Still vs Motion photography

[HewManHeMan]

So, I've been a cinephile since I was a lad but only just found still photography.

I love the technicalities of still photography. Shutter, aperture, ISO etc. Lens. Everything. As a hobby, it's grabbed me completely.

But I'm watching movies, and nature programs, and wondering; do the same principles apply? I'm not talking the obvious difference, i.e. composition of a moving image or lighting from multiple angles. I mean do the sheer basics of a DSLR compare to those of a video camera?

i.e. would Conrad Hall have been concerned with aperture, ISO's, similar types of lens. And if not, what are the considerations of a video camera?

[singlecoil]

Plenty of DSLRs are also video cameras, and all the same settings can be applied if you want to go further than shooting on Auto.

[Simpo Two]

The basics are the same - it's a lens recording an image. But with a video clip, you have a beginning, middle and end to plan. You also have sound, so another sense is engaged. Arguably composition and lighting are not so important, as (a) it changes (b) the eye is partly taken up by watching the movement - but some of the beatifully filmed/lit early films show that it always helps.

When you look at a still photograph you scrutinise every aspect of it. With a film you tend to follow the plot instead.

[HewManHeMan]

So if I were to step onto a film set, speed read the 35mm video cameras instruction manual, I could (in theory) start applying the same photography skills?

I'm not asking because it's something I ever envisage doing. I'm just curious to know what technicalities the cameras share.

So, in low light we (as photographers) slow the shutter, up the ISO... what would cinematographers consider? Do they have ISO's?!?! You see some low light scenes are high in grain, but not all. So I'm guessing the set is lit brightly then under-exposed?

[Fubles]

if you were to step on to a film set and among the red's and Arri's you'd probably find more DSLRs than you're expecting. If I remember right the first avengers film had a few Canon 5dII and 7d's used in production. Many amateur or lower budget movies use DSLR's to film lots of You-tubers use DSLRs because they're cheap and easy to use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_o... (there's a better list to illustrate my point somewhere but I can't find it)


ultimately behind the complexities of follow focus, sound recording, frame rate and the like, in Digital film I would imagine the fundamentals are mostly the same, You'll have ISO, Aperture and shutter speed so I don't see why you couldn't move from one to the other with a bit of an open mind and some learning

I obviously have no experience of this other than what I've seen and read so I'm sure that someone will be along shortly to correct me. In the mean time have a look for "behind the scenes" videos on youtube. Many of them love their camera gear and like showing it off.

Here's one I subscribe to to get you started

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzofNVHFCdD_4Jxs5... -Devin Graham (behind the scenes)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwgURKfUA7e0Z7_qE... -Devin supertramp (published videos)

[HewManHeMan]

That's great, thank you.

Always wanted to be a 'filmmaker' (it'll never happen, and that OK) and now I've whole new area to better appreciate when piling into our local multiplex.

[Simpo Two]

HewManHeMan said:

Always wanted to be a 'filmmaker' (it'll never happen, and that OK) and now I've whole new area to better appreciate when piling into our local multiplex.

You can be, there are lots of amateur film making clubs about. I'm heavily involved making a spoof of 'Airplane!' It's all for fun and the cast and crew are all amateurs with amateur kit, so I have to grit my teeth sometimes when I think back to my corporate video days, but it's great fun - and will probably take two years!

[HewManHeMan]

Simpo Two said:

HewManHeMan said:

Always wanted to be a 'filmmaker' (it'll never happen, and that OK) and now I've whole new area to better appreciate when piling into our local multiplex.

You can be, there are lots of amateur film making clubs about. I'm heavily involved making a spoof of 'Airplane!' It's all for fun and the cast and crew are all amateurs with amateur kit, so I have to grit my teeth sometimes when I think back to my corporate video days, but it's great fun - and will probably take two years!

That sounds brilliant. Good on you!

The issue (for me) is, the more I learn, the more I realise I just don't have it in me to contribute something good. We're all raised on Blade Runners and Star War-ses thinking 'I could do that', which I genuinely believed when I had no idea what was involved. But now I know a little more about what it takes... I'll stick to watching and appreciating what better folk have produced : )

[Super Slo Mo]

HewManHeMan said:

So if I were to step onto a film set, speed read the 35mm video cameras instruction manual, I could (in theory) start applying the same photography skills?

I'm not asking because it's something I ever envisage doing. I'm just curious to know what technicalities the cameras share.

So, in low light we (as photographers) slow the shutter, up the ISO... what would cinematographers consider? Do they have ISO's?!?! You see some low light scenes are high in grain, but not all. So I'm guessing the set is lit brightly then under-exposed?

In essence, yes you're not far wide of the mark. There is another consideration though, and that's frame rate.
Usually films are recorded at a frame rate of 24 to 50 frames per second (FPS). You have some scope to vary the shutter speed, this is usually done for effect as it can have a dramatic effect on motion within an image.
For example, slow shutter speeds will make motion look blurry, even if the background is sharp, while fast shutter speeds will make the motion look jerky ('shuttery'). I hope it's obvious, but you can't use a shutter speed that's longer than the individual frame rate. So a 24 FPS frame rate means the shutter speed has to be 1/24th or faster.

Iris (aperture in stills-speak) is the main way of controlling light hitting the sensor, that and ND filters. Many cameras have 4 filters that can be swung into place behind the lens, these typically range from clear down to 1/16th ND. Some of the Sony TV cameras have 5 filters, and they're motorised so they can be controlled remotely.

Cameras also have adjustable gain (ISO). It tends not to be used frequently as it has a detrimental effect on picture quality, unless of course that's the effect the director is after. Again, typically a camera will have a Low/Medium/High gain switch; the gain levels for each setting are usually variable deep in a camera menu somewhere.

They're the main settings, you've also got things like the colour matrix, which is how the camera electronics respond and interpret the colour of the light hitting the sensors, there's knee, which affects how the white levels respond, there's the level at which the whites clip, flare, black level adjustment, black and white colour adjustment, and a whole host of other things to play with.
TV Cameras are hugely complex and adjustable beasts, in general they have a separate control panel that can adjust absolutely every setting within the camera, as a rule on most TV shows there's an engineer who looks after this, and spends his time making sure all the cameras look the same.
Movie cameras, especially the bigger and more expensive ones, have equally as much adjustment, but it's done through menus on the camera.

I could be here all day, and I'm far from an expert. If there's something I've missed, please ask.

[HewManHeMan]

Mate, thank you for taking the time to reply!

I've been Googling frame rates and what not. Speed-ramp popped up in there, which was pretty cool, but I'm fascinated by all of it.

Aspect ratios, too. Far much much time getting lost in the history of aspect ratios (and I can't even remember half of it - I'll have to Google it all again!)

[Super Slo Mo]

I don't know if it still is, but movie cameras (proper ones) used to have their shutters described in terms of degrees. This was, I think, because the shutter was a rotating disk with an aperture cut in it to allow the light through. Disks with different sized apertures were available depending on how much shutter duration you wanted. The back of the shutter was mirrored to reflect light through the viewfinder when the shutter was in the closed position, much like an SLR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter

Digital movie cameras of course don't have this, although I believe that the shutter description in terms of degrees might still be used. I would have to check with a mate of mine as I'm only really a TV bod.

The smaller, professional video cameras, like the Sony FS700, Panasonic AF101 (we have one of these), just have shutter speeds listed in the same format as a stills camera, so 1/60, 1/125 etc.

[neilr]

Shutterspeeds are indeed referred to like a stills camera on most lower end video gear (dslrs and such).

Your starting point ideally should be a shutterspeed twice your framerate. So, at 25fps you want a 1/50 sec shutter speed. That equates to a 180deg shutter on a movie camera. 24fps on a movie camera would, using a 180deg shutter, give a shutter speed of 1/48 sec. Im sure you can take it from there!

Edited as i read the wrong post thinking it was the OP. Sorry!

Edited by neilr on Wednesday 2nd December 15:35

[neilr]

Simpo Two said:

Arguably composition and lighting are not so important, as (a) it changes (b) the eye is partly taken up by watching the movement - but some of the beatifully filmed/lit early films show that it always helps.

When you look at a still photograph you scrutinise every aspect of it. With a film you tend to follow the plot instead.

Composition and lighting are just as important! They are perhaps need to be approached differently depending on the shot (especially lighting) but to say they are not as important in a moving image as a still image just isn't right.


(This can be evidenced when you see some of the utter garbage on Vimeo and YouTube.)

[Simpo Two]

neilr said:

Composition and lighting are just as important! They are perhaps need to be approached differently depending on the shot (especially lighting) but to say they are not as important in a moving image as a still image just isn't right.

Sure, but you don't sit and stare at them as you would a still.

[Super Slo Mo]

Simpo Two said:

neilr said:

Composition and lighting are just as important! They are perhaps need to be approached differently depending on the shot (especially lighting) but to say they are not as important in a moving image as a still image just isn't right.

Sure, but you don't sit and stare at them as you would a still.

You don't but of course there are commonalities between stills and video composition, and there are a few additional principles to consider for video, as neilr touches on.

Something popped up on my Facebook feed yesterday, I forget exactly what it was, but people were hailing it as a great video/short documentary. Lighting and composition wasn't bad, for what it was, but it crossed the line something like 6 times in 20 or 30 seconds, and it was only a 2 minute film. That's basic stuff, and wasn't apparently done for effect either, it looked terrible.

Obviously (I hope) with things like live sports, the content is more important than the composition ultimately, but even then, when they can the camera operators will try to balance the composition, plus of course there are the standard 'shots' for things like interviews etc. Quite often we'll hear the director calling composition advice over talkback if a camera op hasn't quite got it right.

[HewManHeMan]

Wait wait wait!

What's 'crossed the line'?

I understand the rule of thirds, and do OK on composition with stills, but what's the rules with video?

Also, and just saying, I'm watching a history of film (I think it's called 'The Story of Film; an odyssey') and the development of camera movement is great to see evolve. Stuff I, and I guess most people, take for granted but makes the scene feel cohesive.

I love this subject! Haha.

[Simpo Two]

Super Slo Mo said:

Quite often we'll hear the director calling composition advice over talkback if a camera op hasn't quite got it right.

As indeed I used to

HewManHeMan said:

Wait wait wait!

What's 'crossed the line'?

'Crossing the line' is when, for example, a person walks one way in one shot but the other way in the next. Essentially a flipping over. It's one of the extra things that arise when you make a film as opposed to take a still photograph.

Next - 'breaking the fourth wall'!

[HewManHeMan]

Simpo Two said:

Super Slo Mo said:

Quite often we'll hear the director calling composition advice over talkback if a camera op hasn't quite got it right.

As indeed I used to

HewManHeMan said:

Wait wait wait!

What's 'crossed the line'?

'Crossing the line' is when, for example, a person walks one way in one shot but the other way in the next. Essentially a flipping over. It's one of the extra things that arise when you make a film as opposed to take a still photograph.

Next - 'breaking the fourth wall'!

Ah, yes!

Like when someone is approaching from the left to right, and in the next shot the subject should look left? David Fincher movies have a great rhythm to them by playing around with that.

And Frank Underwood knows all about that pesky wall!

[singlecoil]

HewManHeMan said:

And Frank Underwood knows all about that pesky wall!

As did Francis Urquhart

[Super Slo Mo]

This explains it reasonably well.

http://www.mediacollege.com/video/editing/transiti...

If you ever watch horse racing, you'll often see the director make the transition to/from a reverse cut, as the horses go around in a circle generally, so there's quite often the need to cut from the camera on top of the tracking vehicle (Discovery, if you're interested), to the main camera shot which might be on the opposite side of the track/line. They tend to take a head on shot first to help the transition take place.

On live stuff like football and rugby, the reverse angle cameras are generally for replay only as far as the action goes, but can often be called into play when shots of the benches, team managers etc are required.