Optimal camera to subject distance?

A

agcohn

Well-known member
One of the things I've noticed about amateur camera work as opposed to more professional looking cinematography is that some of the more amateur looking work contains a lot more close-ups in which the camera is placed very close to the subject. In my opinion this creates an exaggerated, and bothersome, foreshortening effect.

I was wondering what you guys considered the best camera to subject distance to be for medium to close shots. Is it more professional to have the camera zoomed out but close to the subject, or for the camera to be further back and zoomed in?
 
It's completely an artisitic choice.

Being zoomed in compresses the image -- it makes objects appear closer together.

Being wider does the opposite -- it gives more distance between foreground and background elements.
 
But is there a particular distance at which the subject's features will seem the most proportionate to reality? I'm just talking about the appearance of the subject, not of the subject's positioning in the space of the shot.
 
This is kind of along the lines of my thread of zoom equivelant of a 50 mm lens(which nobody really awnsered, maybe because I'm not dvxuser popular). A good question though, to which I would like to see an awnser. I don't think distance is a factor though. Focal length is the main factor here, maybe distance a little bit.
 
agcohn said:
One of the things I've noticed about amateur camera work as opposed to more professional looking cinematography is that some of the more amateur looking work contains a lot more close-ups in which the camera is placed very close to the subject. In my opinion this creates an exaggerated, and bothersome, foreshortening effect.

I was wondering what you guys considered the best camera to subject distance to be for medium to close shots. Is it more professional to have the camera zoomed out but close to the subject, or for the camera to be further back and zoomed in?
Click to expand...

I agree with you generally speaking, when you compare pro production to amateurish. But its not true in all cases and as David said its an artistic choice primarily. I also think its the result of budget, as in when you can afford lots of lighting, sets etc you can shoot wider without ugly things appearing in the frame you may not want to be there. Also shooting with your cam a further distance from the subject and zooming to MCU or CU you create a shallower DOF and this is often the look we are after in video production which is harder to acheive.
 
Yes, this is more about focal length than distance, though they both go hand in hand the get the framing/composition of the image where you want it.

In 35mm photography, an 85mm lens is considered a "portrait" lens suitable for taking portraits without any of the close-promimity distortion you mention. What is the equiv. on a DVX of 85mm? Somewhere around Z20 or 30?

I tend to back the camera up and zoom in anyway, to get a perceived shallower depth of field. Most of the CU's I shoot are in the Z80-99 range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top