Feature film shot in only a week & with a smartphone

[IronFilm]

Thought others here might find this interesting, although it was shot in NZ....  it was actually done a long way away from myself! Down in NZ's South Island. 

[kye]

Great stuff.

I think it was obvious from a visual perspective that it was shot on a phone, but after 10 seconds it wouldn't matter any more and it would all be down to the acting and story.  I maintain that phones are very useful for what they do, which is essentially a camera with a slow / wide prime lens.

Time spent not film-making because of equipment limitations is time wasted.  I think discussions about equipment are fine as long as you're already shooting with what you have.

[webrunner5]

f1.8 is a Slow lens for a wide angle?  The tele is 2.4, still not too shabby. You should have a lens so fast lol.

[kye]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

f1.8 is a Slow lens for a wide angle?  The tele is 2.4, still not too shabby. You should have a lens so fast lol.

Yes, taking into account sensor size.

If you don't take into account sensor size then it's a crazy fast ultra-ultra-ultra wide.  

[webrunner5]

f1.8 is f1.8 I don't care what size sensor it has. Sensor size effects DoF. And even that is a load of crap. The DoF is really the same, it is the magnification that changes.

 

[kye]

iPhone X has focal lengths of 4.25mm and 6mm (source) which for the 4.25mm lens at f1.8 gives a DoF of 12.3cm at a distance of 20cm.  A 26mm lens (which is what the equivalent FF focal length is) that was f1.8 gives a DoF of 0.28cm at a distance of 20cm.

That's why you can't get any background blur with a tiny sensor unless the subject is very close.  

They love to say it's a 26mm equivalent f1.8 lens, but when you take the crop factor into account it's the equivalent of a 26mm f11 lens.  They love to convert the focal length to FF equivalent but conveniently "forget" to convert the aperture.

So their 4.25mm f1.8 lens is fast from an exposure point of view, but not from a DoF point of view, which is why I commented - every shot has infinite DoF and it impacts the aesthetic.

[webrunner5]

Well then get closer then lol. Are your feet broken? Excuses, excuses. You are the film maker. You have the power to direct someone, or move to them to shoot at Nearly any distance you want. People makes this stuff a lot more complicated than it has to be. Make it so as they say. If you use Filmic Pro you have the ability to pick your Aperture. Hell with most people's reasoning we all need to have a MF camera to take anything.

What kind of DoF you think you had with 8mm, 16mm film, a BMPCC, all those old cheap Camcorders? So nobody shot anything worth taking then? Everything was in focus. No separation from anything? Tisk, Tisk lol. Doesn't look like they had a big problem with DoF on the Blue Moon video above. At least you don't have to worry that everything is out of focus to your wife on a vacation of a lifetime.

[fuzzynormal]

2 hours ago, kye said:

every shot has infinite DoF and it impacts the aesthetic.

Like Gregg Toland?  That guy was such a hack.

[webrunner5]

Infinite DoF is pretty much how we see with our eyes. Heck Animals couldn't hunt, we either, if most everything is out of focus. Pretty natural thing to see everything. I think shallow DoF is somewhat overrated. Something OOF is WAY worse, at least to me.

[kye]

I didn't say large DoF was worse, I just said it has an aesthetic.  No negativity from me about deep DoF, just that if you show footage that has a fixed wide angle and deep DoF look then it has a certain aesthetic.

I don't know why pointing out that something has a 'look' is automatically interpreted as being a bad thing.  I wouldn't mind if all my cameras had the 'Alexa look'!

Let's review shall we...    here's my original post - please review it carefully for any hate:

16 hours ago, kye said:

Great stuff.

I think it was obvious from a visual perspective that it was shot on a phone, but after 10 seconds it wouldn't matter any more and it would all be down to the acting and story.  I maintain that phones are very useful for what they do, which is essentially a camera with a slow / wide prime lens.

Time spent not film-making because of equipment limitations is time wasted.  I think discussions about equipment are fine as long as you're already shooting with what you have.

Ok, now you haven't found any, maybe we can start again.....?

[Mattias Burling]

6 hours ago, kye said:

They love to convert the focal length to FF equivalent but conveniently "forget" to convert the aperture.

I don't, but it's not because I forget. The reason you don't get sdof is because it's a 6mm lens. You get the exact same dof you would on a medium format with a 6mm from the same distance.

Aperture is set for the exposure, so applying crop factor to it is simply weird imo.

[fuzzynormal]

9 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

shallow DoF is somewhat overrated.

It's a tool.  If you use it with consideration it can be effective.  If you use it just because "it looks cinematic" then you're making a sort of lazy assumption.  I tend to rely on it for a lot my shooting as I'm trying to make uncontrolled settings tamer by limiting what my viewer can see; focusing on what I want them to focus on.  I've found it effective for some of my documentary work.  I've also found deep focus great for a lot of my shots as well.

Here's a simple example from a doc my wife and I shot 5 years ago on a GM1 and GX7:

Nothing fancy there, but imagine if it was deep focus.  You'r eye would go so many different directions and not be drawn to the smile.

As someone that watches A LOT of film festival submissions, you know straight away when someone is behind the camera and making informed decisions.  And, yes, a lot of crappy movies are shot by people that shoot deep focus because they're not even thinking about it.  It shows.  That doesn't mean deep focus is bad.  After all, some of my favorite movies are from Sergio Leone.

The skill to use the gear is far and away so much more important than any "X vs. Y" technical scenario.  Wisdom will adapt to any situation.  Ignorance won't.

[webrunner5]

This video sort of, well kind of proves, but shows MF to M4/3 really using an equivalent lens all look the same. There is no Magic MF look. You can use any camera and make stuff work.

 

[Andrew Reid]

What an obnoxious bird brained bro, the guy in this video

Anybody can make a large sensor look like a smaller one by massively stopping down a lens!

The harder part is finding glass fast enough for a small sensor to make it look as good as a large sensor and having it render the same.

On the GH5 for example, yes you can make it look the same as full frame, but you need F0.95 to get F2 full frame look... Or a Speed Booster.

This can all end up relatively expensive.

On full frame you can stick a bunch of cheap 50mm F2 lenses on there and immediately for £50 you have a very nice rendering for portraits.

In addition, all glass is designed with a specific sensor size in mind... And all lenses render differently, some vastly different. The Kern Switar 26mm F1.1 for instance has a unique look, and only on Micro Four Thirds and Super 16mm. Put it on full frame and it's not usable, the end.

Yes, for crop sensors a Speed Booster adapter is great as we know... on this site and forum we were the first people in the world to make use of it en-masse for video... But it does have its limitations for landscape and wide angle shooting where the frame edges need to be sharp at fast apertures. You need to stop right down for the edges. For this, medium format fast primes are a much better choice on something like a GFX 50R.

Then also conveniently ignored in the video (ignorance is bliss)...

The fastest medium format prime from Fuji right now may be F2, but you can put a shitload of full frame glass on it via an adapter, with no vignetting... and you see into the corners of vintage full frame glass on the larger sensor for the first time in photographic history. Instant new look, it's revelatory. Canon FD 85mm F1.2L on the 50S and 50R is stunning and you CANNOT mimic the same rendering, or even the amount of DOF on a camera with an APS-C or Micro Four Thirds sensor... Speed Booster or no Speed Booster.

Fucking clickbait. I hate it. It's creating a deep well of misinformation that takes years to clear up and pushes people into bad decisions and bad misconceptions, all because some twit at Fstoppers wants a few extra bucks in ad revenue. And I hate that clickbait routinely wins the most attention, the most discussion and the most views on YouTube and elsewhere, whereas content creators and actual pro filmmakers are putting quality stuff out there and don't have a fraction of the same attention. If anything is more annoying than a lack of talent, it's a rewarded lack of talent.

[thebrothersthre3]

I don't think DOF matters that much. Set design and lighting are usually what makes a production look cheap, as well as acting and sound.

[kye]

11 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

It's a tool.  If you use it with consideration it can be effective.  If you use it just because "it looks cinematic" then you're making a sort of lazy assumption.  I tend to rely on it for a lot my shooting as I'm trying to make uncontrolled settings tamer by limiting what my viewer can see; focusing on what I want them to focus on.  I've found it effective for some of my documentary work.  I've also found deep focus great for a lot of my shots as well.

Absolutely - well said.  It's a tool that can be used for directing attention.  The eye is pulled to things in focus, so it's another compositional tool in our arsenals.

20 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Infinite DoF is pretty much how we see with our eyes. Heck Animals couldn't hunt, we either, if most everything is out of focus.

It's actually not - https://petapixel.com/2012/11/17/the-camera-versus-the-human-eye/

We just have some pretty advanced visual memory and it pieces together the bits we see in focus to build a mental model of our surroundings.  Which is awesome because our eyes are actually deeply flawed instruments, but our brain hides that fact from us... http://www.cycleback.com/eyephysiology.html

and the fact that it isn't makes it very interesting to all kind of people for all kinds of things... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698998003174 https://www.osapublishing.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-49-3-273 

 

[webrunner5]

Interesting.

[webrunner5]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

What an obnoxious bird brained bro, the guy in this video

Anybody can make a large sensor look like a smaller one by massively stopping down a lens!

The harder part is finding glass fast enough for a small sensor to make it look as good as a large sensor and having it render the same.

On the GH5 for example, yes you can make it look the same as full frame, but you need F0.95 to get F2 full frame look... Or a Speed Booster.

This can all end up relatively expensive.

On full frame you can stick a bunch of cheap 50mm F2 lenses on there and immediately for £50 you have a very nice rendering for portraits.

In addition, all glass is designed with a specific sensor size in mind... And all lenses render differently, some vastly different. The Kern Switar 26mm F1.1 for instance has a unique look, and only on Micro Four Thirds and Super 16mm. Put it on full frame and it's not usable, the end.

Yes, for crop sensors a Speed Booster adapter is great as we know... on this site and forum we were the first people in the world to make use of it en-masse for video... But it does have its limitations for landscape and wide angle shooting where the frame edges need to be sharp at fast apertures. You need to stop right down for the edges. For this, medium format fast primes are a much better choice on something like a GFX 50R.

Then also conveniently ignored in the video (ignorance is bliss)...

The fastest medium format prime from Fuji right now may be F2, but you can put a shitload of full frame glass on it via an adapter, with no vignetting... and you see into the corners of vintage full frame glass on the larger sensor for the first time in photographic history. Instant new look, it's revelatory. Canon FD 85mm F1.2L on the 50S and 50R is stunning and you CANNOT mimic the same rendering, or even the amount of DOF on a camera with an APS-C or Micro Four Thirds sensor... Speed Booster or no Speed Booster.

Fucking clickbait. I hate it. It's creating a deep well of misinformation that takes years to clear up and pushes people into bad decisions and bad misconceptions, all because some twit at Fstoppers wants a few extra bucks in ad revenue. And I hate that clickbait routinely wins the most attention, the most discussion and the most views on YouTube and elsewhere, whereas content creators and actual pro filmmakers are putting quality stuff out there and don't have a fraction of the same attention. If anything is more annoying than a lack of talent, it's a rewarded lack of talent.

I think you are doing a disservice to the people here with your statements. You are stating a whole bunch of what if shit. Life in reality doesn't work that way. Just because you have a bunch of fancy ass fast glass does not defy mathematics.  The Circle of Confusion is set in stone, not some pretend stuff you think is so. You can't make things up.

[webrunner5]

It was a different time when I was born in 1947. You had to know basics. Not some pretend stuff. It applies now, just like then.

 

[thebrothersthre3]

Yeah the human eye is interesting. The only time you get what resembles bokeh with your sight is when you hold something up close to your eye.

Otherwise you just see whatever you look at, everything else doesn't really go out of focus but at the same time you don't see it as clearly because you aren't focusing on it.

Shallow DOF can definitely direct attention to a certain thing. At the same time it can feel odd as it often simply doesn't resemble what we see with our eyes. Though I think people have gotten used to it in Cinema.

imho if your movie is engaging your audience will know where to look without shallow DOF?