- This topic has 3 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Topic
-
-
Replies
-
Roger, David and the others can answer better than me but I the impression i have had reading the forum and many interviews is that there’s not right or wrong answer, you have to choose based on what works better for the narrative point of view, not only aesthetic. I think Roger moves the camera instead of changing the lens (or, in theory, using the zoom) to put the audience where the action is and to create a more intimate relationship (if i am quoting him correctly) with the actors: it’s different to sneak from awar away with a longer lens (or zooming in) and to stay in front of an actor for a close up. Besides that i think that keeping the same lens create a more homogeneus look for your scenes: a different lenght changes also depth of field, angle of view, distortion, proportions of the face, etc etc, so it can offer you the way to create a different effect and a different relationship between the character and the landscape, but if It’s what you are looking for.
By the way, isn’t it a bit unpractical to change the lens for a close up in a dialogue? If it’s a OTS shoot you’ll be close to the other actor, so it seems more practical to simply move the camera, unless there’s something that forces you to do that.
Changing a lens versus moving the camera can be more or less fast, there are too many variables to consider but in general, swapping a prime lens to one slightly longer is not hard.
I’ve been in some situations where the OTS used a longer lens than the CU. For example, if cross-covering where A and B cameras are shooting opposite angles to get both sides of the overs at the same time, it is easier to keep the other camera out of the shot if working on longer lenses from further back. Or maybe you want the foreground shoulder to not get larger in size relative to the person facing the camera so you use a longer lens for that flatter perspective, but in the close-up you want the effect of the lens being physically closer.
The other issue is eyelines — if you shoot a close-up with wide-angle lens and want a really tight eyeline, the actor might have to look at the edge of the lens or inside the mattebox rather than the other actor. In the OTS, they can naturally look at each other. So if you push in for the CU rather than go to a longer lens, you have to consider whether the actor can still see the off-camera actor and if that eyeline is too wide now. I did a movie where the director wanted wider-angle lenses for CUs, like a 28mm or 35mm, but wanted a tight eyeline so the actor had to look at a mark in the lens. It made the scenes more intense… but after four weeks, the main actor complained “for just once on this movie, I’d like to look at the other actor in my close-ups!”
I think it is lazy to simply put on a longer lens without thinking what the effect will be. I usually use a slightly longer lens for a close shot, shooting an over on a 32mm or a 35mm and a closer shot on a 40mm or a 50mm. That seems to me more reflective of the human view. But I have no rule. You may indeed want to shoot a close up on a 28mm or even a 25mm but, as David says, the eyeline becomes a problem. But an actor may need to look at a mark on the matt box to get a close eyeline even when a 40mm is on the camera.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.