Red One + one lens = feature film

[David W. Jones]

Sam, Any particular reason you haven't divulged as to why you are limiting yourself to shooting a feature film with a single lens?

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Many suggest zooms or adapters, but isn't the choice of one lens an esthetic choice? Having one look throughout, no change in mm just camera positions.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Quote Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post
Depends on the story, but the 32-35 range for some reason has the most ugly distortion out of a set.
Depends on the lens

True, but every set of lenses I have ever used the 32-35 is always distortier than almost everything else. Ziess standards, speeds, cookes, k-35s, CP2s, my illuminas etc. I don't know what it is about that focal length, maybe because it's long enough that you expect it to not look wide angle, but it isn't quite a standard focal length. I suspect thats why so many people love the 40mm.

Nick

 

[Christoffer Glans]

True, but every set of lenses I have ever used the 32-35 is always distortier than almost everything else. Ziess standards, speeds, cookes, k-35s, CP2s, my illuminas etc. I don't know what it is about that focal length, maybe because it's long enough that you expect it to not look wide angle, but it isn't quite a standard focal length. I suspect thats why so many people love the 40mm.

Nick

It's a very common lens for some directors and cinematographers. In still photography it's one of the most common lenses. I like the distortion, I feel that it gives a really cinematic look by increasing the wide view but still retains a nice looking bokeh. Going 25 or under is really nice for wide shots, but they loose a lot of the bokeh. As for anamorphics I would say a 40 or 50 instead. The thing is that if you plan to shoot an entire movie on just one lens, you have to plan for how to work with it on set. You can do close ups and wide shots on a 35mm but a 50 or an 85 would probably be problematic without getting close-sickness as I call the claustrophobic feeling of too many close ups.

 

[Nick Gardner]

I would be really really hesitant to shoot a leading lady close up on a 35. To each his own, but I am not a fan.

Nick

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I can understand the artistic decision to shoot a movie on one focal length, ala Ozu, Polanski, Wes Anderson, Jeneut... what I can't understand is asking other people what focal length that should be, seems a bit like announcing a wedding and then asking who you should marry. Surely the decision to use just one focal length comes first, from experience and personal taste. Otherwise you are just going to get suggestions that seem the most practical, not knowing anything else like content, style, location. Practical is something not too wide nor too telephoto, but if shooting on location, not sets, probably leaning towards the wide because of space limitations. On a soundstage, you can just build the sets to accommodate a longer focal length if that's your choice. Practical is in that range from 28mm to 40mm, hence the suggestions for a 32mm or 35mm. But even more practical then would be to carry more than one focal length!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Many suggest zooms or adapters, but isn't the choice of one lens an esthetic choice? Having one look throughout, no change in mm just camera positions.

Sure, but that's what is baffling, to say that one is using a single focal length for aesthetic reasons... but then to not have a strong opinion about what the focal length should be.

 

[Brett Harrison]

From a viewers standpoint I could give a rats ass which lens or camera was used to shoot a film.
Bottom line.... Either I was entertained, or I was not.

The devil is in the detail.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

From a viewers standpoint I could give a rats ass which lens or camera was used to shoot a film.

Bottom line.... Either I was entertained, or I was not.

You could just post this reply to EVERY question on a camera users forum, but what would the point be? If one is a filmmaker, then one needs to care about such details -- I may not care about the finer points of surgery, but if I'm going into an operation, I would hope my doctor cared about such things...

The audience might not care about technical details, but they generally like to see movies made by people who seem to know what they are doing and assume that the filmmaker cares about such things.

I'm just confused as to the intent of the original question, it would be like an art director saying that they want to design a movie around one color, but don't have an idea of what that color would be. How can one be about to shoot an entire feature without a strong feeling about focal lengths already?

 

[Robert Hart]

I'm curious as to what aspects of the story dictate the use of a single lens. Is it from the POV of a principal character in the film whom you never see and only speaks offscreen? Use of a single lens which best replicates the natural human observer view would be the appropriate choice but also a very limiting one.

It is a device which has been done before, I think rarely for an entire film and a long time ago when gambles were more readily taken. From vague memory, there was introduced into the audience, a frustration/curiosity element which demanded a final reveal of the character. I think that reveal was the character's image in a mirror. Somebody can correct me but I think the term "fourth-wall" defines this technique and it is risky business at best.

If yours is a technical choice for the sake of not why, but because one can, the first question would be, how does this serve or complement the story. If you are the creator or writer, of course you can rightly do whatever you want.

If there are cost constraints, then I might be inclined to go with a good cine prime of say 40mm which will focus well with no image shift, then to keep the options open, an alternative stills camera mount, Nikon F or Canon EF and f1.8 28mm and f1.8 85mm manual, not autofocus stills lenses for preset fixed focus positions only unless you have a good mount which does not flex during focus pulls.

If you have indoors scenes in confined locations, you may be sent insane trying to make a single 40mm work. You might end up chopping holes in walls to set the camera position back.

Please don't get me wrong. If you want to do it, do it. My sense is that there will be a lot of time and effort distracted from the creative energy into devising the necessary workarounds. The end-product may suffer, especially if the direction of actors takes second fiddle to getting the tech sorted.

 

[Marc Oberdorfer]

David is spot on with his comments. I often feel like I could shoot an entire movie on a single focal length and most often that would boil down to a 32mm.
As a matter of fact on a recent shoot I had a set of Standard primes and the 32mm was missing because someone snatched it from the rental house just before I got there to pick up a set... and I missed it dearly!

Back to the topic though... I strongly agree, the DoP of this movie should know what focal length to use... if not I'm questioning if he knows what he is doing. If not maybe the OP should learn more about focal lengths and their effects before diving into a feature with a single focal length...

...what about the location, this will determine to a big effect which focal length will make sense... if you shoot in small interiors a lot even a 32mm can give you a hard time, it would mean that it will become very difficult if not impossible to get a wide angle shot.

Anyways, good luck for the production.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Robert, I think it's an aesthetic decision -- Ozu shot all of his movies on a 50mm lens because that suited his visual sensitivities, it just looked right to him. Some filmmakers will say that the cold colors are very distancing and alienating and another might say that cold colors are very comforting and relaxing -- is one person right and the other person wrong? I don't think you can say that a story dictates a single focal length, or three focal lengths, or fifty focal lengths -- the story has an emotional component and it's up to the filmmaker to convey that emotion visually, but one artist may feel they can do that one way and another will chose another way.

Choosing a single focal length is like choosing a single color tone or choosing the keep the camera at eye level or setting the story in one room or any other deliberate limitations on one's choices, the idea being that certain tones and feelings might emerge from working within those narrow constrictions.

Think of it the other way -- why not use every focal length in a scene from fish-eye to extreme telephoto? Why not use every color in the rainbow in the scene? Artists deliberately choose sometimes to work within a restricted palette; sometimes being visually austere can create a certain dramatic power.

Think of it musically, for example, when Hitchcock did "Psycho", he shot most of the movie on a 50mm lens and Bernard Herrmann did the entire score with string instruments -- he called it "black & white music". Hitchcock and Herrmann were artists and part of being an artist is making choices -- using a single focal length for an entire movie is a strong choice, like doing a movie in b&w. It gives the image a certain repeatable and relentless precision.

Now you're right that perhaps for a particular script it may be a form of visual austerity that doesn't seem justified by the material. On the other hand, sometimes something interesting happens when you avoid convention and shoot a script in an unexpected way.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I would be really really hesitant to shoot a leading lady close up on a 35. To each his own, but I am not a fan.

Nick

Personally I don't care about the sex of the leading actor, I do not shoot for glamour but for story. It might make sense for commercials with a strict marketing idea, but for storytelling not so much. Just look at Cronenbergs movies, a lot of wide close ups and they are beautifully handled. There's another thing you get by going wider on close ups, you "enter the space" of the actor and conversation, something you loose on longer lenses. So basically it's a choice of how to tell your story in it's most basic form, you either involve the audience with the characters or you put the audience in the place of observers.

Sure, but that's what is baffling, to say that one is using a single focal length for aesthetic reasons... but then to not have a strong opinion about what the focal length should be.

True, but maybe the OP isn't that experienced with how different lenses look. Or maybe as you said, it's a more practical choice than aesthetic and in that case 32-35 would be optimal.

I'm curious as to what aspects of the story dictate the use of a single lens. Is it from the POV of a principal character in the film whom you never see and only speaks offscreen? Use of a single lens which best replicates the natural human observer view would be the appropriate choice but also a very limiting one.

The one lens that best mimics the depth of the human eye is around 50mm, but that is very narrow on s35mm or Dragon 6K. I think that a 50mm on a 65mm sensor/film is the best feeling of a natural look since it widens the view but retains the depth perception. But it's also harder to get a longer DOF so more lights are required.

Think of it the other way -- why not use every focal length in a scene from fish-eye to extreme telephoto? Why not use every color in the rainbow in the scene? Artists deliberately choose sometimes to work within a restricted palette; sometimes being visually austere can create a certain dramatic power.

I've been experimenting with shooting entire things on one focal length except one shot in order to let audiences get used to a look and then give a dramatic effect by having one image totally different. I've also experimented with using 50mm in the start of a casual conversation and when that conversation moves into much deeper or darker or more conflicted areas I move the camera in and use 35 or even 24mm lenses to make the audience uneasy because of the sudden involvement within the characters "space of conversation". The effect it has on the audience is very evident, but they don't know why.

Using only a 32mm is an interesting idea, but if you splash in only one or very few shots on a 50 or 85mm it can have a great impact. The same goes for the other way around. And also for camera moves or hand held. In "Social Network" there's only one hand held shot in the entire movie.

 

[Robert Hart]

Christoffer.


"The one lens that best mimics the depth of the human eye is around 50mm, but that is very narrow on s35mm or Dragon 6K. I think that a 50mm on a 65mm sensor/film is the best feeling of a natural look since it widens the view but retains the depth perception. But it's also harder to get a longer DOF so more lights are required."

40mm might be closer to human natural view on a RED ONE MX sensor. David can put me right on this.



David.


Thank you for your responses. One is never too old to learn.

On aesthetic choice, style decisions. - Whilst on the one hand I abhor remakes and feel people should let best be, on the other hand, I am also curious to see somebody's new spin on an older story, visually and in the scripted story itself. I grudgingly admit that some remakes please me in spite of my prejudices. As for colour pallette? I don't think anyone should ever trust my judgement on that one. I am partially red/green colour blind, more so in one eye than the other just to make my life complicated. It does make viewing anaglyph 3D "interesting".

 

[Christoffer Glans]

40mm might be closer to human natural view on a RED ONE MX sensor. David can put me right on this.
[/COLOR]

It's not really about what sensor it's on, that's why I mean that the 50mm works great on 65mm. The depth perception is still the same on all sensors since it's the nature of the mm of the glass, not the sensor size.

 

[Brett Harrison]

Hitchcock shot most of Psycho on the 50mm.

I think in art it's often helpful to place arbitrary rules on your work (like shooting the entire movie with a tracking master) - certainly works in poetry and yields unexpected results. If you're in a phone booth and the director says she wants to use the 100mm, there will certainly be a creative answer to this demand - and that kind of claustrophobia may prove to be bang-on thematically (just a naff example).

 

[Eric M Hurt]

As stated, the first question is what's your reason to shoot on one lens?
If it's budgetary and not creative then I'd make it a zoom so I'd have some room to play. This would certainly be true if you're shooting in practical locations with walls that aren't going anywhere etc.
For a comedy I would stick with a wider zoom (if I had only one lens).

If the choice is a (yet to be stated) creative one then I would be interested to hear that choice.
Personally I don't approach a comedy with an eye to cutting edge Cinematography.
IMO a comedy is more about the actors and the situation driving the story. It's about being upfront with the images so the jokes can be told efficiently.
I try and keep it fairly simple, opting more for getting that extra coverage that will make the movie stand on what it's supposed to
stand on, the humor, rather than tweaking a scene a ton. In short, I try and stay out of the way of things on a comedy, I try and make it look it's best, but
I know that it's okay for me to take a seat further back than would be usual for a drama / horror / action etc. Just my two cents.

I operated and shot second unit not too long ago for the incomparable Tom Ackerman ASC on a smaller film. It was a comedy and we shot on Red One MX cameras and Cooke lenses. We stuck to a few lenses and by the end of the first week I was choosing the lens. The choice came down to what would work for the space and the characters. Sure it had to look good, but the lens was there to capture what was going on more than to make a statement. He focused more on the lighting and blocking to make sure the scenes worked for the comedy.

 

[Peter Strietmann]

I'm still not clear if Robert wants a single lens or single focal length?

 

[Brendan H. Banks]

If you need it to be one lens and can/want to do a zoom, I am a huge fan of the Optimo Zooms -- the 16-40mm is always my first ask. I personally like to err on the side of wider lensing, even for close-ups.

If that feels out of budget, I've shot lots on the Sigma 18-35mm still lens as it's ideal for my personal run-n-gun scenarios. Lots of houses do PL conversions with this glass that has all your proper gearing and throw...or go with the stills version and have a single lens solution for under $1k. Can't 100% vet the sigma on the R1, but I believe I've been seeing some S-W and Raven stuff with it that looks solid.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

While comedy often plays better (i.e. funnier) in wide and medium shots, usually because the humor revolves around the situation more than the emotion, so it helps to see the arrangement of people and objects in the frame, to see "the gag", there are various sub-genres with different needs. Physical comedy often works better in wide shots so that the audience doesn't feel that editing tricks are being used, that the action is happening right in front of the camera without cuts trying to force a laugh, plus again, you are visually emphasizing the situation more than the emotion of one character... but romantic comedies are often more about the romance than the comedy, and making the actors look attractive take a higher priority, and emotions play a bigger role, so these types of comedies are usually shot more like dramas.