aperture and depth of field
So i learned that the lower the aperture the lower depth of field meaning i get to focus on the object and blurry background however my phone which is an iphone 11 has an aperture of 1.8 and still cant have this cinematic look that i want is there any thing else that effects depth of field ?
Comments
-
Depth of field is also affected by the focal length of the lens (longer lenses have shallower depth of field) and the size of the imaging plane (camera sensor).
Your phone has wide angle lenses (60-degree FoV and 120-degree FoV) and a tiny sensor. The sensor in your phone is about 1/16th of the size of a full-frame 35mm sensor.
Basically you won't get a "Cinematic" look from a phone. There's a reason there's a "portrait" mode that uses both cameras to triangulate depth to a subject then add a fake background blur. ?
-
@Triem23 Even if I buy separate lenses and attach them to the iphone i still wont get that cinematic look. Lenses like the anamorphic lens or the telephoto lens.
-
I'm assuming you're asking about shallow depth of field? A telephoto will help with this, an anamorphic will not. Longer lenses (telephoto) have shallower depth of field. However, that will not increase the aperture or enlarge the sensor, which are the other two elements relating to depth of field.
I'm going to try right now to get you to not use "Cinematic Look" as an adjective-phrase. It means nothing. Yes, I realize tons of other people online use "Cinematic Look" as an description, and I'm about to demonstrate to you why that's a mistake.
All "Cinematic" means is "relating to motion pictures." That's it. All of the images below are screen shots from movies, which means all of them are have "Cinematic Looks." Take a quick scroll and I'll see you on the other side. ?
"The Kid"
"Nosferatu"
King Kong
https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/1939/12/gone-with-the-wind.jpg?w=1000
Gone With the Wind.
The Adventures of Robin Hood
Robin Hood
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/12/f0/99/12f09993a05015f68a9b5c842fceeb34.jpg
Casablanca
https://nostalgiacentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/warofworlds15-1.jpg
War of the Worlds
https://parade.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/1.-Parting-of-the-Red-Sea-FTR.jpg
The Ten Commandments
https://moviemoore.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/dr-no.jpg
Dr. No
https://www.syfy.com/sites/syfy/files/styles/1200x680_hero/public/wire/legacy/Godzilla1954_0.jpg
Godzilla
https://www.alternateending.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/d8aOyxSMD7oQGFsPORCU8AJ6EQ3.jpg
Godzilla
Godzilla
https://ianfarrington.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/motionpicture.jpg
Star Trek
https://filmandfurniture.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/james-t-kirk-from-star-trek-2009.jpg
Star Trek
https://i1.wp.com/movieassault.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/spiderman.jpg?fit=1000,563
Spider-Man
The Amazing Spider-Man
https://pm1.narvii.com/6518/e23da1e0740e85f7fa8e6e7608eb33a9e890ce87_hq.jpg
Spider-Man: Homecoming
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Pz9f75WvZoQ/T-xkjzVp6XI/AAAAAAAACys/r9GCXyf4Rs8/s1600/kirk2.jpg
Superman
Superman
https://i.redd.it/goh3hwvpkzb31.jpg
Superman Returns
Man of Steel
https://66.media.tumblr.com/7f406a0afccbe28c24b0135ef6742087/tumblr_nqfcvxS7HU1re1poeo1_r1_640.jpg
Batman
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjNiNTFiNDQ[email protected]@._V1_.jpg
Batman
https://www.syfy.com/sites/syfy/files/2019/06/batman_1989.jpg
Batman
https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/2015/06/maxresdefault-1.jpg
Batman Forever
Batman vs Superman
Ok, the point of this is that we have black and white, color, high contrast, low contrast, high saturation, low saturation, and generally a whole slew of different looks, all of which are "cinematic," because all are from movies. I also deliberately chose a lot of "deep focus" frames because cinema isn't all about shallow depth of field - in fact, look up "split diopters" which are special lenses to set up DEEP depth of field.
Look at the Godzilla, Spidey, Supes and Batman images. Same character, similar poses, totally different "cinematic looks." 1978 Superman over Earth is brighter lit and more saturated than the rest. 1966 Batman is brightly lit with white light with colorful costumes and sets. Batman Forever is colored lights on gray costumes and sets. Batman 1989 is almost black and white with only the Bat Symbol giving a splash of color and the bg lost in shadow while BvS is lit in blue with a deep focus blue bg. Spidey 2002 is brightly lit and colorful, Amazing Spider-Man is dark and shadowy while Spidey: Homecoming is the most "natural" looking.
So, when discussing looks you need to be specific on what you're trying to attain... Initially you asked about depth of field. This is controlled by three things - aperture, focal length and film/sensor size. F/1.8 is wide... And on your phone you can't go wider. A telephoto lens will help a bit, but the bottom line is that 9mm (diagonal) is tiny compared to the 43mm (diagonal) full-frame sensor. You can't get shallow DoF on a phone. Optical physics is a harsh mistress... But, remember, shallow DoF isn't a must. Most of the above images are deep focus.
Anamorphic lenses vertically squash footage. This was done to get a wide image (1. 85:1 or 2.35:1) image on a standard 4:3 negative. The camera lens squeezes the image, the projector lens desqueezes the image. This causes highlights and flares to stretch horizontally. This is NOT a "cinematic look" as plenty of films were shot 4:3. That said, using an anamorphic lens gives an "anamorphic look" which is part of how SOME movies look. Be aware you'll have to stretch the anamorphic footage in the edit.
Otherwise, for help on attaining a "cinematic" look, be specific regarding deep/shallow DoF, flat vs moody lighting, saturated or desaturated looks, etc. Or maybe pick a film to use as an example?
I really need to do a video on this topic... There are a lot of terms thrown around imprecisely that have no meaning. "cinematic look," "effect," "PBR," "HDR," "Digital Quality," "High Definition..."
-
@Triem23 Great read! Will definitely be added to the collected Triem works folder.? The last paragraph is the perfect subject of a video: "VFX Terms You Are Using All Wrong!" ?
-
@tddavis it'll be a series. ?
HDR means totally different things in Photography vs Video... HDR video is SDR in photography!
-
@tddavis I look forward to your new book series, "The Complete Writings of Triem23: Volumes 1-23."
-
@Triem23 says... I really need to do a video on this topic... There are a lot of terms thrown around imprecisely that have no meaning. "cinematic look," "effect," "PBR," "HDR," "Digital Quality," "High Definition..."
Sounds like a perfect topic for a Live Stream!
-
@FilmSensei Actually, it certainly does sound like a welcome & great S3 season kick off! ?
-
@tddavis @FilmSensei And what's the title? "Mike [complains] for an hour?"
Edit: actually, for the "Cinematic" rant, now that I think about it, I can make the point only using Godzilla, Superman and Batman films! Those franchises span the 1940's to today, and really cover the gamut. Just looking at Kirk Alwyn, Christopher Reeve, Brandon Routh and Henry Cavill's flying shots alone kinda does it. Four night/space shots, three of the same action, but the style of lighting makes them totally different in mood.
Edit-edit. And Brandon is lit "wrong!" I just noticed. The illumination on Earth puts the sun off to the left of frame, but Brandon is lit from below right... No wonder I've never liked that shot. If you don't match the lighting the composite looks wrong.
-
@Triem23 Sounds like a good title to me!
-
I'd buy THAT for a dollar!
-
Artistically speaking, there is no right or wrong in vfx.
To find out more... ahem.
-
"I really need to do a video on this topic... There are a lot of terms thrown around imprecisely that have no meaning. "cinematic look," "effect," "PBR," "HDR," "Digital Quality," "High Definition..." "
@Triem23, Seriously....... you should write a book. Your postings here on the forum have many of the starting points for various chapters. Your write well, and explain things clearly. And you obviously have the experience to back it all up.
The above so-called "rant" was a very interesting read and great examples. Thank you.
best,
..................john
-
This is hilarious.
![https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjNiNTFiNDQ[email protected]@._V1_.jpg](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjNiNTFiNDQtMWZkZi00ZWI1LWE1YjMtOGMyYmM5NTMzNDNiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzc5NjM0NA@@._V1_.jpg){kind=link}
