What focal length, when/where?

F

filmguy123

Veteran
OK, I notice on the HVX 32.5mm - 423mm is the range of 35mm lens equivalents. In movie production with 35mm lens, what are the most common focal lengths to shoot things at?

Other than establishing shots, when might I want to use full wide on the HVX?

Is it a good idea to zoom in a little bit on the HVX, from the default full wide of 4.2 to, say, 7.0 (not sure the 35mm equivalent, is there a formula to convert?) for most shots? To kind of flatten out?

I notice when I shoot many things at full wide, it doesn't look quite as filmic or movie like as even zooming in just a tad...?
 
My understanding (and my own experince) a zoom lens doesn't hold its optimum quality at its exptremes. This is also the case with the f-stop settings, particularly when you stop down. Check out Barry Green's HVX book, he goes into detail about this.
 
The recomended range for f-stops for optimum lens performance is addressed on pages 24-25 the HVX Book. The issue of the extremems on the zoom settings were noted on a cTuple camera I owned over the years, particulary the DVX and the Canon XL1. I have not noticed the same issues with my HVX; since reading about how some f-stop can affect sharpness, I've been religious about staying within the recommended range noted by Barry. My previous issues may well have been caused by using extreme f-stop settings.
 
GDIGUY - maybe I am not being clear. I don't care about the technical aspects of f-stop and range. I have read that and understand that, and it is NOT my question. My question isn't covered; please re-read my post.

I am not asking about recommended ranges for sharpness and quality, or anything of the sort. I am talking about artistic choices, style, a "look." Different focal lengths make an image appear; I am asking about the look of an image when slightly zoomed in VS full wide; etc.
 
Since you're in portland, I'd stop by Powells and pick up a copy of Zettl's "Sight Sound and Motion"

It's kind of basic, but it gives the clearest description of shot aesthetic selection and motivation. I've been shooting since the mid 90s and I still go back and browse it. Good book.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/16-9780534014643-0
 
filmguy123, my sincere apology for misreading the question. Boy, do I feel foolish...

Can I suggest checking out Roger Deakins’ web site? He has a forum where he himself addresses similar questions (and numerous other questions on the spectrum of cinematography) with candor from his own experience. It’s a great resource and the only one I know of from a cinematographer of his stature. www.rogerdeakins.com

Again, apologies for misunderstanding your original query.
 
I'd check out this book Cinematography: theories and practices by Blain Brown. In planning coverage (getting your shots of a scene) you would go from one lens type to another based on whatever key conviction you want to translate within your story. It may sound a bit mental in the post alone without an example, but I'll try and explain as best I can and someone can elaborate freely to expand.

I'm sure that you're familiar with our typical hollywood "analytical" style of filmmaking: wide, medium wide, close is the pattern that we grow familiar to in films. this style is best used and applied to progress the story. To establish a scene, a wide shot is common, but also really tight shots of small elements may establish a location with the same potentcy (i.e. Any given Sunday- the first scene which starts on a football then opens up as the action unfolds to an aerial wide shot of the stadium.)

A wide shot in a scene between two characters also can convey a sense of space, whether it be to coordinate the audience with geography or more importantly (once again) attribute a statement within a story (i.e. the girl finds out her boyfriend is cheating- a Wide Shot may be used to show this hypothetical girl's isolation in this scene where the coverage may have been mainly longer lenses and tighter framing.)

hope this is in the direction of what you were looking for. I'll add more later as it's late and I can't think clearly for any more details at this moment... The book I mentioned (and several others that fellow posters will bring up) go heavy into detail of the WHY of using any particular technique or tool; and you'll definitely have a way sharper sense of WHEN to go from one type of shot to another based on all the things that the WHY constitutes.

peace and goodnight till 2morrow:2vrolijk_08:

P.s. another note is also purely concerning taste- everyone has their places where they would choose to scene based on which lens sstyle they favor based on look.
 
Last edited:
filmguy123 said:
Is it a good idea to zoom in a little bit on the HVX, from the default full wide of 4.2 to, say, 7.0 (not sure the 35mm equivalent, is there a formula to convert?) for most shots? To kind of flatten out?

I notice when I shoot many things at full wide, it doesn't look quite as filmic or movie like as even zooming in just a tad...?
Click to expand...


Sorry guys. This is really the crux of my question. I just want to know if the HVX looks a little better for most shooting with a slight zoom, say 7.0 instead of VERY VERY FULL WIDE. And when I might want to use FULLLL wide (4.2) vs a little zoomed (7.0). That is all.
 
I notice when I shoot many things at full wide, it doesn't look quite as filmic
Click to expand...

Zooming in will make your shots look a little more like Hollywood, because:

- as you said, perspective is flatter
- also, depth of field is shallower
 
combatentropy said:
Zooming in will make your shots look a little more like Hollywood, because:

- as you said, perspective is flatter
- also, depth of field is shallower
Click to expand...


From 4.2 to, say, 7.0 even? Even for "wide" establishing shots? When might I want to use the very widest setting of 4.2 instead of zooming in just a tad?

What focal length do most wide establishing shots get shot at on 35mm film; 35mm? Or 28mm? Because the HVX defaults to 32.5 (4.2)
 
I'd suggest looking at zettl's book. He gives a very clear explanation with lots of pics.

The questions you're asking have no hard and fast answers, it's an aesthetic decision and open to interpretation.

Not to sound like an icehole, but when to shoot at full wide angle?
When you feel like it of course!

Every shot and every camera position is motivated by story. The tone of each film should be decided upon before the film begins and that determines the style. I once shot a 16mm short where our normal close up lens was a 200mm. We had to back up 20-30 feet just to get a close up. The whole film had a compressed yet intimate feel by design. It worked well, but would I suggest that as a good choice for every short film, no of course not. It should be motivated by how you want to tell the story. That is determined by the nature of framing and lens choice. The selection of which has strengths and weaknesses, as well as giving a psychological undertone which helps color the story mood and feel. The description of what lens choice conveys what emotion is probably is best told with pictures, not necessarily a text-based forum like this.

I'd check out Zettle's book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top