Shooting an Entire Film With One Lens?

[TheThe]

As per David Mullen's request:

Well, as I said, Ozu's movies are a good example of what a 50mm prime looks like in Academy 1.37.

Wes Anderson's films like "Rushmore" and "The Royal Tennenbaums" are interesting because they are mostly shot on a 40mm anamorphic lens, but when he puts up a zoom lens, it is for an obvious zooming shot. In "Bottle Rocket", which wasn't anamorphic, I think he used a 27mm lens for most of the movie.

Orson Welles made extensive use of the new (then) 18mm lens when he did "Touch of Evil". A lot of "I am Cuba" also used the 18mm. Frankenheimer used it a lot in the 1960's, on movies like "Seconds" and "Seven Days in May".

Most of the first CinemaScope movie, "The Robe", was shot on a 50mm anamorphic lens, since that's all they had to work with.

This discussion should be moved to some other thread though.

[TheThe]

So now that we have a new thread, I would like to ask David or anyone who knows if there are any rules to follow when switching focal lengths within the same shot (like "never go from this to that" or something like that). Thanks in advance.

[Noah Kadner]

I'm no David :) but I'd say there's no real hard and fast rule per se of what should *never* be done. Best thing is to plan a visual design and make it fit your story. A one lens film just to be one lens could also turn out incredibly uninteresting if not well thought-out. Here's a book that can help you devise such a plan:

http://www.amazon.com/Visual-Story-Seeing-Structure-Media/dp/0240804678

-Noah

[number6]

Interesting thread starter since I am thinking of doing this very thing. Two REDs, each fitted with 30 year old Nikon 50-300 lenses.

When double shooting a scene, will have one camera pulled in to 50 or 60 mm and the other one at a distance and using the full 300mm zoom. Field of view covers approx. 40 degrees at 50mm and 8 degrees at 300mm.

Almost the entire movie will be shot outdoors in daylight... just a few daylight interiors. Also, all the locations have ample room to work.

It's not entirely a budgetary concern that moves me to do this, but I also want the same look from each camera vis a vis any lens nuance.

Am open to any pros or cons.

[Shawn Nelson]

Interesting thread starter since I am thinking of doing this very thing. Two REDs, each fitted with 30 year old Nikon 50-300 lenses.

I don't think that's what the original poster meant. A 50-300 is an exceedingly large range.

Should the title of this thread be "Shooting an Entire Film with One Focal Length"?

[Evin Grant]

I think "Lemony Snicket's a series of unfortunate events" was photographed almost entirely on a 27mm lens. If I remember correctly from the BTS dvd stuff.

[number6]

I don't think that's what the original poster meant. A 50-300 is an exceedingly large range.

Should the title of this thread be "Shooting an Entire Film with One Focal Length"?

I see what you mean, but I was mainly thinking of using these two particular focal lengths and maybe moving forward or backward with either camera rather than use the zoom, thus essentially using them as primes. Still, it wouldn't technically be using one focal length of one lens, so I withdraw my original comment.

[TheThe]

I don't think that's what the original poster meant. A 50-300 is an exceedingly large range.

Should the title of this thread be "Shooting an Entire Film with One Focal Length"?

Crap. You are right. I tried to edit the original post but I guess you can't change the title. I actually though about it but I guess the need for shorter, 'punchier' titles won out on common sense. :sheep:

[TheThe]

Still, it wouldn't technically be using one focal length of one lens, so I withdraw my original comment.

Don't withdraw it! It is a very valid post and quite interesting, since it relates to artificially fixating on specific focal lengths. My only question is if the average viewer will notice this. I know they don't notice when everything is one focal length and they don't notice when there is a healthy mixing of several ones... but going back and forth from two extreme opposites? Does this work?

[Shawn Nelson]

Crap. You are right. I tried to edit the original post but I guess you can't change the title. I actually though about it but I guess the need for shorter, 'punchier' titles won out on common sense. :sheep:

Click 'Edit' on your original post then 'Go Advanced' and the title will be in it's own box for edit.

[number6]

Don't withdraw it! It is a very valid post and quite interesting, since it relates to artificially fixating on specific focal lengths. My only question is if the average viewer will notice this. I know they don't notice when everything is one focal length and they don't notice when there is a healthy mixing of several ones... but going back and forth from two extreme opposites? Does this work?

I wonder too if the average viewer will notice. If they do, it will likely be at some unknown and probably (at present) unmeasurable level.

But if we select a mate by their smell or by some certain shape of their body etc. and without knowing why, then maybe the sameness of the softness at the 50mm focal length and the narrow field of view of the 300 will be that one thing that sends that viewer away from the movie with a "can't put your finger on it" feeling... even though the intercuts be at very differing viewpoints.

I see myself as being very fortunate because I don't actually KNOW anything. Everything I do will be an experiment.

[Shawn Nelson]

I own the 300mm Red Prime and have wondered what it would be like to try and shoot a whole movie (short movie, 10 min or less) using only it.

[TheThe]

Click 'Edit' on your original post then 'Go Advanced' and the title will be in it's own box for edit.

Thanks. Done. No more silly headline...

[number6]

I own the 300mm Red Prime and have wondered what it would be like to try and shoot a whole movie (short movie, 10 min or less) using only it.

Shawn, have you shot the same thing at different distances? If so, what are your observations?

[TheThe]

Thanks. Done. No more silly headline...

Arghh... Yes more silly headline... The edit only created a subtitle but left the main thread title intact. I give up.

[number6]

Arghh... Yes more silly headline... The edit only created a subtitle but left the main thread title intact. I give up.

The, this gave me a chuckle... thanks!

[Shawn Nelson]

Shawn, have you shot the same thing at different distances? If so, what are your observations?

I'm not really sure what you mean. As in shooting something with the 300mm at 10ft away vs 50 ft away or filming somethingat 10 ft away with both the 300mm and the zoom at various focal lengths?

I haven't done either and I'm not really sure what the point would be except to teach yourself what focal lengths look like, and there are ample examples on the web of such things.

[James T Mather]

I thought lots of Children of Men looked to me like it was shot on a similar lens (although nothing I've heard suggests this)

...but the choreography and extended takes certainly hints at this as vast portions of it are shot in a hitchcock "rope" style - (come to think of it Rope is a single lens/unbroken take movie).

On Children of Men I would guess somewhere around a 20mm.

[number6]

I'm not really sure what you mean. As in shooting something with the 300mm at 10ft away vs 50 ft away or filming somethingat 10 ft away with both the 300mm and the zoom at various focal lengths?

I haven't done either and I'm not really sure what the point would be except to teach yourself what focal lengths look like, and there are ample examples on the web of such things.

No, with a 300 I would be more interested in learning how a subject shot 300 feet away would compare with an image shot with the camera moved a hundred feet closer. But since you haven't done that, never mind.

[TheThe]

The, this gave me a chuckle... thanks!

:biggrin:

[David Mullen ASC]

There are no rules here, just personal taste combined with the visual needs of the project.

Gordon Willis used to object to what he called "tromboning" -- grabbing a tight shot on a long lens from the same camera position as the wider shot. He prefered to stick to a limited range and move the camera closer or further. For example, a lot of "Manhattan" is shot on a 100mm anamorphic lens.

Roger Deakins is also someone who prefers single-camera shooting and short to medium focal lengths. Most of "Shawshank Redemption" was shot on a 35mm and 50mm I believe.

"Psycho" was mostly shot with a 50mm lens. Hitchcock did not like distorted perspectives too much.

Multiple camera shooting tends to encourage longer lenses, since it makes it easier to get two cameras on a scene if they are farther back, than up close and wide-angle. A lot of Ridley and Tony Scott's movies are shot with multiple cameras with zoom lenses grabbing shots in widely different frame sizes.

One issue to consider when doing that style is that just as it is harder to be precise with the lighting and framing, it is also harder to be as precise with the mic placement if every camera is looking at wildly different frames.

Kurosawa was one of the innovators of multiple camera shooting with long lenses, starting with the final battle scene in "Seven Samurai" (most of the rest of the movie is single-camera.)

At the other end of the spectrum from Ozu or Hitchcock or Gordon Willis is that Michael Bay style where one shot is super wide-angle and the other super telephoto. It's sort of a commercial / music video style which is all about aggressive eye-grabbing imagery, not about subtlety.

Kurosawa experimented with longer lens for indoor shooting, requiring sets be built with a lot of room to back up the camera. Sometimes he'd use a 500mm anamorphic lens (more like a 250mm spherical in horizontal view) and light a scene to f/22 to get deep focus, creating an interesting flattened perspective that resembles Japanese scroll art sometimes. The best example of this style is in "Red Beard":

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/redbeard1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/redbeard2.jpg

[bhtdmc]

Thanks, David!

Good notes.

And thanks for the frames. I'm gonna add that film to my Netflix right now.

[TheThe]

David, thank you so much for the post. It is inspiring me to experiment with focal lengths for my upcoming movie.

Without meaning to press my luck, I have a question to ask you. When you prepare for the visual design for a movie (when you are given enough time to do so), do you map out at all focal length considerations? ...or do you only worry about framing, lighting and composition. It might be weird that I am asking this since I already DP'd a small indie feature, but on that the production was so fast-paced that I had barely enough time to worry about general shot-to-shot flow. I am wondering what is the sane limit to preparation vs. on-set figuring-it-out. I know Hitchcock would work out everything beforehand... but at the same time I feel that in some of his films it affected the organic feel to them and made them rather stiff.

[thornben]

I thought lots of Children of Men looked to me like it was shot on a similar lens (although nothing I've heard suggests this)

...but the choreography and extended takes certainly hints at this as vast portions of it are shot in a hitchcock "rope" style - (come to think of it Rope is a single lens/unbroken take movie).

On Children of Men I would guess somewhere around a 20mm.


It was an 18mm, as a matter of fact. Check out the AC article, goes into quite a bit of detail. But if you look closely they do cheat, no matter what you have heard, there is definately the odd 24mm shot in there I reckon. :innocent:

[David Mullen ASC]

The director and I will discuss focal lengths during prep, but not specific numbers, more about the general look and feel. Locations will also affect your choices -- you may scout a place and realize that a certain focal length will have an interesting effect. It really is about optical compression and expansion of perspective and how that affects the narrative feeling.

And of course, it sometimes is a practical matter (wide-angle lenses in small spaces when you need a wide shot.)

On my last show, we took DSLR photos using the general focal lengths that we were going to use on the real shooting day, more or less (not exactly the same lenses but we'd decide if we wanted a telephoto or wide-angle effect.)

Shooting outdoors in Montana on "Northfork" I really could play with focal lengths. We were on the Great Plains but in the background was the Rocky Mountains, and with a telephoto lens I could make the mountains look huge and with a wide-angle lens, I could make the prairies huge but the mountains small.

[James T Mather]

purchased and read the article - surprised at how much of the film is studio - amazing really. The film was seamless.

[Brent J. Craig]

Taking this idea one step further - the Red lets us affordably shoot in 4K resolution for the first time. I think it would be interesting to shoot an entire film on one wide-ish lens, then crop, pan and scan in post. If your finished product is for HD, you can use a quarter of the frame and still be at full HD res.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sounds lazy and sloppy. I'm not a fan of post reframing unless there is no other option. Your artifacts (like noise) get twice as large, for one thing. Some editors are in love with changing the compositions of the cinematographer, so it also gets into an issue of who is controlling the image itself.

[Rowland]

As someone who mostly edits TV shows for a living, I have to agree with David. I'd rather work with properly shot footage rather than stuff I have to reframe. I have reframed plenty of shots, keyframed subtle zooms, etc., but I avoid it if possible.

[Brent J. Craig]

Sounds lazy and sloppy. I'm not a fan of post reframing unless there is no other option.

It would have to be designed from the start as a stylistic element and shots composed with the technique in mind. At the very least it's a music video waiting to happen.

[Liam Hall]

It would have to be designed from the start as a stylistic element and shots composed with the technique in mind. At the very least it's a music video waiting to happen.
Check out Tim Pope's early work for The Cure; virtually all shot on one lens - he only could afford one!

There are many features that have been shot on just one lens but for an object lesson in how the choice of lens can add to the drama of a film watch Twelve Angry Men - as the tension builds the focal lengths get longer and compositions tighter, creating a sense of claustrophobia.

I shot a 40 minute documentary earlier this year on a 50mm Nikon prime lens, it looked great but I needed quite a few visits to the chiropractor by the end of the shoot.

[Emmanuel Cambier]

It's a well known fact that all of "Touch Of Evil" was shot on a 18mm Lens. Amazing compositions from first to last frames.

Emmanuel

[Jaime Vallés]

I shot a 40 minute documentary earlier this year on a 50mm Nikon prime lens, it looked great but I needed quite a few visits to the chiropractor by the end of the shoot.

How come? (The chiropractor, not the choice of lens...)

[Nils J. Nesse]

I read in an interview with swedish director Roy Andersson that he uses a single lens (single focal length) for all his films. A normal lens, because he's doesn't like distorted perspective.

I don't know if his Du levande (You, the living) has been released in the US yet, but it's one of the year's best films.

[Liam Hall]

How come? (The chiropractor, not the choice of lens...)
No zoom equals a lot of pick it up and run!

[umeric]

Hello all,

I have a question :)


What lens would you take to the set/location - if you could only have one?
of course depends of nature of the project - but even so...

I think I would take a 50mm...

[David Mullen ASC]

The fastest zoom I could find.

Otherwise, the question is unanswerable. I could take a guess and say a 35mm (in 35mm) because it's moderately wide-angle but you can get close to a face without too much distortion, but someone else would say a 27mm or a 40mm depending on their tastes.

Someone might even say an 18mm because they prefer wide-angle shots, whereas someone else (like Ozu) may say that's unacceptable and would rather deal with the limitations of a 50mm in terms of view because they like that perspective.

And it also depends on if this is an exterior location or an interior one.

And all of that is ignoring the visual intent of the project.

Remember that a 50mm is not as wide vertically in widescreen formats like 1.85 as it used to be on 1.37 Academy. Hence why the 40mm and 35mm have become more common as the "neutral" focal lengths in standard 1.85.

[agwah]

shot all on one wide angle lens

http://www.agwah.com/hub/movies/12_the_funeral.mov

[ibloom]

shot all on one wide angle lens

http://www.agwah.com/hub/movies/12_the_funeral.mov

Nice. Love the way it's cut. IBloom

[TheThe]

shot all on one wide angle lens

http://www.agwah.com/hub/movies/12_the_funeral.mov

Very cool. I love the bubble in the bedroom. By the way, what exact lens was it? Also what format, etc.

[Nils J. Nesse]

What lens would you take to the set/location - if you could only have one?


I could take a guess and say a 35mm (in 35mm) because it's moderately wide-angle but you can get close to a face without too much distortion.

I agree if we're talking 35mm still (or Vistavision); for Red (or S35mm) I'd take something like a 24mm.

Yes I really like the idea of shooting an entire film with one lens. Maybe because I believe in the idea of (self imposed) limitations in the creative process.

Maybe we could have a reduser competition of "Best short film shot entirely with the Red 300mm".

[agwah]

Nice. Love the way it's cut. IBloom

Very cool. I love the bubble in the bedroom. By the way, what exact lens was it? Also what format, etc.

thanks guys

Lens was a 10mm, Camera was Arri 16mm, Tri X pushed one stop

we brought a zoom, but didn't use it for the reasons discussed above, to bring restrictions to the shoot
(after the first day, the generator broke so the old house is only lit with one light, another interesting restriction that has been talked about a lot, it was an HMI 2K)

[umeric]

The fastest zoom I could find.

Otherwise, the question is unanswerable. I could take a guess and say a 35mm (in 35mm) because it's moderately wide-angle but you can get close to a face without too much distortion, but someone else would say a 27mm or a 40mm depending on their tastes.

Someone might even say an 18mm because they prefer wide-angle shots, whereas someone else (like Ozu) may say that's unacceptable and would rather deal with the limitations of a 50mm in terms of view because they like that perspective.

And it also depends on if this is an exterior location or an interior one.

And all of that is ignoring the visual intent of the project.

Remember that a 50mm is not as wide vertically in widescreen formats like 1.85 as it used to be on 1.37 Academy. Hence why the 40mm and 35mm have become more common as the "neutral" focal lengths in standard 1.85.


Thats interesting - about 40 -35mm - thanks

[TheThe]

thanks guys

Lens was a 10mm, Camera was Arri 16mm, Tri X pushed one stop


Cool. Thanks for the info. So that's an equivalent of a 20mm in the 35mm world, right? So I see a pattern here with people favoring the 18mm range on the wide side. Interesting...

[David Mullen ASC]

Unless the director and I decide we want a wide-angle look to the movie, I naturally gravitate towards the medium focal lengths, generally trying not to go wider-angle than 24mm or 27mm, and trying to stage masters with a 35mm if I can.

[Jozo Zovko]

On shooting entire films with one focal length...

Watch the films of

Robert Bresson
and
Yasujiro Ozu

With them its really not just a single film shot with one lens - but an entire career usually at 50mm - and at 1:33

Have a good day
Jozo Zovko

[Rudi Herbert]

Unless the director and I decide we want a wide-angle look to the movie, I naturally gravitate towards the medium focal lengths, generally trying not to go wider-angle than 24mm or 27mm, and trying to stage masters with a 35mm if I can.

Agreed (heck, I find myself agreeing with David far too often, which could be minsconstrued as brown nosing instead of professional affinity :-) anyway, that's a risk I'm willing to take) for most work I would try and stay with the medium lenghts which yield the most natural looking results. And I got my first start in professional imaging underwater, which means no lens was ever wide enough for me, for as you know, underwater, the wider the better. But when I started filming topside I realized that unless you're set set to project your work on a big screen, wide angle lenses don't always look all that great on a TV screen or anything smaller than 30-60 feet wide...

[David Mullen ASC]

Wide-angles and telephotos can look beautiful, of course, very graphic or stylized -- the only reason I gravitate towards the middle focal lengths is that they look the most "natural" in terms of perspective. They are subtle, they don't distort reality.

Sometimes you don't want naturalism or subtlety of course, you want stylization.

[filmmaker's gang]

ozu rules..

[Sanjin Jukic]

If you are interested in which lenses were most used by Kaminski and Spielberg, this text below must have read:

"Initially, Kaminski says they were thinking about shooting the entire movie with just 35mm and 85mm lenses. They decided to add 14mm, 25mm, and 50mm Primo lenses to the package. Kaminski observes that 50mm is often the long lens of choice for Spielberg. The cinematographer explains that he prefers the optical qualities of the prime lenses, partially because they give him the option of using filters to soften the look without degrading the images."

Quote from

Smooth Criminal: Janusz Kaminski, ASC covers his tracks in Steven Spielberg’s Catch Me If You Can by Bob Fisher

LINK>>> (http://www.cameraguild.com/index.html?magazine/stoo1202.htm~main_hp)

[Noel Evans]

[QUOTE=Liam Hall;124654]
There are many features that have been shot on just one lens but for an object lesson in how the choice of lens can add to the drama of a film watch Twelve Angry Men - as the tension builds the focal lengths get longer and compositions tighter, creating a sense of claustrophobia.
QUOTE]

And in addition the camera started around actor eye level and as the tension built through out the movie it became lower and lower until the ceiling was in shot. Further adding to that feeling of entrapment and claustrophobia.

I love how lenses so greatly effect the image perception, even if the viewer has no idea of whats technically ocurring.

[Kholi]

This thread is nice. I had some questions about this on the other forum, but the posts here cleared up and reaffirmed thoughts that I already had.

[TheThe]

This thread is nice. I had some questions about this on the other forum, but the posts here cleared up and reaffirmed thoughts that I already had.

Thanks! As the thread-starter may I suggest using the 'rate-this-thread' thingy on top of this page... :innocent: It would be my first star-rated thread. :)

[dracul]

Wide-angles and telephotos can look beautiful, of course, very graphic or stylized -- the only reason I gravitate towards the middle focal lengths is that they look the most "natural" in terms of perspective. They are subtle, they don't distort reality.

Sometimes you don't want naturalism or subtlety of course, you want stylization.

I love the 24mm for 35. its a normal perspective good for wide shots as well as when you push in on faces. If you go wider, medium closeups distort the face at close range, if you go longer your push in from a wide is no longer dynamic, weak perspective change. Same if actors walk into a medium closeup, no dynamic on longer FL.

[Andrew McCarrick]

Arghh... Yes more silly headline... The edit only created a subtitle but left the main thread title intact. I give up.

Don't mean to stray from the topic, but once you post a new topic you can change the name out in the list of threads by clicking just next to the name of it.... You have only got about 10 minutes after the original post to do so though.

i.e; if you went out into the Cinematography forum and clicked next to the title of a thread you just posted, it will go into an edit mode for that title.

[chadliebenguth]

I own the 300mm Red Prime and have wondered what it would be like to try and shoot a whole movie (short movie, 10 min or less) using only it.

That is something that never ceases to amaze me; that sciencefiction always attracts the wrong people, people who come flying at something shiny like a magpie. Something like: gee, there is technology in this movie so let’s use a flying car. Whilst the exciting thing about people in the future doesn’t lie in their environment. So I am very surprised when people say something like that is based upon books from William Gibson. When I finally read his work, I thought: this is not at all an inspiration-source for that type of movies. His books are so rich in atmosphere, they run so deep. It is NOT the futuristic technology that makes his books so interesting. I am crazy about the idea of once filming a sciencefiction-movie using only a 200mm lens, so that you never get to see the backgrounds.”

Chris Cunningham