such you just always compare equivalent focal lengths. A 25mm M4/3, ~33mm APS-C/Super35, and 50mm Full Frame all have approximately the same "compression", don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Hello Sir. I saw your videos and l love them so much. While there is an account on Weibo (in China) and he use your video without credit. Also he cut the ending part of this video deliberately which means he doesn't want his fans see your name. His account is 中国剪辑师联盟. I have attached your link below his post, but he delete my comment.
my question is, if you are not aware of these reasons do you as a viewer notice what the director/dp was trying to portray? what if the choice of lens was all that they could afford and not some deep meaning behind it?
Without a lens a camera is blind ….lenses are like mirrors….a distorted mirror produces distorted images….similarly a distorted lens produces distorted images….
I think the human eye (using a 35mm full frame sensor size) is something like 17mm in focal length, but I'm not sure whether that factors in what our binocular vision looks like or if that's monocular.
Wait so does this mean that all slow zooms (not push ins) or crash zooms in cinema are done either in post or with a zoom lens? I mean I see zooming in and out when it’s talking about fixed/prime lenses, so I’m confused.
Please clear my doubt 🙋 IMAX movies are usually 16:9 aspect ratio so do they use a spherical lens or do they use an anamorphic with a wider FOV and crop from that ?
@In Depth Cine , given that many cameras shoot with super 35 sized sensors, is there a crop factor applied for cinema cameras like there is with a "full frame" DSLR lens mounted on a stills camera with an APS-C sensor? If I put a Cooke 50mm lens on a super 35 camera, is my FOV really that of a 75mm lens or so? Thanks!
