A film look? How about proper SHOT DESIGN?

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

1. The importance of a 35mm Adapter is not DOF, but FOV. Without a 35mm Adapter on small sensors, the FOV is quite limiting. I wouldn't tell anyone they absolutely had to use a 35mm Adapter. I would absolutely recommend a Wide Angle adapter for your camera, however, to gain a greater FOV out of your fixed lens system.

This is sort of a strange statement... given how 'Letus' a popular provider of adapters 'sells' their product...

A portion of one...: (please note the phrase, DOF ... is what this site is all about...)
--------------------------------

DOF / depth of field (or depth of focus) is what this site is all about. Depth of field (DOF) is the distance in front of and beyond a subject that appears to be in focus. Obtaining different depths of field can create dramatic, film-like effects that will take your productions to the next level.

Rather than trying to describe the varying depths of field between different camera types, let's explain it with a simplified chart. The image below shows the difference between a 35mm film camera, a 1/3" sensor professional camera, and a typical 1/4" sensor consumer grade camera. A sample of each is displayed with their approximate "in focus" ranges and how the different focal planes may appear.
--------------------------------

As for an example, the literature from Panasonic on the HMC 150, indicates that the equivalent 'wide angle' of the lens is 28 mm relative to 35mm. So, yeah, for some sort of adapter, one can get effectively 'shorter' lenses.

Also, perhaps because I've not paid much attention to the adapter fora, are such lenses as Cooks, Arris, Panavision, et al. lenses the most likely lense to be used with such adapters... or are they mostly still camera lenses from Nikon and Canon?

 

[Kholi]

This is sort of a strange statement... given how 'Letus' a popular provider of adapters 'sells' their product...

A portion of one...: (please note the phrase, DOF ... is what this site is all about...)
--------------------------------
DOF / depth of field (or depth of focus) is what this site is all about. Depth of field (DOF) is the distance in front of and beyond a subject that appears to be in focus. Obtaining different depths of field can create dramatic, film-like effects that will take your productions to the next level.

That's how they sell them. Marketing is one thing, functionality and usage is definitely another.

Observe your favorite feature film and let me know what the Wide and Medium Ratio is to Close Up or ECUs. Most of my favorite cinematic narratives are composed of mediums and wides.

So while DOF is the selling tool, the primary benefit is most-definitely being able to expand your FOV, or, to achieve different lens effects as far as compression and Angle of View are concerned.

So you're right, they're sold like that. But, I certainly wouldn't say it's the real key to success.

Also, perhaps because I've not paid much attention to the adapter fora, are such lenses as Cooks, Arris, Panavision, et al. lenses the most likely lense to be used with such adapters... or are they mostly still camera lenses from Nikon and Canon?

The most likely to be used would be still glass. However, it's not uncommon to see PL mount cinema primes in use, Cookes included. I've used Cooke S4's before on the Letus Ultimate, fancy.

 

[pwyll]

Films leverage wide shots because that is where the big screen/big budget shines. The location, set design, lighting all have to be right for the shot to work.

If you want a "film-look" without a film budget - get a 35mm adapter and stay mostly with medium shots and close-ups.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

So while DOF is the selling tool, the primary benefit is most-definitely being able to expand your FOV, or, to achieve different lens effects as far as compression and Angle of View are concerned.

Well, perhaps someone should in form the marketing dept of this missed opportunity...

When I was at the last NAB, one of the adapter providers had a Lens Baby
hooked up to a 35mm adapter... So, yeah, the adapter allows for all manner of wyrdness... but then shooting through a Mason jar filled with pale ale would too... and cost something less than the adapter...

The most likely to be used would be still glass. However, it's not uncommon to see PL mount cinema primes in use, Cookes included. I've used Cooke S4's before on the Letus Ultimate, fancy.

For me this would be the only reason for using an adapter, that is use cine lenses. For me the difference between a 'as delivered' 28mm on the HMC 150, vs. getting down to perhaps 13mm with an adapter+35mm lens, would not be worth it. The FOV on the 28mm effective focal length of the unadapted HMC 150 would be approx. 65 deg. along the horizontal axis, where as getting down to 18mm would bump that to 90 deg, and so 12.5 degress more of horizontal on both sides, to me doesn't justify the expense. In the still world, the only time I've gotten down to lower than 28mm is to shoot a bride in a very small room where I was on a step ladder smash up into a corner... other wise the occasional big reception shots that I'd use the lens for, while I had it... could have been done with something longer, and no one would have noticed the difference.

Since I don't have a HMC 150 handy at the moment, I only rented one in November to check it out, I can't test the actual FOV, so I'm just using the stated equivalent focal lengths and calculated FOV there from...

My DVX100 is SD, so it has a 4:3 aspect ratio, and I've not used the 'squeeze' mode or really thought about using an anamorphic lens for that matter, which might be another occasion where I'd use an adapter. But that's not so much a matter of FOV, as frame aspect ratio. And obviously a wider frame, has a wider horizontal angle of view.

 

[Huy Vu]

This is really a tiring discussion. Use of shallow DOF is a choice, period, so stop acting like everybody who choose to use it are prentious snobs who have no idea what they're doing. The people who insist that shallow DOF is for losers are just as much snobs as those they accused. Yea, there are some people who misuse the tool and there are some Hollywood film that works just fine without the BG being out of focus; but there are plenty of productions that use background blur to great effect (24 comes to mind) so it's really a waste of time to try and prove that "your" way is better in order to convince yourself that you don't need it.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

This is really a tiring discussion. Use of shallow DOF is a choice, period, so stop acting like everybody who choose to use it are prentious snobs who have no idea what they're doing.

The 'need' for DOF has been promoted more than just 'yet another stylistic choice'... it is almost always in conjunction with 'film look'. An now Kholi has stated the 'real' reason for using adapters, namely 'wider FOV'...

Both are just simple stylistic choices. Yet the amount of 'air' time adapters are given, to me, sine nobilis that I may be, far exceeds simple 'stylistic' discussions. I suspect there are many people who think that these sorts of things are a requirement.

I use 24p. Not because of it's 'film look', but it happens to give a 18% 'compression' from 60i with no degradation of the visuals for what I shoot. I use 'p' because I don't like the interlace artifacts resulting in displaced timewise acquisition of the fields, when presented on computers. It is my belief that interlace, at least at the level of 50 or 60 Hz is soon going to be a thing of the past.

From my view, lighting is the far more significant element of 'film' look, and takes 1) time to learn, 2) requires an understanding of the camera and how an image is formed, 3) since lighting is a requirement whether one uses a fancy camera or the least of the consumer offerings, does not incure any additional costs beyond what is require to shoot the image.

If you really want my sine nobilis opinion, I think shallow DOF often used for a 'sappy' emotional response good for the Hallmark Channel... but that is obviously a prejudiced view, which I readily admit.

Oh, yeah, I completely forgot... composition... like designing the shot from the outset... where high values, low values, and points of interest are placed in the frame...

 

[Simon Höfer]

Well, shallow DOF is so popular because it makes it easier to get a "filmlook". That is, because it HIDES alot of shortcomings. It can hide your ugly set, it can hide your bad lighting of the set and it can hide some bad composition.

It's all still there, but just not so obvious, especially to the normal viewer. To most viewers the smooth out of focus area looks more pleasing to the eye than a bad looking set.

Of course it would be great to eleminate those shortcomings, but that is rather difficult and takes alot of time and experience to learn, whereas a 35mm adapter helps to simply hide those shortcomings. That's a fact you can't deny.

Alot more eye pleasing footage from first time 35mm adapter users than from users with a naked camera. And always bare in mind we shoot for the masses.

 

[JonathanLB]

Seriously huh? When I got to that third image I chuckled a little bit to see how different the Lucas/Spielberg partnership has become.

Hmm, ok? I thought that was the best image! haha, it's certainly the nicest looking and most clear.

Anyway, Indy 4 gets a lot of crap, but the others were not high cinema either, they were FUN movies and great adventure films. As was the 4th. I really couldn't see much of any difference there in quality, except the fourth obviously looks better. Raiders is still the overall strongest one of the four I think, it being the first and so original, but I love them all really. Some of the acting in the third one... was.... annoying. But overall they're just fun movies, I think the fourth lived up to that. I just think some people kind of made the movies into more than they really are. I'm a huge Lucas fan, and a huge Spielberg fan too, but I think it's only fair to see the Indy films for what they are, which is not Star Wars, they are just pure fun adventure entertainment, they're not trying to say anything meaningful about the world really.

Anyway though to each his own. I thought it was fun enough. *shrug*

Still I liked my original idea of having Indy wheeling around a retirement home beating the nurses with his whip for another bowl of strawberry Jello, but alas, it wasn't to be.

 

[EssentialParadox]

1. The importance of a 35mm Adapter is not DOF, but FOV. Without a 35mm Adapter on small sensors, the FOV is quite limiting. I wouldn't tell anyone they absolutely had to use a 35mm Adapter. I would absolutely recommend a Wide Angle adapter for your camera, however, to gain a greater FOV out of your fixed lens system.

Again, please do not misunderstand the validity of a lens adapter system. It isn't DOF.

2. Every single image you've posted is an example of how FOV and DOF work together when composing a scene, especially the last (and strange-lookin') image. Please note the foreground object which adds DEPTH to the frame is slightly out of focus.

The first frame clearly exposes how FOV effects scope and depth of a particular scenario: with Indi nearest to camera, the bridge extending behind him and finally the slightly out of focus background element, greenery and cliff. To get this same shot with an HVX or even HPX170 would mean a completely different compression aesthetic, perhaps even losing the depth or three-dimensional aspect of the image.

A wide angle on the HVX might save you.

3. The second photo is composed as a wide shot. There are several key details to be noted in this frame, all of which are important and integral to the momentum of the moment. There are people standing around, Indi's facing off (to the left of the screen facing right) and the "bad guy" (to the right of the screen facing left, opposing the hero's progress from point A to B). The importance of a "deep focused" image is quite valid here, but is this the same for every single shot in a feature film?

No. I don't need to know how many pegs are on a banister behind talent, nor do I need to know what the statue is in the foreground if I'm on a dolly tracking moving forward.

I do, however, need to have control over FOV, especially in tight spaces where a 1/3" Sensor will restrict/limit the amount of information that I can fit into a frame. This is the primary reason a 35mm Adapter exists. DOF is the mistake.

I agree completely with what you're saying. Don't get my earlier comments wrong, I did make some extreme comments but my primary point was education being more important than a 35mm adaptor. I'd say you clearly do understand a lot about scene composition, and I'm standing right beside you in advocating the benefit of wide angle lenses.

Films leverage wide shots because that is where the big screen/big budget shines. The location, set design, lighting all have to be right for the shot to work.

If you want a "film-look" without a film budget - get a 35mm adapter and stay mostly with medium shots and close-ups.

I cannot disagree more with your opinion. Watching those shorts made with a 35mm adaptor and composed only of mediums and close-ups I find unusual and quite weird sometimes.

When you're making a film, any film, you can't ignore things like location, set design, and lighting. And that's nothing to do with budget, you can achieve good results in all of these areas without any budget.

I don't ever believe you should break the rules of filmmaking in an attempt to emulate a 'film look'. (Which in itself is an oxymoron.)

there are plenty of productions that use background blur to great effect (24 comes to mind).

'24' is shot on a video camera. Though the fan of '24' I am, I've never felt it looked like a movie, not even that 2-hour special in Africa. To me it's always had incredible storylines, but shot somewhere between a B-movie and a Cops style reality show.

I'm not saying the 35mm adaptor can't be used to great effect to create a specific look, but I wouldn't ever say '24' is an example of the traditional cinema look, which is what I've always felt is what 99% of adaptor buyers want to emulate. I still believe education on proper shot design is more worth an amateur filmmaker's time than believing a 35mm adaptor will make his short look like a hollywood movie. If you're creating a short, or even a feature, you have the time to dedicate to your sets and the shot design in every single frame of your film. You can't compare that to a TV show like '24' which doesn't have that same liberty when they're churning out an hour episode every week.

I apologize if any of my comments sound snobbish. I'm not telling anyone how they should do things, just putting my opinion out there.

 

[Huy Vu]

I
'24' is shot on a video camera. Though the fan of '24' I am, I've never felt it looked like a movie, not even that 2-hour special in Africa. To me it's always had incredible storylines, but shot somewhere between a B-movie and a Cops style reality show.

???

24 is NOT shot on video, the vast majority of it is shot on film. The only parts that are shot on videos are some video monitor footage:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285331/technical

Lately the show often has an unpolished look but I believe this is deliberate on the DP's part. Looking at the earlier seasons the show absolutely look like a movie.

Without even using 24 as an example there are a ton more TV shows (Smallville, Law & Order SVU etc) whose style tends to favor isolating the subject from the background. Go an watch most movies playing in theater right now and they do the same, the result is often beautiful.

 

[Gohanto]

Backtracking a bit to the original question...

I like a lot of the issues that you brought up, but you might want to consider breaking down the scene from "Casper and Clover" you open the video with. Pausing and replaying the video to point things out. As I think that's a much more polished product to aspire to.

- Foreground elements
- Changing shot composition (from moving around the foreground element, two-shot moving into an OTS) [It's surprising how often people just want to keep the camera on sticks or only using camera movement to follow motion]
- Lens height

 

[MarkInAZ]

Thanks for making that video! Keep it up!

I still think that you need the right equipment to get the "film look"--particularly the DOF, and if that means getting a DOF adapter for your xha1, then make it happen! You'll also be happy you got a good tripod that doesn't shake. Smooth dollies are important, too! How about a light kit? Maybe somewhere an extreme novice invested in a RED hoping for a cure-all, but I've never heard anyone doing that. And in the end, that novice was most likely producing better quality with their Red than they were with their XH A1, even with no DP skill.

What a lot of people are missing (esp. the people who claim that you don't need the equipment) is the notion that the best shots are created in the mind FIRST, then made to happen. Poorer quality comes from turning the camera on, seeing what's around, then shooting. Planning is important! Storyboard!

Most film movies have shallow DOF, and audiences equate that with quality. I think you're going to at least need a DOF adapter if you have the XH A1 and want to make narrative "films". You can get shallow DOF by opening the aperture, zooming the camera in and moving the camera back, --but a lot of times all this is not an option.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

What a lot of people are missing (esp. the people who claim that you don't need the equipment) is the notion that the best shots are created in the mind FIRST, then made to happen. Poorer quality comes from turning the camera on, seeing what's around, then shooting. Planning is important! Storyboard!

I have no problem with the concept of taking one's imagination to the resulting frame. In fact, I think that is the single most important element in creating the image. If one wants 'point and shoot', then collect a large number of clips from survailence cameras, cut them together, add a bit fo voice over... eh wala, newvo quamera vertey...

Most film movies have shallow DOF, and audiences equate that with quality. I think you're going to at least need a DOF adapter if you have the XH A1 and want to make narrative "films". You can get shallow DOF by opening the aperture, zooming the camera in and moving the camera back, --but a lot of times all this is not an option.

I of course am begging to differ on the necessity of shallow DOF for narrative films. It is a technique, and is used frequently. However, I strongly feel that it is an over emphasized technique, where many of the other elements that go into a shot, as you note, prevision, compostion, lighting, lens, subject to lens distance, FOV, DOF, then there's post processing... all combine into 'the shot', and the image the viewer is left with. Then there's the acting...

As I pointed out above, the calculated, (I have not measured this accurately... so it could be in error by some number of degrees), angle on the 'naked' Panasonic HMC 150, a popular camera used here, has a FOV horizontally, of about 65 deg. an 35mm adapter + 18mm may get up to 90 deg. so if your 'narrative' film fails because you can't get 25 degs more FOV, or can't cut your DOF down to one eye lash on the talent's camera side eye... I think there is something definitely 'wrong', subjective evaluation, with your narrative.

When I was young, the 'zoom' technique was in vogue... during the 60's it was 'the rage'... now it looks pretty trite and dated... and other than classic action or kung fu movies, I can't really think films that use that technique (or Austin Power spoofs...)... ok, the zoom-dolly occasionally finds its way into classic films...

But to say, 'in order to get a film look' you have to do power zooms, or zoom-dolly motions'... is sort of rediculous, which is in essence what is being said about shallow DOF. (As a note here... on the topic of using a shallow DOF to throw out background clutter... well, in a event situation, yeah, that is a problem because often one has no choice of photo/video ops locations, but then one isn't usually walking around covering such an event with an adapter hanging on the camera... for a narrative film... well, plan for better locations or angles...)

I can of course point to classic films that don't use shallow DOF(*), and only have backgrounds 'blurred' because of the need to open up the lens to acquire as much light as possible because of the slow films used (that holds for 'grain' as well...)... but that was a compensation for the materials, and not necessarily a 'creative' choice.

*There is another technique used in classic films that has nothing to do with shallow DOF, that is many of the beauty shots of female (and male, but we don't mention that sort of vanity...) actors are 'softened', by either screens in front of the lens... jelly, whatever, go cover and give the talent an ethreal look... I don't see to many people demanding that this sort of look be required for a 'film' look, dispite its being used even today to cover an aging female lead's 'age'...

As a note, note, I recall that for Spielberg/Kaminski filming of "Saving Private Ryan"(1996), Kaminski had the lens coating removed, to give more bloom (like Kaminski needed more 'fuzz'...) on the highlights, as was the case in WWII...

The point here is sure, there are techniques, but as such the sum total are a cinematographer's tool set... having an (expensive) hammer does not make all things a nail...

 

[Lloyds]

I still believe education on proper shot design is more worth an amateur filmmaker's time than believing a 35mm adaptor will make his short look like a hollywood movie.

Since the original Youtube tutorial had to do with just what you're talking about--shot design--I have a question.

Besides film school and the school of experience, are the any other resources to learn this kind of stuff that you guys can recommend? I tend to be a "Ok, looks pretty good" kind of guy without dedicating the proper time to set up the shot to make it just right. From following this thread and the video, I see that a lot of my shots have been very boring, and would love more practical info on this.

Books, videos, etc.... Thanks.

 

[craigbowman]

Since the original Youtube tutorial had to do with just what you're talking about--shot design--I have a question.

Besides film school and the school of experience, are the any other resources to learn this kind of stuff that you guys can recommend? I tend to be a "Ok, looks pretty good" kind of guy without dedicating the proper time to set up the shot to make it just right. From following this thread and the video, I see that a lot of my shots have been very boring, and would love more practical info on this.

Books, videos, etc.... Thanks.

There is a checklist you can develop.

1. Go through the script when looking at a scene and find stops and movement.
Actors move based on roughly five categories:

a.) Initiative - They are doing something (Making coffee, fixing a watch, polishing a bowling ball, etc.)
b.) Showing control or command of territory
c.) Discomfort
d.) Becoming more personal
e.) Becoming more private

Actors will stop moving for certain categories of reasons which can also be hinted at by the script:

a.) The activity they're engaged in has ended.
b.) To think or feel.
c.) Mentally change gears
d.) For clarity or focus.
e.) For the camera (ie. So the audience can see something or know something the cast doesn't)

2. Find moves and transitions - which usually means the actor has to be someplace in the physical scene at a specific point in time.
3. Find keyframes of specific framings and deep staging opportunities.
4. Find all the coverage required.
5. Look for connection possibilities of keyframes by camera transitioning or connecting with tracking by dolly.
6. Find lead-ins or extensions to heighten the mood at critical junctures.
7. Coordinate foreground and background (This is where you can really make sure the Art Director has done their job, or where you may want to add extras. One of the tell tale signs of low/no budget is a lack of extras)

A well staged scene with powerful blocking will add a lot of production value. Do you start your shot with some open framing? What about tracking to someone or something and pivoting on the person or item to then reveal another actor critical to the scene.

Maybe you have a scene in a restaurant and you start by tracking on a waiter at the beginning and then as you follow the waiter and he walks by the table with the critical actors in the scene you do a hand off to a two shot which continues into an external reverse.

To sum up, make a checklist for staging and blocking a scene. Then produce your blocking diagram and number the stops. Then write those stops into the shooting scripts and translate them to the marks on the ground which indicate in the appropriate marking tape color for the actor.

Yes a good cinematographer should have total mastery over exposure, composition, color temperature, perspective, focal length, camera height, the line, DOF, but also should understand how to provide the staging and blocking to give the editor some really creative and well designed shots. This is where good collaboration with the director is essential.

What's the point in shooting in scope if everything is flat and boring?

 

[Sad Max]

^ I think that's a wonderfully concise exposition on an important and neglected subject. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Drew Ott]

craigbowman, is that from Hollywood Camera Work?

 

[tmnt]

HCW is pretty good for anyone wanting to learn more. Gets fairly detailed and is easy to follow.
I just purchased 'film directing: shot by shot', anyone here read it?

 

[craigbowman]

craigbowman, is that from Hollywood Camera Work?

Yes. Its such a great resource I commited every detail to memory until it just became a natural vocabulary for expression of camera work on set. Kind of like practicing tennis. You practice until you don't have to consciously think about it, you just make decisions in the blink of an eye.

 

[Gohanto]

HCW is pretty good for anyone wanting to learn more. Gets fairly detailed and is easy to follow.
I just purchased 'film directing: shot by shot', anyone here read it?

Pretty basic imho, but I know a lot of people that liked it more than I did.