Shoot Like a Cinematographer, Not a Videographer

[@35matinee]

Realistic lighting is the most difficult element to achieve. I'm 81 and I was shooting film in 1970 and I'm still trying to learn how to master lighting.

[@slimjimsim]

we love you bro

[@constantpressure6458]

Jeeeeezuz, over 50 years of doing something and you still ain’t figured out……. Maybe you should just throw in the towel and continue being a Grandpa 🤦🏾‍♂️

[@slimjimsim]

@@constantpressure6458 bro a troll

[@constantpressure6458]

lol, Yea i can dig it

[@davidperry511]

​@@constantpressure6458that's just sad to say bro

[@dannypgrizzle]

24fps was actually not an esthetic decision, not in the beginning. The original engineering was centered on minimizing film cost. Thomas Edison did the initial research and determined that 16fps was sufficient to trick the brain into seeing continuous motion, but 16 fps was not sufficient to overcome the eye's biological/chemical reaction to light, called persistence of vision. Edison determined that the strobing action of light inherent in projection required 48 flashes of light per second in order for persistence of vision to be overcome and for the eye to perceive continuous light with no flicker. The solution was to place a shutter in projectors, like a spinning pinwheel with 3 vanes, so that each frame filmed at 16fps was flashed on the screen 3 times -- thus achieving 48 flashes of light per second while consuming only 16 fps of precious film stock -- a huge savings considering the economics of motion picture reproduction and distribution. While 16fps was standard for silent movies, 24fps emerged as the standard with the arrival of talkies. When sound was incorporated into motion pictures, it was eventually standardized to an optical track, where an actual visible audio waveform was printed on one edge of the movie film alongside the sequence of images. For this, 16fps proved to be unsuitable due to poor audio quality, but increasing the frame rate to 24fps gave the desired audio resolution and fidelity. I don't dispute aesthetic arguments about 24fps providing more "cinematic" results because higher frame rates inherently compromise motion blur. And there may be codec advantages also when fewer frames are compressed, allowing more image data to be allocated for any given data maximum data rate that a given storage system is capable of. It is not inappropriate to discuss esthetics of frame rate, and there has been a long history of experimental work, notably Douglas Trumbull who tried to market a special theater concept called Showscan, if I recall. Personally, I'm grateful for this conversation here because I am personally about to standardize on a frame rate thanks to the fact that I have just purchased 6 Tentacle Sync Track E Mk II timecode clocks, and from this day forward all my cameras will be locked down to a standard configuration. We've avoided a huge discussion of fractional frame rates here, something that evolved in the analog era to accommodate color in much the same way that 24fps replaced 16fps to accommodate optical sound. Edison's original research still holds, and all filmmakers would do well to be grounded in basic principles of continuous motion and perception of vision. Not only for esthetics, but also to understand the interaction between camera sensor scanning and various non-continuous light sources such as rasterized screens, fluorescent lighting, and LED sources.

[@LucForsyth]

Thanks for the feedback! You’re definitely better at the technical knowledge aspect of this than I am, appreciate you taking the time to explain this all!

[@Mayadude66]

I would also like to add that the 30 fps standard for telvision also has nothing to do with aestetics. It just works well when the grid is operating at 60 Hz. In Europe, the grid is 50 Hz, therefore television in Europe has always been shot at 25 fps. Furthermore, when you talk about the smoothness of the footage, you need to talk about shutter speed, and it's effect on motion blur. A sequence with a very short shutter speed will show very little motion blur in the individual frames, and this will result in a jittery look. For this reason, Cinematic 3D animations are rendered with motion blur activated. Even though it increases render time considerably. As a general rule, footage looks the smoothest when the shutterspeed is about half of the reciprocal of the frame rate. So 1/60th of a second for 30fps and 1/125th of a second for 60 fps.

[@ebinrock]

Oh, I get it - they must have gone from 16 to 24 fps because for the sound in analog, the more inches per second (ips) move across the exciter lamp (or in the case of tape, the heads), the more sound info and therefore detail there is.

[@Nonixification]

16fps is an urban legend

[@swanp1767]

Hey smartie pants...thanks-that was some serious conversation.😎

[@p0r5ch3911]

I don't think cinematic is just framerates and filters. There are moments in big movies that seem odd and moments with cheap cameras that are packed with emotions. And then I remember Kurosawa speaking about a moment he filmed that was real cinematic. If there is a big moment that make us feel the scene, that is cinematic. And big cinematigraphers just figured it out what and how to present.

[@RobFisherUK]

I think a lot of it, besides lighting, is the way the camera moves. There's something special about a well executed crane or dolly shot ... but these things might be out of the reach of a low budget documentary maker or amateur playing around like me.

[@janeeightfive7331]

You're right. I recently learned that they even use high framerates in action scenes to make you feel uncomfortable. The example given was a war movie and it makes so much sense. Never thought about it but always wondered why it looked so weird.

[@raynaudier8622]

3:46 - "this is called depth of field"; this is called *use of* depth of field; 4:11 to 4:29 - please clarify that the *numerically* smaller numbers (f/1.2, 1.4, 2, etc) are, in fact, the lenses' *maximum* aperture, its' *largest* aperture, where the lens is wide open; 4:40 - when you say, "wide angle lenses have less dof than telephoto lenses.." - wide angle lenses have *more* dof than longer lenses. DOF is the distance in front of and behind the plane of focus where sharpness is acceptable; 4:45-4:51 - an f/4 kit lens at 24mm, will have *more* dof than a 50mm lens at f/4 [everything else being the same - same camera-to-subject distance]; *DOF* is not *blur*, it's the distance in front of and behind the plane of focus where sharpness is acceptable; you can choose a (numerically smaller, physically larger) particular fstop, particular focal length, + distance from camera to *get* less dof for a blurred background & foreground, isolating the subject nicely, but people are going to think "DOF is blur".

[@LucForsyth]

Great technical explanation, thanks for the corrections!

[@stevenkralovec]

Yes, to put it succinctly when the phrase “depth of field” is used in this video, more often then not “shallow depth of field” is what is meant, and that is the more clear way to explain the concept of the background (or foreground) falling into blur sooner.

[@StreetPhotographyChina]

Yes, I was about to say, MORE depth of field means more things are in focus and is achieved with a wider lens and / or a smaller (eg f11 or f16) aperture. f1.4 or f2.8 is not a smaller aperture, it is a wider aperture.

[@ryanniannotti3815]

thank you so much for this because I was having the worst time trying to research what the heck was meant when he literally said that longer lenses = MORE dof I was like literally every source is saying otherwise and everything is contradicting what he said in that whole section. I wanted to cry I was so confused this really cleared things up for me

[@laserfliptoboneless]

I think it's bad luck to say cinematic on set

[@HDFilmShooter]

Great video but you speak of depth of field backwards. More depth of field means more is in focus. Less DOF means less (shallower). The “cinematic look” has less depth of field, not more.

[@bien.mp4]

Not really. So many great “cinematic” films have deep focus. “Shallow DOF = cinematic” is more of a 2010 filmmaking idea made big by dslr filmmakers.

[@shred3005]

@@bien.mp4what he’s saying is that Luc has reversed the correct terminology for depth of field. When Luc said that ‘wide angles lenses have less depth of field’ he should have ‘more depth of field’ as depth of field means the depth of the image that is in focus from front to back. I’m sure you know that.

[@natestain7103]

He says short and long nor less and more though

[@MaiElizabeth]

To me, 'cinematic' is when a single scene has different angle and focal length. 'Look' is subjective.

[@blender_wiki]

You know when someone is a real DoP or just a bluff when he doesn't get wrong on these terms. 😉 Unfortunately nowadays it is full of "cinematographers" that don't know what the CoC or the inverse square law are and DoPs are protected by the WWF. 😂😂😂

[@peterfritzphoto]

This is great, but you have DOF back to front. Using a longer lens or wider aperture doesn’t give you ‘more depth of field’. It gives you LESS. It gives you a shallower depth of field.

[@estebanrestrepo9256]

Luc great videos! However it seems like you're confusing what depth of field really means. Depth of field is not how blurry the background is, it's how wide or narrow your plane of focus is. In other words, MORE depth of field means wider focus depth, the background is more in focus. LESS depth of field means shallower focus depth, meaning blurrier backgrounds. Also "smaller" aperture means the lens is closed down, as in using f16 of f22. Wider apertures are the ones you were referring to, ie 1.4 or 2.8.

[@gregmckenzie4315]

When considering how to make your work LOOK more cinematic you should also consider the sound. Choose an editor who knows how to cut scenes to look more "natural." That means giving the subjects a chance to consider, understand, and react emotionally. First rule: Talking subjects need oxygen. Tell your editor to give plenty of pauses so that both the speaker and the viewer have that extra 1/2 second to hear and react. No motormouth editing! The real action in human speech occurs BETWEEN the words. Give your actors a pause to inhale. The best professional speakers, actors, and narrators know that cutting out all of the pauses in the narrators speech will make your work look like a KZbin video. Give your subjects the respect they deserve. This is a vital factor if you want your work to "look" cinematic.

[@mitojopepa]

great advice, much appreciated!

[@gregmckenzie4315]

@@mitojopepa Thank you Mito. When you see a movie "Trailer" what is most often featured is lots of reaction shots. There are seldom talking heads in the trailers. Reaction shots are where the actors do most of the story-telling work. Reaction shots are much less common in regular video production, and they shouldn't be. This is why good directors always have at least two cameras on the set.

[@kevinbillington9773]

Greg you need a channel for this editing advice . Really useful. Thanks

[@johannesm.2911]

@@gregmckenzie4315 will keep in mind! Hope we‘ll have more to consider in our projects in the future of what you have to share. :)

[@nickmalataverne5098]

Good advice. And ironically this video here made me think that there needs a bit more delay between cuts, especially when Luc changes subjects.

[@mitchmedmedia5386]

“Cinematic“ is used so often and for so long that any video with that word in the title is usually something I skip over. You put out such good work that I wanted to see what your take on it was, and I’m glad I did. I really appreciate your definition and objective take on it rather than leaving it as some nebulous term. Lots of good info all around. Thanks for posting quality stuff!

[@LucForsyth]

Thanks Mitch, I appreciate that! Glad you liked it

[@Leprutz]

And yet, in this video the word is misused too. It is a bald move to say the crashzooms aren't cinematic. Cinematic is not just the looks, the photography. Cinematic is the story that we are telling with the different techniques. So basically, the cashzooms in Django Unchained, as shown in this video, are actually 100% cinematic. Even wideangle shots at F11 can be very cinematic. And people not even pros will not notice the change of the looks if it is motivated through the story with usage of different techniques.

[@andrewgonzalez6208]

I don’t even think I use the word cinematic anymore

[@theowlfromduolingo7982]

@@andrewgonzalez6208you just did

[@vanbhojan5569]

Here I used a simple android phone. Handheld gives you cinematic results if you use the music at crucial time in your video. Here is an example: Cinematic Vdeo of my friend:- kzbin.info/www/bejne/j6usq5x8a72HZtE

[@shaps]

It’s about story and motivation. A camera move should appear motivated by either the story (as in django) or by other elements in the scene. For example handheld to emphasise the uneasiness or tension in a scene. Lighting is no different, it looks “cinematic” if it feels motivated. For example if a subject is lit in a scene where the viewer can imply the light is coming from a nearby window or street lamp, etc then it feels like the subject was in a real place. All of these exist to help the viewer forget there’s a camera, pointing at an actor, with a team of people lighting and directing the scene. They’re just tools to support the story. I didn’t write a comment intending to criticise the creator of this video, but I do feel he’s missed far more elements personally. The stuff he’s covered I’ve often found in other KZbin videos and it’s missing the point imo.

[@prod.byratio]

This is a really great way of saying things

[@annedewinnaar3285]

Very helpful comment, thank you. I personally don't like jerky camera movements such as when the camera is 'chasing' someone and the footage is bouncing all over the place - it's awful and unrealistic. When we run, we naturally balance out the scene in front of us and the camera cannot do that.

[@ScottRossProductions]

God, you sound like me. Here, here...

[@ArnieHensman]

This is a great comment, but also great tips in the video. ‘Story first’ sounds simple. However narrative analysis of character, plot, setting in time/place, themes etc., is so tricky to most, that technical aspects are so much easier. Unfortunately storytelling becomes mostly secondary, even in some big budget movies.

[@Joeysgonerogue]

I think you mean the viewer can infer.. 😊

[@MachinaExplorer]

i swear the word "cinematic" is just a buzz word these days xD

[@sohmiJesuswithme]

Jesus love you all so much✝️❤️

[@blackpassogabscity3335]

Jesus loves you too so much❤

[@sohmiJesuswithme]

@@blackpassogabscity3335 amen

[@4CardsMan]

As you certainly know, the smaller the f/stop, the larger the actual aperture. New viewers might get confused.

[@LucForsyth]

yeah, good call! Will tighten that up next time

[@zaracusca]

Great video Luc, thanks for sharing a lot of interesting knowledge. Although I must mention a confusion in terms. ”Depth of field” is not a phenomenon but a measure: the distance between the nearest and the furthest objects that are in focus. Consequently, ”the news” (i.e. the old video image used in television) has MORE depth of field, and usually cinema has LESS. Wide angle lenses have increased depth of field (the image is in focus on a greater interval) and telephoto lenses have shallower (reduced) depth of field. There's no doubt in my mind that you know all these effects but you used the terms somehow confusing manner. (ex: 4:34 and following)

[@lplazaj]

Also, aperture values should be described as large (f/2.8),which renders shallow depth of field (and captures more light), or small (f/22), which yields great depth of field (captures less light). Student’s frequently get confused by this because they are used to 2.8

[@aeaeaaaelxndrwtnb]

Opened my phone while watching this video on my TV to make this comment. F1.4 is a LARGE aperture, f22 is a small one. If I'm shooting a landscape, I want a LOT of depth of field.

[@brycepatingre]

7:20 a cameraman I worked with when I caught my break producing a television doc style show always use to say this. "Move your feet." It's the reason I loved editing what he shot and didn't enjoy some of the footage from other shooters. I will say though - boy, do I love a good crash zoom, even in docs.

[@LeoChanlch]

*maximum aperture* is printed on the lens for the given focal length. The f-number is inversely proportional to the size of the aperture

[@wojciech2279]

2:25 The answer is not really the frame rate but the scanning method. Since the beginning of cinema, movies are being shot progressively, that is one frame after another. Broadcast, on the other hand, uses the interlaced scan which gives an illusion of 60fps in USA and 50fps in Europe. Most people say that interlaced is obsolete whereas it is still used to this day and the finest example is the news broadcast. Also, TV cameras use 2/3-inch and 1/2-inch sensors that aren't the best option for shallow depth of field and are actually meant to make everything as sharp as possible.

[@LucForsyth]

You're very right on the scanning method, good call!

[@KristofferG]

Yeah, the difference between progressive and interlaced is A LOT more noticeable than the difference between 24, 25 or 30 frames progressive.

[@Pfagnan]

Yes in TV land there are 2 fields that make up one frame of video. So the first field scans the even lines 2, 4, 6 etc. Then on the 2nd pass it scans the odd lines 1, 3, 5 (hence the term interlaced) etc until both fields are complete and so you have a complete (progressive) frame of video.

[@weetuscren]

I think the depth of field concept is sometimes framed as “looking cool and cinematic” when it should better be used as “control of information”. Sometimes it’s a “hey, pay attention to this” or even sometimes a manipulation to purposely obscure information from your audience. I think most people don’t think about it because it’s difficult to achieve properly especially when you don’t have a focus puller. I feel like the difference between videographer and cinematographer is about 5-10 years of extra experience, knowledge, and experimentation.

[@oddmoviez1602]

Sorry, but you confuse people. "More depth of field" - means more depth of the space is in focus. Can you here it: more depth of field. What you were trying to say is that cinematic image often considered to have noticable background separation. Which is partially true. Partially. It's a cheap way to achieve it. Lower / smaller aperture is 22, not 1.4 because the full number describing the aperture is 1/1.4 and 1/22... And so on... You don't need to fully open the iris to get a "cinematic" look

[@LucForsyth]

Thanks for the feedback, your way is super clear!

[@davidclark2635]

I think you’ve confused minimum and maximum apertures. A lens that’s described as f2.8 - that’s it’s maximum, it’s minimum so probably f16 or f22. Unless things have changed in the last 50 years or so…..

[@Tarantas]

2:03 shows a "difference" in 24 FPS. Genius.

[@alpinemedia609]

That Variable Prime idea is gold. Solid info and well organized!

[@LucForsyth]

Happy shooting!

[@GeekTherapyRadio]

Back lighting might require slightly more discussion. A dim light in the background is an interesting visual complement to good frontal lighting. If you're going to shoot a subject against a bright back light (sun, giant window, etc...) you better have a fill light or reflector in front of the subject so the subject isn't just a silhouette or the back light isn't completely blown out while adjusting exposure for the subject.

[@KabiesiAdemola]

Exactly

[@training7574]

Normally, I do not like talking heads presentation, but this one is an exception. The presenter comes quick to a substantial points (or many in fact) and has none of the egomania that haunts most of the talking heads on youtube. Very informative, convinces with substance not with loudness.

[@KayCinho]

Great video! But it's "toneh", not "bokeh" 😜

[@LucForsyth]

I’ll take your word for that, I’ve always found these terms confusing!

[@KayCinho]

@@LucForsyth haha it's a term invented by the Camera Conspiracies channel. Love your channel by the way.

[@frankyfantasticmedia9718]

Awesome video!!! If I might add, in order to get the right motion blur is important to set the shutter speed at double of the frame rates, so for example 25fps is 1/50 SP. I know you know this, but wasn’t mentioned in the video 😊 the 180 degrees rule

[@tobimaru5899]

Exactly! I didn't get why in the example where Luc talks about frame rate he mentions motion blur.

[@zbyneksurovec]

Exactly! Can't get motion blur without this!

[@NinjaNye]

Yeah NGL it bothered me to hear motion blur as justification for 24fps… you can obviously still get motion blur with 30fps

[@Pfagnan]

@@NinjaNyeAbsolutely!!

[@GuidoValdata]

30fps doesn't have a really percivable impact on image quality. It's more the shutter speed, not the 6fps difference. in sport/tv I bet they shoot 45/90° rather than 180°. they need to pan quickly and players must be sharp sharp even in fast paced actions. That has a huge impact. Not the 24vs25vs30fps. My 2 cents on the "cinematic" circus.

[@jeremysmith9694]

I was just gonna say this same thing. Frame rate is pretty irrelevant actually. What's most important is shutter speed. That's what affects motion blur.

[@Pfagnan]

Totally! I shoot almost exclusively in 30p as my stuff ends up on KZbin and 24p is too choppy on KZbin especially when panning so I disagree with the author of this video for what I do. I am not shooting CINEMA and the extra 6 frames compensate well for faster motion. I get his point but I don’t buy it for every situation.

[@eastphotoz454]

I’ve heard news shoots in 60 not sure if it has to do anything with certain screens having 60hz refresh rates

[@ahalpert]

I perceive it. The fact is that 24fps is a low-frequency framerate. 24fps with a 1/60 shutter doesn't look/feel exactly like 30fps with a 1/60 shutter

[@JamesLehartProductions]

Over 10 years filming live sports events for broadcasters such as UFC Fight Pass, BT, Sky Sports. This is true FPS isn’t important, shutter speed is. In fact ESPN demand you send them 1080i50, they then downscale to 720p30

[@whophd]

It’s fascinating to me that you’ve come from a DP background and find the videographer look unrealistic. No judgement - it’s been 20 or 30 years since I was first surprised this was the complete opposite of how I was brought up, on broadcast tech. What used to be the only “TV look” is now known as the sports mode, but just know that there’s logical sensible reasons why both of us think that “reality recreation” is two polar opposite things. After which I’ll just pick up a couple of minor points: Even on sports 60fps, there are a ton of examples of blurry images. Shutter speed is still a thing. This is why one of the most amazing demonstrations has been that 300fps gets more true visibility than going from 1080p to 4K and so on. The other thing is “30fps” for USA and “25fps” for Europe. That’s not it: It wan always 60 and 50, and there’s a whole ton of broadcast engineering knowledge slowly draining away that used to know the difference between a field and a frame. Bottom line is still that everyone hates interlacing but the images were and always will be 50 or 60 distinct images per second. Decades of internet video have obliterated the original motion detail of almost a century of television - the whole corpus of online video was created by dropped every second field (or even frame). It’s sad. I’m fighting a rearguard defense to preserve some of this, but that’s my war. I’m still awed by how old TV look amazing if they were shot on film - they look EXCELLENT when rescanned into HD or 4K. I feel that movies after 2000-2010 still looked better when shot on film not digital, even though they were edited on a DI. Finally ask me about how pre-1990 video wasn’t really SDR or 100 nits, but needs HDR to let us see how god intended it - like a CRT - but this is really my niche.

[@demonhogo]

This is a great video. I hope young filmmakers also remember that all 5 of those tips can be reversed or broken with equal success. your point about intention was was supreme.

[@Chris-Brown-]

Cinematic, anything not filmed on an iphone

[@HAPPLIP]

This is a great video in cinematography. I simplified the meaning to take the complexity out of it. Videographer: Knows how to run the tool/s. Cinematographer: Controls of the entirety of the LOOK and FEEL of the scene/shot/atmosphere. Like musicians, some people are great, strictly the instrument alone, then you have the composer/writer who brings the musicians altogether to create the feel/atmosphere of the SONG. That is similar to a cinematographer. Being a photographer prior to a videographer I realized I am on already on the path of cinematography always achieving the '' look '' and '' feel '' of what I'm shooting.

[@janeeightfive7331]

I have to correct you: in television you use 50 (Europe) or 60 fps (America), not 30 (I work as camera woman in television in Europe). That's why movement looks less blurry. The difference between 24 and 30 fps is so small that it's not distinguishable. For KZbin it's even better to use 30 fps because the monitors you're watching YT on have 60 Hz. So, there is no weird jerking happening during camera movements. Jeven Dovey made a whole video about it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jXrSaJ2tqL6VrsU It's very informative.

[@SimplicityForGood]

many movies today and the last 20 years want specially to show sharp specific details of hands and moves, such as Hero, and other Chinese martial art movies as well as Hollywood movies like Charlie's Angels, Fast n' Furious, most Tom Cruise stunts etc.... .. is kind of 1970-80s to say one want blur and look like film today...and all commercials today want the combined skill of cinematic and slowmotion sharp details at the same time...

[@Baleur]

One thing i hate about the "cinematic look" trope (when its done bad, even in hollywood movies) is the overdone color graded "mood styles". Like having an entire movie in blue and orange at every scene, to the point where nothing has any natural colors anymore, even out in the sunlight at noon a zombie movie has literally brown skies for no reason. As if a zombie virus would alter the atmosphere's color. It takes me out of the movie rather than suck me in. Now, actually getting good FRAMING and COMPOSITION and lighting (before post-processing), THAT Is what i care about when it comes to cinematography. As well as frankly having the balls to show beautiful nature in real colors, DESPITE a movie being set in a post-war dystopian scenario or like mentioned above, a zombie apocalypse. There's something far more inriguing about the beauty of nature juxtaposed with the horrors of the story, than just flat out grading everything in depressing tones to "force" the mood on the viewer. It frankly shows a lack of achieving the desired mood via dialogue and script, so they have to resort to excessive color grading.

[@TheObsoletian]

Also ditch the gimbal, learn how to do good handheld camera operation, practice, practice, practice until it becomes second nature. A good handheld camera shot is expressive and can ad a lot of drama and meaning to your project. Practice with your tripod as well, learn how to compose and motivate camera movements, again, practice, practice, practice. Good video! Thanks for posting!

[@natepotter6911]

Bokeh isn't the blur. It's the QUALITY of the blur, the presence or lack of sharp or hard edges, etc. Also, depth of field refers to the amount of "acceptably" sharp image, not the amount of blur. For example, when you say "an f/4 kit lens at 24mm might not have much depth of field", you have it backwards, it would have a LOT of DOF. Just sayin'. 95% of people get both wrong. Good video. Sub'd.

[@UncleFeedle]

0:03 is probably the most hated face in Britain. I for one would never want his face in any video I worked on, in any capacity.

[@LucForsyth]

Good to know!

[@divorcelab]

Thank you, excellent points, and whatever setup you've used for this studio video looks fantastic. When you talk about lens aperture, though, for example, 1.4, I think you mean maximum aperture, not minimum. Yes, minimum numerically, but maximum optically, providing a shallow depth of field.

[@edshotsdotcodotuk]

I've always thought of the term "cinematic" to be a way of using each frame to tell the story. Using layers within the frame to aid with context. Think about all those amazing westerns that have deep depth of field but still look cinematic as you feel like you're there and can see clearly what the characters are doing. Blurring everything out means you lose a sense of place and the intention of the shot. 'Joker' manages to throw a lot out of focus but with lighting and layering you always know what's going on.

[@anonymouscoward9643]

Wrong, the 24fps rate is historic and was settled on to save film stock while still being visually acceptable, it transferred to the video realm because it still works for persistence of vision and conserving memory (or tape in the old days). The decimal variations like 23.97 is to accommodate for accurate color framing pull down to NTSC/PAL/etc. TV (Non ATSC) standards. Technical/economic reasons not artistic ones - even though we may prefer the look of 24fps.

[@karintosco]

can i shoot at 30 fps on camera but export the video at 25 and get similar results like if i shoot on native 25? thanks!

[@posebukse]

Motion blur is more tied to shutter angle/time than framerate, you can easily get both sharp, jarring movement (Michael Bay/Ridley Scott action) and soap opera softness in 24fps depending on the shutter :) A beginner watching your channel may go out in bright sunlight without NDs, shoot in 24 and wander why their material still isn't "cinematic". Or even worse, convince themselves it is just because they shot in 24 and a channel on youtube told them it's the way.

[@LucForsyth]

It’s tied to both things, but you’re right! Keep your shutter at 180 degrees kids!

[@Drunken_Hamster]

@@LucForsyth No. You're wrong. LITERALLY do the opposite of this. DO NOT use shutter angle for real-time playback content. Motion blur DOES NOT SCALE OR CHANGE with frame rate, you do not 2x that shit to get the same look, and I can PROVE it. I have SAVED VIDEOS even if you don't want to do the experiment yourself, but if you do, it's simple. Attach a ruler to a drill and spin it. Take a still photo at 1/60th of a second shutter speed. Then take a low frame rate video (24 or 25) with the same shutter speed. Then take a HIGH frame rate video (50 or 60) with the SAME shutter speed. ALL examples will have the same motion blur, and before you convolute motion blur with motion SMOOTHNESS again, go ahead and PAUSE the two video samples and compare them with the still photo. To go even further, crank the shutter speed to 1/300th of a second and repeat the experiment with all 3 examples. Now it all looks like stuttery sharp crap (well, the photo probably looks fine), and if you pause the two videos THEY WILL ALL MATCH. This is the KEY to making HFR look GOOD. 50fps or 60fps with an open shutter or NEAR open shutter (in the case of running 50p with a 1/60th for universal anti-flicker) will look NATURAL, and in fact, EXACTLY as smooth as real life is to your eyes. This method is also the KEY to making 30fps the perfect aesthetic middle ground, since it's not as smooth as real life, but IS smoother than laggy 24p.

[@Mwgsse]

​@@Drunken_Hamsteri bet you don't what you're saying

[@Pfagnan]

@@LucForsythCheck Gerald Undone’s video on this. 180 degree rule need not apply at 60p or higher as there is not enough motion blur. He did tests! 😎

[@Pfagnan]

⁠@@Drunken_HamsterI agree! That is why I shoot everything for KZbin at 30 fps as 24 is too choppy and laggy. It’s a really good middle ground. Gerald Undone has a great video on frame-rates and motion-blur that will surprise many.

[@jordandouglas3772]

Amazing videos this is like my 5th video binge watching lol all of them have brought really good value ! I love how you’re not beating around the bush and you’re straight forward with your points !

[@LucForsyth]

Thanks Jordan!

[@JeffBourke]

The problem is that for online content, 24 is a really poor rate as it does not display correctly on the common 60hz monitor - judder. A better choice for “cinematic” look is to shoot 30 fps but with a “24 fps shutter” ie 1/50 shutter.

[@LucForsyth]

Respectfully disagree! Unless forced I'll avoid 30fps at all costs. To each their own though!

[@Pfagnan]

Jeff totally agree!! Sorry Luc but for KZbin in North America, 24p is choppy when you have faster motion in your scenes. The extra 6 fps is much smoother with the 60hz. I like your video a lot but lots of people disagree with your bold always 24p assertion. I did all my side by side tests and it’s pretty obvious…

[@visualbree]

I have a question, can I get away with shooting in any frame rate higher than 24fps but Editing in a 24fps sequence and output the video in 24fps?

[@billionbites]

I mostly shoot 24fps, but was impressed with some of Griffin Hammond's mini docs, and he does a really good job with 4K 60fps. So it's sometimes good to mess about with different frame rates, without them being too sharp.

[@JaghataiK]

First time I’ve heard the word “cinematic” without cringing super hard. Kudos on the excellent video!

[@professionalpotato4764]

I would actually strongly argue against 24p. In fact most people should never shoot 23.98 or 24p. Picking your framerate for your delivery format/region is always the way to go. Online, 29.97/30p. Local broadcast NTSC or PAL accordingly. The vast majority of us won't be publishing on TV and we have no control over viewer's displays. KZbin and every other online platform always transcodes footage to 30fps and it looks really really really really bad. There's a lot of jitter from the duplicate frames. I do editing and prep work in Disney for broadcast, repackaging shows from all over the world for online and broadcast in some regions. 23.98 and 25p always look horrible when transcoded to 30p. We get documentaries and movies shot on amazing REDs and ARRIs, Cookes and Master Primes, but in the end, it's just jitter jitter jitter. My poor eyes. I would only shoot 24p if the film is being shown in cinemas. Or when every display on the planet is capable of variable frame rates.

[@LucForsyth]

Good insights! A world where all tvs are 24 is my dream world!

[@TinLeadHammer]

​@@LucForsythThey tried it 90 or so years ago, it looked horrible.

[@Pfagnan]

THANK YOU - THANK YOU - THANK YOU!!! Finally somebody tells it like it is!!! See Luc, your all-encompassing edicts on the merits of 24p do not cover all eventualities, nor should they! I ALWAYS shoot 30p for KZbin. Very smooth! Way too choppy otherwise…

[@TinLeadHammer]

BTW, the claim that KZbin always converts to 30p is incorrect. KZbin preserves the frame rate for 720p and higher res, allowing up to 50p/60p since 2014. Below 720p, it converts 60/50 to 30/25.

[@professionalpotato4764]

@@TinLeadHammer I see the usual judder from framerate conversions even if KZbin stats show 23.98p/25p. How would you explain that?

[@ebinrock]

The other thing that made traditional TV look like...well, TV, was the interlacing (alternating between upper and lower fields of scanning lines to form each frame). Interlacing was only needed for technical reasons back in the old analog days, mainly for transmission over-the-air (not enough bandwidth otherwise), but it's certainly not needed in today's digital world. It needs to and will go away, from my understanding, once ATSC 3.0 is fully implemented.

[@lucinematic]

Lighting is the hardest, especially if you don't control environment like in big movie sets. I hope I will learn lightning someday

[@LucForsyth]

Totally agree!

[@Gowalkabout]

What do you think about shooting at a higher frame rate, like 60fps, but render the video at 30fps? (especially when you want some slo-mo)

[@heatice77]

Thank you so much, I don't aspire too much to be more than a dad with a camera but these tips where great and useful to even me. I should probably take a class also because talking theory is great but there is no replacement for the work and experience needed of applying these theories. I am not a fan of motion blur but I know realize what you professionals all mean by it thanks for your video among other great tips given.

[@PhishedOff]

Me too, just a grandma trying to have fun w the little ones and keep up with my daughters incredible camera. LOL I do learn SO much from these guys, don't "get" much of it LOL but it helps. I don't like the blur either, once you have cataract surgery that's a little harder to watch without getting dizzy and falling over :)

[@BmakinFilm]

Thanks Luc - good stuff. I'll add that no bokeh is just as cinematic : great filmmakers like Orson Wells shot scenes with huge DOF: everything in focus (kind of like seeing a play where everyrhing on stage from front to backplays conveys important information.

[@35matinee]

You are arguing for an exception rarely needed.

[@AllAccessConstruction]

Excellent points as I get ready for my 6700 😊😊😊

[@RobFisherUK]

I definitely want to experiment more with backlighting. Using the sun for this isn't something I really thought about before. I know what you mean. But in case beginners get confused, the *larger* aperture has a smaller number and gives *less* depth of field (meaning the background is blurrier). I'd add that shutter speed is important, not just frame rate. You want a 180 degree shutter to get the right blurriness, so shutter is open for half of the frame time, e.g. 1/48th of a second at 24fps. When shooting at 60fps for slow motion the shutter speed would be 1/120th. Trying to have wide open aperture to reduce depth of field and stay at a slow shutter speed is why the built in ND filters on the BMPCC6KPro are so useful. People coming from stills photography might be confused about this. I'm also a big fan of focusing manually and doing focus pulls to switch emphasis between subjects. Seems like a cinematic thing to do.

[@wraithdreams]

To my eyes minimum 50p with 180 shutter looks way more natural than 24p with 180 shutter.

[@tinsucevic]

What about 24p at 1/50 or 1/100 shutter?

[@freshpootube]

That's the thing that separates KZbin 'film makers' from genuine film makers. Developing an opinion of your own and communicating it. KZbinrs are like children parroting knowledge that's available to anyone - and they rarely develop a creative point of view that is their own.

[@lighttram]

Wonderful tips! Thanks!

[@PhotoStoryChannel]

A beautiful story that everybody want to watch is called cinematic...but till now i still dont understand how to make my video viral

[@theimaginariumnetwork5621]

Some of the greats use deep focus almost exclusively.....cinematic feel isn't just focus; there are more important aspects like composition and purposeful camera movement. Oh yeah, and lighting can help. Lol

[@AndrewWilsonStooshie]

24fps and 25 fps were tech decisions. It was the slowest (and cheapest) they could get away with given the hz of their electricity gird. Personal I love 60fps and above. If your eyes blur something in reality, they'll naturally blur it at 60fps anyway. But 60fps replicates more closely what reality does than 24 fps. I thin when people say they prefer 24fps it's more to do with what they know.

[@littlebearmedia]

That was a great. Tips are quick, useful, concise. Most of this stuff I already knew but it helped me clear my head for an upcoming shoot where I feel like I'm overthinking. I'm a fan of this man. Can't wait to watch more.

[@MaunoKoivistoOfficial]

I'm guessing audiences who are used to video games running at 60-120 fps are not as attached to 24 fps for film. Even for me, 24 fps feels pretty bad for panning shots

[@ArtVideoProductions]

Most people over use bokeh and DOF shooting everything at “F1.4. Otherwise, is not “cinematic” Every movie from legendary Steven Spielberg is shot at wide depth of field. He shoots everything at f8 to f10. And static tripod shots are also cinematic. And shooting with any camera other than an Alexa or Red, you’ll see the imperfections on a 350” theater screen. It’s just not enough. Nothing can touch those sensors.

[@DethronerX]

Very true! Gear depends on whats right to get a certain result. So when you say gear doesnt matter, to me, it means, as long as you're getting the result you want, it doesn't matter what you used. And when you say gear matters, it's what kind of gear gives you that look you want. So both statements are true in my view, just with different meanings. As for cinematic, it's the same. The kind of shoot, the subject, mood, whats going on in the scene and what you can do to achieve the feeling you want the viewers to have, you use that. Tripod, gimbal, handheld, zoom in and out, all will have its purpose, when we understand when to use what. A lot of the times, zooming or handheld can be very distracting from the story and other times, you want that for the rawness of the scene, but it shouldn't continue after that part is gone. So to me, cinematic is when you use the right gear and style of using it, for the right reason As for framerates, of course, 24 is more cinematic, to feel immersed in another world like a dream. At times, you can even drop it to 16 or 12, for past paced melee action, with the shutter angle that suits the amount of motion blur you want. So its the combo of framerate and the shutter angle and camera movement (or no movement, but characters maybe moving in a still frame), that defines the scene. Panning is one issue to be considered, because it can be irritating to look at fast shutter shots with fast camera movements and especially if there's rolling shutter. For DOF, like you said, it depends on what and how much you want in focus. Sometimes, distant people in focus are talking, but you have a blurred person very near, whos sneaking up on them, as a pre-image til they its time to identify their face or anything else as a part of the action of focus

[@MrIanWebb]

Every client: "I want the project to look cinematic and dramatic, but still natural and organic."

[@myvideoguy]

23:976 or 23:98 is the standard chosen as it has always conformed best for both 25 fps PAL and 29;97 fps NTSC markets. 24p is different to 23:976, and in the recent 10-20 years manufacturers of a lot of consumer / prosumer gear have incorrectly marketed / implemented these frame rates so that general online consensus' are incorrect.

[@BruceMcGrath1954]

Excellent episode great explanation 👍🏼. Subscribed 🇦🇺

[@NickMirro]

Respectfully, it took a third of your video to say shoot at 24 frames. If you pan a lot, 30 frames is better. Just add motion blur. (shrug)

[@DigitalDiego]

Life can be extremely dark, but walking with Jesus along the way is so much better than walking alone. There's no need to try to control everything in you life. The One that created you knows how many hairs are on your head. His plan for you is waaay better than the one you could ever come up with in your mind. He loves you so much that He wants to have a relationship with Him. He doesn't want you to fall into the trap of religion or "spirituality" that is not from Him. Put your faith in His Son Jesus today and be saved from the wrath we all deserve. Jesus is the One that provides us with true peace, love, and guidance in life. He changed my life forever and I'm so grateful for His abundant grace, because I definitely don't deserve His mercy. If you've read it this far, I know that God is calling you. Please put your faith in Christ today. Turn away from the lies of the devil. God bless you!

[@cryogenicheart2019]

I would encourage anyone who is I interested in filmmaking to FORGET trying to achieve any kind of look and just focus on structuring your film to tell a cohesive narrative first. For Gods sake just use your phone to film and get the ball rolling

[@ControlVee]

in the UK TV is 25 frames per second and film is still 24fps. its to do with electricity, in the UK and other parts of the world also we have 50 Hz (25 frames or PAL is half of this cycle rate) whereas American and some other parts of the world are 60Hz (NTSC is 30 frames, half of 60Hz). Otherwise, if you had 30 frames on 50Hz electricity you would see the screen refreshing (presenting as 'banding') every few seconds.

[@RonaldBrown59]

Great info, and thanks for sharing.

[@dakrisi3520]

Thank you very much for that great video! I'm a beginner with a crane m2 s gimbal and a sony rx100 VA. What I'm missing is how to deal with focus. When I look at the scene from the Joker, this has probably been recorded with manual focus adjustments. The AF-C of my cam probably would make these pumping effects. How would you take control of that?

[@toyotagaz]

There's no such thing as cinematic framerate It'd be like saying 1080p looks more cinematic than 4k Framerate is just the temporal resolution Over the years, we've just been conditioned into believing "24" is cinematic 30/48/60fps can look cinematic as well

[@markr041]

Is this serious? 24 fps is more natural than higher frame rates? motion blur is just a function of frame rate with no mention of shutter speed? low f values are minimum apertures? and have bigger dof? This video needs to be reshot and corrected, so people who think they can learn videography from this video won't be totally confused. There is some value here, but the presenter cannot be trusted.

[@JochyEstrella]

An overused term imho; Cinematic to me is Aspect Ratios and Sound Stages, correctly so: Cinemascope, Vistavision, Ultra Panavision, Imax Etc. Surround/Spatial Sound, Dolby, Dolby Digital, THX Etc...the more appropriate term should be getting the "FILM" Look rather than the more commonly used 30 fps @ 16:9 aspect and full frontal lighting used in videography and broadcast TV. so for example using 24 Frames per Second with its (double) 1/48 shutter speed to achieve natural motion blur, using Film Grains emulations kodak, fuji, filming in LOG or RAW instead of REC, using Look Up Tables (luts), Depth of Field, Coloring Techniques like the Blockbuster Teal Look for example, rack focusing, using proper lighting techniques and angle rules etc.... that has been my understanding and why I do not use that terminology unless the product ends up in a movie theater or a nice 2.35:1 CinemaScoped Projection Screen and a Dolby Digital/Atmos capable speaker system (like the one I have in my bedroom).

[@Drunken_Hamster]

>Shoot at 24 fps No. Just no. PLEASE no. GOD NO. STOP perpetuating this. It's bad enough that every other KZbin video is 24 nowadays, but now you want interviews and whatnot- look just stop. STOP. NO. BAD! 30p is 100000000x easier on the eyes and brain than 24, and if you just BREAK the retarded 180-degree rule and shoot with a 1/50th shutter, you get the motion blur found in 24, and it gives you back some of whatever it is you think is missing from 24 that a documentary or interview definitely DOESN'T need. Not only that but 30fps 1/50th is universal. It will shoot in any country without lights flickering on camera. Unless your deliverables ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE 24 fps or 23.98 fps (so, only blurays or NTSC broadcast, and blurays can take 30p, BTW), please for the love of GOD and ALL that is aesthetically pleasing, shoot either 30p or 25p.

[@MilesBellas]

Showing a picture of Savile makes UK people freak out...... like a picture of Goebbels to Jewish people....... Tip : pic something else

[@muhammadomerjan163]

Excellent guide. I'm on the A7iv and after having tried many of the exposure methods prescribed on KZbin, i find the zebras method to be the best. However, at 94, i find that my footage is often overexposed. I've attempted a workaround where I keep the zebras lower limit at 85+ and it has resulted in better exposures. Does anyone else have this problem or is just me?

[@spatnaspolecnost]

Uh you might want to brush up on terms like framerate, shutter speed and motion blur. You’re mixing it all up man, but hey I’ll give you a benefit of doubt and finish the video.

[@samimqazi4270]

Finally some 1 addressed it "Cinematic" i never believed in it coz i believe in Cinema and Film thats all, appreciate your video brav... new subscriber

[@Adama-pk8hi]

i fucking love this video i love you im you biggest fan PLEASE GIVE ME A CHANCE PLAESE PLAESE PLEASE I JUST WANT YOU

[@jbmi5342]

Honestly… I feel you so much when it comes to enhancing the light of the spaces that you’re in. That’s truly the difference between between something that was shot “in the moment” by a “videographer” vs a film that was truly meant to be viewed in a cinema/festival/high art context. I’d love to hear more about, and see demos of, how you transitioned from dealing with what was there to setting up more lighting to create more intentional storytelling. I think, at this point, I’m a really competent videographer. Using light for talking heads and everything else is second nature. As a solo shooter I’m curious as to how you’re able to keep your attention to what’s happening, and capturing the moment and the story, whilst also being able to rig lights and frame it well. Maybe the answer is… I stop shooting solo if I want to be creating this kind of work 😂 but I feel like there’s a huge leap in the workflow and approach from solo creator to high level documentary filmmaker that I’m trying to figure out.

[@ungavaproductions]

Luc, I am just discovering your youtube channel......sorry for that and hope you will forgive me. I just want to tell you that I realy appreciate your works on youtube. Nobody else speakb and explain like you. Frankly, honestly and with a professional approach. So, thanks for sharing your experience and knowledge. I am just an amateur videographer at his beginning but I realy love your publication. Thanks....(sorry if my english is not perfect).

[@kevinbillington9773]

In the UK tv and corporate productions are 25 fps, but if your filming for cinema projects 24p is used, you can use 25, but 24 is preferred

[@VikTheGreat360]

Okay hang on, subject isolation is not just lens choice. Depth of field is tied to FIELD OF VIEW. Broad cast television shoots on 1/3inch sensors so their lenses are equivalently wider fields of view with a crop factor. This presents more depth of field. F4 on a full frame sensor is like f2.8 on micro four thirds. It’s a misnomer to say “lens choice”. Gotta 👏🏼 do 👏🏼 the 👏🏼 calculations 👏🏼 people 👏🏼

[@CaptainFancy]

If I shoot at 24 fps then when I pan the camera, the playback is jerky and stuttery. A tip I saw elsewhere was to shoot at 60 fps if panning then play back at 24 fps to reduce this jerkiness. But doesn't that also introduce slow motion? How is it done in cinematic and in the film industry?

[@fbass2003]

Great information, so well thought out and shared!!! Thanks!

[@LucForsyth]

Thanks Fred!

[@dram7510]

You really seem to know what you're talking about with this stuff, so I have to think you just misspoke when you stated that "wide angle lenses have less depth of field than telephoto" lenses.

[@gozec6250]

@LucForsyth Hi I'm starting off with making shorts and insta clips for jewellery shoot with model, I got a cine lens 100mm 3.1T because I wanted the jewelly details in my clips I havent tried it yet, do I need a ND filer adaptor to get more cinematic look? If you can please let me know

[@chrisnielsen9885]

If you’re shooting for KZbin then dont use 24fps. Most monitors are 60p and 30fps divides nicely into 60. 24 doesn’t - it requires extra frames to be inserted by the computer, which gives you a noticeable judder. 30p doesn’t do that. It’s a complete red herring to talk about Hollywood because movies are designed to be shot on projectors which don’t have this issue. How many of you are going to have your projects shown in cinemas? If you’re shooting for computer display shoot 30p and no judder..

[@thebuzz4578]

Aperture conversation is backwards - should be maximum not minimum aperture. Your language is backwards and confusing.

[@Chromedbustop]

I know this is an older video, but one thing I'd like to see is people reference other movies. There are THOUSANDS of movies that have been made. But yet yet it's always the same dozen films everyone references. We get it, Blade Runner 2049 had some fancy camera work. But it wasn't THAT extraordinary. Considering how everyone references it in their videos you'd think it was the absolute pinnacle of cinematography, which it was not. It's honestly okay to reference other movies when talking about film making. There are more movies than Django Unchained, Blade Runner, or anything made by Christopher Nolan.

[@ericpersson8753]

Nice video - just a quick comment: several times you mention getting "more depth of field" when I think you really mean "shallower" depth of field. For example at 4:40 you say that "...wide angle lenses have LESS depth of field than telephoto lenses..." The opposite is true - a wide lens may have yards of depth-of-field, whereas a telephoto at the same setting may have only inches (less). I'm sure you know this, its just how you say it is confusing: I would suggest maybe using shorter/longer rather than more/less to be more clear.

[@ariesmight6978]

Luc Forsyty, you have created one of the best. Informative videos about the subject matter. Producing anamorphic movies, that I have ever come across. You earned yourself a like and subscribe.

[@drdj2626]

Hi, Luc. Just wanted to point something I believe was a mistake. at 4:40 you say "... wide angle lenses have less depth of field than telephoto lenses...so an F4 at 24mm might not have much dof, but at 50mm you are gonna have a lot more [dof]...", but it's the other way around, isn't it? The longer or more zoomed in the camera lens, the less depth of field you capture. perhaps by dof you meant blurry background? I would guess so. Anyway, big fan of your channel.

[@TheRoadrunner11]

I'm only pointing this out cause you're clearly aiming this at beginners and there is enough confusion out there as is. First: minimum aperture refers to something like f22, not F1.4. the smaller the number, the larger the aperture opening. Aka max aperture is for example @ f1.4 . Second: a larger depth of field = less blur/bokeh. Consequently, less depth of field = shallow depth of field = more blur/bokeh. You misused these two terminologies several times in the video. I know what you meant, but it was confusing. And I imagine it's worse for a beginner. Maybe put a comment or a textbox in the video to correct this?

[@josiahmos217]

Lets agree to disagree. I perfer 60fps. They used 24fps due to old technology and just stuck with it. 60fps only looks bad if the shutter speed was wrong while filming.