Lens choice has nothing to do with framing or angles. Basic framing explained.

Yup.

Simply put, it's about perspective. As long as there are not any space/logistical issues or minimal focus issues, you can get a close up or wide shot of any subject with any lens. It's all about perspective.

Thanks for the video! I had seen it before, and it might be one of your best! Good work.
 
Last edited:
This advice works with single objects of interest or objects on the same plane from the camera, but wouldn't framing be more complicated on multi-subject shots where the angle does matter? I recently shot a video where a large robot comes into a room where two people are in front of the camera. I specifically selected an 85mm lens because I wanted the robot to be larger in front of them. To me, both the robot AND the two characters were part of the framing decision which dictated the focal length I needed to use. The delineation between effect and framing in this instance is kind of gray.

I agree with two shots and such that the perspective is more of an effect, but not all shots are like that.

I say this because I see a lot of independent films where they don't pay attention of the flattening of the image and many of their scenes just feel so off because they are missing the mark on the intimacy of the scene. They'll have a really narrow angle for something that isn't up close and personal, for instance. Sure, there are no rules, but you know how it feels when things are off.

I think your video WILL help people realize they can frame shots with any lens, but maybe an additional video talking about flattening will be very helpful as well, giving examples of different types of shots and how the flattening helps (or hurts) different scenes. Showing an over the shoulder with a 16mm makes the second person very far away as compared to the 50mm. And the 300mm looks like someone is not even close to the conversation but spying from a distance :)

When I give advice on framing, I talk about the environment that the characters in, the mood, or the setting, how it plays into the feeling of the shot. Like you say, with any focal length you can get the framing of a main subject, but on complicated or shot with MANY people in them, your subject area grows and the depth matters.
 
Yup, you're completely right, and that's why I wanted to do this tutorial, to show that different types of lenses and perspectives can be used to do a medium shot for example. There is no ONE correct lens or angle to do a shot like that, in fact there are so many different choices that it would be nearly impossible for me to list them all or if I did do a tutorial on that then it would have to be hours and hours long. I can for sure do another tutorial where I show SOME of the examples that you mentioned but even that would leave a lot to be discussed. That's why at the end I say that the best way to decide on the type of lens and angle and framing is to just go out there and try. Do tests, see what works best in the particular scene you're filming.
 
Very true.

It's funny, because sometimes I am sitting there looking at what I am about to shoot it takes me a bit, or even some test shots, to get what I want. This is why I have so much respect for many cinematographers. Lens decision to me is a huge task that is learned mostly by experience and experimenting. There is no one lens choice. I cannot count the number of times the DP chose a lens and shot while I operated the B camera with a lens I felt more appropriate and they selected my shot on occasion because the conveyed feeling of the shot was more spot on. You definitely get better with practice, practice, practice.

For those just getting into this, I think this will help tremendously with regular shots where people DO get confused a lot. They hear "50mm lens is the normal lens" and try to work around everything with just that lens. Of course, on S35 size I do use 30mm a lot as my comfort lens as I like to call it, it's NOT for everything. Not even close.

New people also get so stuck I feel on using zooms on a camera and not moving themselves for the shot. Such an important additional aspect to consider.

In any case, excellent contribution!
 
I like the shots in this video and I think many of them explain a mood even without words. For instance, when thinking about the background of your subject, wide backgrounds that in any way establish alot of surrounding locations and detail, like the 50mm body shot, are great for shots where you want the audience to know where the character is without the shot being wide angle - great for shots in areas that the character has already been in or is familiar to. Shots that have the aesthetic of the 300mm body shot, for example, where the background is incredibly flat against the subject and there is no surrounding location or detail, these shots tend to work better for when you want the audience to not know where the character is, say if the character is in a mysterious location or somewhere not familiar to the character.

For instance in this video, the 50mm full body shot gives more of an air of simply a familiar scene or a scene where the background has a decent amount of openness and, if that neighboorhood was already shown in a film, the audience would have no trouble recognizing it again. I feel like that type of shot would be ideal for a character simply walking home from school or whatnot, while the 300mm gives an aesthetic that completely does not let you know where the character is, no surrounding detail or location - this shot to me would symbolize more a character not knowing where he is, like a character that is exploring a new area or you want to make the audience nervous or curious about where the character is. It gives the look of a character that is being watched from a far away eye, in the flatness.

But this, like anything, isn't a rule, just a suggestion. If you only had a 50mm to work with, simply having more or less depth of field would probably do the trick, combined with choosing a waist or chest shot or a full body shot, combined with music and the actor's expressions. That's why for budget films, I think it's so important to have other things too - a great actor who's skills and natural features match the story of the character, fitting music, a great location in itself - those things will 100% cover for choosing a 50mm over a 300mm for a mysterious scene, and I think that's what's great about filmmaking. There are so many steps that if one isn't perfect, sometimes there's a billion other things that cover for you. That's why the camera and perception should almost be the least important thing to you - or it should at least be a give or take.

For example, if you have a great location and a fitting actor (say, a soft, emotional looking person for a mysterious, emotional scene, surrounded with a mysterious area, with sad music playing in the background), the audience is going to get the point no matter if you use a 50mm or 300mm, or even if you make a mistake like chopping off the actor's feet. But if you don't have a good location, your actor isn't exactly Justin Bieber, you don't have any music to go on, ect ect, using a 300mm perception to mystify things up a good bit could be crucial for your scene. Or using 50mm with alot of depth of field. It's alot of combinations, and also making sure that no area really gets left out completely. A great film is simply a film that isn't perfect, but conveys every single mood in some sort of way. That's what I see so wrong with so many short films, there's usually not one filmic thing that represents what the scene is about - the actor isn't right for the story, the perception isn't right for the mood, the music is just some sort of free filler (or doesn't exist at all), the location isn't good, ect ect. If you get even one thing right, chances are it won't suck.
 
Well put, Snapper123... that's why I myself love filmmaking. Each film I start working on, doesnt matter how big or small, I like to get right into working out all the details. The cast, the costumes, locations, acting, etc, and the last thing I'll worry about is the exact camera placement and lenses. Cuz all too often I also see people worry too much about just the technical aspects of filmmaking, and their film usually falls apart in other areas long before they ever started rolling the camera.

Here is the last film I did, it's a simple comedy. But I think the reason why I had so much sucess with it, is becuase I took care of all those other things first. Script being one of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzbk9yyTf-A

T
 
One book I recommend to people starting out is this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Master-Shots-Techniques-Expensive-Low-Budget/dp/1932907513

It is a good start to help people understand why certain framing, DoF, angle selections are chosen and what the audience will most likely get from them. Outside of this, practice and watching other movies and REALLY paying attention to the shots really helps you understand what they are doing. The practice part allows you to look at a scene and guess relatively closely what lens they used.

I've watched independent films where a really powerful character in a scene is sitting down at a table, and an underling is above them looking down at them. The mood of the scene was completely lost because it was clear the powerful character should have been dominating the visual, but it made them look cowering, yet, have a powerful demanding dialog sequence. They might have been going for that particular look, but when I watched it, the scene just didn't work.

I also tell people, if you are doing a movie, look at a movie that is similar or has similar characters and watch how they are portrayed. Not that you want to copy someone else, but if it is a good movie, understanding why the characters feel so right or are dealt with so well will definitely help.

A lot of independent films also suffer from what I call "one size fits all" syndrome. They either have TOO many closeups or TOO many wides and don't move in any out with the shot types where needed. They tend to frame everything the same with the same focal length and it just gets monotonous to watch.
 
grimepoch said:
A lot of independent films also suffer from what I call "one size fits all" syndrome. They either have TOO many closeups or TOO many wides and don't move in any out with the shot types where needed. They tend to frame everything the same with the same focal length and it just gets monotonous to watch.
Click to expand...

Funny, I never realized that, but i think you're right. Now that I think of some of the indie films I've seen at the festivals last year, it's very true. One filmmaker to who I even spoke to after the screening told me that his "signature" was to always stay in close ups... that was his style. But honestly, I think the film could have been a lot better had he moved away every so on and let the audience see the surroundings... etc. Just even to change things up a bit and to make that close up have a lot more impact when he did cut back to it.
 
polcan99 said:
Funny, I never realized that, but i think you're right. Now that I think of some of the indie films I've seen at the festivals last year, it's very true. One filmmaker to who I even spoke to after the screening told me that his "signature" was to always stay in close ups... that was his style. But honestly, I think the film could have been a lot better had he moved away every so on and let the audience see the surroundings... etc. Just even to change things up a bit and to make that close up have a lot more impact when he did cut back to it.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I feel too when I've seen some of these films. Or, they'll just go from a master shot to an over the shoulder and that is it, over and over again. I see this a lot with photographers who start doing videography because I think they are used to looking at an image as a 2D capture. Whereas, with a movie you have all this freedom to use the camera both close and wide to pull your audience into whatever you want them to see. I've seen wide shots that had NOTHING to do with the story, with too much action going on around them that you were constantly pulled away from the main characters, and they did that throughout the film.

This is why focal length to me is very important for people to practice with. Take your favorite movie and watch what that director does. Watch it 5 or 6 times so the story stops distracting you and you can focus on the technical details as well. It is amazing what you can learn from the thousands of excellent productions that already exist. No need to keep going back to Citizen Kane :P (I jest because almost EVERY film book discusses that film to death).

As said, there are SO MANY variables to making a good story, I just am focusing in this post on lens/framing/angles because for some people, that is where they might be studying/learning.

These are similar issues when people use TOO MUCH DoF or TOO LITTLE DoF throughout the film. People want an all time time solution but there isn't one. All these little variables contribute a huge amount to what you show the audience (or what you don't).

I think a lot of people use tight close up on independent (or very shallow DoF) because of sets that are too small, too undetailed, or they are in locations where they need to not show signs or unwanted stuff. They don't have the FX resources to change that stuff in post, etc (I do this with signs and stuff, anything trademarked).

When I am setting up shots, other than set concerns, I put myself in the head of the actor AND the observer. I work from both angles to come up with the best possible solution.
 
The honest truth is that I'd say choosing different focal lengths just for perception effects is a bit daunting; I'd be content with thinking of focal lengths in terms of what primes are realistically available for my budget; generally, you can find $200-$400 primes in 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm. To me, both indoors and out, it seems like those lengths would be the main four to use, and I think I'd stick with that, also weighing in the location and if it comes down to how far I can back up from the subject. But beyond perception, I do think that framing is something that is extremely daunting just for the simple fact that locations have literally billions upon billions of beautiful combinations and backgrounds, not to mention your actor has tons of different angles that may make them look ugly or beautiful, and a select number of angles where natural light is creating a good impression on their face. It's very daunting, and I want to say that I wish I knew a great focal length that filmmakers use to a good effect most often.

For crop cameras, is it truly 35mm, for example?
 
Yes, because film for motion is Super 35 sized, which is the same (practically) as APS sensors, and m4/3 are pretty close. I think in terms of S35, not FF35, so it's a simple issue for me. If you are coming from FF35 photography, I'd argue that it is not representative of film framing for motion since most people use S35 size in industry for film, or even smaller (2/3 or 16mm cameras). Granted IMAX is what, 65mm I think, but not commonly shot. And there are full frame variants, but I don't think they are as popular in the least.

If I was using 4 lens only for shoots, on an APS-C/S35 sized camera, I would use:

11-16mm Tokina F2.8
30mm Sigma F1.4
85mm Bower F1.4
28mm-135mm F4-F4.5 OIS kit lens for 7D

If I were to take a 5th lens, without question it would be a zoom to that went to 300mm. (I listed the lenses I use, but any lens close to those characteristics I would be happy with.

For using the AF100, I'd swap the 30mm with the 25mm F0.95 that is available (which I will do eventually) and possibly add on the 7-14mm for ultra wide outdoor shots.
 
You know, this is what I really love about filmmaking. Perception has to be one of my favorite topics in the filmmaking realm, it's such a challenging topic (simply because there's so many options you can do for a shot!) and the honest truth is that it really is just neat to learn about. I could watch videos like this all day long, if there are more videos like it out on the net, please post some links!

One question I'd like to ask; I'm constantly trying to figure out if camcorders with 1.8 lenses and 18-135mm-ish ranges really don't have depth of field. The honest truth is that anyone using a camcorder for a short film either probably hasn't had experience, or isn't challenged enough by knowing specific details about focal length, that the short film just turns out bad - but does that really mean there's no depth of field? I mean, I can take my T2i and a 24mm focal length, stand back just a bit, and there'll literally be no depth of field even at 4.0 aperture. I sometimes get the feeling that this is exactly what camcorder filmmakers are doing - are there any good examples of what the depth of field looks like on a camcorder at 50mm focal length, only 3 feet from the subject and a low aperture? I've never seen a good enough example to know what it looks like, and if it turns out that camcorders and their depth of field isn't all that different than a DSLR as long as you follow the same rules, then I'd sure as heck switch to a camcorder.
 
I just uploaded a new interesting video that I've heard so many people argue about. Many times I hear people talking about what affects depth of field and so many times I hear completely absurd things. Bottom line depth of field has nothing to do with image sensor size... here is a simple video that explains it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0n4pyhx7Dk
 
On digital sensors Depth of Field ABSOLUTELY is also relative to sensor size when dealing with the same number of pixels on a large and small sensor because of the two different circles of confusion. Given that the final image size derived is the same as each other due to this resolution magnification, this alters the DoF at the target viewing resolution.

Now granted, it's the pixel size that counts more than anything, but trying to disconnect that from the sensor size doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

There is a misconception that you cannot get shallow DoF on a small sensor, however, it is easier to get it on a larger sensor for the same FoV without question. The problem is all the variables mixed together are what one has to consider.
 
grimepoch said:
On digital sensors Depth of Field ABSOLUTELY is also relative to sensor size when dealing with the same number of pixels on a large and small sensor because of the two different circles of confusion. Given that the final image size derived is the same as each other due to this resolution magnification, this alters the DoF at the target viewing resolution.
Click to expand...


To see that sensor size doesn't change the DOF do tests with a a pin hole camera. Or even better an old 35mm film camera you don't care about, remove the back & replace it with paper to view the projected image.. make the paper smaller or larger & the cirlce of confusion stays the same... then change the 3 factors I mention and you will see it change. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying larger sensors aren't better if you want to achieve shallow DOF, but they are not what actually causes the changes. As for resolution, the circle of confusion doesnt change just becuase it's being projected onto a 4K image sensor or 720p resolution... all that changes is the ammount of detail in the final image.
 
Actually, the circle of confusion does change. It is absolutely based on the format size and the final resolution. This is pretty well established mathematics. And it does depend on the magnification effects of the resolution. I think you need to go read more about circle or confusion and DoF because you are telling people incorrectly that the format size isn't playing a role and it is.

Go look at ANY reference on say a 7D versus the 5Dm2 and you will see that they both have a different circle of confusion. (Or all kinds of other cameras for that matter) and look how the circle of confusion is defined.

The problem is, you are saying that the DoF is the same, if you change the three things that you are mentioning, and the problem is, you are changing those three things to match the DoF because the sensor size/pixel size has changed. It's the fourth variable that you are trying to leave out.

If you plug into ANY calculator for DoF all the same parameters and and just change the format size, you will see the that the depth of field changes. This is because DoF is the one thing that is TOTALLY dependent on the final destination of the image.

The best way to prove this to your self is take an image that is just slightly out of focus in the background and then shrink that image to like 10%. You'll see the entire imagine in focus. You've changed the DoF by shrinking the image. This is because of what you've done with the image and took out the focal length, F-stop and distance right out of the equation. It's because you've changed the resolution of the image.

The reason that the paper argument does not work is because if you took a 3x3 piece of paper and a 10x10 piece of paper and divided each of those pieces of paper up to 100x100 pixels, then looked at them on the same monitor, the one that was 3x3 would have a deeper depth of field (and a narrower FoV). That's because the circle of confusion, which is based on the target resolution, has changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top