@@pierrezapata90 Well.. there is a lot to discuss on the subject.. I am a licensed DoP and I used to work on 35mm motion picture film back in the day. I see a lot of "cinematic videos" on TH-cam featuring leaves, flowers and grass shot with F1.4... tiny subject in the middle of the shot and 90% background blur and this they call "cinematic". As you brilliantly pointed out, everything in a movie HAS to be motivated, even the F number (or T number, in our case). You never see a nice shot in a movie just because it is nice, but because it has to tell a story. A movie, or a "cinematic video" is a piece of art, that HAS to tell a story and all its parts (including cinematography) must work together to transmit an emotion. Also, as you again pointed out, abusing the use shallow depth of field rules out set designs and complex multi-plane shots (as in Citizen Kane, as you pointed out). Basically, it makes the movie "poorer". You use shallow depth of field when you shoot a close-up and you want to see the deep emotion of that character, or want to transmit the idea of him/her being isolated from the outside world, thinking of something, etc. Or when you shoot an object (like the hand on a phone) and you want all the attention of the viewer to be on that object. There is a lot to tell on this subject... there are years to learn in film school :) By the way.. what do you think about that interview/vlog editing style when there are multiple cameras for 1 just guy and the edit keeps jumping from camera to camera, now you see the person talking to you, next you see him/her talking to a wall?? :))))) OMG
I've been wanting to know this! Had a feeling 4-5 was a good balance between focus and blur. The explanation of apertures and the types of shots was really insightful too.
Personally, f4 has been my go-to for most projects. At f5.6, you lose any character that the lens has to offer. f4 gives you sharp focus where you need it and just enough background blur while still retaining lens characteristics.
This is a good observation. I'm sure there is a balance between the character of the lens, as you say, and a relatively good sharpness that will work for most types of shots. Of course focal length and even the sensor size can also change what that relative range will be for your desired look. Thanks for your comment 🙏🏼
You are right. Super 35 is closest to apsc sensor size 5.6. But like you said- T values are true values. Deakins himself simply gave a range from between about f4 to 5.6. Comparable values for T values.
Why do so many people use the term "cinematic" like it's some magical term. All it it means is as of CINEMA as in a movie played in theaters. There are movies shot on video cameras that played in movie theaters/cinemas. Nor is there a magic aperture, because it depends so much on the shot and loom you are going for. So many moves use super wide lenses without much shallow depth of field and they still look amazing.
I suppose it's an associated look with a certain style that doesn't necessarily look like home video or TV or live sports. But as for what is trending, yeah, I agree with you it's silly to use the term in this way, but unfortunately this is TH-cam and titles exist to bring people in. Cinematic pretty much is a meaningless term and is more what each individual would describe as the type of film they deem so.
Sometimes it may seem that way. Certainly I think it should be linked with the intention to "light scenes and set the tone through audio and music and story" for use in theater/cinema. I don't think anyone would argue that "Full House" wasnt cinematic. It was meant for TV. And neither is the 6 o'clock news. And neither is a televising of a basketball game. The tiptoeing happens around films that might have been released in theaters but did not seemingly have that intention. Is the Blair witch project cinematic? I could see both arguments. Is paranormal activity cinematic? Maybe. Interesting thoughts.
Excellent video brother, I'm a Cinematography 10 plus years and you nailed it perfectly 📸👏 new subscriber, simply because I dig how you simply and honestly tell people the true facts about aperture. Wide open is so over rated , it has its specific place in films. 2.8 for close ups but no more than f2 open imo. I have 50mm 1.8, 50mm lens at f2 and a 50mm at f1.2 The 50mm 1.2 is the very first lens I got and its over kill, i only use it at night or at aperture 5.6 or 8 during the day, but i use the f2 50mm more than anything, it goes to max aperture 16 but still only use 2.8, 5.6 and f8. Great video 📸
Thanks so much for the kind words. I totally get it with the very large Aperture lenses. Especially early days when starting out everyone loves the idea of those f1.2 lenses- but they are really a nightmare to work with unless you have a very specific shot you want. The only time they are really needed-, youve just said is exactly right. Very very low light. And even then I can think of only one time in cinema this has been necessary. Barry Lyndon. Apparently Kubrick had a special 0.95 f lens just to shoot candlelight shots.
Thanks for your input. I can think about different music for future videos as well as work on my speaking patterns. Maybe I'll throw in a shiny object for people with 7 year old attention spans.
Please click the link to SUBSCRIBE to help out the channel
www.youtube.com/@pierrezapata90/featured?sub_confirmation=1
Totally agree!
Nice! What did you like the most? Any criticisms or other thoughts on the subject?
@@pierrezapata90 Well.. there is a lot to discuss on the subject.. I am a licensed DoP and I used to work on 35mm motion picture film back in the day. I see a lot of "cinematic videos" on TH-cam featuring leaves, flowers and grass shot with F1.4... tiny subject in the middle of the shot and 90% background blur and this they call "cinematic". As you brilliantly pointed out, everything in a movie HAS to be motivated, even the F number (or T number, in our case). You never see a nice shot in a movie just because it is nice, but because it has to tell a story. A movie, or a "cinematic video" is a piece of art, that HAS to tell a story and all its parts (including cinematography) must work together to transmit an emotion. Also, as you again pointed out, abusing the use shallow depth of field rules out set designs and complex multi-plane shots (as in Citizen Kane, as you pointed out). Basically, it makes the movie "poorer". You use shallow depth of field when you shoot a close-up and you want to see the deep emotion of that character, or want to transmit the idea of him/her being isolated from the outside world, thinking of something, etc. Or when you shoot an object (like the hand on a phone) and you want all the attention of the viewer to be on that object. There is a lot to tell on this subject... there are years to learn in film school :) By the way.. what do you think about that interview/vlog editing style when there are multiple cameras for 1 just guy and the edit keeps jumping from camera to camera, now you see the person talking to you, next you see him/her talking to a wall?? :))))) OMG
I've been wanting to know this! Had a feeling 4-5 was a good balance between focus and blur. The explanation of apertures and the types of shots was really insightful too.
Definitely! Thanks for watching. That aperture has the perfect blend of sharpness and blur.
Personally, f4 has been my go-to for most projects. At f5.6, you lose any character that the lens has to offer. f4 gives you sharp focus where you need it and just enough background blur while still retaining lens characteristics.
This is a good observation. I'm sure there is a balance between the character of the lens, as you say, and a relatively good sharpness that will work for most types of shots. Of course focal length and even the sensor size can also change what that relative range will be for your desired look.
Thanks for your comment 🙏🏼
5.6 for which sensor? They shot mostly super 35(almost APS-C). I believe F2.8(T2.8) is the way they mostly use on cinema(super35 sensor)
You are right. Super 35 is closest to apsc sensor size 5.6. But like you said- T values are true values. Deakins himself simply gave a range from between about f4 to 5.6. Comparable values for T values.
Why do so many people use the term "cinematic" like it's some magical term. All it it means is as of CINEMA as in a movie played in theaters. There are movies shot on video cameras that played in movie theaters/cinemas. Nor is there a magic aperture, because it depends so much on the shot and loom you are going for. So many moves use super wide lenses without much shallow depth of field and they still look amazing.
I suppose it's an associated look with a certain style that doesn't necessarily look like home video or TV or live sports. But as for what is trending, yeah, I agree with you it's silly to use the term in this way, but unfortunately this is TH-cam and titles exist to bring people in. Cinematic pretty much is a meaningless term and is more what each individual would describe as the type of film they deem so.
@@pierrezapata90 I 100% agree, the term should be high quality v. poor quality.
Sometimes it may seem that way. Certainly I think it should be linked with the intention to "light scenes and set the tone through audio and music and story" for use in theater/cinema. I don't think anyone would argue that "Full House" wasnt cinematic. It was meant for TV. And neither is the 6 o'clock news. And neither is a televising of a basketball game.
The tiptoeing happens around films that might have been released in theaters but did not seemingly have that intention.
Is the Blair witch project cinematic? I could see both arguments. Is paranormal activity cinematic? Maybe.
Interesting thoughts.
Excellent video brother, I'm a Cinematography 10 plus years and you nailed it perfectly 📸👏 new subscriber, simply because I dig how you simply and honestly tell people the true facts about aperture. Wide open is so over rated , it has its specific place in films. 2.8 for close ups but no more than f2 open imo. I have 50mm 1.8, 50mm lens at f2 and a 50mm at f1.2 The 50mm 1.2 is the very first lens I got and its over kill, i only use it at night or at aperture 5.6 or 8 during the day, but i use the f2 50mm more than anything, it goes to max aperture 16 but still only use 2.8, 5.6 and f8. Great video 📸
Thanks so much for the kind words.
I totally get it with the very large Aperture lenses. Especially early days when starting out everyone loves the idea of those f1.2 lenses- but they are really a nightmare to work with unless you have a very specific shot you want.
The only time they are really needed-, youve just said is exactly right. Very very low light.
And even then I can think of only one time in cinema this has been necessary. Barry Lyndon. Apparently Kubrick had a special 0.95 f lens just to shoot candlelight shots.
@@pierrezapata90 📸👍
F4 is for full-frame. It's F2,8 for super 35
I also think the format matters
What do you mean? As in digital or film?
your background music is annoying and doesn't cover up that you are a boring speaker.
Thanks for your input. I can think about different music for future videos as well as work on my speaking patterns. Maybe I'll throw in a shiny object for people with 7 year old attention spans.
@@pierrezapata90 That would be a big help. Thanks.