As a film student who pays around $3000 per semester for this kind of knowledge, I don't even get a quarter of this that you guys give away for zero bucks. I cannot thank you enough for how much you've enriched me as a filmmaker. Thanks to you, in my first semesters I possess much advanced knowledge thank my other classmates, which gave me a huge headstart in theory and practice.
I've been an amateur photographer since my early teens, and coursed BS in math and physics. This is the most clear, fun, concise, and visually appealing explanation of the basic physics and geometry of photography I've ever seen.
im gonna leave this video tabbed in my browser, i think i should watch it a few more times over the week just to make sure the good info in it sticks in my head. thank you very much for making this!
I really like this channel's film making tutorials and in so many points, I could really say that it's the best on UA-cam. This channel doesn't think about making shorter videos to get more views, it makes longer videos to cover the whole concept and lesson, and that's why I really like this channel. Because it explains stuff more specialized and detailed, so I could learn so many more things rather than so many videos stating the obvious that we (Beginner to mid level filmmakers) already know. Please keep on doing this guys.
Coming from a 34 yo with ZERO exp with film or cinematography, these videos have been an absolute God send with bringing me up to speed with how to play around with this unexpected interest in film. Thank you sir, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
+Helium Road As someone with a good degree in physics and "some" experience in still photography, including technical photography for military contracts while developing electronic circuits, it's the best explanation I've see including books. I admit, I may not have found the ideal books; but it's very impressive material.
Very impressive. It's rare to find someone in this modern culture who actually does their homework and has studied their subject to the extent that they can explain it without hiding behind techno-speak. I find your videos very instructive in a field about which I understand very little.
Every time I watch a Filmmaker IQ video I gotta take a break and digest. It feels like I just took a weeks worth of film classes in 20 minutes. Incredibly well put together and informative videos.
Thx for the great informative video. I like how you present it and you dont cut out the small mistakes you sometimes do while speaking. Most youtubers cut their videos after every sentence what makes your eyes very nervous.
+JP Kloess A lot of professors are busy proving they're "smart"; rather than making it easy for the student to learn the subject. And, they always have a certain pace, and a "lesson plan" they work to. I found University basically a waste of time after the second year, I just showed up and took the tests to get the degree. ( in Physics ).
JP Kloess for free and explained infinitely better, and without the truckloads of bullshit and headaches that are heaped upon you buy egomaniac professors.
I love that that home made camera! It is wonderful to see the light coming through the lens like that with absolutely no tech babble around it. Just light and the image. Thanks for putting that together.
Honestly the best. I've learned more from you than I did in my entire college career. The hardest part about it is choosing which video to watch next! and learning when to stop for the day!
Man, those are the absolute best explanations I have seen on the subject in my whole life. You have amazing pedagogy and a genuine talent for technical explanations. Keep up this work!
I love the way you explain how the different sizes in sensors change how "zoomed in" the picture gets, I think all of your hands on tests in this video were great. I have some friends who don't understand these things when I try to explain it to them (I guess they can't visualize it), so now I'll show them this video instead. Thank you :) Oh, and I am So curious as to what you raelly said at 20:00 :D
I wish I would have watched a video like this many years ago. All the possible doubts one can have about photography nicely explained in 20 minutes. You are the best dude. Eres la caña! (spanish idiom) Thanks a million.
As usual, a well researched, well spoken video that will help a lot of filmmakers understand lenses, so thanks again John. p.s. You show a photo of an Arri 9.5-18 lens, which caught my attention. I don't know if you have ever had the chance to play with one, but it is fantastic (although a bit pricey).
These are all the best informative videos on cinema and photography you can find. I'd say ten out of ten except I have to deduct points for consistently referring to silicon as "silicone".
This video was very well put together! Even though most of this stuff I already knew as a working photographer (except for the split diopter, that was new!) it was still very interesting to see it all laid out in a simple concise and easy to understand matter. I will definitely be forwarding these videos to people getting into photography/filmmaking! Thanks!
This channel is very important to all people who want to become cinema I thank you very much for this information and I wish you continued .. I am Omar from Syria I wish you the best
Nice video! Explains several key parts of photography in a way that is not hard to understand for beginners. I'm definitely gonna share this video amongst my students.
One thing I like about your videos is you just dub over the audio when you make a mistake. This is so much better than putting a big ole' SORRY I MEANT XXXX banner over the movie. GJ and great information.
Hi, thanks for profound information you are sharing, how i can get full frame view in my Olympus pen ep-3(m 3/4 camera) ? do i need to use any 25 mm lens? i love taking landscape photos but that crop factor annoys me every time.
This is an excellent and informative video regarding camera lenses, optics, image-forming, etc. (with a couple of minor "nits" concerning a bit of confusion in the subtitles with "further/farther" and "lens/sensor", and with some "discussion" possible about the meaning of the term "prime"...;-). Left out for macro work, though, was the very useful alternative to extension tubes: achromatic (two-element) close-up lenses. These are often simpler to use, and can be excellent at mid to smallish stops - and they tend to increase lens speed rather than reducing it, as extension tubes do. Where this video was relatively weaker, though, is in the area related to vision - and it included some common, but incorrect, assumptions. A "normal" lens for a given format is an arbitrary value (often defined as a focal length approximation of the format image diagonal dimension), and it has little to do with "how we see". We see with both an extremely wide angle of view (of more than 180-degrees horizontal, exceeding the width of all but the very widest [220-degree] fisheye lenses), and our "attention point" within that extremely wide field of view can be narrower than the longest practical camera telephoto lens. Additionally, "contrary to popular opinion", we see in "fisheye-lens" perspective, which is uncorrected by the brain, unfamiliar as this may appear when seen in a photograph - but this is easy to both prove and to demonstrate...;-) Thanks for making this video - it is generally excellent in coverage, information, and presentation (and it could be a great instructional video with a few "fixes"...). --David Ruether
This was pretty much exactly what I needed. I am a film buff, but also work in physics with a specialty in optics (interferometry, though geometric or ray optics is something I am pretty well versed in). So I had all the science basis, but I did not know the lingo used in photography/cinematography. With this video introducing that in plain terms, I can match up the jargon with what I know from the optics side. Thanks very much for such a lucid video! A couple questions: 1. When the word "sensor" is used here, does it refer to one picture element of the chip, or the the entire chip? In another video, when comparing chip sizes, there was a "number of sensors" listing in the figure that seemed to match up with the number of pixels. This also seemed to be the meaning when talking about the "circle of confusion" in the hyperfocal distance video. But here, when talking about normal lenses as such, the sensor seems to refer to the entire chip. Is there one meaning, or can it vary? 2. When talking about normal lenses and saying they need to be "about the same size as the sensor," does that refer to the diameter of the lens being about the same size? This is what it looks like, but I just want to be sure. Many thanks again!
Hey John, thanx again for all the great knowledge. You videos are a tremendous amount of work and are very slick and easy to follow. Put that feather in your cap bro, you're making a big difference out here in Hollywood. Look forward to meeting you down the road. Thank you & God bless
Suggestion for next video: a look at the post production workflow, specifically digital intermediate and traditional photochemical. Basically how we get from a negative to a theatrical print.
A split diopter was also used in Das Boot. Years ago I experimented with macrophoto using extension tubes. It turned out that some extension tubes from my grandfathers large camera (he had used that for making stereo photographies) fitted my modern camera (a Praktica), still using 42 mm thread.
John Hess, Please check the diagram in 1:07. The lens is focused at infinity. This means that the lines that were parallel before entering the lens should converge in a point that is in the image plane.
Overall an excellent comprehensive video good but while I realize your focus is video, here are a couple of caveats/corrections for stills photography: 1. Focus breathing can be an issue for stills photography. It makes the lowers the magnification/reproduction size of closer objects. If you're trying to get as many pixels on a bird a couple of meters away that is an issue. If you're shooting people it means you'll want to get closer as well. 2. Varifocal lenses are also a problem for stills photography for fast action sports (e.g. motor sports or an airshow). You don't get this wrong but you don't go into it either. Whene you want to zoom while you're shooting a sequence, even if the lens is very fast focusing you're still going to miss some shots with a varifocal lens that you'll get with a parfocal lens. On Nikon compare the Older 70-300VR (parfocal) to the newer AF-P DX VR (faster focusing but varifocal). You're going to want the older lens. Keep up the excellent videos.
Thanks for another fantastic video. I'm of the "buy once cry once" philosophy. This information is indispensable when it comes to not wasting money on additional lenses that may be unnecessary for a beginning photographer.
I love your very informative videos. Please keep them coming! I read Anton Wilson’s thoughts on what makes a normal lens and the 2:1 ratio for normal when shooting for cinema projection. This ratio seems to be very outmoded, however (dating back to the 1920s). Roger Deakins shot Barton fink at 27mm (exactly normal for 1:1.85). Even an “observational” film like Fargo where the viewer is more distant, Deakins only shot at 40mm (1.5x normal). Wally Pfister mainly shot at 28mm for the 1:2.35 movie Inception. I don’t see many contemporary examples of 2:1 in use. The actual selection of focal length/field of view really comes down to creative style more than how it is shown/projected. Prospective filmmakers should think about what suits their story best first (all of these ratios are arbitrary), then consider if a more telescopic look is desired for cinema projection (rather than TV/web). Even when made for the cinema, 2:1 may be much too long and not a good rule of thumb.
+Todd Peterson I totally agree that creative style should come first - for that bit on 2:1 I turned to the ASC Manual. I'm sure there's a solid some mathematical reasoning behind it. I personally find the definition of "normal" really only useful in trying to classify lenses when you're trying to explain the subject matter - a gray dividing line. But yeah getting hung up on precise definition of "normal" for artistic sake is pointless.
very informative, My focus is on camera usage for aerial photography and map making. This information is helpful in determining the best camera and lens for the job.
I learn more about Lenses and Camera Technique through out your videos than i do in my filmschool. Thats sad and awesome at the same time :D Anyways, awesome video!
All right! Let's say I have 24-70mm lens setted up to f2.8, I zoom it from 24mm to 70mm, f/ number remains 2.8... According to given definition of f value (focal lenght/diameter of amerture), the diameter of aperture should change, but blades of aperture don't move while zooming... So I believe this definition was unnecessarily simplified. Am I right or wrong? :)
Great question! It depends on whether or not your have a variable f-stop zoom or a fixed f-stop zoom lens. When we say the f-stop is a focal length divided by diameter of the aperture - we should say the diameter of the aperture *as viewed* from the front of the lens. In a variable f-stop zoom lens the diameter of the aperture does not change therefore your exposure will get darker as you zoom in. In a fixed f-stop zoom lens, the diameter is _optically_ enlarged as you zoom in - therefore keeping the same f-stop ratio.
great video as always! i feel like i'm in school again; hopefully there won't be a quiz. you are the 'kahn academy' of filmmaking. macro tip: you can also get a reverse filter thread adapter and mount a second lens in reverse for extreme macro shots. if you ever saw the underwhelming sequel to 'repo man,' 'repo chick,' most of the exterior scenes were shot using a tilt-shift lens; hats off to trying something different in film.. 'lens baby' is also a cheap way to create similar, but with non-accurate reproducible results. tilt-shift was originally done on large format cameras, by simply moving the bellows, macro as well. you can also use vintage large & medium format lenses on medium format sensor cameras or cameras with larger sensors, like red cameras (dragon, weapon), which changes the equation a bit..
+Photographic Elements We are currently completely recoding our site. We have quizzes for some of the videos that are already out - but soon we will have courses with extra information and quizzes to go with all these videos :) Stay tuned!
Hi John, again great video! My question is about the normal lens and the diagonal part, especially when we consider about aspect ratio, the normal aspect ratio for photography is 1.33:1 but the sensor size is 36:24 that is 1.5:1, therefore does that mean based on same formula the normal lens for a 4:3 photo would be 40mm instead of 43mm? Let me know if I am wrong. Even though the changes looks small however when it comes to cinematography a normal lens for super 35mm camera from aspect ratio of 1.33:1 to 2.39:1 could be changed from about 31mm to 25mm that is a lot. Also when you talk about for cinema the diagonal needs x2, is there any deeper research about it? Like how the distance and screen size influence the normal lens look, because ACS seems not given much detail about it.
My theory about the "normal lens" comes from the practice of viewing thru the viewfinder and seeing the same proportion as you see with the other eye, both eyes obviously open. Then you have the feeling of a normal viewing, even you can walk and feel comfortable, this is both eyes open, one of them sticked to the camera eyepiece. This assure you won't have a picture with distorted perspective, I mean, the size of the objects in the frame will be the same as the one you can see with your own eyes. So then, in 35mm motion picture film the normal lens would be 50mm, and in FF 35mm film still photography would be around 80mm, due the larger format. The same way, in 16mm motion picture film the normal lens would be 25mm. I know this through experience, but mostly is the way I like to approach the concept of a normal lens, a lens with no distortion regarding the given format. Great channel, John!!!
+Rogeramirez good theory but that would depend on the size of the viewfinder. If you're using the URSA with it huge sail of a viewfinder you may have different feel of normal lens. There is actual math for calculating normal lens based on viewing distance and screen size but everything really is so subjective.
+Filmmaker IQ Yeah, you nailed it, that's the weak point in my theory. Maybe it only applies to Pentaprisms, not Pentamirrors nor electronic viewfinders. Nevertheless, my theory considers maths due the existence of a proportion to determine the final number of the normal lens, but as you said is so subjective. I just try to make people think about this as a more precise way to embrace the concept of a "normal lens".
Hi guys, I really enjoy your videos, kinda geeky- nerdy, but quite entertaining for me (yes, definitely some nerdiness in my pedigree... ) I have one question: what software do you use for the infographics/ blackboard stuff; doing the equations and "blackboard drawings"? (like at 13:18) Cheers, and keep up your good stuff, Michael.
As a film student who pays around $3000 per semester for this kind of knowledge, I don't even get a quarter of this that you guys give away for zero bucks. I cannot thank you enough for how much you've enriched me as a filmmaker. Thanks to you, in my first semesters I possess much advanced knowledge thank my other classmates, which gave me a huge headstart in theory and practice.
You guys are seriously the best. Film schools should definetely show your videos in class.
+Neilogical Some of them do ;)
Can confirm as a film student. This video made it so much easier for me to understand all this.
Neilogical I agree!
They do at my school haha!!
Or just not go to film school
I've been an amateur photographer since my early teens, and coursed BS in math and physics. This is the most clear, fun, concise, and visually appealing explanation of the basic physics and geometry of photography I've ever seen.
im gonna leave this video tabbed in my browser, i think i should watch it a few more times over the week just to make sure the good info in it sticks in my head. thank you very much for making this!
Instead i wrote everything down
I really like this channel's film making tutorials and in so many points, I could really say that it's the best on UA-cam. This channel doesn't think about making shorter videos to get more views, it makes longer videos to cover the whole concept and lesson, and that's why I really like this channel. Because it explains stuff more specialized and detailed, so I could learn so many more things rather than so many videos stating the obvious that we (Beginner to mid level filmmakers) already know. Please keep on doing this guys.
Coming from a 34 yo with ZERO exp with film or cinematography, these videos have been an absolute God send with bringing me up to speed with how to play around with this unexpected interest in film. Thank you sir, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
Have you per chance considered, or would you be interested in, doing a collab video essay with RocketJump Film School?
As a long-time still photographer your recent videos have been the best explanation for this stuff I've seen outside of books.
+Helium Road As someone with a good degree in physics and "some" experience in still photography, including technical photography for military contracts while developing electronic circuits, it's the best explanation I've see including books. I admit, I may not have found the ideal books; but it's very impressive material.
Very impressive. It's rare to find someone in this modern culture who actually does their homework and has studied their subject to the extent that they can explain it without hiding behind techno-speak. I find your videos very instructive in a field about which I understand very little.
One of the best videos which clearly explains focal length of a camera.
This is one of the few channels where I will watch a video longer than 5 minutes. Thanks for a clear explanation.
Every time I watch a Filmmaker IQ video I gotta take a break and digest. It feels like I just took a weeks worth of film classes in 20 minutes. Incredibly well put together and informative videos.
Thx for the great informative video. I like how you present it and you dont cut out the small mistakes you sometimes do while speaking. Most youtubers cut their videos after every sentence what makes your eyes very nervous.
Man!!!! No jokes, I could have spent a whole month in school for this same info? thank you so much!!! Awesome explanation and Visual aid!
This video is one third of my college intro to photography class.
Why didnt they just show us this?
+JP Kloess A lot of professors are busy proving they're "smart"; rather than making it easy for the student to learn the subject. And, they always have a certain pace, and a "lesson plan" they work to. I found University basically a waste of time after the second year, I just showed up and took the tests to get the degree. ( in Physics ).
Same here - I'm having a test next week in my film lecture and this covers half our script...
JP Kloess for free and explained infinitely better, and without the truckloads of bullshit and headaches that are heaped upon you buy egomaniac professors.
I love that that home made camera! It is wonderful to see the light coming through the lens like that with absolutely no tech babble around it. Just light and the image. Thanks for putting that together.
This explains it better than any photography videos on youtube. Illustrasions are very good.
It's incredibly helpful how you show simple optical examples in action, it makes everything so tangible.
Your Videos are truly the best tutorials among free and paid websites! Thank You
Honestly the best. I've learned more from you than I did in my entire college career. The hardest part about it is choosing which video to watch next! and learning when to stop for the day!
Man, those are the absolute best explanations I have seen on the subject in my whole life. You have amazing pedagogy and a genuine talent for technical explanations. Keep up this work!
Just noticed the Wilhelm Scream at 0:07 when the camera tips over. Great easter egg from your sound editor :)
These videos are an invaluable resource. Thank you to the whole team for your hard work making these.
These lectures are just awesome. Just the thing I need to see from the professionals to help me with my C100c and follow focus lenses " Fantastic"
Great insights as always! Looking forward to the video on DOF
I love the way you explain how the different sizes in sensors change how "zoomed in" the picture gets, I think all of your hands on tests in this video were great. I have some friends who don't understand these things when I try to explain it to them (I guess they can't visualize it), so now I'll show them this video instead. Thank you :)
Oh, and I am So curious as to what you raelly said at 20:00 :D
You're a star man. What an effort to make this video. Thanks, we appreciate your work!
Well done. Everything you need to know and clearly presented. Can't wait to see your next video.
I wish I would have watched a video like this many years ago. All the possible doubts one can have about photography nicely explained in 20 minutes. You are the best dude. Eres la caña! (spanish idiom) Thanks a million.
Great video I'm a longtime videographer and already understood 95% of what you were talking about, thanks a lot for clearing up that other 5%.
I've been binging all of your videos since yesterday and I love all of them! Great work man, keep it up!
As usual, a well researched, well spoken video that will help a lot of filmmakers understand lenses, so thanks again John. p.s. You show a photo of an Arri 9.5-18 lens, which caught my attention. I don't know if you have ever had the chance to play with one, but it is fantastic (although a bit pricey).
+Basic Filmmaker I've played with it but not for any project - it's crazy...
This is literally the best educational video I have ever seen
These are all the best informative videos on cinema and photography you can find. I'd say ten out of ten except I have to deduct points for consistently referring to silicon as "silicone".
This video was very well put together! Even though most of this stuff I already knew as a working photographer (except for the split diopter, that was new!) it was still very interesting to see it all laid out in a simple concise and easy to understand matter. I will definitely be forwarding these videos to people getting into photography/filmmaking!
Thanks!
Seriously the best youtube lessons.
The Best Chanel I ever see, A lot of info we learn from your Chanel, Thumb Up keep going Dear.
This is a real school photo class! Congrats John!
What a fantastic presentation. Props to Mr. Hess. Great education for me
This channel is very important to all people who want to become cinema I thank you very much for this information and I wish you continued .. I am Omar from Syria I wish you the best
Great video, John! You covered SO MUCH in such little time. Great channel, please keep it up!
Nice video! Explains several key parts of photography in a way that is not hard to understand for beginners. I'm definitely gonna share this video amongst my students.
One thing I like about your videos is you just dub over the audio when you make a mistake. This is so much better than putting a big ole' SORRY I MEANT XXXX banner over the movie. GJ and great information.
+Beau Brown If we catch it in time...
Hi, thanks for profound information you are sharing, how i can get full frame view in my Olympus pen ep-3(m 3/4 camera) ? do i need to use any 25 mm lens? i love taking landscape photos but that crop factor annoys me every time.
I didn't have this at school. Continue the great work. Solid video.
Every video is a pleasure. Even when we know the matter, its refreshing to see that knowledge so well delivered. Very good job man.
The best video I've seen on learning photography. Looking forward to watching the rest of your videos!
This is an excellent and informative video regarding camera lenses, optics, image-forming, etc. (with a couple of minor "nits" concerning a bit of confusion in the subtitles with "further/farther" and "lens/sensor", and with some "discussion" possible about the meaning of the term "prime"...;-). Left out for macro work, though, was the very useful alternative to extension tubes: achromatic (two-element) close-up lenses. These are often simpler to use, and can be excellent at mid to smallish stops - and they tend to increase lens speed rather than reducing it, as extension tubes do.
Where this video was relatively weaker, though, is in the area related to vision - and it included some common, but incorrect, assumptions. A "normal" lens for a given format is an arbitrary value (often defined as a focal length approximation of the format image diagonal dimension), and it has little to do with "how we see". We see with both an extremely wide angle of view (of more than 180-degrees horizontal, exceeding the width of all but the very widest [220-degree] fisheye lenses), and our "attention point" within that extremely wide field of view can be narrower than the longest practical camera telephoto lens. Additionally, "contrary to popular opinion", we see in "fisheye-lens" perspective, which is uncorrected by the brain, unfamiliar as this may appear when seen in a photograph - but this is easy to both prove and to demonstrate...;-)
Thanks for making this video - it is generally excellent in coverage, information, and presentation (and it could be a great instructional video with a few "fixes"...).
--David Ruether
This was pretty much exactly what I needed. I am a film buff, but also work in physics with a specialty in optics (interferometry, though geometric or ray optics is something I am pretty well versed in). So I had all the science basis, but I did not know the lingo used in photography/cinematography. With this video introducing that in plain terms, I can match up the jargon with what I know from the optics side. Thanks very much for such a lucid video!
A couple questions:
1. When the word "sensor" is used here, does it refer to one picture element of the chip, or the the entire chip? In another video, when comparing chip sizes, there was a "number of sensors" listing in the figure that seemed to match up with the number of pixels. This also seemed to be the meaning when talking about the "circle of confusion" in the hyperfocal distance video. But here, when talking about normal lenses as such, the sensor seems to refer to the entire chip. Is there one meaning, or can it vary?
2. When talking about normal lenses and saying they need to be "about the same size as the sensor," does that refer to the diameter of the lens being about the same size? This is what it looks like, but I just want to be sure.
Many thanks again!
Thanks for this. It's great, and informative beyond what I would have ever looked for.
Hey John, thanx again for all the great knowledge. You videos are a tremendous amount of work and are very slick and easy to follow. Put that feather in your cap bro, you're making a big difference out here in Hollywood. Look forward to meeting you down the road. Thank you & God bless
thanks for mentioning focal breathing! I've noticed this in film, now I know it's a thing!
WOW!!! I have to watch this twice, but very informative!!!
Suggestion for next video: a look at the post production workflow, specifically digital intermediate and traditional photochemical. Basically how we get from a negative to a theatrical print.
A split diopter was also used in Das Boot.
Years ago I experimented with macrophoto using extension tubes. It turned out that some extension tubes from my grandfathers large camera (he had used that for making stereo photographies) fitted my modern camera (a Praktica), still using 42 mm thread.
As usual, get explanation and supporting graphics. I always learn something that previously was not explained with so much clarity!
John Hess,
Please check the diagram in 1:07.
The lens is focused at infinity. This means that the lines that were parallel before entering the lens should converge in a point that is in the image plane.
Right, this was made before I had a better grasp of ray tracing diagrams... so ignore those drawings.
Overall an excellent comprehensive video good but while I realize your focus is video, here are a couple of caveats/corrections for stills photography:
1. Focus breathing can be an issue for stills photography. It makes the lowers the magnification/reproduction size of closer objects. If you're trying to get as many pixels on a bird a couple of meters away that is an issue. If you're shooting people it means you'll want to get closer as well.
2. Varifocal lenses are also a problem for stills photography for fast action sports (e.g. motor sports or an airshow). You don't get this wrong but you don't go into it either. Whene you want to zoom while you're shooting a sequence, even if the lens is very fast focusing you're still going to miss some shots with a varifocal lens that you'll get with a parfocal lens. On Nikon compare the Older 70-300VR (parfocal) to the newer AF-P DX VR (faster focusing but varifocal). You're going to want the older lens.
Keep up the excellent videos.
Thank you for teaching so much in such small space of time!
The presenter is Exceptionally smart - yet very artistic (see his film direction) and above all - very eloquent- wow!!!!!
awesome video! you guys are great! I just love how you 'perform' the class! Thanks a lot!
Thanks for another fantastic video. I'm of the "buy once cry once" philosophy. This information is indispensable when it comes to not wasting money on additional lenses that may be unnecessary for a beginning photographer.
I have learnt so much from these videos I feel like I'm committing some sort of theft
+Alex Varney LOL.
I love your very informative videos. Please keep them coming! I read Anton Wilson’s thoughts on what makes a normal lens and the 2:1 ratio for normal when shooting for cinema projection. This ratio seems to be very outmoded, however (dating back to the 1920s). Roger Deakins shot Barton fink at 27mm (exactly normal for 1:1.85). Even an “observational” film like Fargo where the viewer is more distant, Deakins only shot at 40mm (1.5x normal). Wally Pfister mainly shot at 28mm for the 1:2.35 movie Inception. I don’t see many contemporary examples of 2:1 in use. The actual selection of focal length/field of view really comes down to creative style more than how it is shown/projected. Prospective filmmakers should think about what suits their story best first (all of these ratios are arbitrary), then consider if a more telescopic look is desired for cinema projection (rather than TV/web). Even when made for the cinema, 2:1 may be much too long and not a good rule of thumb.
+Todd Peterson I totally agree that creative style should come first - for that bit on 2:1 I turned to the ASC Manual. I'm sure there's a solid some mathematical reasoning behind it. I personally find the definition of "normal" really only useful in trying to classify lenses when you're trying to explain the subject matter - a gray dividing line.
But yeah getting hung up on precise definition of "normal" for artistic sake is pointless.
Wow. You are awesome at explaining EVERYTHING! Kudos, sir!
A little late to this channel, but this is serious gold, even for a (primarily) stills photographer. Great summary John.
very informative, My focus is on camera usage for aerial photography and map making. This information is helpful in determining the best camera and lens for the job.
Thank you for making the videos you make, you've helped me to understand film so much! Keep being awesome man :)
Superbbbbbbb tutorial sir.
Thanks for your contribution in helping to learn photography for beginners like us
Thanks for this precious videos you make. Just great!
Love these videos. Very well done. ✅
I learned more in the first 7 minutes of this video than I learned in my 2-year "photography" course.
I learn more about Lenses and Camera Technique through out your videos than i do in my filmschool.
Thats sad and awesome at the same time :D Anyways, awesome video!
Subbed. I know a decent amount of video and photography and I learned something new along with a nice refresher. Thanks for sharing.
All right!
Let's say I have 24-70mm lens setted up to f2.8,
I zoom it from 24mm to 70mm, f/ number remains 2.8...
According to given definition of f value (focal lenght/diameter of amerture), the diameter of aperture should change, but blades of aperture don't move while zooming...
So I believe this definition was unnecessarily simplified. Am I right or wrong? :)
Great question! It depends on whether or not your have a variable f-stop zoom or a fixed f-stop zoom lens. When we say the f-stop is a focal length divided by diameter of the aperture - we should say the diameter of the aperture *as viewed* from the front of the lens.
In a variable f-stop zoom lens the diameter of the aperture does not change therefore your exposure will get darker as you zoom in.
In a fixed f-stop zoom lens, the diameter is _optically_ enlarged as you zoom in - therefore keeping the same f-stop ratio.
You guys to a great job on these videos. Thanks.
Absolutely incredible job. Thank you so much for teaching us wanna be directors so much.
wow.. this is one well polished video.. awesome. caught my attention till the end. thanks a lot. crystal clear explanations. :)
very thorough explanation- thanks
When I took the "film-making" course at the New York Film Academy they showed one of your videos!
Fascinating, and beautifully done. Thank you so much.
looked up the lens you show at 7:14 arri 9.5-18 and the footage from it looks like its cgi, its that good
I highly respect you good sir and hope you continue with these lectures.
Best vídeo ever made about lenses.
This video is fantastic!
Another excellent video. Thank you very much for such good information
Awesome video! Thanks you :D
@Filmmaker IQ You're smarter, more knowledgeable and more educated on cinema then any of my academic university film teachers...
Absolutely love your videos - thanks a lot!
great video as always! i feel like i'm in school again; hopefully there won't be a quiz. you are the 'kahn academy' of filmmaking.
macro tip: you can also get a reverse filter thread adapter and mount a second lens in reverse for extreme macro shots.
if you ever saw the underwhelming sequel to 'repo man,' 'repo chick,' most of the exterior scenes were shot using a tilt-shift lens; hats off to trying something different in film.. 'lens baby' is also a cheap way to create similar, but with non-accurate reproducible results. tilt-shift was originally done on large format cameras, by simply moving the bellows, macro as well.
you can also use vintage large & medium format lenses on medium format sensor cameras or cameras with larger sensors, like red cameras (dragon, weapon), which changes the equation a bit..
+Photographic Elements We are currently completely recoding our site. We have quizzes for some of the videos that are already out - but soon we will have courses with extra information and quizzes to go with all these videos :)
Stay tuned!
+Filmmaker IQ i would love that! you need an app, watch a video, take a quiz. i know someone who could make these courses accredited if you wish..
Very comprehensive. Thanks!
Great video, as always. Keep up the good work!
Normal lens talk at 4:55. Was looking for this. Maybe you should index your videos, but that's a lot of work.
One more INCREDIBLY great tutorial.
Thanks !
Thanx so much... Awesome Video and excellent explained! You´re the best....!!!!!!!!
Hi John, again great video! My question is about the normal lens and the diagonal part, especially when we consider about aspect ratio, the normal aspect ratio for photography is 1.33:1 but the sensor size is 36:24 that is 1.5:1, therefore does that mean based on same formula the normal lens for a 4:3 photo would be 40mm instead of 43mm? Let me know if I am wrong. Even though the changes looks small however when it comes to cinematography a normal lens for super 35mm camera from aspect ratio of 1.33:1 to 2.39:1 could be changed from about 31mm to 25mm that is a lot. Also when you talk about for cinema the diagonal needs x2, is there any deeper research about it? Like how the distance and screen size influence the normal lens look, because ACS seems not given much detail about it.
I'm going to have to do a video on the math of it all but from a practical standpoint don't sweat it... It's all an approximation anyways.
Just wow how good your videos are
Pure gold. Thank you guys)
man, thank you very much! This is a great introduction to lenses.
Excellent video!!!!
My theory about the "normal lens" comes from the practice of viewing thru the viewfinder and seeing the same proportion as you see with the other eye, both eyes obviously open. Then you have the feeling of a normal viewing, even you can walk and feel comfortable, this is both eyes open, one of them sticked to the camera eyepiece. This assure you won't have a picture with distorted perspective, I mean, the size of the objects in the frame will be the same as the one you can see with your own eyes.
So then, in 35mm motion picture film the normal lens would be 50mm, and in FF 35mm film still photography would be around 80mm, due the larger format. The same way, in 16mm motion picture film the normal lens would be 25mm. I know this through experience, but mostly is the way I like to approach the concept of a normal lens, a lens with no distortion regarding the given format.
Great channel, John!!!
+Rogeramirez good theory but that would depend on the size of the viewfinder. If you're using the URSA with it huge sail of a viewfinder you may have different feel of normal lens. There is actual math for calculating normal lens based on viewing distance and screen size but everything really is so subjective.
+Filmmaker IQ Yeah, you nailed it, that's the weak point in my theory. Maybe it only applies to Pentaprisms, not Pentamirrors nor electronic viewfinders. Nevertheless, my theory considers maths due the existence of a proportion to determine the final number of the normal lens, but as you said is so subjective. I just try to make people think about this as a more precise way to embrace the concept of a "normal lens".
Hi guys, I really enjoy your videos, kinda geeky- nerdy, but quite entertaining for me (yes, definitely some nerdiness in my pedigree... )
I have one question: what software do you use for the infographics/ blackboard stuff; doing the equations and "blackboard drawings"? (like at 13:18)
Cheers, and keep up your good stuff,
Michael.
Michael Rapp the video is cut together in Premiere but all animations are done in After Effects