Rick Wise
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
Considering all your experience, I’d suggest that better than reading books, do it. You might look at my post on focal lengths, https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/54/861120, but after that start experimenting yourself.
You ask, “For example, why does a videographer choose to shoot a really wide angle shot in a scene from below eye level versus above eye level. Or, why is the shot a shallow depth of field with only the person in focus and not the background. and Why does the videographer use a slow tracking shot of the front of a building using a slider instead of a stack shot.”
The post on focal lengths partly answers your question. Add to the effect of wide angles, what happens when you do lower the camera below eye level. (Look at the keystone effect on verticals. Look at how figures are ?more imposing as they loon over (or up to) the camera.) As for isolating the subject, what does that do to the viewer’s eye? (It makes us focus on the subject vs. the background.)
Everything we do with lenses and movement is around: where do we want to direct the viewers’ eyes? Some directors, like Michael Mann, like very deep focus shots, so that everything is sharp — for him the surround is a key part of the story and he wants you to look at it. Others, such as Polanski, prefer isolating figures. There is no one way to shoot anything. That may be frustrating you right now, but it’s also a license to go for broke in which ever direction you wish. Over time, you will probably too develop a style that works for you, and, hopefully, for your audiences as well.
So write or find a very short story and start experimenting.
Break a leg!
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
Here’s a very brief run-down of focal lengths. First off, they effect field-of-view. As you have discovered, when shooting in a cramped space, you are usually forced to use a wider lens to get a field of view that shows what you need to show.
But that’s just making do, as you’ve noted. The main characteristics of wide lenses is that they “push back” what’s in the background, while long lenses compress background and foreground. So if you want something to rush to the camera, usually a wide lens will work best. Let’s say you have your hero walking toward the lens and you are shooting him from a good distance with a very long lens: he/she will stay relatively the same size in the frame for a very long time, only gradually taking up more and more of the frame. Now replace that long lens with a wide one, and your hero will start tiny in the frame and rapidly grow in size. So the kinetics of movement are much more dynamic when the person/object is moving toward the camera with a wide lens.
But if the camera is stationary and you are panning r-l or l-r, a long lens is likely going to give you a stronger sens of motion as you pan with your actor(s) or objects.
If you add camera movement (dolly, steadicam, or the like) in general wide lenses give you more dynamic kinetics, as well as forced perspective. Go back and look at the use of wide lenses in Citizen Kane for a graphic demonstration.
Moving the lens is much harder with long lenses, as any vibration/jiggle jumps out at the viewer. To hand-hold a camera following someone you will have far more success shooting with a wide lens close to the subject than a long lens far from the subject. Close and wide enough, and the person’s own movements will mask your own.
There is also that other issue: focus, or depth of field. At a given distance, and a given f/stop, a wide lens has a much deeper depth of field than a long one. But you cannot gain depth of field by going to a wider lens unless you accept a wider field of view. The reason: when you switch to a wider lens and keep the same field of view, you have to move the camera much closer, and at this new close position you end up with the same depth of field you had originally. (The closer the lens is to the subject, the more shallow the depth of field.) The only way to increase depth of field is to add light or bump up ISO sensitivity or open the shutter or slow down the recording speed: any of those will allow you to close the iris more, thereby increasing depth of field. Closing the iris 2 stops doubles the depth of field.
Finally, a note about recording size: The larger the recording size, whether film or video, the longer the lens you need for the same field of view. A “normal” lens shooting 16mm film is a 25mm. A “normal” lens shooting 35mm film is a 50mm. So with large chips/film-sizes you are bound to use a longer lens. That effects compression of background. That effects depth of field. That “filmic” look of 35mm features comes in part from the use of relatively long lenses by comparison to video cameras — until recently. We now have DSLRs and pro video cameras with large sensors, and so can naturally gravitate to longer lenses to isolate subjects with shallow depth of field, if we want to. Equally, when we go to a relatively wide lens, we can get the dramatic kinetics and forced perspective those lenses produce. With large sensors, our potential arsenal of looks is greatly increased.
As to your specific question about those two directors, I’d have to screen some of their work afresh to answer your question. Maybe you can answer your own questions with the guidelines above. Hope so.
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
You always have to pay attention to two color axes: red-blue, and magenta-green. The overhead fluorescents are probably roughly daylight (cool whites,) though they could be roughly tungsten (warm whites.) If they appear to be warm whites, you will need to warm up your light a lot; It is possible the “amber” filter will work. So much for the red-blue axis. Assuming the overheads are ‘daylight,’ your LED is probably too blue by a bit. I’d tape on a 1/4 CTO to warm the light up slightly.
Consumer fluorescents all have a green spike. You therefore need to add green to your light to match the overheads. I’d bring along a couple of pieces of 1/4 plusgreen cut to size to tape over the light. Start with just one layer.
Now white balance to a gray card with a mix of overheads and your light. Ideally you’d want to play back a test shot on a good, large, color-critical monitor, but you probably won’t have access to one. So you’ll have to evaluate on the camera’s tiny screen. Or by eye.
It’s also possible the convention hall has some other type of overhead lighting. Equally, booths may have different lighting. In all cases, you want to make your little light match as closely as possible whatever is up there. If at all possible, go in a day before and shoot tests!
Since you are shooting b-roll, that suggests someone else is shooting the a-roll. Confer with that shooter. S/he is really the boss here.
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
-
This topic has been endlessly covered. Do a search for lighting kits. Note the key here is on the wrong side.
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
One look at the Boticelli Softlight (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Botticelli+2K+Softlight&N=0&InitialSearch=yes) for which those grids are intended should tell you why you would not want or be able to use these grids directly on your Blondes. Snoots, including your own black-wrap versions, would be much more effective and workable.
The description of the grids is a bit misleading: “Eggcrates act in much the same way as snoots do”. Snoots help you to create a narrow cone of light. Grids help make soft lights more directional, reducing spill on all sides. They are often added to the fronts of chimeras and the like for that reason. They also chew up a significant amount of light. Cones do not.
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
Interesting idea. Impossibly slow to load. Site recommends Google Chrome, but I found it no faster than Firefox. Seems designed for strobe/still shooters. “Soft box” way too small. Very much in beta form.
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
Well, I’m assuming you have an establishing shot from the outside that shows how this truck has a translucent cover. Probably any white cover will work. After that, for the shots inside the truck bed possibly a frame with full grid cloth will work, provided we don’t see the frame –which would be most difficult. A possibly less expensive solution than grid cloth would be to drape the frame in white parachute materials.
An interesting challenge, so go for it!
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
Devolve? I hardly think so. The word of caution comes from experience: don’t think that trying to follow my “recipes” is going to work as well for you as it does for me. There are no recipes, in fact, just general guidelines. It’s up to the shooter to develop the eye along with the technical skills to tackle any and every opportunity.
I agree about the terrific opportunities for today’s students.
Note: my “caution” was directed at SB.
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
A note of caution. It’s pretty much impossible to light well trying to follow a “recipe” from some one else. It’s been my experience that every time I followed the advice of another more experienced DP I did not like the results. It’s only when you find your own eye that you start to fly. Fortunately we learn a lot from our mistakes.
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com