Breathing...

[Benjamin Scot]

I am relatively new to cinematography, and have been around photography for a while...however, the other day a phrase popped up referring to lenses that I had not heard before.

A certain lens was described as 'breathless'

What is a lens' breath???

My only guess is that breathing is when you change focus dramatically and subjects grow/shrink a little bit as you go from foreground to background. Is this right?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Raul Gonzo]

Hey Benjamin, that is part of it. When you focus, your composition changes.

 

[Jonathan Stevenson]

Basically the lens does a slight zoom in or out when you pull focus.

 

[Benjamin Scot]

Thanks guys!

I appreciate the information.

Now I know another reason why cinema glass is a lot more expensive than still's glass

and now I also have an excuse to buy more expensive lenses

 

[Raul Gonzo]

I might get stoned, but... I really like breathing sometimes.

 

[Matthew Duclos]

I kinda like the term "breathless".
I've never heard this used to describe a lens that had no breathing.
Adopted!

 

[Benjamin Scot]

I might get stoned, but... I really like breathing sometimes.

Raul.... You have to breath to get stoned! haha

I would be interested in hearing situations that you would like to have your lens breath

 

[Nick Gardner]

I never really minded breathing, it's just a fact of life. Only the newest generation of glass comes close to eliminating the problem. It is weird to watch say, a raking two shot in a dialog scene, and one person goes soft without warning. We are all so used to the slight breathing that we have seen in movies and on TV for years, it's slightly confusing to not have a visual cue that the focus is shifting.

That's just my opinion.

Nick

 

[Raul Gonzo]

Raul.... You have to breath to get stoned! haha

I would be interested in hearing situations that you would like to have your lens breath

haha, yeah- I was waiting for that :sifone:

... breathing that we have seen in movies and on TV for years...

Nick

And yes, partly what Nick is saying is true with me- sometimes I want breathing, and film grain/noise, vignetting, hair and fungus on the picture- because sometimes it adds to something I liked from films before.

Right now I am working on an 3D animated film and find that if I mimic breathing it is more tangible.

 

[Guidofilippi]

I never really minded breathing, it's just a fact of life. Only the newest generation of glass comes close to eliminating the problem. It is weird to watch say, a raking two shot in a dialog scene, and one person goes soft without warning. We are all so used to the slight breathing that we have seen in movies and on TV for years, it's slightly confusing to not have a visual cue that the focus is shifting.

That's just my opinion.

Nick

I must admit you are right... may be called "cultural breathing".

 

[Guidofilippi]

I am relatively new to cinematography, and have been around photography for a while...however, the other day a phrase popped up referring to lenses that I had not heard before.

A certain lens was described as 'breathless'

What is a lens' breath???

My only guess is that breathing is when you change focus dramatically and subjects grow/shrink a little bit as you go from foreground to background. Is this right?

Thanks for your help!

Well... the optics experts may correct me if I make a mistake...
Let´s say, a traditional 50mm lens is a true 50mm lens at infinite and only at infinite. When you focus nearer, you go to a longer focal length; indeed, in non-internal focus lenses (or in any old lens) the lens becomes physically longer. When you focus to 1 m or 3 ft. it may have turned into something like a 60mm lens. So indeed it does a little zooming... which is called "breathing". The only way to compensate this is by "counterzooming" what involves a very complex optical-mechanical design; hence lenses with little breathing have been so expensive till now.
Guido

 

[Joel Kaye]

Now I know another reason why cinema glass is a lot more expensive than still's glass

There's a lot of cine glass that breathes and a fair amount of SLR glass that doesn't breath much. Many movies have been shot with lenses that breath. If you've got more money than time spend as much possible! ;-P

 

[Benjamin Scot]

I never really minded breathing, it's just a fact of life. Only the newest generation of glass comes close to eliminating the problem. It is weird to watch say, a raking two shot in a dialog scene, and one person goes soft without warning. We are all so used to the slight breathing that we have seen in movies and on TV for years, it's slightly confusing to not have a visual cue that the focus is shifting.

That's just my opinion.

Nick

Now that you mention it, I do subconsciously rely on the breathing... especially in dialog scenes.

I noticed while watching LOST recently that there were some scenes where the focus changed so fast and so smoothly that I almost did not realize it even changed. Thankfully their composition was good and the light was dramatic enough for me to follow along quickly enough... but it definitely was not as evident as to who the focus was changing to.

on a side note....is it just me or is LOST one of the sharper HD shows to watch? Some of the shots blow me away how crisp they are. Not every shot has this sharpness, I can tell there is a lens they use in every once in a while that is better than the rest.

 

[Benjamin Scot]

Well... the optics experts may correct me if I make a mistake...
Let´s say, a traditional 50mm lens is a true 50mm lens at infinite and only at infinite. When you focus nearer, you go to a longer focal length; indeed, in non-internal focus lenses (or in any old lens) the lens becomes physically longer. When you focus to 1 m or 3 ft. it may have turned into something like a 60mm lens. So indeed it does a little zooming... which is called "breathing". The only way to compensate this is by "counterzooming" what involves a very complex optical-mechanical design; hence lenses with little breathing have been so expensive till now.
Guido

Thanks for the input! Very informative. I can't imagine trying to counterzoom while focusing. I have enough fun just keeping things in focus.

 

[Benjamin Scot]

haha, yeah- I was waiting for that :sifone:



And yes, partly what Nick is saying is true with me- sometimes I want breathing, and film grain/noise, vignetting, hair and fungus on the picture- because sometimes it adds to something I liked from films before.

Right now I am working on an 3D animated film and find that if I mimic breathing it is more tangible.

30 years from now...when people are trying to mimic the todays looks...they may find themselves adding breathing just like we may add grain and vignetting to make today's films look older.

That is of course people are using breathless lenses and the viewers are 'used' to no breathing.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

I noticed while watching LOST recently that there were some scenes where the focus changed so fast and so smoothly that I almost did not realize it even changed. Thankfully their composition was good and the light was dramatic enough for me to follow along quickly enough... but it definitely was not as evident as to who the focus was changing to.

Perhaps the DoF wasn't too shallow either. I completely agree with a common existing reliance on breathing to help you find the shift in focus when DoF isn't too narrow. I can see how it can help the audience actively search.

30 years from now...when people are trying to mimic the todays looks...they may find themselves adding breathing just like we may add grain and vignetting to make today's films look older.

That is of course people are using breathless lenses and the viewers are 'used' to no breathing.

This is a interesting subject. How much entertainment do we watch with "breathless" lenses today? And when will it become a definite oldie effect? Perhaps, right now, older people could see it as nostalgia, but some younger kids see it as weird... or low budget. Maybe a few see it as artsy.

Just like with anything else there are shades of gray where some lenses breath like crazy, and others breath noticeably only with long pulls. It might be that a 10ft pull would add a definite something to the shot, however, if you had a 2-3ft pull you might not get anything "extra" unless you have a keen eye, or do this for a living.

Does a lens that breathes do so even more when pulling from close focal distances or at the long end, or is it even through the full focus throw?

And having objects close to the lens makes it more noticeable, right?

 

[Shane Betts]

30 years from now...when people are trying to mimic the todays looks...they may find themselves adding breathing just like we may add grain and vignetting to make today's films look older.

I've actually seen this done and it cracked me up! A Nicole Kidman vehicle where she was a nuclear scientist or brain surgeon (of course she was) but I recall they had this focus pull thing going on every time they cut to a new location, beginning the establishing shot out of focus on the cut, then pulling to the character to bring us into the scene, so we knew we had changed locations. On one shot, after all the other real focus pulls were done without any breathing (big studio film), they'd obviously cut the focus pull shot out and so had to do it in post on the later shot, they put in some breathing, I guess to 'sell' the effect. Probably worked for the punters but I had to laugh.

Then again, now I'll probably get flamed by the AC on the shoot or the editor telling me I'm wrong, LOL. Sure looked like it to me but.

 

[Tarek S. Kandil]

I like it so far. It feels kinda cool.

I find the jump back and forth is quite engaging, I've been holding my finger up against objects around me and when i shift focus with one eye i can't help but slighty move. It feels realistic when a lens does that. I find it doesn't really cause a harmful change to any composition i've set up so far, but i'm really new to all this.

Can totally be used to serve a creative objective. Once a friend told me he moves slightly back/forth every time between focus points to cancel it out. Bit much for me, but he manages well.

its called pompage in french i think. learned bout it a few months ago.

Any way, long time no post on reduser.

Hope all are well, happy easter

t

 

[Guidofilippi]

Anyway, I always ask myself if we see this things because we are alert, while maybe the regular audience just doesn´t notice anything...
Guido

 

[Rudi Herbert]

I had made the same comment many months ago in the "Ask David Mullen anything" thread, where I said a little breathing is always a good cue to help shift attention within the scene to what is most important. And since a lot of the cinematography effects, like shallow depth of field, justify their existence on the premise of helping, or "guiding" the audience to the part of the frame we want their attention most, so should breathing be considered a TOOL in this respect. I am one of those who always understands what's going on and knows what to expect in a scene, especially with dialog, and still have problems following the action around when the focus racks are done without breathing. In fact, I've caught myself thinking the image went out of focus when in fact the focus racked so suddenly and unnoticeably, that a different part of the frame went into focus instead of the whole frame, something I find distracting. And to me, distracting is the last thing any technique or gear should achieve.

Lastly, contrary to what many people say, when they claim that "breathless" focus racks mimic the way our eyes work, this is not correct. The human eye CANNOT change focus without moving around inside the same frame of visual reference. In other words, we slightly move our eyes around to change focus from plane to plane or object to object, and although this moving around does not result in the expansion/contraction of the image typical of acute breathing, it does indeed introduce an element of motion within the field of vision, which is also what breathing does. So, to me, a small amount of breathing is what most closely resembles changes of focus in the human eye, NOT a seamless, instantaneous rack from one plane to another...Of course, David Mullen didn't agree with me, but I think he's permeated by the desire that all DP's share to have as technically flawless as possible gear at their disposal, and breathing is considered a technical flaw of lenses, so go figure...