Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,421 visits to this link)
17,297 topics in this forum
-
- 1.2k replies
- 471k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.9m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.7m views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 700 replies
- 310.9k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 764.5k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1 view
-
- 14 replies
- 274 views
-
Internal 32-bit float stereo paired with lossless 120mm reach from a 20mm lens — all inside a genuinely pocket-sized 10-bit 1-inch sensor gimbal camera? 1 2
- 38 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 563 replies
- 264.7k views
-
- 4 replies
- 3.1k views
-
- 97 replies
- 76.9k views
-
- 24 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 11 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 1 reply
- 409 views
-
- 14 replies
- 8.7k views
-
- 58 replies
- 5.3k views
-
- 49 replies
- 3.5k views
-
- 14 replies
- 7.2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 330 views
-
- 0 replies
- 307 views
-
- 11 replies
- 2k views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 2 replies
- 2.6k views
-
- 82 replies
- 9k views
-
- 127 replies
- 62.2k views
-
- 121 replies
- 66k views
-
- 0 replies
- 469 views
-
- 0 replies
- 537 views
-
- 0 replies
- 536 views
-
- 5 replies
- 1k views
-
- 314 replies
- 151.5k views
-
- 12 replies
- 6k views
-
- 30 replies
- 34.2k views
-
- 1 reply
- 507 views
-
- 8 replies
- 13.8k views
-
- 45 replies
- 13.4k views
-
- 13 replies
- 975 views
-
- 6 replies
- 2.4k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts351.9k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
I've been thinking about lenses a lot over the last few years, and just to be cheeky I've put some observations into a framework. Level 1 is where we start - with zooms The normal start to using lenses is with zoom lenses, probably the kit lens. We know the thinking at this stage: its convenient, you stand in one place and zoom, hooray! Level 2 is what most YT lens videos are about - primes are better than zooms We all know the arguments. Primes make you "zoom with your feet", they make you learn about perspective, they're sharper, better in low-light, BOKEH!!!!1, you can learn the FOV and develop an instinct for it, vintage ones are cheap, "real photographers / cinematographers use primes!" There are approximately 1000 billion videos and tutorials explaining this, but this seems to be where the thinking stops. I've not seen that much stuff that goes beyond this, but this is really just the start. Level 3 is where understanding begins - zooms and primes have their uses Almost none of the discussion up until this point acknowledges that lenses create images, and images have aesthetics, and aesthetics are what is actually being discussed. Moving to talk about motion pictures now, and cinema especially, there is a bunch of nuance that Level 2 doesn't really discuss. People have decided that FF sensors are the most 'cinematic' and typically are used with FF vintage lenses. This means that the FOVs are 24mm / 28 / 35 / 50 / 85 / 100 etc, with maybe a 40mm in there if you're getting fancy. These weren't the FOVs of cinema though, because cinema was S35. So the FOVs of cinema using the 50/40/35/27/18 were really like 75mm/60mm/52.5mm/40.5mm/27mm. It gets stranger when you add anamorphic into the mix. If I go to B&H anamorphic cinema lens category and sort by best sellers, we get: - DZOFilm Arcana Anamorphic Prime 3-Lens Kit, which are FF and 32/45/75mm and 1.5x, so on FF they are: 21mm 30mm and 50mm - BLAZAR LENS Talon 50mm T2.1 1.5x, which is FF and equivalent to a 33mm - Sirui Saturn 35mm T2.9 1.6x which is FF and equivalent to 22mm If you're using the standard FF lenses on a FF camera, you are using the FOVs that stills photographers used, rather than those that cinematographers used. Shooting on S35 sensor size (or crop mode) with FF lenses can create some of these in-between FOVs too. People at Level 2 thinking probably won't be swayed by the above. I would imagine the thinking is take a step forward or back, what's the difference? Level 4 is where understanding begins to mature - enter the feedback loop The feedback loop is where you realise that the focal length changes how you shoot. A ridiculous example to illustrate it. You decide to shoot on only a 28mm on a FF camera, but when you frame up a close-up shot, the distortion makes the talent look awful, so you take a step back and now the footage feels more distant because we're not seeing the talents face so much because there are no close-ups. We all know about perspective from level 2 thinking, but the level 3 thinking was that taking a step forward or back was no big deal, so which is it? This stuff is subtle, but (like all feedback loops) it pushes us to act differently and this can create a cascade of changes over time. Level 4 thinking realises that this dynamic is powerful and pervasive. I shoot in public, so I don't control the environment. I discovered that if I shoot with a 35mm FOV then I can get environmental portraits of my friends and family from close enough that people won't walk in-between me and them, but moving beyond a 45mm I'd either get shots of them that were tight and didn't really show their environment that well, or I'd step back and be struggling with people walking in-between me and the subject, which is a completely different situation. How would I respond to this? I might shoot from eye-level instead of chest height. Now I've changed the shot angle because of a FOV change. If I shot from eye-level for a while I might notice that I get more attention and now I find that the people interacting with my subject are more aware they're being filmed and keep looking at the camera. Now my subjects are acting differently because of a FOV change. If I asked someone the difference between shooting with a 35mm and 45mm would they think it would change the shot angle and subject behaviour? Not with the Level 2 thinking of "primes are sharper! duh!!", or the Level 3 thinking of "just take a step back! duh!!". What about controlled sets? Sure, on a controlled set there aren't random people walking in-front of the camera, but now we're talking about actors and all the dynamics that goes on there. Can great actors deliver amazing performances while the matte-box is only inches from their face? Sure. Do YOU have actors that are that good? I don't think so. Can great production designers change a set to accommodate a camera being further away, while keeping the frame looking the same? We know that as we move the camera back the subject gets smaller in frame, and that as we do that the background gets smaller but not nearly as fast as the subject does. This is great if you are only filming the subject and don't really pay attention to the composition of the entire frame. But you're a talented cinematographer, so you want to move back a bit and keep the same composition, which means that production design needs to 'cheat the camera' and basically rearrange every item in frame that isn't in the very background. I remember shooting a student film in a cafe and every setup required moving the vase of flowers on the table the subject was sitting at. That vase probably used two-thirds of the area of the table! I watched a video recently where a street photographer tested a 40mm prime for the first time. They didn't know what to make of it, having only a week to shoot with it before they had to release their video review. What struck me wasn't that they didn't know what shooting with a 40mm was like, it was that they didn't seem to understand that there's a period of learning that goes on, they didn't understand that the feedback loop exists. I realised they had 'learned' each focal length by memorising its attributes (which Level 2 photographers will crap on at great length about), rather than having learned them for himself by following a process where you explore the feedback loop and see how it makes you feel and how it makes you act and how the world responds to that, and how you respond in turn, and how the loop feels and matures over time, and how to make the loop go faster etc. I recently spent some time in a small town in rural Japan and shot the same location with FOVs equivalent to 71mm, 82mm, and 100mm. I went out for a walk each night with one of those lenses, going out for perhaps an hour or two. Shots that were possible with one were not with the next, shots that were great with one were lifeless with another. As I walked down the same road from my accommodation seeing the same shots night-after-night and making different framing decisions with each lens (and deciding to take the shot or not to bother as it didn't work) I noticed that I made different decisions to walk one way or another as certain subjects required different FOVs and distances to make them. I've also spend a lot of time, over several trips, shooting night scenes with 68mm and 71mm FOVs. In some locations I can make some shots and not others, while in other locations I can take different shots. If I'm shooting across a road then the width of that road (combined with my FOV) determines the type of shots I can take. After taking a number of those types of shots I start to adapt to how I'm shooting these locations. The more I shoot the more everything feels different. Level 3 thinking says "just take a step back, what's the difference?" and when shooting in those situations the difference between a 35mm and a 50mm feels like it's a span where there are several complete aesthetics in-between the 35mm end and the 50mm end. Thinking about shooting a 50mm FOV vs an 85mm FOV feels like travelling to a different country where things look similar but feel very different in practice. I know I'm barely scratching the surface of Level 4, and perhaps there are levels beyond this that I'm unaware of, but it's just amazing to me that almost no-one seems to talk about anything beyond Level 2. It's probably controversial to say, but I deliberately avoid almost all stills-only people because the thinking seems so rudimentary in comparison to people who shoot moving images. You can feel the limited thinking and the "well, actually!!!!" responses where they miss the entire point entirely because one lens is sharper or something ridiculous. Anyway, hopefully this helps. I've not really heard anyone talk about this stuff, which seems a shame as the rabbit hole is very deep and to only talk about ankle-deep water seems silly. -
No. Remember: the First Amendment ; ) Secondly, we now have AI, and AI can be made to justify almost anything ;- ) The Soviet Union came to an end on Christmas Day, 1991. -
-
Exactly, that is the interesting part for me too. I don’t think the best use of this will necessarily be obvious “POV footage” in the usual action-camera sense. The more interesting uses may be the almost invisible ones: situations where the camera is there, alive, following attention, but not constantly being operated in a way that announces itself to everyone in the room. Your point about parallax and offset is completely fair. If the camera is too far from the head, then the head direction and the actual camera perspective will never match perfectly. But I am not sure that perfect matching is always the goal. In many documentary or making-of situations, what matters is not to reproduce the exact optical perspective of the eye, but to reduce the burden of manual operation and preserve a more natural relation with the subject. That is why I find it interesting for BTS, documentary and observational work. Not as a perfect substitute for a shoulder camera, not as a Steadicam either, even though, as a gimbal camera, it belongs to a lineage that goes much further back, including the invention that so impressed Kubrick that Garrett Brown ended up operating his own system on THE SHINING. I see it more as a small autonomous B-camera, or a reactive camera system, able to follow intention without forcing the operator to constantly lift, aim, correct and therefore disturb the situation. In a film set, for instance, the value may be precisely in allowing the device to become boring after a while. If people stop reacting to it, or react to it less than to a conventional camera operator moving around with a visible setup, then it starts doing something useful. So yes, I think the strongest uses for it may be almost invisible. Not spectacular POV shots, but the kind of footage that exists because the tool reduced the amount of intervention needed to capture it.
-
Yes, but I don’t think it is exactly the same thing. A Go clipped to a hat gives you a small head-mounted action camera. Useful, of course, and probably better for some pure POV situations. And I say this as someone who actually owns two Insta360 GO 2 units and the GO Ultra. In fact, the GO Ultra was also used in the making-of situation I mentioned above, so I am not dismissing that kind of camera at all. But the interesting part of the Luna accessory, at least to me, is not simply “put a camera where the head is”. It is the possibility of using the head as a control input while the camera itself can remain somewhere else. And that is a whole different thing. With a hat-mounted camera, the camera position, lens, sensor, stabilisation, codec, monitoring and point of view are all physically tied to the head. With something like Luna Ultra, you are potentially dealing with a much larger sensor, better latitude/dynamic range, 10-bit colour, log recording, stronger codec options, proper monitoring, several focal lengths, a real gimbal system and a camera body that can be placed where the shot actually makes sense. So it is not just “POV versus POV”. It is the difference between a tiny self-contained action camera recording from the head, and a more complete image acquisition system where the head becomes one possible way of controlling the frame. The gaze and the camera body become partially decoupled. The head can guide the framing, but the camera can still benefit from a better sensor, 10-bit recording, log capture, stronger codec, better lens choice, better stabilisation, better monitoring, better audio possibilities and a more deliberate production setup. So I agree that an Insta360 Go on a hat is a valid alternative for some situations. But I see this as potentially more than that: not just a POV camera, but a different way of operating a small gimbal camera with less visible intervention from the operator, while still keeping the image quality, 10-bit colour depth, focal-length flexibility and production control of a more serious camera system. And the outcome is already starting to speak for itself. Even if the example comes from the competing Osmo Pocket 4P/Pro side, the IQ benchmark is becoming very clear. D-Log 2 10-bit colour: https://www.facebook.com/reel/937883892382597 Small pocket gimbal cameras are no longer just convenience tools or “good enough” secondary cameras. They are beginning to produce images that can stand on their own, with a cinematic quality that would have been unthinkable in this form factor only a few years ago. Back to the subject and to my eyes, this is not just a clever accessory. It is part of a real revolution already in motion.
-
