A question about breathing For Mr. Duclos

[Björn Benckert]

I agree to an extent. I think that breathing is an organic part of films.

I don't seek to actively use it in my film grammar ... but its often there so I must account for it. That usually means being creative and trying to motivate or otherwise use the effect.

My ideal however is to have the lens not breathe ... then if I need movement as part of my grammar I can add it by ::gasp:: moving the camera. ;)

Well for post / compositing and CG integration having the LDS is big deal... having a digitally stable source with only focus moving is also a big deal.

[fALk Gärtner]

Great to see that somebody else is thinking of this. I got some thoughts on your comments...




I can tell you from my 15 year as a flame artist, trying to figuring out even the zoom factor from "focus pull breathing" using tracking dots of a moving camera shot might be doable, but it's freaking hard, involves the higher level of 3D tracking. Breathing is not only "zoom" it's a "fisheye" warp thing going on also so to create a perfect flat source with only focus moving involves warping swell, do not think you have it in resolve. But do not know for sure do not use the program.

Having a perfectly flat source however is improving 3D tracking and 3D integration by a lot so getting the numbers out of the canon lenses and have it feed into the meta data is huge for post...

yes yes yes. First have a stable clean as possible image - if you have done all your integration and the client/DP/Director really needs a more natural feel then you can ALWAYS add in artifacts afterwards - and yes I regard breathing an artifact and I personally do not like it - but I also do not like grain that much ;)
Getting breathing out in post is difficult takes away valuable time that you could spend making good looking vfx ;)

[Marc Wielage]

I believe there are sections on lens design and theory, plus the causes for "breathing" problems in focus changes in past editions of the American Cinematographer's Manual -- a must-have publication that every DP should own.

[Matthew Duclos]

"Breathing" is a term used to describe the apparent change in the field of view while racking focus. It's an optical-mechanical design flaw. It's much more expensive to design a lens that does not breathe. A "floating element" is a very common method for correcting breathing in a lens. Most still photo lenses will breath a since manufacturers such as Nikon and Canon don't really care about making the image as accurate as possible. Can you tell the difference between a 45° field of view and a 46° field of view looking through your view finder? Probably not and nobody cares about a 1° difference when you snap a still frame. But when the field of view changes while focusing during a continuous shot, it's devastating to the scene. Watch Super 8 and look for the long focus pulls from infinity to close focus. The breathing exhibited by the lenses in that movie is horrible, made even worse by the anamorphic lenses. Cinema lenses do their best to reduce breathing and in most modern lenses, accomplish this very well. Try to find some breathing in a set of Master Primes. ...Good luck.
For example, keep an eye on the right edge of the frame as i run through focus. Sorry about the shaky image, this was a quick and dirty example.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Matthew you tucked my words out of my mouth and bit me to it... ;)

Oh and if you would to see the Leica Summilux C. Primes, you would be very impressed as well, Absolutely NO breathing on those babies, but you do pay, as their cost is in line with the Master Primes...

You do pay for what you get when it comes to asking NO BREATHING in Cine Glass, for Still Glass, well deal with it, as it isn't going away,
and for this I say don't use still glass in 3D, it will make your life existence MISERABLE!!

[Antoine Fabi]

Matthew,

That leads me to ask why do you think that some major directors and DOPs prefer UPs over MPs.

Antoine

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Matthew,

That leads me to ask why do you think that some major directors and DOPs prefer UPs over MPs.

Antoine

I'm not Matthew, but can you give an example of who prefers UP's over MP's? I suppose from a non-subjective standpoint, with optical differences aside... they are smaller (half the length), lighter (half the weight), have a wider range of focal lengths (8-180 vs 12-150) and are less expensive.

If it's not a money issue, I've never heard anyone turn MP's down for UP's unless it was a hand-held or steadi-cam shot/shoot. Who knows. I have plenty of UP experience, but don't get the MP's too often, so I'm not knowledgeable enough to really know the difference the two give in look to guess the aesthetic preference.

[Matthew Duclos]

That leads me to ask why do you think that some major directors and DOPs prefer UPs over MPs.

That's an excellent question. My best guess is that Master Primes have become the golden standard when it comes to cinema optics. They are the go-to for accurate, high-quality images. In a industry driven be creativity and individuality, I assume it's considered hip to choose the less-than-perfect set of Ultra Primes over the uncompromising Master Primes while still proclaiming "I've arrived". Or they simply can't afford Master Primes.

[Antoine Fabi]

Hi Matthew,

Yeah...i mean, i think i saw Peter Jackson chose UPs in Lord of the rings.

Maybe i'm wrong but i think i saw that on BTS pictures.

Thanks!

Antoine

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Hi Matthew,

Yeah...i mean, i think i saw Peter Jackson chose UPs in Lord of the rings.

Maybe i'm wrong but i think i saw that on BTS pictures.

Thanks!

Antoine

The LotR movies were released in 2001 through 2003... Master Primes were unveiled in 2005.

That is likely why they didn't use them ;)