cinematography Typical "film-look" zoom length
- Thread starter Re-Maker
- Start date
if uve got a t2i, u dont need any dof adapters. do they even make them for DSLRS? if they do, i didnt know.
and how fast is ur lens btw?
and im sorry but im not sure if i get ur question. is ur question about which focal length to use when filming or which lenses they use?
and how fast is ur lens btw?
and im sorry but im not sure if i get ur question. is ur question about which focal length to use when filming or which lenses they use?
The vast majority of films you see were not shot with a zoom
lens at all. So there is no "typical film style" zoom lens. So my
only advice is to get the best zoom lens you can afford and
learn what it really takes to get the "film look" by using it and
using it often.
Lighting is so much more important to the "film look" than the
lens. But a great lens is very important.
lens at all. So there is no "typical film style" zoom lens. So my
only advice is to get the best zoom lens you can afford and
learn what it really takes to get the "film look" by using it and
using it often.
Lighting is so much more important to the "film look" than the
lens. But a great lens is very important.
ok i see.
if you're asking which zoom lens hollywood uses to film their movies, directorik is right. they really dont. and they dont use DSLR's either.
if ur asking which zoom lens DSLR users use the most to film their movies. well, the answer is all over the place. primes are preferred but many dslr users use zoom. some even use the kit lens. in my recommendation, i would say get 3 different primes to begin with.
or if u really want a zoom, then get an L series like the 24-70mm. dont be put off by 1200 price tag bc 3 good primes will cost you about 400 each anyway.
if all that is way out of ur budget, ive seen quite decent tests done with the 28-135mm (which is a cheap zoom). they key in those good tests was the lighting, careful shot composition, heavy post production... u get the idea. but ofcourse, if u can do all that with an L series, there'll be no comparing it.
if you're asking which zoom lens hollywood uses to film their movies, directorik is right. they really dont. and they dont use DSLR's either.
if ur asking which zoom lens DSLR users use the most to film their movies. well, the answer is all over the place. primes are preferred but many dslr users use zoom. some even use the kit lens. in my recommendation, i would say get 3 different primes to begin with.
or if u really want a zoom, then get an L series like the 24-70mm. dont be put off by 1200 price tag bc 3 good primes will cost you about 400 each anyway.
if all that is way out of ur budget, ive seen quite decent tests done with the 28-135mm (which is a cheap zoom). they key in those good tests was the lighting, careful shot composition, heavy post production... u get the idea. but ofcourse, if u can do all that with an L series, there'll be no comparing it.
John Seale, ASC, who has been credited for films like Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and Prince of Persia:The Sands of Time almost primarily uses zoom lenses (I must admit he is one of the few that goes zoom before prime). That said, I get the feeling that the quality of lens that he uses is above most of our budgets and pay grades.
To echo what directorik said, lighting plays a vital role in the quest for "the look" that you are aiming for to best tell your story. But we are not talking about lighting from the typical three-point lighting thread-of-death POV. We are talking about how to paint with light and this all starts with the inspiration for "the look" that you are going for...
"The Look" is usually inspired by something else - art, photography, music and even other movies. You see something you like and more importantly it is something you think is the best way to tell your story, then you get the tools and start doing the necessary tests to achieve "the look". This is where the understanding of lighting technique is key. You have to gain insight into the lighting style utilized in the item that inspired you before you can start emulating the effort (and yes there is no lighting in music per se, but the movie maker can use lighting as a tool to evoke the the kinds of emotional responses like the musician does - except they use notes and beats).
Study art to gain insight into the lighting techniques used by the master artists to achieve chiaroscuro, surrealism, impressionism, and realism. Google the styles to reference the master artists' names then read up on them. Study the photography of the greats and watch other movies. Start asking your self, how did they light this picture and why? How does the lighting help the composition? How does the lighting help the mood, how does it make the audience feel a certain way? How does the lighting direct the viewers' eyes around the canvas and where is the artist coaxing you to look?
"Using lighting to manipulate the vierw's glance your say? I thought that was what Depth of Field was for?" DOF is a nice way to force the viewer's eye to important parts of the picture/screen. But also remember color theory and facts that the eye is drawn towards the brightest part of the picture first. What brightens up parts of the picture? Light. You can use light and shadow as a means to to divulge information or manipulate your audience's attention, in lieu of or as a supplement to your DOF technique.
I apologize for rambling, but this was an opportunity to flap poetic about painting with light. Back on point, there are other factors that play into "the look" but good lighting is a key foundation.
To echo what directorik said, lighting plays a vital role in the quest for "the look" that you are aiming for to best tell your story. But we are not talking about lighting from the typical three-point lighting thread-of-death POV. We are talking about how to paint with light and this all starts with the inspiration for "the look" that you are going for...
"The Look" is usually inspired by something else - art, photography, music and even other movies. You see something you like and more importantly it is something you think is the best way to tell your story, then you get the tools and start doing the necessary tests to achieve "the look". This is where the understanding of lighting technique is key. You have to gain insight into the lighting style utilized in the item that inspired you before you can start emulating the effort (and yes there is no lighting in music per se, but the movie maker can use lighting as a tool to evoke the the kinds of emotional responses like the musician does - except they use notes and beats).
Study art to gain insight into the lighting techniques used by the master artists to achieve chiaroscuro, surrealism, impressionism, and realism. Google the styles to reference the master artists' names then read up on them. Study the photography of the greats and watch other movies. Start asking your self, how did they light this picture and why? How does the lighting help the composition? How does the lighting help the mood, how does it make the audience feel a certain way? How does the lighting direct the viewers' eyes around the canvas and where is the artist coaxing you to look?
"Using lighting to manipulate the vierw's glance your say? I thought that was what Depth of Field was for?" DOF is a nice way to force the viewer's eye to important parts of the picture/screen. But also remember color theory and facts that the eye is drawn towards the brightest part of the picture first. What brightens up parts of the picture? Light. You can use light and shadow as a means to to divulge information or manipulate your audience's attention, in lieu of or as a supplement to your DOF technique.
I apologize for rambling, but this was an opportunity to flap poetic about painting with light. Back on point, there are other factors that play into "the look" but good lighting is a key foundation.
As noted most (there are exeptions) films are shot with Prime lenses. The pretty "standard" focal lengths are 28, 35, 50, 85, 135. So shots composed with lenses of those focal lengths will tend to look "right".
The beauty of what we do is that we thread the needle between science and art to produce art. One can dwell on the science part of things - like focal lengths, DoF, HMIs, Tungstens, types of mics, filters, presets, NLEs, etc. But in the end we are trying to produce art that will evoke a certain emotional response (hopefully while making a statement of some sort) within our target audience(s). This is where understanding the work of the art (or artists) who have inspired your efforts comes into play. I like to look at it as using the technology (science) as tools to augment my artistic expression(s) - using technology as a means to an end. So one can get bogged down in the specs of a given piece of technology (and if you are a cinematographer or aspire to be one that is the kind of minutiae that you can get lost in) as the direct route to a result, or you can use the technology to augment your artistic skill set(s) execute your vision - to make art. (I am not having a go at cinematographers as "tech heads" only, as they are students of art themselves, perhaps more so than most directors they work with.) From where I sit I cannot say there is a "right" or "wrong" way as it is different strokes for different folks. Some directors (Ang Lee) are very technical while others are not. In the end though they all arrive at the same place - a great movie in which they entertain, emote and get a message across.
The thing is, I refrained from using the phrase "film look" and just went with "the look" instead to avoid getting caught up in the very difficult effort of making video look like film. I am a newb and could be wrong on this (please educate me if I am, if not for my sake but for the sake of my fellow newbs) but even with the best technologies available there is still a gap between film and video. So striving to get the "film look" is not something that is easy to do, especially on an Indie budget. So why let that little fact get in the way of your great movie? Why let it kill your awesome story?
I am not saying don't try to emulate film, but remember you are an artist whose primary duty is to the art itself - in this case your story. You have the responsibility of making a movie (I did not say film or video, I said movie) in which your goal is to grab the attention of your target audience(s), entertain them, manipulate them, tell them a message all within the confines of your story. As Indie movie makers we work within the very stretches of limitations. We are the ones who said we can, when the establishment said we cannot. So use what you have and use it well. When the technological cap hits you don't let it impact your artistic abilities, your imaginations. Some of the best classics out there today did not use the technology we have at our disposal today.
So when you are shooting for a certain "look" using that simple zoom lens on your available camcorder or DSLR use your tool as the viewfinder and try and get the look that best suits your art's needs, your story's needs without getting caught up in the focal length of a prime lens that you don't have. Don't be shy to reference the pros but don't let your technological limitations limit or kill what you can do. Look in that viewfinder or at that LCD screen and if you look intently and know what you want you just might find "right" look for your movie at the right focal length at your disposal.
The thing is, I refrained from using the phrase "film look" and just went with "the look" instead to avoid getting caught up in the very difficult effort of making video look like film. I am a newb and could be wrong on this (please educate me if I am, if not for my sake but for the sake of my fellow newbs) but even with the best technologies available there is still a gap between film and video. So striving to get the "film look" is not something that is easy to do, especially on an Indie budget. So why let that little fact get in the way of your great movie? Why let it kill your awesome story?
I am not saying don't try to emulate film, but remember you are an artist whose primary duty is to the art itself - in this case your story. You have the responsibility of making a movie (I did not say film or video, I said movie) in which your goal is to grab the attention of your target audience(s), entertain them, manipulate them, tell them a message all within the confines of your story. As Indie movie makers we work within the very stretches of limitations. We are the ones who said we can, when the establishment said we cannot. So use what you have and use it well. When the technological cap hits you don't let it impact your artistic abilities, your imaginations. Some of the best classics out there today did not use the technology we have at our disposal today.
So when you are shooting for a certain "look" using that simple zoom lens on your available camcorder or DSLR use your tool as the viewfinder and try and get the look that best suits your art's needs, your story's needs without getting caught up in the focal length of a prime lens that you don't have. Don't be shy to reference the pros but don't let your technological limitations limit or kill what you can do. Look in that viewfinder or at that LCD screen and if you look intently and know what you want you just might find "right" look for your movie at the right focal length at your disposal.
The point of certain technical aspects, like the focal length of lenses looking "right", or 24P footage looking "right", or not crossing the line, or knowing when to use a jump cut, and when not to, are because film has a language, and over 100 plus years of filmmaking it has been ingrained into the audience. They "expect" things to be a certain way. When things aren't that way, they tend to notice (even if they can't put their finger on what it is). This deviation from the norm can be used to effect, for artistic reasons, etc... However, if it's just done willy nilly it can confuse and turn off the audience. I was at a festival, and there was a film where they had screwed up the shutter speed so the entire film looked like the infected sequences from 28 days later (we discussed this effect in another thread). After about 5 minutes of it I walked out. Maybe they did it on purpose, maybe their DP just didn't know what the F he was doing, in either event it caused me to walk out on what could have beeen (I will never know) and otherwise pretty good film.
"is still a gap between film and video"
Indeed there is. The object is to narrow that gap enough that the audience doesn't focus on it.
"is still a gap between film and video"
Indeed there is. The object is to narrow that gap enough that the audience doesn't focus on it.
Last edited:
I think we are on the same page for the most part, Gonzo. I am not advocating the violation of the rules and grammar of shooting or editing a movie - 180 degree, 30 degree, shot size and camera angles, when to move the camera, how to move the camera, when to use jump cuts, etc. I certainly hope that I did not come across as such. All I am saying is that one can still make a great movie (while respecting the rules and grammar instilled in the process over that past century plus, of course) all within the constraints of the technology available to them.
Trying to emulate 24 fps on a basic camcorder is a fools errand that does not have to happen. The OP and all other viewers on here can make their movie and emulate a given artistic look and presentation that uses great lighting, composition, staging, blocking, rhythm, sound, music, editing and so on that may not be in 24P. Not all of us have that kind of technology at our disposal. Heck I am working with a Cannon GL2 - an SD camera that does not shoot in 24P. If we all learn to use what we have at our disposal to tell the best story that we can and someone walked out on the final effort because it did not look like 24 fps, or film, then I say it is more the viewer's loss than ours.
Trying to emulate 24 fps on a basic camcorder is a fools errand that does not have to happen. The OP and all other viewers on here can make their movie and emulate a given artistic look and presentation that uses great lighting, composition, staging, blocking, rhythm, sound, music, editing and so on that may not be in 24P. Not all of us have that kind of technology at our disposal. Heck I am working with a Cannon GL2 - an SD camera that does not shoot in 24P. If we all learn to use what we have at our disposal to tell the best story that we can and someone walked out on the final effort because it did not look like 24 fps, or film, then I say it is more the viewer's loss than ours.
Don't disagree Kosh, you do the best you can with what you have, and write or select scripts to what you have the ability to pull off.