This is actually a very informative video on cinematography for new filmmakers,but minor correction:Fallen angels was shot mostly on a Kinoptik Tegea 9.8mm rectilinear lens with an adapter that turns it into a 6.8mm lens,it is not fisheye.
Man your channel once again blows me away. Other cinema topical channels made me aware of storytelling techniques in the past, but you have opened my eyes towards cinematography like no one else ever did. Really, fantastic job.
Awesome! Thank you so much for including Fallen Angels in this. I really love every single frame in that movie and never understand why it is not used as reference more often!
I love you so much. Thank you for making this so calming and easy to listen to. It takes what could be a daunting subject and makes it clean and clear to understand.
Please do make a video on Satyajit Ray . The way you explain everything is great and very helpful and it seems that you will do justice to Mr. Ray's films too. I hope you recognize him. Greetings from Calcutta,India.
Do you plan to make a video about the cinematographer Benoît Debie ? If not, it would be very great to consider it, thank you ! 😁 Very interesting channel
I think the human eye (using a 35mm full frame sensor size) is something like 17mm in focal length, but I'm not sure whether that factors in what our binocular vision looks like or if that's monocular.
That interlacing in every second clip killed the atmosphere for me. I guess I'm too visually focussed, but this also is a video about visuals. Personally, I'd appreciate some deinterlacing next time to get rid if the arctifacts. Let interlacing die :P
Very informative video 👌. Thanks for making it. Is it safe to assume that one can identify the lens used (wide or long) in an image by looking at the depth of field and amount distortion in it?
Right, those are two factors which can be used to identify a focal length. I'd say another important factor in identifying a focal length is in how the background of an image is compressed. In a film like The Revenant you see a lot of the background, even in close ups, which means it was shot on a wide lens. In a close up where the background is more compressed (you see less background width) it was shot on a longer lens.
@@InDepthCine Right👍. I didn't find the image that distorted even when they went close with wide lens. Is it because of the camera they used. I'm curious to know your thoughts on how they achieved it.
@@bhargavvramm I've thought about the case of The Revenant a lot over the years as the apparent lack of distortion puzzled me too. I think the eye is adapting to the distortion and accepting it because it's always present. Certainly there is a great deal of 'massive front shoulder' effect in the closer shots. By and large, faces are kept near the centre of the frame which makes the distortion less obvious but look at still frames and you'll really see it. The use of the wide lenses in The Revenant is a topic all in itself.
@@Tom_UA-cam_stole_my_handle The Revenant used a 24mm lens on the Alexa 65. On 35 a 12mm lens has the same AOV... 18mm on a VistaVision camera. So the lens is wide, but not too wide. A 12mm on VistaVision would show considerably more perspective distortion for example.
There is a school that does not agree with your analysis in the opening section of the video. The position of the camera vs the subject defines most of the look and feel. The lens choice drives the FOV, no more. As you touch on later If you want for example to feel intimate you might place the camera at 3 feet from the subject, this may then drive you to choose a 16.. but it might not. The three foot is what drives the intimacy. Again be 100foot back and the shot will feel 'remote' even if you fill the frame with a 500mm.
This video is quite confusing. Sometimes you're talking about specific lenses and their actual physical focal length and other times it sounds like you're talking about full frame equivalency. You said 50mm looks natural and close to how the human eye sees, but that's only on full frame (it's actually closer to 40mm if I'm not mistaken). On Super35 that would more be something in the range of 28-35mm.
Loved this, just what i was looking for, but i need more. Is there a book that teaches cinematorgraphy techniques this way? I would like to learn the standard techniques, when to use which lens and WHY. For example, the shot of Gene Hackman in this video using a long zoom lens, it makes us feel as if we are spying on our subject - i get it, but is there a book that covers these concepts? A lot of books are about how, but the books that tell you WHY are very scarce. Sorry about the long-winded question, just trying to teach myself cinematography :) Cheers!
Is that compression effect also equivalent to equivalent focal lengths when it comes to smaller sensors? For example, my point and shoot has a 8-132mm lens, but is equivalent to 24-360 due to its smaller sensor. Would the compression at 132/360mm be equivalent to a 360mm full size lens, or a 132mm one?
Yes, in terms of "the portion of image that will get in the sensor". But not regarding the depth of field. Depth of field will be shallower on the full frame camera, for the same aperture.
"Compression" is entirely to do with your field of view and distance to your subject, as such you just always compare equivalent focal lengths. A 25mm M4/3, ~33mm APS-C/Super35, and 50mm Full Frame all have approximately the same "compression", don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Haha. The 24-290 has been a workhorse zoom in the film industry for years. It's still an amazing piece of glass. Remember that these lenses are rented out for the shoot, not purchased. But yes, cinema lenses are far from cheap.
Wait so does this mean that all slow zooms (not push ins) or crash zooms in cinema are done either in post or with a zoom lens? I mean I see zooming in and out when it’s talking about fixed/prime lenses, so I’m confused.
Please clear my doubt 🙋 IMAX movies are usually 16:9 aspect ratio so do they use a spherical lens or do they use an anamorphic with a wider FOV and crop from that ?
my question is, if you are not aware of these reasons do you as a viewer notice what the director/dp was trying to portray? what if the choice of lens was all that they could afford and not some deep meaning behind it?
Yep, thought the exact same. The Revenant was shot on an Arri Alexa 65. The video would be confusing if focal lengths would have been named with film/sensor format on mind. 12mm on a 65mm sensor (simplified and just considering the width) would give about the same result as a 6mm on 35mm format. A non-fisheye 6mm (or equivalent) image would look ridiculously distorted towards the corners. It was very likely a 24mm lens for 65mm - giving the effect of a 12mm lens If it was for 35mm format. I might be wrong. Not the expert, just thinking aloud using my humble knowledge.
@In Depth Cine , given that many cameras shoot with super 35 sized sensors, is there a crop factor applied for cinema cameras like there is with a "full frame" DSLR lens mounted on a stills camera with an APS-C sensor? If I put a Cooke 50mm lens on a super 35 camera, is my FOV really that of a 75mm lens or so? Thanks!
Without a lens a camera is blind ….lenses are like mirrors….a distorted mirror produces distorted images….similarly a distorted lens produces distorted images….
you're not seriously low-key blaming the creator of this video for keeping you from your work by "clikcbaiting" you, right? And anyway, if you paid attention to the content and used your brain a bit, you could have inferred what kind of lense was used for the shining. And if you clicked on it expecting to know the exact name of the lense used, then that's also on you since nowhere in the title or in the video description (where he lays out what will be presented in the video) did he say that he will be touching on specific lenses used for the different movie examples.
@@FCJxfelp I'm not low-key blaming anyone, I watch anything related to Kubrick's movies even if it keeps me from work and I do it all the time, infact i do use my brain, i thought after having analyzed his movies from my part, me going online and looking for other people's analysis would help me, I said its a good video, Read the title again, it's called why lens choice matters in cinematography, there are 2 very specific words used in this title, Lenses, and cinematography, I was expecting some sort of serious tech info, on top of that it's Kubrick attached to it that means anyone aspiring to make films is desperately looking for a detailed look at Kubrick's way of working. Anyway, I said it's a good video, this is a new channel and it's very professional for such a new start. its the internet I just blabbered whatever I felt at that moment, just like you did. Also, look at the thumbnail and watch the video again
"If lens are a way of capturing the world, then 'which lens' you choose says a lot about the kind world you are trying to capture" is going to be my next tattoo, might go for the neck this time.
Awesome work man. I know how much effort and time it takes to make a video like this. I appreciate this a lot. Thank you and Good luck with your endeavors.
So many errors in this video. Focal length is meaningless without knowing the sensor size. Both are needed to define the field of view, which is the relevant metric. Long lenses don't cause more background blur. The only thing affecting background blur is the distance to the subject and the effective entrance pupil size. Why do you teach about lenses to others without first learning the basics yourself?
![Ultimate Guide to Camera Lenses - Every Type of Camera Lens Explained [Shot List Ep. 7]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uSsIqR3DuK8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Ultimate Guide to Camera Lenses — Every Type of Camera Lens Explained [Shot List Ep. 7]](/img/tr.png)
I studied cinema for 3 years now and yet, reminding myself those basic notions really help me a lot!
Is Good to start and build it Up from basic
This is actually a very informative video on cinematography for new filmmakers,but minor correction:Fallen angels was shot mostly on a Kinoptik Tegea 9.8mm rectilinear lens with an adapter that turns it into a 6.8mm lens,it is not fisheye.
Fisheye would have looked extremely distorted and compressed,wider too to the point where faces are all stretched out weirdly
Yes it’s a great video
thats rather disputed, on point about it not being fisheye
To note as well. It was shot on 16mm. This will scale differently per camera film stock or sensor size.
thanks for doing this video! i'm learning a lot about cinema
cool video! roger deakins would be a great cinematographer to do a video on
🙏
That last quote is dope 💯🫡
Man your channel once again blows me away. Other cinema topical channels made me aware of storytelling techniques in the past, but you have opened my eyes towards cinematography like no one else ever did. Really, fantastic job.
I’d like a video on focal lengths used for specific shots- like what people shoot a mid shot on or a close up for instance
Thanks, I didn't understand the way my film textbook explained it, you cleared this up for me.
Bro you just made me realise I can do so much more with my camera now. Thankyou very much 🫂
Your videos are super helpful. Thanks for making them!
Thanks for watching them!
great video!
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
This is my new favorite UA-cam channel
I do like to see one video on *Wally pfister* as he is award winning cinematographer.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll feature Wally Pfister in a future Cinematography Style video at some point.
@@InDepthCine 🙏🏻
Simply a great explanatory video, hats off!
Awesome! Thank you so much for including Fallen Angels in this. I really love every single frame in that movie and never understand why it is not used as reference more often!
So well done! As a beginner filmmaker, this is really helpful and inspiring. Thank you!
I would watch this channel any day any where any time. Much more better than film school. Love from Nepal 🇳🇵
I love you so much. Thank you for making this so calming and easy to listen to. It takes what could be a daunting subject and makes it clean and clear to understand.
great episode! love your channel, man.
Thanks for watching. Hope it was informative.
Brillant intro to the basics of cinematography. Perfectly clear and clever!
These are stuff I never thought about, when watching a movie. It's kinda fascinating, really. Subscribed! ^_^
Glad I stumbled upon this - can't wait to see the rest of your channel. Greetings from a fellow South African :)
Also found this recently. It's always great to see the South African UA-cam community grow! 🇿🇦
Awesome, awesome video. Thank you.
Please do make a video on Satyajit Ray . The way you explain everything is great and very helpful and it seems that you will do justice to Mr. Ray's films too. I hope you recognize him. Greetings from Calcutta,India.
This is a great video. Like the pace.
Could you make a few more videos on lighting and talking about bounce and diffusion and things like that?
Love your videos! Can we lover the music volume so we can hear more of your voice? Keep up the good work
Strange I actually love the background music and didn’t find it to be too loud. That’s just me tho
The music is lovely but is definitely too loud (or the voice is too quiet. He does sound like he's speaking very quietly into the mic)
This video's been curated super well
Excellent video
your channel is golden
Superb video! You have a great and engaging teaching manner.
Wonderful breakdown! Thank you!
Please do a video on Christopher Doyle sometime! I love his work
Great as always
Memories of muder shooted at which mm lens ?
Do you plan to make a video about the cinematographer Benoît Debie ?
If not, it would be very great to consider it, thank you ! 😁
Very interesting channel
Definitely at some stage. Hopefully in the near future.
Excellent video! Thank you for making this!
Pleasure. Thanks for watching.
Really great videos, thanks for taking the time and sharing.
recently subscribed really concise explanation's and great examples.
I would like to see you do a video on darius khondji's cinematography style
Love your channel.
I think the human eye (using a 35mm full frame sensor size) is something like 17mm in focal length, but I'm not sure whether that factors in what our binocular vision looks like or if that's monocular.
Awsome Knowledge this is Azlan Arain khan cinematographer Bollywood in Indian Cinema.
That interlacing in every second clip killed the atmosphere for me. I guess I'm too visually focussed, but this also is a video about visuals. Personally, I'd appreciate some deinterlacing next time to get rid if the arctifacts. Let interlacing die :P
Same. Felt like I was watching 1080i
I think the whold video is interlaced, it's not just the clips.
Very informative video 👌. Thanks for making it. Is it safe to assume that one can identify the lens used (wide or long) in an image by looking at the depth of field and amount distortion in it?
Right, those are two factors which can be used to identify a focal length. I'd say another important factor in identifying a focal length is in how the background of an image is compressed. In a film like The Revenant you see a lot of the background, even in close ups, which means it was shot on a wide lens. In a close up where the background is more compressed (you see less background width) it was shot on a longer lens.
@@InDepthCine Right👍.
I didn't find the image that distorted even when they went close with wide lens. Is it because of the camera they used. I'm curious to know your thoughts on how they achieved it.
@@bhargavvramm I've thought about the case of The Revenant a lot over the years as the apparent lack of distortion puzzled me too. I think the eye is adapting to the distortion and accepting it because it's always present. Certainly there is a great deal of 'massive front shoulder' effect in the closer shots. By and large, faces are kept near the centre of the frame which makes the distortion less obvious but look at still frames and you'll really see it. The use of the wide lenses in The Revenant is a topic all in itself.
@@Tom_UA-cam_stole_my_handle The Revenant used a 24mm lens on the Alexa 65. On 35 a 12mm lens has the same AOV... 18mm on a VistaVision camera. So the lens is wide, but not too wide. A 12mm on VistaVision would show considerably more perspective distortion for example.
@@flyingfox2005 Thank you Daniel, that makes sense.
thank you
Amazing channel, thank you
What lenses were used in the 50s…any idea…I mean which were the brands…back then…for example what 50 mm lens would Ozu use in his films…
There is a school that does not agree with your analysis in the opening section of the video. The position of the camera vs the subject defines most of the look and feel. The lens choice drives the FOV, no more. As you touch on later If you want for example to feel intimate you might place the camera at 3 feet from the subject, this may then drive you to choose a 16.. but it might not. The three foot is what drives the intimacy. Again be 100foot back and the shot will feel 'remote' even if you fill the frame with a 500mm.
Subbed! Looking forward to more!
This video is quite confusing. Sometimes you're talking about specific lenses and their actual physical focal length and other times it sounds like you're talking about full frame equivalency.
You said 50mm looks natural and close to how the human eye sees, but that's only on full frame (it's actually closer to 40mm if I'm not mistaken). On Super35 that would more be something in the range of 28-35mm.
same, I was lost the whole time
No idea where to start. I guess I'll use wide for wides and 50mm for everything els.e
These are apsc or full frame?
Loved this, just what i was looking for, but i need more. Is there a book that teaches cinematorgraphy techniques this way? I would like to learn the standard techniques, when to use which lens and WHY. For example, the shot of Gene Hackman in this video using a long zoom lens, it makes us feel as if we are spying on our subject - i get it, but is there a book that covers these concepts? A lot of books are about how, but the books that tell you WHY are very scarce. Sorry about the long-winded question, just trying to teach myself cinematography :)
Cheers!
Just about any photography or cinematography text book has a chapter about how focal length affects the perception of the subject.
what is the background music?
Great review!
What is the name of the music track used?
I love your videos.
Great video
make a video about movies that are shot with dslr / mirrorles cameras
Hey fallen angels wasn’t shot on a 6.5 it was filmed on Kinoptik 9.8 like Kubricks wides. However angels used a .71 century wide lens adapter.
This dude needs to watch a video on deinterlacing.
what's the song you use at the beginning of the video until 2:20? :)
Is that compression effect also equivalent to equivalent focal lengths when it comes to smaller sensors? For example, my point and shoot has a 8-132mm lens, but is equivalent to 24-360 due to its smaller sensor. Would the compression at 132/360mm be equivalent to a 360mm full size lens, or a 132mm one?
Yes, in terms of "the portion of image that will get in the sensor".
But not regarding the depth of field. Depth of field will be shallower on the full frame camera, for the same aperture.
"Compression" is entirely to do with your field of view and distance to your subject, as such you just always compare equivalent focal lengths. A 25mm M4/3, ~33mm APS-C/Super35, and 50mm Full Frame all have approximately the same "compression", don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Great video! Could you link the specific track you used at 4:08 ?
Wow. The Angenieux with 24-290mm. That is literally insane. Just like its price point! haha
Haha. The 24-290 has been a workhorse zoom in the film industry for years. It's still an amazing piece of glass.
Remember that these lenses are rented out for the shoot, not purchased. But yes, cinema lenses are far from cheap.
Shallow depth of field basically means that more area is out of focus….
Dope vid
Wait so does this mean that all slow zooms (not push ins) or crash zooms in cinema are done either in post or with a zoom lens? I mean I see zooming in and out when it’s talking about fixed/prime lenses, so I’m confused.
Are these focal lengths based on super35 or full frame
Please clear my doubt 🙋
IMAX movies are usually 16:9 aspect ratio so do they use a spherical lens or do they use an anamorphic with a wider FOV and crop from that ?
Let your eyes be the judge
Relaxing
my question is, if you are not aware of these reasons do you as a viewer notice what the director/dp was trying to portray? what if the choice of lens was all that they could afford and not some deep meaning behind it?
What music did you use?
When you say in "the revenant " used a 12mm lens...is this express as equivalent or what?
Yep, thought the exact same. The Revenant was shot on an Arri Alexa 65. The video would be confusing if focal lengths would have been named with film/sensor format on mind. 12mm on a 65mm sensor (simplified and just considering the width) would give about the same result as a 6mm on 35mm format. A non-fisheye 6mm (or equivalent) image would look ridiculously distorted towards the corners. It was very likely a 24mm lens for 65mm - giving the effect of a 12mm lens If it was for 35mm format. I might be wrong. Not the expert, just thinking aloud using my humble knowledge.
Hey Brother.
Where in SA are you from?
@In Depth Cine , given that many cameras shoot with super 35 sized sensors, is there a crop factor applied for cinema cameras like there is with a "full frame" DSLR lens mounted on a stills camera with an APS-C sensor? If I put a Cooke 50mm lens on a super 35 camera, is my FOV really that of a 75mm lens or so? Thanks!
👍👍👍❤️❤️❤️❤️
Without a lens a camera is blind ….lenses are like mirrors….a distorted mirror produces distorted images….similarly a distorted lens produces distorted images….
Maybe I should make a film using lenses that mimic the distorted mirrors found in circuses….
But the story should demand such an image…write or find such a story…
God bless you and, Your family. Jesus loves you.
I really dig your videos and knowledge, but the adds every two minutes are going to make me look elsewhere. It's every video you put out, constantly.
I clicked on this video - delaying the work ive got from office, just to see what lenses they used for the shining, good video, but a clickbait
you're not seriously low-key blaming the creator of this video for keeping you from your work by "clikcbaiting" you, right? And anyway, if you paid attention to the content and used your brain a bit, you could have inferred what kind of lense was used for the shining. And if you clicked on it expecting to know the exact name of the lense used, then that's also on you since nowhere in the title or in the video description (where he lays out what will be presented in the video) did he say that he will be touching on specific lenses used for the different movie examples.
@@FCJxfelp I'm not low-key blaming anyone, I watch anything related to Kubrick's movies even if it keeps me from work and I do it all the time, infact i do use my brain, i thought after having analyzed his movies from my part, me going online and looking for other people's analysis would help me, I said its a good video, Read the title again, it's called why lens choice matters in cinematography, there are 2 very specific words used in this title, Lenses, and cinematography, I was expecting some sort of serious tech info, on top of that it's Kubrick attached to it that means anyone aspiring to make films is desperately looking for a detailed look at Kubrick's way of working. Anyway, I said it's a good video, this is a new channel and it's very professional for such a new start. its the internet I just blabbered whatever I felt at that moment, just like you did. Also, look at the thumbnail and watch the video again
Also look at the thumbnail and watch the video again
Lesser views on a technical film video means that you've made a great no non-sense, purely educational video! Thanks for this.
Could you do a video comparing Panavision, Arri, Cooke and Leica lenses?
UA-cam University does it again.
"If lens are a way of capturing the world, then 'which lens' you choose says a lot about the kind world you are trying to capture" is going to be my next tattoo, might go for the neck this time.
Bro! I just want to say a huge thank you for your work and this channel. Thanks to your work, I'm obsessed with learning about film making now.
Sorry I'm an amateur / beginner. Do all of the focal length mentioned here are in full frame 35mm equivalent or...?
This video is too good, quality, background music, everything is impressive
Yes! I thought the same thing. The background music carried the mood, unlike most other videos where the music is too loud and distracting.
Awesome work man. I know how much effort and time it takes to make a video like this. I appreciate this a lot. Thank you and Good luck with your endeavors.
Thank you for this video! So much insight that finally clicked for me!
Had to use this video because the links my professor gives sometimes just don't even work. Thanks though I definitely learned a lot from this video!
So many errors in this video.
Focal length is meaningless without knowing the sensor size. Both are needed to define the field of view, which is the relevant metric.
Long lenses don't cause more background blur. The only thing affecting background blur is the distance to the subject and the effective entrance pupil size.
Why do you teach about lenses to others without first learning the basics yourself?
You're South African. Also great vide. Was really informative
Post some Cinematography of christopher doyle please.
This is my new favourite channel. Love your work!
good content - cut the music. it is uneccesary and distracting, can' t hear the audio over the music clearly.
You have such a calming voice - great video!
Long lenses can also convey the feeling of looking at human beings as animals in a jungle….
wait a minute. i know that accent haha. bru!! well done:)
love this video!!!!!! Thank you.
4:00
What movie is this?
Super