Shoot Like a Cinematographer, Not a Videographer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- How can you make your documentary films look more like Hollywood and less like cheap video? The word “cinematic” gets thrown around too much on the internet, but in this video I’m going to break down some simple techniques you can use to up your visual game and make your next doc project pop!
#filmmaking #documentaries #cinematography
🎥 *WANT TO LEVEL UP YOUR CINEMATOGRAPHY? JOIN MY DOCUMENTARY CINEMATOGRAPHY: PROFESSIONAL FOUNDATIONS COURSE*🎥 bit.ly/3YkuBcL
📘*LIFE-CHANGING ADVICE FOR FILMMAKERS (FREE 70-PAGE EBOOK)*📘: tinyurl.com/ax9c3kkf
📽 *A FILMMAKER’S GUIDE TO LONG TERM CAREER PLANNING (FREE 5 DAY CHALLENGE)*📽: bit.ly/40ZS9GC
📖 THE DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER’S NETWORKING GUIDE (FREE DOWNLOAD) 📖: bit.ly/3VIA7Vm
📝✅ ESSENTIAL GEAR PACKING CHECKLIST (FREE DOWNLOAD) ✅📝: tinyurl.com/ycknfa7j
🗞 MONTHLY NEWSLETTER: FILMMAKING TIPS, GEAR, AND CREATIVE LIVING 🗞: bit.ly/3imiDAj
🤘 WHERE I GET MUSIC FOR MY VIDEOS (Luc70 for 70% off!!!) 🤘: audiio.com/lucforsyth
📱 *SCHEDULE 1:1 CAREER DEVELOPMENT OR PROJECT CONSULTATION CALL WITH ME*📱
calendly.com/lucforsyth/1-1-c...
CHAPTERS
0:00 - Intro
1:39 - Shoot at 24fps
3:29 - Shallow depth of field and Bokeh
5:52 - Use your Zoom as a variable Prime
7:51 - Backlight your subjects whenever possible
9:02 - Supplement natural light, but keep it natural
🎥 🔥 📷 GEAR I USE
MY ACAM: amzn.to/3CsrOoy
MY UA-cam CAM: amzn.to/3TcW12m
BEST DOC TRIPOD IN THE WORLD: bhpho.to/3VD3Gsn
MY FAVORITE CAMERA BACKPACK: bit.ly/3yTAJPh
EXPEDITION BACKPACK: bit.ly/3MEkco2
UA-cam LENS: amzn.to/3CuSl4x
PRIME LENSES: amzn.to/3CuVrWk
CURRENT DRONE: amzn.to/3VUUiQk
KEY LIGHT: amzn.to/3MzpsJn
SHOTGUN MIC: amzn.to/3hVwVnL
COMPUTER: amzn.to/3HXNwlE
CRAZY GOOD POWER BANK FOR FILMMAKERS: www.omnicharge.co/luc
Some of the above are affiliate links, but all are personally vetted and recommended
✋ SAY HI
Email: luc@lucforsyth.com
Web: www.lucforsyth.com
IG: @lucforsyth (BTS content, but I’m TERRIBLE at DMs - sorry!)
Email: luc@lucforsyth.com
Web: www.lucforsyth.com
IG: @lucforsyth
Realistic lighting is the most difficult element to achieve. I'm 81 and I was shooting film in 1970 and I'm still trying to learn how to master lighting.
we love you bro
Jeeeeezuz, over 50 years of doing something and you still ain’t figured out……. Maybe you should just throw in the towel and continue being a Grandpa 🤦🏾♂️
@@constantpressure6458 bro a troll
lol, Yea i can dig it
@@constantpressure6458that's just sad to say bro
24fps was actually not an esthetic decision, not in the beginning. The original engineering was centered on minimizing film cost. Thomas Edison did the initial research and determined that 16fps was sufficient to trick the brain into seeing continuous motion, but 16 fps was not sufficient to overcome the eye's biological/chemical reaction to light, called persistence of vision. Edison determined that the strobing action of light inherent in projection required 48 flashes of light per second in order for persistence of vision to be overcome and for the eye to perceive continuous light with no flicker. The solution was to place a shutter in projectors, like a spinning pinwheel with 3 vanes, so that each frame filmed at 16fps was flashed on the screen 3 times -- thus achieving 48 flashes of light per second while consuming only 16 fps of precious film stock -- a huge savings considering the economics of motion picture reproduction and distribution.
While 16fps was standard for silent movies, 24fps emerged as the standard with the arrival of talkies. When sound was incorporated into motion pictures, it was eventually standardized to an optical track, where an actual visible audio waveform was printed on one edge of the movie film alongside the sequence of images. For this, 16fps proved to be unsuitable due to poor audio quality, but increasing the frame rate to 24fps gave the desired audio resolution and fidelity.
I don't dispute aesthetic arguments about 24fps providing more "cinematic" results because higher frame rates inherently compromise motion blur. And there may be codec advantages also when fewer frames are compressed, allowing more image data to be allocated for any given data maximum data rate that a given storage system is capable of. It is not inappropriate to discuss esthetics of frame rate, and there has been a long history of experimental work, notably Douglas Trumbull who tried to market a special theater concept called Showscan, if I recall.
Personally, I'm grateful for this conversation here because I am personally about to standardize on a frame rate thanks to the fact that I have just purchased 6 Tentacle Sync Track E Mk II timecode clocks, and from this day forward all my cameras will be locked down to a standard configuration. We've avoided a huge discussion of fractional frame rates here, something that evolved in the analog era to accommodate color in much the same way that 24fps replaced 16fps to accommodate optical sound. Edison's original research still holds, and all filmmakers would do well to be grounded in basic principles of continuous motion and perception of vision. Not only for esthetics, but also to understand the interaction between camera sensor scanning and various non-continuous light sources such as rasterized screens, fluorescent lighting, and LED sources.
Thanks for the feedback! You’re definitely better at the technical knowledge aspect of this than I am, appreciate you taking the time to explain this all!
I would also like to add that the 30 fps standard for telvision also has nothing to do with aestetics. It just works well when the grid is operating at 60 Hz. In Europe, the grid is 50 Hz, therefore television in Europe has always been shot at 25 fps. Furthermore, when you talk about the smoothness of the footage, you need to talk about shutter speed, and it's effect on motion blur. A sequence with a very short shutter speed will show very little motion blur in the individual frames, and this will result in a jittery look. For this reason, Cinematic 3D animations are rendered with motion blur activated. Even though it increases render time considerably. As a general rule, footage looks the smoothest when the shutterspeed is about half of the reciprocal of the frame rate. So 1/60th of a second for 30fps and 1/125th of a second for 60 fps.
Oh, I get it - they must have gone from 16 to 24 fps because for the sound in analog, the more inches per second (ips) move across the exciter lamp (or in the case of tape, the heads), the more sound info and therefore detail there is.
16fps is an urban legend
Hey smartie pants...thanks-that was some serious conversation.😎
“Cinematic“ is used so often and for so long that any video with that word in the title is usually something I skip over. You put out such good work that I wanted to see what your take on it was, and I’m glad I did. I really appreciate your definition and objective take on it rather than leaving it as some nebulous term. Lots of good info all around. Thanks for posting quality stuff!
Thanks Mitch, I appreciate that! Glad you liked it
And yet, in this video the word is misused too. It is a bald move to say the crashzooms aren't cinematic. Cinematic is not just the looks, the photography. Cinematic is the story that we are telling with the different techniques. So basically, the cashzooms in Django Unchained, as shown in this video, are actually 100% cinematic. Even wideangle shots at F11 can be very cinematic. And people not even pros will not notice the change of the looks if it is motivated through the story with usage of different techniques.
I don’t even think I use the word cinematic anymore
@@andrewgonzalez6208you just did
Here I used a simple android phone. Handheld gives you cinematic results if you use the music at crucial time in your video.
Here is an example: Cinematic Vdeo of my friend:- ua-cam.com/video/YzIziF6XT0o/v-deo.html
3:46 - "this is called depth of field"; this is called *use of* depth of field; 4:11 to 4:29 - please clarify that the *numerically* smaller numbers (f/1.2, 1.4, 2, etc) are, in fact, the lenses' *maximum* aperture, its' *largest* aperture, where the lens is wide open; 4:40 - when you say, "wide angle lenses have less dof than telephoto lenses.." - wide angle lenses have *more* dof than longer lenses. DOF is the distance in front of and behind the plane of focus where sharpness is acceptable; 4:45-4:51 - an f/4 kit lens at 24mm, will have *more* dof than a 50mm lens at f/4 [everything else being the same - same camera-to-subject distance]; *DOF* is not *blur*, it's the distance in front of and behind the plane of focus where sharpness is acceptable; you can choose a (numerically smaller, physically larger) particular fstop, particular focal length, + distance from camera to *get* less dof for a blurred background & foreground, isolating the subject nicely, but people are going to think "DOF is blur".
Great technical explanation, thanks for the corrections!
Yes, to put it succinctly when the phrase “depth of field” is used in this video, more often then not “shallow depth of field” is what is meant, and that is the more clear way to explain the concept of the background (or foreground) falling into blur sooner.
Yes, I was about to say, MORE depth of field means more things are in focus and is achieved with a wider lens and / or a smaller (eg f11 or f16) aperture. f1.4 or f2.8 is not a smaller aperture, it is a wider aperture.
thank you so much for this because I was having the worst time trying to research what the heck was meant when he literally said that longer lenses = MORE dof I was like literally every source is saying otherwise and everything is contradicting what he said in that whole section. I wanted to cry I was so confused this really cleared things up for me
When considering how to make your work LOOK more cinematic you should also consider the sound. Choose an editor who knows how to cut scenes to look more "natural." That means giving the subjects a chance to consider, understand, and react emotionally. First rule: Talking subjects need oxygen. Tell your editor to give plenty of pauses so that both the speaker and the viewer have that extra 1/2 second to hear and react. No motormouth editing! The real action in human speech occurs BETWEEN the words. Give your actors a pause to inhale. The best professional speakers, actors, and narrators know that cutting out all of the pauses in the narrators speech will make your work look like a UA-cam video. Give your subjects the respect they deserve. This is a vital factor if you want your work to "look" cinematic.
great advice, much appreciated!
@@mitojopepa Thank you Mito. When you see a movie "Trailer" what is most often featured is lots of reaction shots. There are seldom talking heads in the trailers. Reaction shots are where the actors do most of the story-telling work. Reaction shots are much less common in regular video production, and they shouldn't be. This is why good directors always have at least two cameras on the set.
Greg you need a channel for this editing advice . Really useful. Thanks
@@gregmckenzie4315 will keep in mind! Hope we‘ll have more to consider in our projects in the future of what you have to share. :)
Good advice. And ironically this video here made me think that there needs a bit more delay between cuts, especially when Luc changes subjects.
Luc great videos! However it seems like you're confusing what depth of field really means.
Depth of field is not how blurry the background is, it's how wide or narrow your plane of focus is. In other words, MORE depth of field means wider focus depth, the background is more in focus. LESS depth of field means shallower focus depth, meaning blurrier backgrounds.
Also "smaller" aperture means the lens is closed down, as in using f16 of f22. Wider apertures are the ones you were referring to, ie 1.4 or 2.8.
I don't think cinematic is just framerates and filters. There are moments in big movies that seem odd and moments with cheap cameras that are packed with emotions. And then I remember Kurosawa speaking about a moment he filmed that was real cinematic. If there is a big moment that make us feel the scene, that is cinematic. And big cinematigraphers just figured it out what and how to present.
I think a lot of it, besides lighting, is the way the camera moves. There's something special about a well executed crane or dolly shot ... but these things might be out of the reach of a low budget documentary maker or amateur playing around like me.
You're right. I recently learned that they even use high framerates in action scenes to make you feel uncomfortable. The example given was a war movie and it makes so much sense. Never thought about it but always wondered why it looked so weird.
7:20 a cameraman I worked with when I caught my break producing a television doc style show always use to say this. "Move your feet." It's the reason I loved editing what he shot and didn't enjoy some of the footage from other shooters.
I will say though - boy, do I love a good crash zoom, even in docs.
*maximum aperture* is printed on the lens for the given focal length. The f-number is inversely proportional to the size of the aperture
2:03 shows a "difference" in 24 FPS. Genius.
This is a great video in cinematography.
I simplified the meaning to take the complexity out of it.
Videographer: Knows how to run the tool/s.
Cinematographer: Controls of the entirety of the LOOK and FEEL of the scene/shot/atmosphere.
Like musicians, some people are great, strictly the instrument alone, then you have the composer/writer who brings the musicians altogether to create the feel/atmosphere of the SONG. That is similar to a cinematographer.
Being a photographer prior to a videographer I realized I am on already on the path of cinematography always achieving the '' look '' and '' feel '' of what I'm shooting.
That was a great. Tips are quick, useful, concise. Most of this stuff I already knew but it helped me clear my head for an upcoming shoot where I feel like I'm overthinking. I'm a fan of this man. Can't wait to watch more.
2:25 The answer is not really the frame rate but the scanning method. Since the beginning of cinema, movies are being shot progressively, that is one frame after another. Broadcast, on the other hand, uses the interlaced scan which gives an illusion of 60fps in USA and 50fps in Europe. Most people say that interlaced is obsolete whereas it is still used to this day and the finest example is the news broadcast.
Also, TV cameras use 2/3-inch and 1/2-inch sensors that aren't the best option for shallow depth of field and are actually meant to make everything as sharp as possible.
You're very right on the scanning method, good call!
Yeah, the difference between progressive and interlaced is A LOT more noticeable than the difference between 24, 25 or 30 frames progressive.
Yes in TV land there are 2 fields that make up one frame of video. So the first field scans the even lines 2, 4, 6 etc. Then on the 2nd pass it scans the odd lines 1, 3, 5 (hence the term interlaced) etc until both fields are complete and so you have a complete (progressive) frame of video.
Mindset, hustle and cinematic are my favourite words who give me goosebumps. I feel like they’re often overseen.
I think the depth of field concept is sometimes framed as “looking cool and cinematic” when it should better be used as “control of information”. Sometimes it’s a “hey, pay attention to this” or even sometimes a manipulation to purposely obscure information from your audience. I think most people don’t think about it because it’s difficult to achieve properly especially when you don’t have a focus puller. I feel like the difference between videographer and cinematographer is about 5-10 years of extra experience, knowledge, and experimentation.
It’s about story and motivation.
A camera move should appear motivated by either the story (as in django) or by other elements in the scene. For example handheld to emphasise the uneasiness or tension in a scene.
Lighting is no different, it looks “cinematic” if it feels motivated. For example if a subject is lit in a scene where the viewer can imply the light is coming from a nearby window or street lamp, etc then it feels like the subject was in a real place.
All of these exist to help the viewer forget there’s a camera, pointing at an actor, with a team of people lighting and directing the scene.
They’re just tools to support the story.
I didn’t write a comment intending to criticise the creator of this video, but I do feel he’s missed far more elements personally. The stuff he’s covered I’ve often found in other UA-cam videos and it’s missing the point imo.
This is a really great way of saying things
Very helpful comment, thank you. I personally don't like jerky camera movements such as when the camera is 'chasing' someone and the footage is bouncing all over the place - it's awful and unrealistic. When we run, we naturally balance out the scene in front of us and the camera cannot do that.
God, you sound like me. Here, here...
This is a great comment, but also great tips in the video. ‘Story first’ sounds simple. However narrative analysis of character, plot, setting in time/place, themes etc., is so tricky to most, that technical aspects are so much easier. Unfortunately storytelling becomes mostly secondary, even in some big budget movies.
I think you mean the viewer can infer.. 😊
What you have hit on here is essentially the difference between cinematography and videography. Yes, I agree with your assessment 100%. You always seem to have a lot of very useful information in your posts. Thanks, Luc.
Thanks for the advice. Really appreciate these videos. Best channel for filmmakers by far.
First time I’ve heard the word “cinematic” without cringing super hard. Kudos on the excellent video!
Back lighting might require slightly more discussion. A dim light in the background is an interesting visual complement to good frontal lighting.
If you're going to shoot a subject against a bright back light (sun, giant window, etc...) you better have a fill light or reflector in front of the subject so the subject isn't just a silhouette or the back light isn't completely blown out while adjusting exposure for the subject.
Exactly
You’re gifted, thanks for sharing your gifts with the world
Honestly… I feel you so much when it comes to enhancing the light of the spaces that you’re in. That’s truly the difference between between something that was shot “in the moment” by a “videographer” vs a film that was truly meant to be viewed in a cinema/festival/high art context. I’d love to hear more about, and see demos of, how you transitioned from dealing with what was there to setting up more lighting to create more intentional storytelling. I think, at this point, I’m a really competent videographer. Using light for talking heads and everything else is second nature. As a solo shooter I’m curious as to how you’re able to keep your attention to what’s happening, and capturing the moment and the story, whilst also being able to rig lights and frame it well. Maybe the answer is… I stop shooting solo if I want to be creating this kind of work 😂 but I feel like there’s a huge leap in the workflow and approach from solo creator to high level documentary filmmaker that I’m trying to figure out.
2:23 I totally agree ! Great point .
Super helpful stuff man I appreciate you putting this together
Extremely valuable content, thank you very much for this information.
This is a great video. I hope young filmmakers also remember that all 5 of those tips can be reversed or broken with equal success. your point about intention was was supreme.
Thanks for the vid. This is a lot of help. Especially the crash zoom I often did that. The light also a lit tip. 👍
Great video Luc, thanks for sharing a lot of interesting knowledge. Although I must mention a confusion in terms. ”Depth of field” is not a phenomenon but a measure: the distance between the nearest and the furthest objects that are in focus. Consequently, ”the news” (i.e. the old video image used in television) has MORE depth of field, and usually cinema has LESS. Wide angle lenses have increased depth of field (the image is in focus on a greater interval) and telephoto lenses have shallower (reduced) depth of field. There's no doubt in my mind that you know all these effects but you used the terms somehow confusing manner. (ex: 4:34 and following)
Also, aperture values should be described as large (f/2.8),which renders shallow depth of field (and captures more light), or small (f/22), which yields great depth of field (captures less light). Student’s frequently get confused by this because they are used to 2.8
Opened my phone while watching this video on my TV to make this comment.
F1.4 is a LARGE aperture, f22 is a small one.
If I'm shooting a landscape, I want a LOT of depth of field.
Great practical advice,thanks for sharing.You are an inspiration for young documentary producers.
Wonderful tips! Thanks!
Awesome tips, Luc. Thanks!
Thank you, excellent points, and whatever setup you've used for this studio video looks fantastic. When you talk about lens aperture, though, for example, 1.4, I think you mean maximum aperture, not minimum. Yes, minimum numerically, but maximum optically, providing a shallow depth of field.
Wow! So much great info in so short a time! Thanks!
Amazing videos this is like my 5th video binge watching lol all of them have brought really good value ! I love how you’re not beating around the bush and you’re straight forward with your points !
Thanks Jordan!
That Variable Prime idea is gold. Solid info and well organized!
Happy shooting!
Thank you!!
this is worth to watch, thank you for your work!
wow.. straight to the point.. thanks man! please share more
Loved this video. Incredible simple but practical advice. You have a new sub.
Great video but you speak of depth of field backwards. More depth of field means more is in focus. Less DOF means less (shallower). The “cinematic look” has less depth of field, not more.
Not really. So many great “cinematic” films have deep focus. “Shallow DOF = cinematic” is more of a 2010 filmmaking idea made big by dslr filmmakers.
@@bien.mp4what he’s saying is that Luc has reversed the correct terminology for depth of field. When Luc said that ‘wide angles lenses have less depth of field’ he should have ‘more depth of field’ as depth of field means the depth of the image that is in focus from front to back. I’m sure you know that.
He says short and long nor less and more though
To me, 'cinematic' is when a single scene has different angle and focal length. 'Look' is subjective.
You know when someone is a real DoP or just a bluff when he doesn't get wrong on these terms. 😉
Unfortunately nowadays it is full of "cinematographers" that don't know what the CoC or the inverse square law are and DoPs are protected by the WWF. 😂😂😂
Love this! Very useful advice! Thanks!
This is gold. Thank you, Sir!
Brilliant video, Luc - thank you.
I very much enjoyed the content of this video as much as knowing your work. Im glad i ran into this. Subscribed❤
Great suggestions… every one of them applicable
Great topic and explanation. Thanks!
Fantastic info in this vid!
On point! Sharing this with my film students 🤘
Luc Forsyty, you have created one of the best. Informative videos about the subject matter. Producing anamorphic movies, that I have ever come across. You earned yourself a like and subscribe.
Found your channel tonight. Excellent content. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.
I mostly shoot 24fps, but was impressed with some of Griffin Hammond's mini docs, and he does a really good job with 4K 60fps. So it's sometimes good to mess about with different frame rates, without them being too sharp.
That was a great video. Thank you so much
That was superb! Thx!
Also ditch the gimbal, learn how to do good handheld camera operation, practice, practice, practice until it becomes second nature. A good handheld camera shot is expressive and can ad a lot of drama and meaning to your project. Practice with your tripod as well, learn how to compose and motivate camera movements, again, practice, practice, practice. Good video! Thanks for posting!
Awesome video! Thank you for all the tips
Just came across your youtube. I learnt something new. Thank you this is an eye opener. 😊
Back lighting! Thanks for the tip.
Subbed! Your channel is super helpful! Keep making great stuff!
Normally, I do not like talking heads presentation, but this one is an exception. The presenter comes quick to a substantial points (or many in fact) and has none of the egomania that haunts most of the talking heads on youtube. Very informative, convinces with substance not with loudness.
Great info, and thanks for sharing.
Great info. Thanks for sharing. Subscribed
A very good video, concise and well thought out. I hope to apply what I learned here today.
I’ve never heard the “use zoom lenses as a variable prime” advice before. I often have to cut out the crash zooms, but if I had just moved closer even the moving footage could be useable. 👍
tbh the light tipps were great, thanks!
Great great tips... Thanks!!!
Dude your eyelashes are so pretty!
Thanks for the video, good information. God bless you! 👍🏼🔥
Quick hit of wisdom. Appreciate!
Solid Gold video my man. Thank you!
i dont know but . i watch this video again and again. something i learnd again & again.. as a beginner
This really broke it down. Great tips. Thx
I've always thought of the term "cinematic" to be a way of using each frame to tell the story. Using layers within the frame to aid with context. Think about all those amazing westerns that have deep depth of field but still look cinematic as you feel like you're there and can see clearly what the characters are doing. Blurring everything out means you lose a sense of place and the intention of the shot. 'Joker' manages to throw a lot out of focus but with lighting and layering you always know what's going on.
Thank you!
I think I'm going to send this video to all cam ops on my future docs.
Easy description of my thought process here!
Awesome video man thank you... Subbed!
Finally some 1 addressed it "Cinematic" i never believed in it coz i believe in Cinema and Film thats all, appreciate your video brav... new subscriber
Excellent tips, thank you
Good information, motivational too.
Thanks man I watched this a few months ago and got a few prime lenses and took these tips into consideration and my latest music video came out even better than the one I paid for previously. I also have shot over 10 music videos for other artists and created another stream of income appreciate it!!!
Hey man I'm just starting out trying to build a second career with a Sony FS5 mk2 and some other second hand gear and your videos have really helped show what's possible, from the 'gear you don't need' to seasoned advice like this. You're videos are really helpful, many thanks!
Thanks Greg! I love that camera, I had one for years and loved it!
great stuff here, Luc… thank you! One real take-away is re: the use of lighting… I’ve taken it really seriously in still photography projects but need to bring that into video projects as well. And I believe you’ve made a great case for 24fps… I think I’ll be switching from 30.
Happy Wednesday all! So excited for Wednesday but more importantly I am happy that Luc started uploading. You are great and you have so much more to experience within the world of youtube.
Thanks Timothy! Glad to have you
Bokeh, my new favorite word as i've been trying to obtain this from upgrading my gear for my reels. Now i can go drive my wife crazy with this exact terminology thank you so much.
Thank you for this. Just in time for our new project. Subscribing now.
This is my first time watching your videos and I subscribed right away! Thank you for a well done video.
I plan to build my channel and intend to create 'cinematic' videos and this was exactly the information I needed. I can't stand those crisp shot videos, it's like you described, too much like a sports show look or news report. I want the cool shots with the dark, somewhat out of focus look at times.
Too many people think slow motion is cinematic but honestly as soon as I see it, unless it's The Matrix, I instantly think, fake cinema. It's a sad cheat 99% of the time.
I love the darker look of well done docs and movies. I really gives an instant look that something is being created instead of something is being videoed.
This tutorial helps me a lot in achieving better Cinematography. I'm in the Philippines and I used 60 fps in my video settings.
rotated two's instead of fives? nice. Great advice overall. I think we are often tempted to use all the amazing technical solutions thus losing focus on more important things, like story, content, etc.
Excellent episode great explanation 👍🏼. Subscribed 🇦🇺
I think you’ve confused minimum and maximum apertures. A lens that’s described as f2.8 - that’s it’s maximum, it’s minimum so probably f16 or f22. Unless things have changed in the last 50 years or so…..
So glad I found your channel - great info - I like that you are teaching what you know - awesome thx for sharing!
Thanks, and welcome!
Amazing video man!
Good tips.
One things I'd definitely add to these (good and well made) points, is to not blow your highlights - especially with regards to the subject. You just don't see big blown highlights in big budget films (except for around a strong light source etc).
Great advice, love your content👍
This is amazing, thanks
brilliant video! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Such good valuable information. Glad to have found your channel. Thanks!
Glad to have you!
04:54
Lens companies list the *maximum* aperture.
Aperture measurement is a division of focal length divided by "x", hence lower the second number, the larger the aperture size and so maximum aperture.
Thanks: nice. Especially liked the detail on lighting. Subscribed.
Great, glad to have you!
Thank you, Luc. A really thoughtful discussion. Your videos always overdeliver on the premise.
Thanks, very nice of you to say
Very interesting info. Thank you