favorite interview lens?

thats a cool video...

it would have to depend on WHAT youre shooting that interview for (client, feel/mood, purpose). notice the narrator says that the close and wide thing, to him, coveys the feelings of "uncomfortable" and "funny". are those what youre going for? many times not (corporate interview). there is the more practical issue of the more background you show, the more has to look attractive/potentially be lit. although ive had serveral colleagues tell me they dont pay much attention to lighting backgrounds anymore with the large sensor/shallow dof cameras, claiming they lit mainly for separation. this still doesnt make much sense to me cause an ugly blurry background is still ugly. if all yoire shooting is gorgeous architecture I guess thats another story.
 
Jon Fauer's Cinematography Style is indeed the documentary that includes that Roger Deakins interview. Before anyone says that Deakins is a feature film DP who doesn't understand the issues of the documentary filmmaker, it is important to know that the man cut his teeth shooting hundreds of news & documentary interviews throughout the world, and he REALLY knows what he's talking about.

The lens length is not the issue here. It's all really about the physical placement of the camera. Want to feel intimate with the subject? Get close to the person. It really is that simple. Our brain perceives the perspective and we can tell that we are physically close and therefore intimate with the subject. Even in front of a blank background we can tell how far the nose is extending from the eyes and the ears receding from there. Perspective is everything.

I used to teach an optics seminar and one of my first lessons (after getting the whole "Crop Factor is the Work of Satan" issue out of the way) was to pronounce that there is no such thing as a "normal" lens. This flies in the face of various textbooks and commonly held beliefs on the subject but I can clearly debunk it, step by step.

First the human eye can see something like a 160 degrees left to right field of view (it's less vertically but I forget the number at the moment). Our brain allows us to ignore most of our vision and zero in on the area we wish to concentrate at any given moment. There is no changing lenses and there's nothing about any false math that takes a sensor's diagonal length and then multiplying it by 1.5x or any other such mumbo-jumbo. All that stuff is bullshit. We can switch from wide angle to telephoto and we don't do it at will -- we do it completely subconsciously and nearly instantaneously.

"Normal" is really a cultural norm. What may be a natural, comfortable distance for two people to hold a conversation in Italy can be very different between two people in Norway. This is of course greatly oversimplifying and generalizing, but Italians in conversation may be only two or three feet apart, while Norwegians would usually be comfortable 5-7 feet apart. (I could pick lots of other examples, these just easily come to mind.) So what a standard close-up looks like to an Italian v. what it looks like to a Norwegian is fundamentally different, because their way of experiencing events comes from a physically different perspective.

There are dozens of other examples that can be used to back this up and go into greater detail. The point is that the physical distance is what dictates perspective, and then the brain allows us to narrow our attention to a particular field of view. So put the camera at the spot indicating where you want the audience to feel within the scene and then choose the lens that yields the field of view you desire. And that's pretty much all there is to it.
 
Just watched that Coen Brothers clip yesterday, really excellent. Tony Zhou does great commentary. Coen comedy happens at a 27-35mm lens for singles. I may have to try that a bit on some of my stuff, I too tend to love my 85mm too much for singles. But then again, I don't shoot comedy and from a more practical aspect, I am usually lighting with my LED panels, the key and fill necessarily physically close to talent. In a wider FOV, I start to see the Chimera, grip equipment, etc. To shoot in that Coen Bros. style, I would need much larger, more powerful sources punched through larger grip gear like a 4x4 silk. Fine for those rare occasions when I have a key/best and grip crew, but difficult when I am part of a two or three person doc crew.
 
As been eluded to... It depends. My steadfast rule of thumb is never to invade "personal space". That means arms length and beyond. Usually 3-5 feet away from the subject. Having said that, my go to lenses are the 15mm 1.7 and 25mm 1.4 Leica Summilux lenses. 30 and 50mm equivalent for M 4/3. With an occasional use of the 42.5 Nocticron 1.2 (85mm) where space permits. I target the 2.5 -3.4 apertures for better sharpness/contrast with decent bokeh separation. I really like the Voitlanders, they really do render a gentle sharpness (hard to quantify), but in a class of its own.
 
William said:
As been eluded to... It depends. My steadfast rule of thumb is never to invade "personal space". That means arms length and beyond. Usually 3-5 feet away from the subject. Having said that, my go to lenses are the 15mm 1.7 and 25mm 1.4 Leica Summilux lenses. 30 and 50mm equivalent for M 4/3. With an occasional use of the 42.5 Nocticron 1.2 (85mm) where space permits. I target the 2.5 -3.4 apertures for better sharpness/contrast with decent bokeh separation. I really like the Voitlanders, they really do render a gentle sharpness (hard to quantify), but in a class of its own.
Click to expand...

For many of us the choice to shoot long lens was often a function of shooting on a 2/3" chip and the desire to make the image look less "video". That is, we sought to get the background out of focus- something that was more difficult to accomplish with the smaller sensors. The idea was to isolate the subject from the background, to give the viewer little to focus upon besides the person being interviewed. Sound bites from interview subjects were often short in the final edit of the product and the idea was that you wanted the viewer to focus only on the person and not be reading a billboard in the background during the 5 second clip of the person speaking. I suppose in that we were ( are? ) assuming the audience to be easily distracted and lacking in focus. But if the piece was, say, a marketing piece, the client desired the viewer to come away from the short clip having paid attention to what the person said and to be able to repeat what the person said. What you didn't want was a case where when asked what the person on camera just said an viewer responds "Um, I don't know because I was looking at the woman in the tight red dress who was walking in the background." or "I didn't hear what the person said because I was looking at the stuff he had on his desk."

In narrative and documentary work the environment of the individual on camera is often important and can relay information about the person. Is the individual's home / office orderly or messy? What is the individual's taste in decor? In work such as a testimonial for a product the environment of the individual on camera is less often of importance. There are times where the client doesn't want the location of the interview known to the audience, times where the client doesn't want the faces of anyone in the background to be distinguishable ( since it means obtaining appearance releases ), or doesn't want the background in focus because the production doesn't have the rights to artwork on the walls or doesn't want products names to be readable. ( the "Xerox" or "Coca Cola" machine in the background. ). Isolating the subject from the background / placing the background out of focus makes things more simple for the client and gives the viewer no option but to look at the person speaking on camera. And it makes for a more "pretty" shot.

Another practical aspect to shooting longer lens is that a more distant camera position left you the ability to dance between a wide shot ( waist up ) and an extreme closeup ( tightly cropped face ). With the camera positioned in close, as Deakins does, an extreme closeup of the person's face is likely to be unflattering. You will likely be shooting "up the person's nose", as it were. In "real world" shooting you cannot re-position the camera during the interview. That breaks the rhythm and flow of the interview- interviews that are often with people who are already nervous and uncomfortable as they have never before been interviewed on camera. If, as a DP / Lighting Cameraman you were to demand of the client that you be able to re-position during interviews you would not likely get hired again. A camera position far away from the subject helps with subjects who are nervous about appearing on camera, as does a lighting setup that is not claustrophobic / intimidating. The idea, the desire of most clients, is to have the subject "forget" that they are being filmed and become so engrossed in the conversation as be less aware of the video production taking place. The further away the camera and camera operator the more likely the subject is to "forget" about the camera.

I get what Deakins was saying and I read where it was noted that he has extensive experience shooting docs, but his comment was still a bit high-minded imo and not exactly taking into consideration the practicalities of "real world" shooting. Examples being the aforementioned scenario where there are branded logos in the background or individuals in the background for whom the production does not have appearance releases.

Interviews are most often shot long lens and shot long lens for both the photographic result and numerous practical motivations. It isn't simply because the DP's / Camera ops don't know any better and never thought of placing the camera "inside" the two-person conversation.
 
Isn't it kind of ironic the hoops jumped through getting a location with a good background then the HOURS spent setting and lighting it only to shoot it wide open on a fast lens so that almost nothing is recognizable and then the shot is on-screen for only a few seconds- barely long enough to even font the person talking.
 
JPNola said:
For many of us the choice to shoot long lens was often a function of shooting on a 2/3" chip and the desire to make the image look less "video". That is, we sought to get the background out of focus- something that was more difficult to accomplish with the smaller sensors. The idea was to isolate the subject from the background, to give the viewer little to focus upon besides the person being interviewed. Sound bites from interview subjects were often short in the final edit of the product and the idea was that you wanted the viewer to focus only on the person and not be reading a billboard in the background during the 5 second clip of the person speaking. I suppose in that we were ( are? ) assuming the audience to be easily distracted and lacking in focus. But if the piece was, say, a marketing piece, the client desired the viewer to come away from the short clip having paid attention to what the person said and to be able to repeat what the person said. What you didn't want was a case where when asked what the person on camera just said an viewer responds "Um, I don't know because I was looking at the woman in the tight red dress who was walking in the background." or "I didn't hear what the person said because I was looking at the stuff he had on his desk."

In narrative and documentary work the environment of the individual on camera is often important and can relay information about the person. Is the individual's home / office orderly or messy? What is the individual's taste in decor? In work such as a testimonial for a product the environment of the individual on camera is less often of importance. There are times where the client doesn't want the location of the interview known to the audience, times where the client doesn't want the faces of anyone in the background to be distinguishable ( since it means obtaining appearance releases ), or doesn't want the background in focus because the production doesn't have the rights to artwork on the walls or doesn't want products names to be readable. ( the "Xerox" or "Coca Cola" machine in the background. ). Isolating the subject from the background / placing the background out of focus makes things more simple for the client and gives the viewer no option but to look at the person speaking on camera. And it makes for a more "pretty" shot.

Another practical aspect to shooting longer lens is that a more distant camera position left you the ability to dance between a wide shot ( waist up ) and an extreme closeup ( tightly cropped face ). With the camera positioned in close, as Deakins does, an extreme closeup of the person's face is likely to be unflattering. You will likely be shooting "up the person's nose", as it were. In "real world" shooting you cannot re-position the camera during the interview. That breaks the rhythm and flow of the interview- interviews that are often with people who are already nervous and uncomfortable as they have never before been interviewed on camera. If, as a DP / Lighting Cameraman you were to demand of the client that you be able to re-position during interviews you would not likely get hired again. A camera position far away from the subject helps with subjects who are nervous about appearing on camera, as does a lighting setup that is not claustrophobic / intimidating. The idea, the desire of most clients, is to have the subject "forget" that they are being filmed and become so engrossed in the conversation as be less aware of the video production taking place. The further away the camera and camera operator the more likely the subject is to "forget" about the camera.

I get what Deakins was saying and I read where it was noted that he has extensive experience shooting docs, but his comment was still a bit high-minded imo and not exactly taking into consideration the practicalities of "real world" shooting. Examples being the aforementioned scenario where there are branded logos in the background or individuals in the background for whom the production does not have appearance releases.

Interviews are most often shot long lens and shot long lens for both the photographic result and numerous practical motivations. It isn't simply because the DP's / Camera ops don't know any better and never thought of placing the camera "inside" the two-person conversation.
Click to expand...


You may have made the most sense of anyone in this thread so far. I still do them long lens unless otherwise requested. People keep mentioning how if the cam is far away the interviewer has to be far away. Why? If you're shooting telephoto you should be able to have the interviewer very close to talent regardless of camera distance and still not see them in the shot. The interviewer does not need to be near the camera. Just off axis from the lens? Probably. Right NEAR the lens? Not necessarily. Obviously if they're too close in you'll see interviewer shoulder/head but you can compromise 'til it all works out and still have the cam 12 feet back if you want and the interviewer much closer to talent.
 
On my FS7 in 4K, I love the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art with the metabones speedbooster. @ 2.8 (pre-speedboosted) I get a bold image that has a nice soft background (not too shallow but not too sharp either). It's a medium shot that I can cut to a closeup when finishing in HD (since I'm filming in 4k)

If I need more background blur then I will take out my canon 135 f2 and step back (only works if I'm not conducting the interview myself and don't need to really be invovled with the interviewee.)
 
Josh Bass said:
You may have made the most sense of anyone in this thread so far. I still do them long lens unless otherwise requested. People keep mentioning how if the cam is far away the interviewer has to be far away. Why? If you're shooting telephoto you should be able to have the interviewer very close to talent regardless of camera distance and still not see them in the shot. The interviewer does not need to be near the camera. Just off axis from the lens? Probably. Right NEAR the lens? Not necessarily. Obviously if they're too close in you'll see interviewer shoulder/head but you can compromise 'til it all works out and still have the cam 12 feet back if you want and the interviewer much closer to talent.
Click to expand...

An interviewer I often work with has very poufy and curly hair. I must place her right next to the camera. The few times I have moved her up to be closer to talent, she invariably leans into the shot or her hair somehow works it's way into the edge of the frame. In order to get her completely out of frame if I am 12' from talent and she is 6', it requires her to be placed far enough off axis that the talent's eyeline is very detached from the camera. I hate off axis eyelines in most interviews. I don't mind a two camera, one on axis and one profile shot but that "not even looking close to the lens axis" on the A camera angle is a deal breaker for me. I usually try to position interviewer's head within 12" of the lens to get an eye line that works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top