FS7: So what IS the OMB ENG solution..

How did I distort his head.. my gravity machine? A vice?

That is a true representation of what he looks like from that POV. Just that is maybe not the POV you expect to see him from unless you are his wife.

The 200 mm Im voyering into his work, so the camera standing off is appropriate.

It is an endless chat but one either digs 'intimacy' or doesn't.. and it is fine if you don't

its art mate - no right answers

I would agree the two shots do not cut, and wont be cut.

S
 
Last edited:
I love a distorted wide face in CU, but then my favourite filmmaker is Terry Gilliam. JP Jeneut loves a bit of that too.

Not always perfect for an interview but it can be pretty bloody iconic if done right.

hUx4BAVl.jpg
 
In the top pic of the guy with glasses, at that crop, it's only just slightly tighter than how a LOT of feature interviews are shot in the US.

My #1 interview lens is a 135 T2.2
 
Focal length, distance to camera and composition are artistic choices. You can't be dogmatic about these things otherwise everything would look the same, and be very boring. I often shoot wider and closer than many people and other times I'll be long and loose. Sam's frames aren't anything odd to my eye and I agree with Run&Gun 135mm can look stunningly good.
 
There are a lot of variables. Subject matter, mood, environment, "artistic choice", a show may have a set style to adhere to, even practical/technical reasons such as having to stay out of another cameras shot or lighting. I defentily don't think we can say, "never shoot an interview with a lens tighter than X or wider than Y" or "you should always be this close to the interview subject". There's also a big difference between shooting narrative and interviews. I actually dont like the recent trend in feature movies(at least big US action movies) of the extremely tight coverage they use so much now. It's so hard to get a sense of the environment and space where the story/action is playing out and even just the action itself. I was talking to an op about that and he said something similar. They'd go in somewhere and the production would pay an obscene amount of money to use a specific location and they'd shoot everything tight and you'd barely, if at all, see the environment.
 
Too wide and too close = long nose = ugly people.

Too long and the face is compressed flat and lacks depth = odd looking people.

I like my faces to look 'normal', I like depth in the faces and anything off normal focal lengths has to be motivated and not used out of convenience.

My clients have for many years been very happy with my artistic choices and would be surprised to see it referred to as 'dogma'. Wider and closer, for me, screams VIDEO and not at all filmic.

This is just halfpenny's worth you are quite at liberty to disagree.
 
Run&Gun said:
There are a lot of variables. Subject matter, mood, environment, "artistic choice", a show may have a set style to adhere to, even practical/technical reasons such as having to stay out of another cameras shot or lighting. I defentily don't think we can say, "never shoot an interview with a lens tighter than X or wider than Y" or "you should always be this close to the interview subject". There's also a big difference between shooting narrative and interviews. I actually dont like the recent trend in feature movies(at least big US action movies) of the extremely tight coverage they use so much now. It's so hard to get a sense of the environment and space where the story/action is playing out and even just the action itself. I was talking to an op about that and he said something similar. They'd go in somewhere and the production would pay an obscene amount of money to use a specific location and they'd shoot everything tight and you'd barely, if at all, see the environment.
Click to expand...

Blame the Scott brothers for this.
 
Nirv said:
Too wide and too close = long nose = ugly people.

Too long and the face is compressed flat and lacks depth = odd looking people.

I like my faces to look 'normal', I like depth in the faces and anything off normal focal lengths has to be motivated and not used out of convenience.

My clients have for many years been very happy with my artistic choices and would be surprised to see it referred to as 'dogma'. Wider and closer, for me, screams VIDEO and not at all filmic.

This is just halfpenny's worth you are quite at liberty to disagree.
Click to expand...

Each to their own and all that but Revenant, Amelie, A Very Long Engagement, Brazil, 12 Monkeys, every Sergio Leone western just off the top of my head.... All would counter that assessment of close up wide lens shots not looking filmic or screaming video.
 
Spielberg Shot all his close ups on a 21mm
Scorsese 25-32
Roman Polanski 25mm
Ordinary Welles

Indeed the Scott brothers are responsible for the 100-180mm closeup. I find it ok when dealing with the inner life of the character but mostly being close up with a 27-40mm puts you there with the character in the world he or she is navigating.
 
The telephoto closeup is a good tool for reality tv where there is no story nothing happens through close ups you can create some drama that isn't really there
 
Run&Gun said:
My #1 interview lens is a 135 T2.2
Click to expand...


Yep I had my lenses in a heap on the floor and was choosing which to pack as the 4th lens; I picked up my 135 and my 200, scratched my head, the latter is a new toy so I thought yep Ill try that one. The focus swing on it is super sexy, my 135 a bit tight.

Being OMB I try to keep to four lenses, having three slots in my bag and one hole in the camera.

I took 10-24, 28-85, 50 and the 200.
 
Oddly I find 135 a bit 'flattening' because, I guess, if you loosen the frame to a more regular interview composition you move the camera back (which brings the flattening effect)

So Im more with the 80/2 than the 135

80/2 is also pocket size.

S
 
icarusfilm said:
Spielberg Shot all his close ups on a 21mm
Scorsese 25-32
Roman Polanski 25mm
Ordinary Welles

Indeed the Scott brothers are responsible for the 100-180mm closeup. I find it ok when dealing with the inner life of the character but mostly being close up with a 27-40mm puts you there with the character in the world he or she is navigating.
Click to expand...

Short and close will render a more 3-dimensional image. Sometimes that's a useful thing, sometimes not.
 
new thread title: opinions on shooting interviews at various focal lengths, cliff notes: yours is wrong!


Just playing around obviously. Personally, I love a full frame 50mm (speed booster and rokinon t1.5 is my combo I currently own) for the master of interviews. It's nice and close, works well in a small space, lets the background go blur but retain some detail (well, depending on your space, in my recent experience of running and gunning it's been like this).

And back to the rant. I really wish My 24-105 could be modded to be declicked for a marginal fee.
 
There is no wrong or right a focal length simply has an effect on perspective and how the background is rendered and the flatness or dimentionality of the subject. I used to have a sigma 24-105 with a Nikon mount I had it on a Nikon to e mount Speedbooster which has an manual iris the nice thing about the sigmas is they don't focus the Nikon way. So that was an easy way of having a manual iris and the correct focus rotation.


QUOTE=Wes.;1986690529]new thread title: opinions on shooting interviews at various focal lengths, cliff notes: yours is wrong!


Just playing around obviously. Personally, I love a full frame 50mm (speed booster and rokinon t1.5 is my combo I currently own) for the master of interviews. It's nice and close, works well in a small space, lets the background go blur but retain some detail (well, depending on your space, in my recent experience of running and gunning it's been like this).

And back to the rant. I really wish My 24-105 could be modded to be declicked for a marginal fee.[/QUOTE]
 
icarusfilm said:
Spielberg Shot all his close ups on a 21mm
Scorsese 25-32
Roman Polanski 25mm
Ordinary Welles

Indeed the Scott brothers are responsible for the 100-180mm closeup. I find it ok when dealing with the inner life of the character but mostly being close up with a 27-40mm puts you there with the character in the world he or she is navigating.
Click to expand...

Apart from Spielberg the rest tally with my focal length choices.

35mm on a Speedbooster equates to 25mm which is the widest I shoot people.

55mm on a speed booster (40mm on S35) is very nice too.
 
I'd say, currently, 90% of my talking head master shots are between 24mm and 85mm on a Speed Booster. But, that's only one part of the equation; camera to subject distance is one of the most important factors, and I can get a variety of different looks with the same lens.

Also, when comparing focal lengths with features you need to know what ratio/format they shot and whether they used spherical or anamorphic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top