Focal lengths, lenses, and sensors were one of the more confusing things when I started to learn more about cameras and cinematrogphy. The differing sensor sizes really complicates things when setting up your shots. Thanks for this video, I know I'll be watching it a few times to make sure things sink in (plus reading your articles)!
Lol yeah tell me about it. I Have a GH5 with Various Native Lenses and Adapters. I honestly never do the math I just plug and play and decide what looks best in the moment. I had a bad case of Gear Acquisition Syndrome for a bit and have a variety of lenses.
Michael Cimino says in ‘Year of the Dragon’ commentary : « All I need to make a movie are two lenses, the 250 zoom and a 30 mm lens. I don’t need any other lens. » Could be a cool starting point for another video.
Seems rather deceptive to count a 250 zoom as one lens i.e. focal length/field of view. It can be set to any focal length desired for a given shot. The discussion here is a single preferred angle of view, not a type of lens.
very interesting and well done video, I just don't understand why you only mentioned the directors instead of the directors of photography! they are the ones who choose or are passionate about certain focal lengths: for example you mentioned Terrence Malick for his passion for wide angles but it's all thanks to his DP Emmanuel Lubezki who often re-proposes wide shots as he did in The Revenant.
I agree when speaking about Focal Length the "film size" or sensor size "film format" is important and so is cropping and squeeze/anamorphic - three data are needed - sensor or film size (including any in camera cropping), focal length and squeeze factor if anamorphic or spherical lenses are used. So thanks for referring to 35mm Equivalent. Super 35mm applies roughly a 1.5x to the focal length when a 35mm equivalence is considered. Whereas Lawrence of Arabia,released in 1962 and directed by David Lean, was shot on film using Super Panavision-70 Camera, a Mitchell BFC 65 with 65mm film negative width and Panavision Super Panavision 70 Series Lenses (including a the far off distance with the telephoto lens-Lean uses a special 482 mm lens from Panavision for the long shot of Sarif) and Distributed Aspect Rations of 2.20:1 (although other report 2.21:10) and 2.35:1 on 3 different film distribution resolutions - 16mm, 35mm (anamorphic) and 70mm. [Arri Alexa 65 uses the same format]. The production's wide angle was a 50mm (although others report a 40mm was used) and 210mm for closeups. These are equivalent to 35mm (or 28mm if a 40 was used) and 147mm in 35mm FF equivalent. The 482mm provides the same FOV as a 337.5mm on a 35mm FF sensor/film. An ARRI Alexa Mini has a 1.27 crop factor whereas an Alexa 65 has a 0.7 crop factor. If one uses a 32mm on the 65 then one would need to use an 18mm Focal length on the Mini to achieve the same field of view - which is equivalent to a 22.4mm on a 35mm full frame. Using anamorphic lenses compresses the horizontal FOV by the squeeze factor of the lens, which is reversed when projected with an anamorphic lens with the same squeeze factor or digitally in post. One should really consider how a Square Shaped subject is impacted by the Squeeze and this is where the Vertical dimension is important. When shooting open gate (ie using the full sensor) with anamorphic lenses the vertical dimension is not squeezed - a 50mm V FOV remains 50mm and the square returns to square when the image is correctly projected or de-squeezed in post -- 50mm remains 50mm -- but obviously the horizontal resolution of the desqueeze image is reduced significantly (by the squeeze factor) but not the final FOV. In other words in terms of geometry the same crop factors can be used whether or not the lens is spherical or anamorphic provided that the squeezed image is desqueezed first. What make a difference is whether or not the sensor/film are shot open gate or cropped in camera. This will impact the calcs between cropped format and open gate. Depth of Field and effective aperture are other confusing subject to address - . Ultra-wide angle lenses provide significant distortion when used with a close subject - this can form part of the narrative.
Except in cinematography - the "35mm equivalent" refers to 4 perf - not 8 perf which photographers call full frame. For over 100 years "35mm2 in cinema has referred to the motion picture format (4 perf) - not the so called "full frame" format. This is why the Alexa is referred to as having a 35mm sensor - not the LF and the Mini LF. When crop factor are used in cinematography it should be from the S35 format... not FF / 135.
It is important for context to understand focal length does not alter near-far perspective and relative size the distance to subject and background objects does. The first step in framing a shot is to find the shooting distance to from the near subject which produces the desired perspective then pick the focal length that produces the desired in-camera crop for the film / sensor size used. Wide angle lenses appear to distort perspective more a “normal” lens for a film / sensor size but only because they are able to focus closer to the subject. This can be seen by shooting stills from around eight feet with different focal length lenses then cropping them so the near subject is the same size. You’ll see the perspective on the wide lens isn’t any different than a normal or telephoto.
You already posted this video a few years ago with Janet Leigh from the famous scene of Psycho from Hitchcock. It was the best video of youtube about this specific subject. I hope you added or correct certain things. In only one minute I saw a scene from Napoleon or more lenses choices from Jean-Pierre Jeunet :) Thank you for this update :) I studied this so much on my own with thousand and thousand screenshots of movies and tv show (and my own work as a photographer) that I am able to recognize now, on every movie, the lense used on a scene. Update : you don't add new directors (from memory it seems it is the same voice over) but it is nice you added new pictures and the specification almost all these choices take place with the super35 ;)
Is it me, or do different focal lengths match natural vision depending on distance to subject? 35mm (ff) at appx 0.5-1.5m, 50mm at 2-5m, 85mm at 5-10m, 100mm at 20-50m, 100-200 above 50m?
Yes. Human vision can be broken down into say three main area.....peripheral vision(very wide maybe around 120 degrees), field of vision(60 degrees) and then focus region(30 degrees) 68mm probably matches what we see as far as perspective goes a subject. For example put a zoom lens on and look through the view finder point it at an object in your room and play with the zoom until it matches the perspective of how you see it(keep taking your eye off the view finder to look at it for reference). You will find around 68mm matches what you are seeing but the crop factor will determine how much of the scene you see. 68mm is the same no matter the format you use, its just the how much you will see of the scene. Thats why large format has an advantage as it allows people to shoot with higher focal lengths while capturing more of a scene
Its all about distances ! The distance camera to subject and background changes the perspective. Then you have to choose a lens so to fit the elements you need (subject, background field etc) with the perspective you need in to your frame. The 50mm lens in film photography (36X24) has gives less field of view than in motion picture 35mm film. The longest length of the frame will be 24mm and thats why we need these anamorphic lenses, so to gain more frame tenth, more wide (left-right) view as per natural vision.
Thank you for this Wolfcrow - I am always fascinated by what lenses great directors use and where and why they use it. This is amazing. I noticed you mentioned Jim Cameron at the end - I also remember seeing a video interview of him where he said for THE TERMINATOR he did not go below 65mm lenses., it gave him freedom to do some amazing stuff in the Technoir club sequences, where he did not have enough extras/actors to fill up the club room. so he used tighter lenses to go in closer.
That's a deep analysis about lenses, in fact, the discussion is so inspiring. I felt, the lens is a major tool in cinematic-story telling - thank you so much for all your work to bring this video, it is really educative and useful.
I can see why so many directors like wide-angle lenses. You can get a lot of info and story inside a wide frame like that. I personally love composing and blocking for wide-angle shots.
Except if you are on a tight budget and cannot dress or control that much background. I can immediately tell when I am watching a low-budget movie by how much background I can see in the frame.
There are something about focal length and shutterspeed as well. You can get away with longer shutter speed with wider lenses and getter better lowlight performances. Although the frameset sets the minimum shutter.
40mm is the most beautiful, it gives no distortions, a natural separation of background and subject. Its light, its sharp, its the most underrated lens of all time, for a full frame sensor, a 43mm would be the most ideal for it is within the exact range of what we see in our centre vision cone between 50 and 60 degrees for most people. A 43mm would give 53 degree field of view.
50mm on 35mm film is different to 50mm on Imax 70mm film right? Same as 50mm on crop sensor is more like 85mm . So understanding which focal length and filmstock used will help too. Also Depth of field varies. F1.4 lens on a crop sensor will be more like F2.2 or something like that.
I know some people think this was complicated but it just means you need to study more. Kodak used to have these amazing books that had moving charts inside where you could select focal length, film size, and it would give you the equivalent in any other format. The digital generation isn't forced to learn the science behind this stuff anymore or do the math.
Thanks Great Video! I usually only use which lens best frames My Shot/ Set pieces that I want in Frame and excluding what I don't want in frame unless the location is wide open but I definitely want to learn and use lenses intentionally.
(03:25) _"... spherical lens...."_ I think you are confusing this term with flat _cinematography,_ which is an early creative decision concerning masking for _theatrical_ presentation. A spherical lens is one which does _not_ incorporate at least one _aspheric[al] element,_ usually as one lens of a doublet. For the example of aspherical lenses sold by Zeiss _etal,_ -- The prevalent opinion as to why they cost so much is because they are handmade, or have superior quality control, or have superior customer service, etc. They are all essentially wrong. That Zeiss 50 mm lens costs $18,000 because those aspherical lens elements are _extraordinarily_ difficult to grind and polish. By the way, the lens itself is not anamorphic. To my understanding, this is accomplished by an _adapter_ for the given lens. Is my understanding of this incomplete or dated? *Additional Notes and Observations:* I would be curious as to your primary resource for determining all this. You mention IMDB, but it is well known, and my personal experience, that much information about format and lens there is incorrect. A welcome addition to this excellent video is a brief discussion of the nonlinear nature of focal length. A 40 mm and a 50 mm lens are visually commensurate, but the visual effect between, say, the 6 mm Fairchild-Curtis ultra-wide-angle fisheye lens Kubrick used in _2001: A Space Odyssey_ and, say, a 10 mm lens, is _very_ different. Speaking of Kubrick, there is that famous anecdote of how he put Academy Award winning cinematographer Lucien Ballard in his place, early in the shooting for his movie, _The Killing_ (1956). Ballard had presumed to substitute a longer lens for one shot, for ease of shooting, without informing Kubrick. 27 year old Kubrick retorted, _Do it my way or hit the road._ Or words to that effect. Speaking of Kubrick again: He is the only director who is famous for the specific use of two lenses: The 6 mm ultra-wide-angle fisheye lens that is HAL-9000's POV, and the $1,000,000 NASA-contract, Zeiss-manufactured specially-adapted f/0.7 Zeiss 50 mm lens he used for filming a sequence in _Barry Lyndon_ (1975) only by candlelight -- even if those candles had three wicks each. There have been fascinating discussions of just what the equivalent focal length of the human eye is. The standard wisdom that it is 50 mm, is alas an unacceptable simplification. 40 mm, 22 mm, and 17 mm are values that I have read in the past. The difficulty in making a meaningful determination is at least discussed at: reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/u5j3jy/eli5_why_is_the_50mm_camera_lens_considered/
@@wolfcrow Thus my comment. Ah, you didn´t read it. Well, that is. Since I have your attention, I want to express my admiration and gratitude for your early website, in the days of my return to film school in this new digital age. I felt like a beginner again; it was gratifyingly instructive.
"There have been fascinating discussions of just what the equivalent focal length of the human eye is. The standard wisdom that it is 50 mm, is alas an unacceptable simplification." It sounds like you don't understand what they mean with the 50mm claim. This is odd because you quite arrogantly point to a discussion that starts with the explanation: It's about the proportions and distortion of the image. If you take a picture with a 50mm lens the result is almost a 1:1 match with what your eye sees *for what the picture covers*. Field of view is *not* a factor here. You can take that picture and hold it in front of you and line it up with the actual scene with minimal discrepancies. What the actual focal length of the eye is is an interesting question but has nothing to do with the 50mm claim. Nothing at all. Zero. Nada. Speaking of Kubrick: he not a great actor, just eccentric. Some people confuse the two. Kubrick basically tortured Shelley Duvall so she'd act more scared in The Shining. And you yourself give an "anecdote" of how he threatens to fire somebody for daring to do their job. No, if Kubrick is your example then you need to find better people to look up to.
@@vinny142 _Huh?_ Half a century of filmmaking experience could be sufficient basis to be "quite arrogant", but as I'm _not,_ my well-considered comment stands; indeed, it is hard to think where to start in addressing this, as your assertions are just _everywhere_ -- and all incorrect, or should I say, unacceptably context-bound. When _you_ have a degree in physics, then you may engage in a sober discourse concerning a given technical point, but until you do, I will counsel you to (1) Read a textbook on elementary optical theory, and (2) At least _research_ the technical backstories of such things made reference to before you make provocative assertions. *P.S.:* I am the author of three academic essays on Kubrick and his works, being of cinematic theory and the man himself, which took about 20 years to write, although I did not do so on any deadline. One of them is a "sweeping synopsis" of the man himself. If there is anyone who understands how problematic genius can be, it is I, but insofar as you assert this aspect of him in the form of an _Ad Hominem_ Fallacy, obviously there can be nothing more to say about the matter to you.
One question for wolfcrow, when you say 35mm equivalent here, is it horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, since the aspect ratio of a full-frame 35mm is 3:2, how does that equate to 1.85:1 or 2.39:1?
I noticed that in the Super 35mm format, either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, 27mm is equivalent to 40mm, does this mean that you believe that the concept of equivalent focal length is based horizontally?
nothing gets me more hyped on film than the frame.. talking focal lengths and aspect ratios always makes me want to shoot.. I've seen a number of videos like this.. its always the same directors.. i wish we knew about more of them and their preferences.. but i like that you added the FF equivalents in.. very practical reference for todays filmmaker.. I personally like S35 but the low light of FF is hard to top.. I like wide lens lengths overall.. but I'd like to develop an eye for telephoto, as actors want to look their best and I want them to as well.., though it is all story and mood dependent in the end.. you can have much more fun blocking with wides.. most of us don't have the fortune of tons of space to shoot in, so we need to work with wide lenses on location.. I'm finding anamorphic to be the best of both worlds.. I have a 40mm Vazen now.. Z Cam S35,, and it perfectly blends the closeness you want to the actor/subject.., and the width to add more detail within the same frame.. thanks for the content : )
Great vid. Really interesting. I studied film at college nearly 30 years ago so this was a nice trip down memory lane. Good explanation of some of the more technical aspects.
Hey can anyone explain the creator was shot at fx3 which is a full frame camera but the lens used was a 75mm anamorphic lens which is s35 . How can this two be used together?
The FX3 can be set to super 35 crop, they probably used this. 35mm is the full sensor range, but you can choose between a variety of formats, even APSC, for example.
A s35 lens just means that it is designed to cover a s35 sensor (no vignetting) or s35 film. You can attach any lens to any body as long as the mount is correct. If they used the full frame mode when shooting they may have had to crop into the image in post if the lens didn't cover the full frame sensor.
You can, but because the FX3 is relatively low resolution, you are not getting a true 4k image when you set it to super 35. So... was the film really shot at something more like 1080p? @@TiagoZamberlan
Hi Mr. Sudhakaran, most of films in Iranian cinema has a very unique style in both directing and cinematography. Would you like to make an explanation of it sir? I think it will be great. Thanks.
The field of view that best matches the human eye is entirely dependant on the size of the screen and your relative distance from it. On a phone it might be 85mm, in closer seats in an IMAX theater it might be 10-15mm. It's pretty clear that human vision is very wide, so to say a medium or tele lens is better reflective of human vision requires a relatively smaller screen because it's a smaller rectangular cutout of all that you could really see if you were there. Personally I like taking pictures with ultrawide lenses. The previews always look unsatisfying in the camera's tiny screen, but when I put them on a usb and scroll through them sitting way too close to my oversized tv, it feels like I'm there again. Human vision is ultrawide, but movies are most often viewed at home now. 2-3 months in large theaters and the rest of eternity on much smaller home tvs and computers; medium focal length is the way to go if you want to match human vision for a relatively smaller screen, and wide but not ultrawide for larger tvs.
I think the eye is a 95-100mm lens on a medium format camera. Since I don’t use 35mm format I’m not really familiar with the equivalents, but looking into my hasselblad with a 50mm + a 2x tele converter it pretty much gives me the same view my eye sees, with a micro inch of zoom to it, but not much. It’s definitely not an 80mm because 80mm on MF is still wide enough that the horizon looks tiny compared to what the eye sees, and I need to crop into the 80mm shot to get back the view I saw with my eyes. The eye naturally has a bit of a zoom to it and that’s why to me at least, the vision of the eye is closer to 90mm, even 100mm than it is to 80mm, again, on medium format.
The first couple of sentences are enough really: directors , great or not, use the lenses that give them the images they want at the time. A *great* example is mentioned in the comments; In Terminator there is a scene that is supposed to be a busy bar but there weren't enough extra's to actually make it busy so Cameron used a longer lens to show less of the room and fit more people into that smaller space. If you think that "great directors" know something magical about lenses... nope, they know as much as you do. There simply isn't that much to know about which lens to use for a scene. Also: most directors have people that choose lenses for them, the director just says what effect they want and somebody else, with a lot more knowledge about how to get that effect, will do their jobs.
Solid video, however anamorphic at 2x squeeze gives twice the width of spherical equivalent. A 40mm anamorphic lens will have the width of a 20mm spherical.
"Compression" is from the distance to the subject. Not the focal length. Longer focal lengths only achieve greater compression by allowing you to capture the same composition from further away.
With all due respect, this video is excruciatingly misleading. The moment you're talking about a specific lens/format, you display a bunch of shots with different lenses. It would've been more effective if you have stuck to one shot per lens/format. In Schindler's List, for instance, the cluster of shots you display clearly have different lenses. Some are tighter and some are wider. Very, very confusing.
I like this content and the channel, but let's be honest - paying money for 1080p in a higher bitrate when others pump out 4K as a standard for free is like offering extra onions on a hot dog that makes it marginally better, when the competition gives out prime beef steaks for free. Offer me something worth buying and I will actually consider a payed subscribtion.
9:06 "there is a lot of discussion about which focal length resembles the human eye" It's around 70mm but the issue is this focal length is too large for most spherical formats to use outside of IMAX. Thats one of the huge advantages of IMAX is that they can use a 80mm lens and get the AOV that a 26mm Super35 would typically show. Basically you get see wider without actually being wider.
It's misleading to say these famous directors 'left anamorphic' as if everybody should give up on it--in reality, they had the more expensive option of filming in IMAX later in their careers and went with its format for the sake of its quality and detail. This doesn't mean that anamorphic can't still help beginning filmmakers achieve a quality and composition that helps set their projects apart...
The actual FOV a lens’ named focal length (24mm, 50mm, etc.) provides is dictated by and relative to the camera’s format/sensor size, but there is a standardized measurement using Super 35mm.
It's just a bit all over the place. Get contextual stuff out of the way at the beginning, with less words, and then focus on the topic of the video instead of repeatedly deviating from it.
The message in this video is. The focal of the lens. Has nothing to with. The movie being great or not. The camera lense is just. The one of many tools. That allow the movie. To be brought to life.
Sigh. Take a physics class and stop regurgitating this ignorant nonsense about focal lengths and crop factors. Yes, you get differences in FOV, but an image shot at 30mm is optically an image shot at 30mm regardless of how big a portion of the image you are looking at. Knowing how optics work isn’t going to kill you.
Lens means nothing. Its where you put the camera vs where your subject is. A natural look matches the eye? no such thing as that varies.. look at your lover from 8 inches and he/she looks one way. Doing some cop surveilance from over the road? your sujbect looks another way. So its all about where you ut the camera, lens just controls FOV once your subject to camera polsition is sorted. As for all the maths I fell asleep.. especially as 80% of everything was shot on 35.. so chating FF equivilent is a little wonk.
We need to stop talking about equivalent focal lengths. The focal length is a fixed property of the lens regardless of what format is being used to capture the image.
But why you assume it’s all directors? Many if the mentioned films was shot by great cinematographers. Don’t assume they didn’t had say in looks decisions
Download My Free Ebook! How to Make Stunning Films on a Budget. My Proven Secrets: wolfcrow.com/free-ebook/
Focal lengths, lenses, and sensors were one of the more confusing things when I started to learn more about cameras and cinematrogphy. The differing sensor sizes really complicates things when setting up your shots. Thanks for this video, I know I'll be watching it a few times to make sure things sink in (plus reading your articles)!
You’re welcome!
Lol yeah tell me about it. I Have a GH5 with Various Native Lenses and Adapters. I honestly never do the math I just plug and play and decide what looks best in the moment. I had a bad case of Gear Acquisition Syndrome for a bit and have a variety of lenses.
youtube is worst place to learn filmmaking stuff
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen such an insightful video. This is what TH-cam should be. ✌🏻👏
Michael Cimino says in ‘Year of the Dragon’ commentary : « All I need to make a movie are two lenses, the 250 zoom and a 30 mm lens. I don’t need any other lens. » Could be a cool starting point for another video.
Seems rather deceptive to count a 250 zoom as one lens i.e. focal length/field of view. It can be set to any focal length desired for a given shot. The discussion here is a single preferred angle of view, not a type of lens.
Using a zoom lense is a bit deceptive
very interesting and well done video, I just don't understand why you only mentioned the directors instead of the directors of photography! they are the ones who choose or are passionate about certain focal lengths: for example you mentioned Terrence Malick for his passion for wide angles but it's all thanks to his DP Emmanuel Lubezki who often re-proposes wide shots as he did in The Revenant.
I agree when speaking about Focal Length the "film size" or sensor size "film format" is important and so is cropping and squeeze/anamorphic - three data are needed - sensor or film size (including any in camera cropping), focal length and squeeze factor if anamorphic or spherical lenses are used.
So thanks for referring to 35mm Equivalent. Super 35mm applies roughly a 1.5x to the focal length when a 35mm equivalence is considered.
Whereas Lawrence of Arabia,released in 1962 and directed by David Lean, was shot on film using Super Panavision-70 Camera, a Mitchell BFC 65 with 65mm film negative width and Panavision Super Panavision 70 Series Lenses (including a the far off distance with the telephoto lens-Lean uses a special 482 mm lens from Panavision for the long shot of Sarif) and Distributed Aspect Rations of 2.20:1 (although other report 2.21:10) and 2.35:1 on 3 different film distribution resolutions - 16mm, 35mm (anamorphic) and 70mm. [Arri Alexa 65 uses the same format]. The production's wide angle was a 50mm (although others report a 40mm was used) and 210mm for closeups. These are equivalent to 35mm (or 28mm if a 40 was used) and 147mm in 35mm FF equivalent. The 482mm provides the same FOV as a 337.5mm on a 35mm FF sensor/film.
An ARRI Alexa Mini has a 1.27 crop factor whereas an Alexa 65 has a 0.7 crop factor. If one uses a 32mm on the 65 then one would need to use an 18mm Focal length on the Mini to achieve the same field of view - which is equivalent to a 22.4mm on a 35mm full frame.
Using anamorphic lenses compresses the horizontal FOV by the squeeze factor of the lens, which is reversed when projected with an anamorphic lens with the same squeeze factor or digitally in post. One should really consider how a Square Shaped subject is impacted by the Squeeze and this is where the Vertical dimension is important. When shooting open gate (ie using the full sensor) with anamorphic lenses the vertical dimension is not squeezed - a 50mm V FOV remains 50mm and the square returns to square when the image is correctly projected or de-squeezed in post -- 50mm remains 50mm -- but obviously the horizontal resolution of the desqueeze image is reduced significantly (by the squeeze factor) but not the final FOV. In other words in terms of geometry the same crop factors can be used whether or not the lens is spherical or anamorphic provided that the squeezed image is desqueezed first.
What make a difference is whether or not the sensor/film are shot open gate or cropped in camera. This will impact the calcs between cropped format and open gate.
Depth of Field and effective aperture are other confusing subject to address - .
Ultra-wide angle lenses provide significant distortion when used with a close subject - this can form part of the narrative.
Except in cinematography - the "35mm equivalent" refers to 4 perf - not 8 perf which photographers call full frame.
For over 100 years "35mm2 in cinema has referred to the motion picture format (4 perf) - not the so called "full frame" format.
This is why the Alexa is referred to as having a 35mm sensor - not the LF and the Mini LF.
When crop factor are used in cinematography it should be from the S35 format... not FF / 135.
Such a joy to watch such gorgeous images and be reminded (if needed) of the beauty of cinema.
thank you wolfcrow you have been my film school for a very long time
It is important for context to understand focal length does not alter near-far perspective and relative size the distance to subject and background objects does. The first step in framing a shot is to find the shooting distance to from the near subject which produces the desired perspective then pick the focal length that produces the desired in-camera crop for the film / sensor size used.
Wide angle lenses appear to distort perspective more a “normal” lens for a film / sensor size but only because they are able to focus closer to the subject. This can be seen by shooting stills from around eight feet with different focal length lenses then cropping them so the near subject is the same size. You’ll see the perspective on the wide lens isn’t any different than a normal or telephoto.
You already posted this video a few years ago with Janet Leigh from the famous scene of Psycho from Hitchcock. It was the best video of youtube about this specific subject. I hope you added or correct certain things. In only one minute I saw a scene from Napoleon or more lenses choices from Jean-Pierre Jeunet :) Thank you for this update :) I studied this so much on my own with thousand and thousand screenshots of movies and tv show (and my own work as a photographer) that I am able to recognize now, on every movie, the lense used on a scene. Update : you don't add new directors (from memory it seems it is the same voice over) but it is nice you added new pictures and the specification almost all these choices take place with the super35 ;)
Is it me, or do different focal lengths match natural vision depending on distance to subject? 35mm (ff) at appx 0.5-1.5m, 50mm at 2-5m, 85mm at 5-10m, 100mm at 20-50m, 100-200 above 50m?
Yes. Human vision can be broken down into say three main area.....peripheral vision(very wide maybe around 120 degrees), field of vision(60 degrees) and then focus region(30 degrees)
68mm probably matches what we see as far as perspective goes a subject. For example put a zoom lens on and look through the view finder point it at an object in your room and play with the zoom until it matches the perspective of how you see it(keep taking your eye off the view finder to look at it for reference). You will find around 68mm matches what you are seeing but the crop factor will determine how much of the scene you see. 68mm is the same no matter the format you use, its just the how much you will see of the scene. Thats why large format has an advantage as it allows people to shoot with higher focal lengths while capturing more of a scene
Its all about distances ! The distance camera to subject and background changes the perspective. Then you have to choose a lens so to fit the elements you need (subject, background field etc) with the perspective you need in to your frame.
The 50mm lens in film photography (36X24) has gives less field of view than in motion picture 35mm film. The longest length of the frame will be 24mm and thats why we need these anamorphic lenses, so to gain more frame tenth, more wide (left-right) view as per natural vision.
There is an exceptional bnw scene at 8:36 . Is that from Citizen Kane or what movie is it?
It’s from the movie « Soy Cuba ». From 1h44mn :
th-cam.com/video/Y3HpI898dwg/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared&t=6407
Thank you for this Wolfcrow - I am always fascinated by what lenses great directors use and where and why they use it. This is amazing. I noticed you mentioned Jim Cameron at the end - I also remember seeing a video interview of him where he said for THE TERMINATOR he did not go below 65mm lenses., it gave him freedom to do some amazing stuff in the Technoir club sequences, where he did not have enough extras/actors to fill up the club room. so he used tighter lenses to go in closer.
You're very welcome!
That's a deep analysis about lenses, in fact, the discussion is so inspiring. I felt, the lens is a major tool in cinematic-story telling - thank you so much for all your work to bring this video, it is really educative and useful.
Glad it was helpful!
I can see why so many directors like wide-angle lenses. You can get a lot of info and story inside a wide frame like that. I personally love composing and blocking for wide-angle shots.
Except if you are on a tight budget and cannot dress or control that much background. I can immediately tell when I am watching a low-budget movie by how much background I can see in the frame.
There are something about focal length and shutterspeed as well. You can get away with longer shutter speed with wider lenses and getter better lowlight performances. Although the frameset sets the minimum shutter.
40mm is the most beautiful, it gives no distortions, a natural separation of background and subject.
Its light, its sharp, its the most underrated lens of all time, for a full frame sensor, a 43mm would be the most ideal for it is within the exact range of what we see in our centre vision cone between 50 and 60 degrees for most people. A 43mm would give 53 degree field of view.
50mm on 35mm film is different to 50mm on Imax 70mm film right? Same as 50mm on crop sensor is more like 85mm . So understanding which focal length and filmstock used will help too. Also Depth of field varies. F1.4 lens on a crop sensor will be more like F2.2 or something like that.
Yes, 50mm for IMAX 70mm will be 25mm for full-frame 35mm
Thanks for the great education. Though I'm left a bit confused by the conversion bit. Say how 27 becomes 30 something.
Thank you for a very extensive & thorough research!
I know some people think this was complicated but it just means you need to study more. Kodak used to have these amazing books that had moving charts inside where you could select focal length, film size, and it would give you the equivalent in any other format. The digital generation isn't forced to learn the science behind this stuff anymore or do the math.
It’s not that it isn’t or wasn’t understood, it’s that it was communicated poorly and overcomplicated what it was trying to explain.
Another Brilliant Video, eternal thanks, my Friend! 👍🏾👍🏾
You're welcome!
one of the most underrated youtube channel. thank you for your work and passion. I learned so much from you.
Thanks Great Video! I usually only use which lens best frames My Shot/ Set pieces that I want in Frame and excluding what I don't want in frame unless the location is wide open but I definitely want to learn and use lenses intentionally.
Kudos for mentioning Bresson
(03:25) _"... spherical lens...."_
I think you are confusing this term with flat _cinematography,_ which is an early creative decision concerning masking for _theatrical_ presentation. A spherical lens is one which does _not_ incorporate at least one _aspheric[al] element,_ usually as one lens of a doublet.
For the example of aspherical lenses sold by Zeiss _etal,_ -- The prevalent opinion as to why they cost so much is because they are handmade, or have superior quality control, or have superior customer service, etc. They are all essentially wrong. That Zeiss 50 mm lens costs $18,000 because those aspherical lens elements are _extraordinarily_ difficult to grind and polish.
By the way, the lens itself is not anamorphic. To my understanding, this is accomplished by an _adapter_ for the given lens. Is my understanding of this incomplete or dated?
*Additional Notes and Observations:*
I would be curious as to your primary resource for determining all this. You mention IMDB, but it is well known, and my personal experience, that much information about format and lens there is incorrect.
A welcome addition to this excellent video is a brief discussion of the nonlinear nature of focal length. A 40 mm and a 50 mm lens are visually commensurate, but the visual effect between, say, the 6 mm Fairchild-Curtis ultra-wide-angle fisheye lens Kubrick used in _2001: A Space Odyssey_ and, say, a 10 mm lens, is _very_ different.
Speaking of Kubrick, there is that famous anecdote of how he put Academy Award winning cinematographer Lucien Ballard in his place, early in the shooting for his movie, _The Killing_ (1956). Ballard had presumed to substitute a longer lens for one shot, for ease of shooting, without informing Kubrick. 27 year old Kubrick retorted, _Do it my way or hit the road._ Or words to that effect.
Speaking of Kubrick again: He is the only director who is famous for the specific use of two lenses: The 6 mm ultra-wide-angle fisheye lens that is HAL-9000's POV, and the $1,000,000 NASA-contract, Zeiss-manufactured specially-adapted f/0.7 Zeiss 50 mm lens he used for filming a sequence in _Barry Lyndon_ (1975) only by candlelight -- even if those candles had three wicks each.
There have been fascinating discussions of just what the equivalent focal length of the human eye is. The standard wisdom that it is 50 mm, is alas an unacceptable simplification. 40 mm, 22 mm, and 17 mm are values that I have read in the past. The difficulty in making a meaningful determination is at least discussed at:
reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/u5j3jy/eli5_why_is_the_50mm_camera_lens_considered/
Was referring to spherical as opposed to anamorphic. Regarding lenses.
@@wolfcrow Thus my comment. Ah, you didn´t read it. Well, that is.
Since I have your attention, I want to express my admiration and gratitude for your early website, in the days of my return to film school in this new digital age. I felt like a beginner again; it was gratifyingly instructive.
"There have been fascinating discussions of just what the equivalent focal length of the human eye is. The standard wisdom that it is 50 mm, is alas an unacceptable simplification."
It sounds like you don't understand what they mean with the 50mm claim. This is odd because you quite arrogantly point to a discussion that starts with the explanation:
It's about the proportions and distortion of the image. If you take a picture with a 50mm lens the result is almost a 1:1 match with what your eye sees *for what the picture covers*. Field of view is *not* a factor here. You can take that picture and hold it in front of you and line it up with the actual scene with minimal discrepancies.
What the actual focal length of the eye is is an interesting question but has nothing to do with the 50mm claim. Nothing at all. Zero. Nada.
Speaking of Kubrick: he not a great actor, just eccentric. Some people confuse the two. Kubrick basically tortured Shelley Duvall so she'd act more scared in The Shining. And you yourself give an "anecdote" of how he threatens to fire somebody for daring to do their job. No, if Kubrick is your example then you need to find better people to look up to.
@@vinny142 _Huh?_
Half a century of filmmaking experience could be sufficient basis to be "quite arrogant", but as I'm _not,_ my well-considered comment stands; indeed, it is hard to think where to start in addressing this, as your assertions are just _everywhere_ -- and all incorrect, or should I say, unacceptably context-bound.
When _you_ have a degree in physics, then you may engage in a sober discourse concerning a given technical point, but until you do, I will counsel you to (1) Read a textbook on elementary optical theory, and (2) At least _research_ the technical backstories of such things made reference to before you make provocative assertions.
*P.S.:* I am the author of three academic essays on Kubrick and his works, being of cinematic theory and the man himself, which took about 20 years to write, although I did not do so on any deadline. One of them is a "sweeping synopsis" of the man himself. If there is anyone who understands how problematic genius can be, it is I, but insofar as you assert this aspect of him in the form of an _Ad Hominem_ Fallacy, obviously there can be nothing more to say about the matter to you.
Thank you! It’s is a pleasure to watch your videos
Glad you like them!
One question for wolfcrow, when you say 35mm equivalent here, is it horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, since the aspect ratio of a full-frame 35mm is 3:2, how does that equate to 1.85:1 or 2.39:1?
I noticed that in the Super 35mm format, either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, 27mm is equivalent to 40mm, does this mean that you believe that the concept of equivalent focal length is based horizontally?
nothing gets me more hyped on film than the frame.. talking focal lengths and aspect ratios always makes me want to shoot..
I've seen a number of videos like this.. its always the same directors.. i wish we knew about more of them and their preferences.. but i like that you added the FF equivalents in.. very practical reference for todays filmmaker.. I personally like S35 but the low light of FF is hard to top..
I like wide lens lengths overall.. but I'd like to develop an eye for telephoto, as actors want to look their best and I want them to as well.., though it is all story and mood dependent in the end.. you can have much more fun blocking with wides.. most of us don't have the fortune of tons of space to shoot in, so we need to work with wide lenses on location..
I'm finding anamorphic to be the best of both worlds.. I have a 40mm Vazen now.. Z Cam S35,, and it perfectly blends the closeness you want to the actor/subject.., and the width to add more detail within the same frame.. thanks for the content : )
Thank You Wolfcrow!
Welcome!
Where's the calculator you talked about that also accounts for A/R and anamorphic squeeze factor?
the brackets refer to the full frame / 35 mm equivalent?
I readlly enjoyed this; again. I may not need much of it, but I know more now than when I started this video! 🙏🏻
Glad you enjoyed it!
So many wide angle lenses. The masters likes to have the space to create beautiful compositions.
Great video. Bravo and thank you
Great vid. Really interesting. I studied film at college nearly 30 years ago so this was a nice trip down memory lane. Good explanation of some of the more technical aspects.
Hey can anyone explain the creator was shot at fx3 which is a full frame camera but the lens used was a 75mm anamorphic lens which is s35 . How can this two be used together?
The FX3 can be set to super 35 crop, they probably used this. 35mm is the full sensor range, but you can choose between a variety of formats, even APSC, for example.
A s35 lens just means that it is designed to cover a s35 sensor (no vignetting) or s35 film. You can attach any lens to any body as long as the mount is correct. If they used the full frame mode when shooting they may have had to crop into the image in post if the lens didn't cover the full frame sensor.
You can, but because the FX3 is relatively low resolution, you are not getting a true 4k image when you set it to super 35.
So... was the film really shot at something more like 1080p?
@@TiagoZamberlan
Fantastic video! Thank you for this!
My pleasure!
Hi Mr. Sudhakaran, most of films in Iranian cinema has a very unique style in both directing and cinematography. Would you like to make an explanation of it sir? I think it will be great. Thanks.
I will try!
@@wolfcrow wow great! Thanks a lot sir! 😁
Amazing, great contents
great video!
Next do apertures by great directors. 5.6 used to be the standard. Has things changed?
Traditionally directors don’t pick the aperture. However, the video is on my channel anyway!
The field of view that best matches the human eye is entirely dependant on the size of the screen and your relative distance from it. On a phone it might be 85mm, in closer seats in an IMAX theater it might be 10-15mm. It's pretty clear that human vision is very wide, so to say a medium or tele lens is better reflective of human vision requires a relatively smaller screen because it's a smaller rectangular cutout of all that you could really see if you were there. Personally I like taking pictures with ultrawide lenses. The previews always look unsatisfying in the camera's tiny screen, but when I put them on a usb and scroll through them sitting way too close to my oversized tv, it feels like I'm there again. Human vision is ultrawide, but movies are most often viewed at home now. 2-3 months in large theaters and the rest of eternity on much smaller home tvs and computers; medium focal length is the way to go if you want to match human vision for a relatively smaller screen, and wide but not ultrawide for larger tvs.
amazing research!
Thanks a lot!
I think the eye is a 95-100mm lens on a medium format camera.
Since I don’t use 35mm format I’m not really familiar with the equivalents, but looking into my hasselblad with a 50mm + a 2x tele converter it pretty much gives me the same view my eye sees, with a micro inch of zoom to it, but not much.
It’s definitely not an 80mm because 80mm on MF is still wide enough that the horizon looks tiny compared to what the eye sees, and I need to crop into the 80mm shot to get back the view I saw with my eyes.
The eye naturally has a bit of a zoom to it and that’s why to me at least, the vision of the eye is closer to 90mm, even 100mm than it is to 80mm, again, on medium format.
Amazing as always
Thanks again!
At 2 min : "anamorphic 50 mm ( 40 mm )" .... what do you mean ? If it's a 2x anamorphic shot in 35 mm FF, it's 25 mm FF field of view equivalent.
Great! Thanks!!
The first couple of sentences are enough really: directors , great or not, use the lenses that give them the images they want at the time.
A *great* example is mentioned in the comments; In Terminator there is a scene that is supposed to be a busy bar but there weren't enough extra's to actually make it busy so Cameron used a longer lens to show less of the room and fit more people into that smaller space.
If you think that "great directors" know something magical about lenses... nope, they know as much as you do. There simply isn't that much to know about which lens to use for a scene.
Also: most directors have people that choose lenses for them, the director just says what effect they want and somebody else, with a lot more knowledge about how to get that effect, will do their jobs.
Class is in session 🎥
you should make another video called "notes used by great musicians"
Also read Roman Polanski was a master of lens use and had lens IQ that would match any cinematographer.
i swear ive seen this exact video somewhere before but i cant place it
No mention of Peter Bogdonavich? Good video nonetheless. Thanks.
This is reload re- upload. 😊
Thank you!
You're welcome!
great video
Thanks!
Great!
in what world is 18mm a telephotolens? even on small senors its more of a wide to normal look i think.
Awesome ….but this two , (probably It’s not from Hollywood though ) , but the father of all , Eisentien , and Lyv khuleshov
Solid video, however anamorphic at 2x squeeze gives twice the width of spherical equivalent. A 40mm anamorphic lens will have the width of a 20mm spherical.
The frame sizes are different, too.
Dude, Terrence Malick is using everything but not 40/50mm, It's extremely noticable that he loves using ultra wide lenses.
"Compression" is from the distance to the subject. Not the focal length.
Longer focal lengths only achieve greater compression by allowing you to capture the same composition from further away.
I thought so too. 3:40 sounds confusing.
I swear I've already seen this video years ago with almost identical phrasing.
THREE MUSKETEERS MILADY defo felt like one focal length thru out
With all due respect, this video is excruciatingly misleading. The moment you're talking about a specific lens/format, you display a bunch of shots with different lenses. It would've been more effective if you have stuck to one shot per lens/format. In Schindler's List, for instance, the cluster of shots you display clearly have different lenses. Some are tighter and some are wider. Very, very confusing.
I like this content and the channel, but let's be honest - paying money for 1080p in a higher bitrate when others pump out 4K as a standard for free is like offering extra onions on a hot dog that makes it marginally better, when the competition gives out prime beef steaks for free. Offer me something worth buying and I will actually consider a payed subscribtion.
9:06 "there is a lot of discussion about which focal length resembles the human eye"
It's around 70mm but the issue is this focal length is too large for most spherical formats to use outside of IMAX. Thats one of the huge advantages of IMAX is that they can use a 80mm lens and get the AOV that a 26mm Super35 would typically show. Basically you get see wider without actually being wider.
It's misleading to say these famous directors 'left anamorphic' as if everybody should give up on it--in reality, they had the more expensive option of filming in IMAX later in their careers and went with its format for the sake of its quality and detail. This doesn't mean that anamorphic can't still help beginning filmmakers achieve a quality and composition that helps set their projects apart...
It would’ve been a lot more useful to simply list focal lengths in FF numbers
50mm on a Super 35mm is actually 70mm field of view on a Full Frame, my friend NOT 85mm...
The actual FOV a lens’ named focal length (24mm, 50mm, etc.) provides is dictated by and relative to the camera’s format/sensor size, but there is a standardized measurement using Super 35mm.
It's just a bit all over the place. Get contextual stuff out of the way at the beginning, with less words, and then focus on the topic of the video instead of repeatedly deviating from it.
calm down, its not that misleading haha!
@francescogianniconsentino9301 it isn't misleading, it's just a mess. 😜
Yeah, your forklift music video is dope.
You forgot Wong Kar Wi.
The message in this video is. The focal of the lens. Has nothing to with. The movie being great or not. The camera lense is just. The one of many tools. That allow the movie. To be brought to life.
Why. Are you. Using so. Many periods.
@@LuptonPittman Troll much do ya!
Looks like a 24-70mm lens can cover everything needed. (forcal length)
Length*, not lenth.
What on Earth are these comments?
this video is very confusing
Exactly
Kick back and gran a drink this is only 12 minutes?
Shots
Sigh. Take a physics class and stop regurgitating this ignorant nonsense about focal lengths and crop factors. Yes, you get differences in FOV, but an image shot at 30mm is optically an image shot at 30mm regardless of how big a portion of the image you are looking at. Knowing how optics work isn’t going to kill you.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Lens means nothing. Its where you put the camera vs where your subject is. A natural look matches the eye? no such thing as that varies.. look at your lover from 8 inches and he/she looks one way. Doing some cop surveilance from over the road? your sujbect looks another way. So its all about where you ut the camera, lens just controls FOV once your subject to camera polsition is sorted. As for all the maths I fell asleep.. especially as 80% of everything was shot on 35.. so chating FF equivilent is a little wonk.
"Lens means nothing..."
Sidney Lumet: Shut up and read my book, you nitwit.
We need to stop talking about equivalent focal lengths. The focal length is a fixed property of the lens regardless of what format is being used to capture the image.
But why you assume it’s all directors? Many if the mentioned films was shot by great cinematographers. Don’t assume they didn’t had say in looks decisions
This video is confusing as hell
only men...
Talking directors, and not the cinematographers, is obscene.
I just use my Samsung s23 ultra for all my movies
he wont pin me :)