Awesome video as always! Of course in a low budget film project you don't have the ability to control light to such an extent. I personally like movies with different focal lenghts mixed. Shorter focal lengths are great for those emotional tracking, Steadicam and dolly shots and longer ones are great for shallower DoF. Of course the latter is harder to achieve with a Micro 4/3rds sensor or Super 16mm film. And yes: the most recent 4K scans of classic movies reveal focus problems. If the actor hold their head just a little closer of farther away from the camera, it will be out of focus. My utmost respect to focus pullers who did things like rack focus or following a dolly-in, during an era before video tap.
Sorry but T2.8 is not equal f/2.8 . F-stop is a geometric ratio ( focal lenght / diameter of iris aperture = f/ ) . Whereas T stands for Transmittance , which is an "absolute " measurement for the real effective amount of light transmitted by the lense as a scientific (optical and physics ) ratio . In other words ,it is the difference between intensity of light input and output. Aside the diaphragm aperture , absorbtions ,diffraction and reflexion of materials inside the lense( glass elements , diaphragm , black paint, inner atmosphere ..) will impact the transmission of light . For example , frequently f/1.2 lenses equal T1.3 . Also , f/2.8 lenses equal T 3.1 . But no all f/2.8 are strictly equal T 3.1 . That is why " cine lenses " with T index are used on cinema set . T index is reliable and allows to get homogeneous results wihtout having to adjust the lights setup when switching lenses on cameras . Also explains why cine lenses are so expensive .
Fun fact: with a lens focal length of about 22mm, the human eye has a natural f-stop of around f/2.8 when the pupil is opened to around 8mm, which would be fairly typical for indoor light levels. Our retinas are also not far off the size of a super-35 frame, albeit a curved, hemispherical one. We literally see the world in something close to super-35 f/2.8 by default. Might be that's also a factor in why so many DP's and directors like shooting it?
Too many films nowadays use low apertures for the bokeh look. This is perfectly fine to give a certain effect, but I prefer when everything is in focus for most of the film. Great video! 👍
@@Chandler_Goodrich Sometimes it makes sense if they’re trying to capture a certain mood, but this technique really should be used sparingly, only in situations where it’s done with a purpose, not just to show off how nice the lenses that were used to film the movie are.
Looking back I always thought that the lower apertures were used to direct focus on a subject or object... Director indicating that background information in that particular scene is irrelevant to the story. But besides Zack Snyder (army of the dead's 0.95 classic lens in almost every scene) and a few RUclips creators I don't see it being misused at all.
I realize that sharpness isn't everything, but the discussion at 4:15 is enlightening and has me thinking (hypothetically). Suppose I want to shoot with a 2.8 aperture as much as possible. And suppose money is not an issue. Should I trade in my 2.8 lenses for (otherwise identical) 1.4 lenses, so that I can stop them down to 2.8? As things stand, to get 2.8 I have to shoot "wide open," thus sacrificing some sharpness. Just curious.
I know what you mean. For example, a Canon 24 mm f/2.8 mm lens is $150 MSRP, and a Canon 24mm f/1.4 lens is $1500. However, the f/1.4 lens is a much higher quality lens than the f/2.8 "pancake" lens; it's more than just "minimum f-stop." I bought a used f/1.4 lens for about $900 and I use it all the time; I mostly shoot actor's reels. The pancake lens stays at home.
@@nicholasboule5134 I agree 1,000% So many Shallow DoF junkies out there churning out smeary pap with no story. There are some big time DoPs that aren't exactly helping. Certain ones addicted to Arri LF and wide open apertures. Not naming names, but they sure do set a crappy example. I hope the trend will pass soon. But alas, I fear so many upcoming wannabee DoPs grew up in a post 5dmk2 world that we're DOOMED. 😂FWIW, people who own a prosumer camera and call themselves DoP without an actual credit on something meaningful also make me laugh.
@@nicholasboule5134 Exactly.. You may also add the "sharpness" madness to this. People are going for the sharpest lenses where in reality sharpness is mostly important for photography but for video you need to look at the color rendition and saturation levels first. They buy the sharpest lens and than add a mist filter to make it cinematic. LOL.
I don't know whether there is an equivalent among English speaking cinematographers but there is a rhymed Russian proverb that appeared among Soviet era DoP's: "If there's sun or if there is no sun the f-stop is 5.6". This was said about S35 obviously and this wasn't a dogma, it was somewhat humor. I suppose that partly this concept appeared because of rather big difference in quality of copies i.e. sharpness of Russia produced lenses in 1960-80-s in general and partly as a matter of optics physics. Being a photojournalist myself I do use f5.6 (on FF) to obtain optimal resolution when shooting reportage and I usually try not to go further than 1/2 of f-stop of the lens, no matter which focal length, if I shoot portrait or something that I want to be more poetic.
I think it depends on the lens and the camera too. Anamorphic lenses separate the subject more from the background than Non anamorphic lenses even when the T-stops are matched. Also the camera itself. High end cinema cameras have more clarity and better skin tones that give a feeling of separation compared to dslr/mirrorless style cameras
Sticking to one specific aperture (or t-stop) is just weird and I don't think it's good advice especially since almost no one here shoots on film. I mean a t2.8 on a 24mm looks vastly different than a t2.8 on a 100mm assuming the focus distance is the same. If I start filming everything at t2.8 I might risk creating footage that feels completely disconnected bc of the huge difference in depth of field. In my example it might be better to shoot the 24mm at t2.0 and the 100mm at t8.0. What I'm saying, know your focal lengths and apertures, know your scenes and focus distances and plan ahead. And don't stick to overly simple rules of thumb. Interesting video though, as always!
@@spanishprisoner I need to spend time on a film set? Hah, that's grand. That's literally my job, it's what pays my bills. I'm not sure whether you've heard of these magnificient inventions, maybe they weren't around when you worked on a film set but they're really great: These things called ND filters. They work like sunglasses for your lens and are just awesome! So if you plan ahead, you might know that if you're switching from one scene with a t2.0 to another scene with a t8.0, you simply remove your 4 stop ND filter et voila, no need to adjust your lighting. I would partially accept what you're saying if you specified that it might not be suitable in a broadcast environment or for live productions and so on but not in regards to a movie production.
@@spanishprisoner Thomas, do you understand the basics, how depth of field works? Or do you live in a world where t-stops and f-stops vary so differently, that my statement doesn't come true, like that an f2.8 lens has actually a t-stop of t8.1 or something? Do you have a problem with the fact that I wrote t-stops and not f-stops when this is about dof? I don't understand you. I also don't get why you feel the need to insult strangers on the internet. Feels like you got some personal issues that you might want to work out... Read my initial statement again and maybe you'll understand that this is about depth of field and how it relates to lens choices and that sticking to one specific aperture doesn't make a lot of sense in this day and age. Especially since this video is about "...the Best Aperture for Filmmaking". Hence my counterargument: Can there even be just one best aperture for filmmaking or should the choice of aperture not be dependent on different factors (focal length and focus distance being some of them)?
A T-stop is simply the amount of light that is allowed to hit the sensor after passing through the lens, and an F-stop is the amount of light that enters the lens to begin with. All lenses have an F-stop and a T-stop, but you have to realize that with an F-stop on a lens you’re not getting as much light on the sensor as it says on the lens, but with a T-stop you are.
T-Stops references the precise amount of light that is let through a lens, but F-Stop refers to the focal length to front element diameter distinct to specific lenses. f2.8 on non-cine lenses do not let the same amount of light in as another ens at f2.8
Am I Democratic?? I am a democrat who votes conservatively now. Why ask, why would it be easier to convince me? I hate to bring this up be please let me know the reason you ask, thank you.
Got tired of these amateur filmmakers, who use shallowest DOF possible, flat and bland color grading, storytelling cliches And they also combine shots of trees, branches and flowers and call it SHORT FILM! Thank you, great video
Thanks for the video. This got me thinking about the equivalence when using my Micro Four Thirds camera. I asked Chat GPT the following: “What is the equivalent of f2.8 on 35mm super compact on a micro four thirds camera?” ChatGPT response: To determine the equivalent aperture on a Micro Four Thirds (MFT) camera for an f/2.8 aperture on a 35mm (full-frame) camera, you need to consider the crop factor of the MFT system. The crop factor for Micro Four Thirds is 2x, which affects both the focal length and the aperture in terms of depth of field and light gathering. Calculation for Depth of Field Equivalence: Crop Factor: 2x Original Aperture: f/2.8 For depth of field equivalence, you multiply the aperture by the crop factor: Equivalent Aperture: f/2.8 × 2 = f/5.6 Calculation for Light Gathering: The light-gathering capability of the lens is not affected by the crop factor. This means that an f/2.8 lens on a Micro Four Thirds camera still lets in the same amount of light as an f/2.8 lens on a full-frame camera. However, for depth of field and bokeh, f/2.8 on MFT behaves like f/5.6 on full-frame. Summary: Depth of Field Equivalent: f/5.6 on a Micro Four Thirds camera is equivalent to f/2.8 on a 35mm full-frame camera. Light Gathering: f/2.8 on a Micro Four Thirds camera gathers the same amount of light as f/2.8 on a full-frame camera. So, f/2.8 on a 35mm super compact (full-frame) is equivalent to f/5.6 in terms of depth of field on a Micro Four Thirds camera. Is this correct?
f2.8 is common because the majority of M42 prime lenses are f2.8 and most cinematographers shoot wide open for better depth-of-field. It is not "better" per se, just easier when you're working with proper lenses.
Saying there's a best aperture is like claiming a 12" string is the best length of string. The best length is the length you need. The closest to a generalization you could make is roughly 1.5 - 5.6 are the most often used apertures. A lot of DP's shoot nearly wide open all the time because they get the lenses that look amazing at their extremes, especially modern DP's. Roger Deakins had to change lens sets during No Country for Old Men because the Ultra Prime set he was using weren't fast enough at T1.9.
To those who are confused, the same way you multiply focal length, you do aperture as well. Meaning, a 50mm f1.4 on aps-c will be equivalent to a 75mm f2.1 on full frame. Unless cropped, aps-c cameras, like the a6500, shoot video on a sensor size equivalent to Super 35mm.
This is like te question "what is the best food temperatureto eat?"... To eat what. To Film what. Ice better be cold. Soup better be hot. Same for Film shooting
I disagree with your statements about focus pulling. Not many video is actually shot at 8K resolution, and those that are, are downsampled to 4K. To add to that, regular film stock would have a similar megapixel equivalent when projected on a proper projector, such as the ones used in movie theaters.
I'm curious. In the past I tried to make sure that my skin tones were in the 65-75% ire, but now I'm about in the 50-60 % range because I think skin tones seem more natural and absence of a hotspot on the face.
@@angelmurphy6832 It seems to work for me. Every time I try to reach the 75% level the subject just look too bright to my eyes and specular highlights seems hot. And I use a big softbox, no hard light.
I generally dislike rules of thumb, as I think they often become straight jackets over time. What wasn't mentioned in this video is the relationship between focal length and f-stop. f/1.4 is fairly forgiving on a wide shot and gets you tonnes of light, but on a long shot the background will melt and the focal plane becomes razor thin, which you may or may not want. 2.8 all the time may just be creating problems for you in a wide shot, and solving them in a long shot, if you're setting it there all the time. It's important to understand how all this works, not just rely on an arbitrary rule. That said, most of us probably would benefit from stopping down a little more in an age where we're spoiled by the quality of fast optics and excellent sensors.
I still like to shoot with a 24mn f/1.4 lens, so I have an option of even shallower depth of field. However, keeping a subject in focus is increasingly difficult unless the subject is absolutely stable. On the other hand, I recently used a shallow depth of field on an interview shot outdoors, and the blurry background felt distracting to me. Is that just me?
It all depends how much you want to see in the background. For example Roger Deakins likes to see more in the background than have it all blurry and out of focus. This is all about story telling and not about make the background out of focus just to make it nicer.
@@edpr2244 - I just saw a film, "Happening," and I noticed that depth of field is so narrow throughout that it felt distracting to me. I think that depth of field should be used to advance the storytelling, and focus the viewer on the parts of the image that matter the most. Moreover, "racking focus" is o.k. if you deliberately want to suddenly reveal information to the viewer, but it doesn't substitute for presenting images that are easy to view and not distracting from the overall story. I guess I'm developing my directing style.
f/2.8 on a Super 35mm-sized frame is the full-frame equivalent of f/4.2. So, to get the same DoF on a 4/3 camera, you would need the lens to be at f/2.1
@@MWB_FoolsParadisePictures thank you so much ive been using the Panasonic BGH1 great camera, But i want to get even more technical to not have any limits or as little as possible
LA DOLCE VITA (1960) by Federico Fellini. Actress is Aninta Ekberg. The movie is considered one of the best films of all time. If this is true, you have to decide for your own. But the camera work, lighting, composition and visual storytelling is really great! Definitely recommend it!
@@ullrichkohler5520 Im so surprised I have't seen it... I admit I have not watched most of Fellini's work. But I have seen so many films so I know I must give this a try!
Nice video! But the explanation with the diffraction effect is mixed up: at "fullframe" you can go to like f11, but on "apsc/super35" only to like f8 before the effect of diffraction starts. It depends of the density of the photosides/pixels on the sensor. The higher your resolution the diffraction begins earlier. On a high resolution super35 camera like the blackmagic ursa mini pro 12k theoretically diffraction starts at f1.8..
Generic question: what is the difference between t-stops and f-stops? Is a 2.8t the same as a 2.8f? Are t-stops just what we say for film/video only and f-stops for photography only?
T-stops (transmission-stops) work with the amount of light that really reaches the sensor after passing through the lens. The lost of light is included in the calculation. T 2.8 (and also each other number like 4.0, 5.6 etc.) is always the same, indifferent of the focal length in use or indifferent if you use a cine lens from Zeiss, Rokinon, Meike, Walimex or whatever. You will always get an identical exposed picture. Therefore different lenses are interchangeable on set. F-stops (fraction stops) are non-dimensional ratios. With some math, the f-number tells you the diameter of the aperture (iris diaphragm). F 1.0 on a 50mm-lens means, that the diameter of the aperture is 50 mm (equal to the focal length). The F-number does not tell you how much light really hits the sensor after passing the optical system. Therefore lenses with f-stop increments are not simply interchangeable. I examined all my lenses and noticed that exemply causa my sony 50mm and 35mm lens are less permeable to light than my sigma 16mm or Kamlan 28mm or Sony 18105G. For the test, the exposure was locked and the pictures of the Sony50mm and Sony 35mm were darker (light parameters like f-stop, time and iso(gain stayed the same). There are some charts of still lenses with their real transmission value.
Just to add, T-stops were essentially used because of the development of large zoom lenses in the early 70’s where there was significant loss of light through the many lens elements inside the complex cinema zoom lenses. This needed to account for this loss using T(transmission) stops rather than a theoretical F(fraction) stop. So it’s less of a film vs photography and more a lens phenomenon.
I like this conversation and on the whole its a good generalisation. I think its more accurate to say there is a range. Most cine lenses past 135mm were not t2.1 back in the day. I have zeiss mk2 standards that are t2.1 and i have a 180mm that is t4. Most telephoto lenses back then were slower. I totally agree that stopping down is necessary on these old lenses, half a stop down and they are a lot sharper than wide open. Same with super speeds. Master primes and lenses made after that you could open them right up but certainly not the old gear. 2.8 - 5.6 has been the aperture range most films ive worked on, except in extreme circumstances. Wide lenses at 2.8 and longer lenses you can shoot 4, 5.6, just to control how much nd you use and so it doesnt go completely mushy. That being said having a benchmark to start from, consider 2.8 and then break the rule deliberately is the best thing. Thats why i think this is a good video.
Does "most common" equal "best"? It's the same for framerate for example. Everyone is doing 24 because that's what everyone uses and that's what viewers expect. Even though it's historically a compromise for audio. Where 18 could have been enough. So why make that choice with aperture? Make a choice and then use it appropriately. Some people stop down when going with a longer lens for a close up, so the background doesn't changes apparent appearance... Which means you aren't chosing a T stop, but a entrance pupil to sensor size ratio ... It seems like aspect ratio is still free to experiment with. Just because 2.39:1 is very common, doesn't mean everyone is using it. And no video out here is saying it's the best. Perhaps it isn't. There is choice.
I dont know all the terms but f2.8 on a f2.8 lens renders nothing like a f2.8 on a f1.2 lens. The f1.2 lens will still have much shallower dof even at the same fstops. Thats also a reason why faster lenses are so much more expensive.
i remember the days when I used a canon 5D at 1080p at f2.8 with a semi wide angle lens, u couldnt even tell if there was any depth of field or not, the image was just overall blurry (not being able to tell which is in focus and not), i think thats the reason DSLR shooters had to compensate by opening the lens to like 1.4 to even get the sense there is seperation between background and forground
Not sure of most of what you are talking about but I do know that I can't see a damn thing in half of the content put out these days which I attribute to hdr implementation not well thought out. I don't know
LOL. I see many comments here still trying to defend their F1.4 lenses on a full frame. Because they have been mostly fooled by so called "RUclips influencers" that they need a lot of bokeh for "cinematic look". If you spend a lot of money on an actually useless item, you will surely try to defend that decision. :) That's human behaviour :)
The aperture of the diaphragm completely depends on other things in specific situations, (correct exposure, composition), there isn’t really a standard and 2.8 it’s not necessarily the best aperture for interiors.
Assuming that you're shooting an exterior scene : ISO NATIVE (800) Shutter Speed 1/50 F 2.8 Isn't that overexposed ? They're using filters to bring down the exposure ?
This is one of your most useful videos. This topic can be very confusing for beginners, and it's easy to lose sight of the pros & cons for any preferred aperture. It's always a balancing act between different wants, needs, and limitations (needing tons of light for deep focus look; the troubles with leaving lens wide open; sharpness; focus pulling; etc).
Roger Deakins' (and many other DPs) general rule of thumb is t2.8 for interior and t8 for exterior on s35.
So what would this be with digital?
@@dvance7586 Digital doesnt explain the aquisition format. If digital, say an ARRI Alexa, its still s35, so it'd be the same.
What about a full frame camera?
@@joeld3312 around 1 stop slower. T4 and T11. You could use a DoF calculator as well.
@@diatarussoulbane late to the chat, but what about aps-c? Even higher?
Awesome video as always! Of course in a low budget film project you don't have the ability to control light to such an extent. I personally like movies with different focal lenghts mixed. Shorter focal lengths are great for those emotional tracking, Steadicam and dolly shots and longer ones are great for shallower DoF. Of course the latter is harder to achieve with a Micro 4/3rds sensor or Super 16mm film. And yes: the most recent 4K scans of classic movies reveal focus problems. If the actor hold their head just a little closer of farther away from the camera, it will be out of focus. My utmost respect to focus pullers who did things like rack focus or following a dolly-in, during an era before video tap.
What an amazing video. Thanks!
Sorry but T2.8 is not equal f/2.8 . F-stop is a geometric ratio ( focal lenght / diameter of iris aperture = f/ ) . Whereas T stands for Transmittance , which is an "absolute " measurement for the real effective amount of light transmitted by the lense as a scientific (optical and physics ) ratio .
In other words ,it is the difference between intensity of light input and output. Aside the diaphragm aperture , absorbtions ,diffraction and reflexion of materials inside the lense( glass elements , diaphragm , black paint, inner atmosphere ..) will impact the transmission of light . For example , frequently f/1.2 lenses equal T1.3 . Also , f/2.8 lenses equal T 3.1 . But no all f/2.8 are strictly equal T 3.1 . That is why " cine lenses " with T index are used on cinema set . T index is reliable and allows to get homogeneous results wihtout having to adjust the lights setup when switching lenses on cameras . Also explains why cine lenses are so expensive .
“I learned a lens operated to its best advantage at an aperture of T4-5.6” - sir Roger Deakins
Fun fact: with a lens focal length of about 22mm, the human eye has a natural f-stop of around f/2.8 when the pupil is opened to around 8mm, which would be fairly typical for indoor light levels. Our retinas are also not far off the size of a super-35 frame, albeit a curved, hemispherical one. We literally see the world in something close to super-35 f/2.8 by default. Might be that's also a factor in why so many DP's and directors like shooting it?
interesting!
It makes sense because outdoors our pupils are “stopped down” and still need “ND” (sunglasses).
Interesting. On top of that it's said that the human field of view is similar to a normal lens (43mm).
love that hehe ND are literally sun glasses for our cameras. @@Cinnovations
Probably a stupid comment, but,
in still photography, I always went for f5.6.
Gotta say, you are very good at explaining cinema.
No it’s not stupid. Both are closely related.
Too many films nowadays use low apertures for the bokeh look. This is perfectly fine to give a certain effect, but I prefer when everything is in focus for most of the film. Great video! 👍
Nothing like seeing the actor’s eye in focus, and their mouth and nose blurry.
@@Chandler_Goodrich Sometimes it makes sense if they’re trying to capture a certain mood, but this technique really should be used sparingly, only in situations where it’s done with a purpose, not just to show off how nice the lenses that were used to film the movie are.
Euphoria is the highest viewed and most popular TV show rn and often times the actors ears are out of focus.
Looking back I always thought that the lower apertures were used to direct focus on a subject or object... Director indicating that background information in that particular scene is irrelevant to the story.
But besides Zack Snyder (army of the dead's 0.95 classic lens in almost every scene) and a few RUclips creators I don't see it being misused at all.
I get a headache from everything being in focus. And when it is like that it looks like cheap action cam footage.
I realize that sharpness isn't everything, but the discussion at 4:15 is enlightening and has me thinking (hypothetically). Suppose I want to shoot with a 2.8 aperture as much as possible. And suppose money is not an issue. Should I trade in my 2.8 lenses for (otherwise identical) 1.4 lenses, so that I can stop them down to 2.8? As things stand, to get 2.8 I have to shoot "wide open," thus sacrificing some sharpness. Just curious.
Yes, you should. If sharpness is important.
@@wolfcrow love your straight talk Sir
I know what you mean. For example, a Canon 24 mm f/2.8 mm lens is $150 MSRP, and a Canon 24mm f/1.4 lens is $1500. However, the f/1.4 lens is a much higher quality lens than the f/2.8 "pancake" lens; it's more than just "minimum f-stop." I bought a used f/1.4 lens for about $900 and I use it all the time; I mostly shoot actor's reels. The pancake lens stays at home.
T2.8-T5.6 depends on the camera system, lens, lighting and composition
Not to mention it depends on the frikkin shot. This video isn’t the dumbest I’ve ever seen, but it’s in the top 100.
For how little it's discussed, this is such an important factor in answering the question, "What helps footage appear 'cinematic?'"
Except so many idiot ppl think F1.4 or even faster is the “cinematic” look lol. And ppl wonder why so many don’t make it professionally
@@nicholasboule5134 I agree 1,000% So many Shallow DoF junkies out there churning out smeary pap with no story. There are some big time DoPs that aren't exactly helping. Certain ones addicted to Arri LF and wide open apertures. Not naming names, but they sure do set a crappy example. I hope the trend will pass soon. But alas, I fear so many upcoming wannabee DoPs grew up in a post 5dmk2 world that we're DOOMED. 😂FWIW, people who own a prosumer camera and call themselves DoP without an actual credit on something meaningful also make me laugh.
@@nicholasboule5134 Exactly.. You may also add the "sharpness" madness to this. People are going for the sharpest lenses where in reality sharpness is mostly important for photography but for video you need to look at the color rendition and saturation levels first. They buy the sharpest lens and than add a mist filter to make it cinematic. LOL.
Im new and confused, can someone tell me again the equivalence of T2.8 super 35 to modern full frame cameras like the Sony A7 series in F stop?
It's about x 1.5 for super35 to ff, so f3.5 to f4 on a ff lens. This also applies to focal length. So 50mm becomes 75mm on ff
f/2.8 on an Super 35mm crop body is equivalent to f/4.2 on full frame
I don't know whether there is an equivalent among English speaking cinematographers but there is a rhymed Russian proverb that appeared among Soviet era DoP's: "If there's sun or if there is no sun the f-stop is 5.6". This was said about S35 obviously and this wasn't a dogma, it was somewhat humor. I suppose that partly this concept appeared because of rather big difference in quality of copies i.e. sharpness of Russia produced lenses in 1960-80-s in general and partly as a matter of optics physics. Being a photojournalist myself I do use f5.6 (on FF) to obtain optimal resolution when shooting reportage and I usually try not to go further than 1/2 of f-stop of the lens, no matter which focal length, if I shoot portrait or something that I want to be more poetic.
lol photography nerds thinking their F stop is the same as a T stop.
😆
I have edited myself into movies and TV shows using some of your advice, tips and tricks so thanks!!!
Happy to help!
No way! I’ve been subbed to Wolfcrow for ever!!! Good to see no grammar errors today 😂
I think it depends on the lens and the camera too. Anamorphic lenses separate the subject more from the background than Non anamorphic lenses even when the T-stops are matched. Also the camera itself. High end cinema cameras have more clarity and better skin tones that give a feeling of separation compared to dslr/mirrorless style cameras
Nah sony venice and other sony cameras use almost same sensor. Sony venice is just extremely flexible compred to the 8-10 cheaper options
Sticking to one specific aperture (or t-stop) is just weird and I don't think it's good advice especially since almost no one here shoots on film. I mean a t2.8 on a 24mm looks vastly different than a t2.8 on a 100mm assuming the focus distance is the same. If I start filming everything at t2.8 I might risk creating footage that feels completely disconnected bc of the huge difference in depth of field. In my example it might be better to shoot the 24mm at t2.0 and the 100mm at t8.0. What I'm saying, know your focal lengths and apertures, know your scenes and focus distances and plan ahead. And don't stick to overly simple rules of thumb. Interesting video though, as always!
@@spanishprisoner I need to spend time on a film set? Hah, that's grand. That's literally my job, it's what pays my bills. I'm not sure whether you've heard of these magnificient inventions, maybe they weren't around when you worked on a film set but they're really great: These things called ND filters. They work like sunglasses for your lens and are just awesome! So if you plan ahead, you might know that if you're switching from one scene with a t2.0 to another scene with a t8.0, you simply remove your 4 stop ND filter et voila, no need to adjust your lighting. I would partially accept what you're saying if you specified that it might not be suitable in a broadcast environment or for live productions and so on but not in regards to a movie production.
@@spanishprisoner Thomas, do you understand the basics, how depth of field works? Or do you live in a world where t-stops and f-stops vary so differently, that my statement doesn't come true, like that an f2.8 lens has actually a t-stop of t8.1 or something? Do you have a problem with the fact that I wrote t-stops and not f-stops when this is about dof? I don't understand you. I also don't get why you feel the need to insult strangers on the internet. Feels like you got some personal issues that you might want to work out...
Read my initial statement again and maybe you'll understand that this is about depth of field and how it relates to lens choices and that sticking to one specific aperture doesn't make a lot of sense in this day and age. Especially since this video is about "...the Best Aperture for Filmmaking". Hence my counterargument: Can there even be just one best aperture for filmmaking or should the choice of aperture not be dependent on different factors (focal length and focus distance being some of them)?
That's why the Sigma Art zoom lenses are popular by budget filmmakers.
A T-stop is simply the amount of light that is allowed to hit the sensor after passing through the lens, and an F-stop is the amount of light that enters the lens to begin with. All lenses have an F-stop and a T-stop, but you have to realize that with an F-stop on a lens you’re not getting as much light on the sensor as it says on the lens, but with a T-stop you are.
T-Stops references the precise amount of light that is let through a lens, but F-Stop refers to the focal length to front element diameter distinct to specific lenses. f2.8 on non-cine lenses do not let the same amount of light in as another ens at f2.8
Thank you for answering a question no one asked :)
@@loro.h9612 and he answered it incorrectly. Is this the Dunning Kruger effect? The commenter doesn’t know much, but lectures us as if he does.
@@Hotshot2414 Thank you. I thought I had problems with the video and its historical inaccuracies, but the comments are even worse.
I love how you posted the same video twice with basically the same exact script just two years a part
I agree, with anamorphics I want to be closer to an T4 or T5.6 to get that same T2.8 look due to having 2x less DOF
Legends know it's a reupload
Am I Democratic?? I am a democrat who votes conservatively now. Why ask, why would it be easier to convince me? I hate to bring this up be please let me know the reason you ask, thank you.
A year late, but I think he simply mean the majority of film makers use 2.8 so it's a democracy kind of decision voted by using 2.8.
Got tired of these amateur filmmakers, who use shallowest DOF possible, flat and bland color grading, storytelling cliches
And they also combine shots of trees, branches and flowers and call it SHORT FILM!
Thank you, great video
Thanks for the great video!
My pleasure!
Thanks for the video. This got me thinking about the equivalence when using my Micro Four Thirds camera. I asked Chat GPT the following:
“What is the equivalent of f2.8 on 35mm super compact on a micro four thirds camera?”
ChatGPT response:
To determine the equivalent aperture on a Micro Four Thirds (MFT) camera for an f/2.8 aperture on a 35mm (full-frame) camera, you need to consider the crop factor of the MFT system. The crop factor for Micro Four Thirds is 2x, which affects both the focal length and the aperture in terms of depth of field and light gathering.
Calculation for Depth of Field Equivalence:
Crop Factor: 2x
Original Aperture: f/2.8
For depth of field equivalence, you multiply the aperture by the crop factor:
Equivalent Aperture: f/2.8 × 2 = f/5.6
Calculation for Light Gathering:
The light-gathering capability of the lens is not affected by the crop factor. This means that an f/2.8 lens on a Micro Four Thirds camera still lets in the same amount of light as an f/2.8 lens on a full-frame camera. However, for depth of field and bokeh, f/2.8 on MFT behaves like f/5.6 on full-frame.
Summary:
Depth of Field Equivalent: f/5.6 on a Micro Four Thirds camera is equivalent to f/2.8 on a 35mm full-frame camera.
Light Gathering: f/2.8 on a Micro Four Thirds camera gathers the same amount of light as f/2.8 on a full-frame camera.
So, f/2.8 on a 35mm super compact (full-frame) is equivalent to f/5.6 in terms of depth of field on a Micro Four Thirds camera.
Is this correct?
f2.8 is common because the majority of M42 prime lenses are f2.8 and most cinematographers shoot wide open for better depth-of-field. It is not "better" per se, just easier when you're working with proper lenses.
thanks for making this video! I've been wondering about this for awhile
Saying there's a best aperture is like claiming a 12" string is the best length of string. The best length is the length you need.
The closest to a generalization you could make is roughly 1.5 - 5.6 are the most often used apertures. A lot of DP's shoot nearly wide open all the time because they get the lenses that look amazing at their extremes, especially modern DP's. Roger Deakins had to change lens sets during No Country for Old Men because the Ultra Prime set he was using weren't fast enough at T1.9.
To those who are confused, the same way you multiply focal length, you do aperture as well.
Meaning, a 50mm f1.4 on aps-c will be equivalent to a 75mm f2.1 on full frame.
Unless cropped, aps-c cameras, like the a6500, shoot video on a sensor size equivalent to Super 35mm.
This is like te question "what is the best food temperatureto eat?"...
To eat what. To Film what.
Ice better be cold. Soup better be hot. Same for Film shooting
Wrong question to beginn with!
The best of ANYTHING does not make a film/movie better.
I disagree with your statements about focus pulling. Not many video is actually shot at 8K resolution, and those that are, are downsampled to 4K. To add to that, regular film stock would have a similar megapixel equivalent when projected on a proper projector, such as the ones used in movie theaters.
"unforgiving in 8K"
Who the hell shoots in 8K anyway?
I'm curious. In the past I tried to make sure that my skin tones were in the 65-75% ire, but now I'm about in the 50-60 % range because I think skin tones seem more natural and absence of a hotspot on the face.
Those percentages are for all skin tones?
@@angelmurphy6832 It seems to work for me. Every time I try to reach the 75% level the subject just look too bright to my eyes and specular highlights seems hot. And I use a big softbox, no hard light.
Is the this ideal aperture different when dealing with zooms vs primes? Also if a lens opens up only to 2.8 would it be better to shoot at f/4 ?
Bruh my camera can't even go under f 3.5. When I wanna get the shallow depth of field effect, I always have to film from afar and zoom
I generally dislike rules of thumb, as I think they often become straight jackets over time. What wasn't mentioned in this video is the relationship between focal length and f-stop. f/1.4 is fairly forgiving on a wide shot and gets you tonnes of light, but on a long shot the background will melt and the focal plane becomes razor thin, which you may or may not want. 2.8 all the time may just be creating problems for you in a wide shot, and solving them in a long shot, if you're setting it there all the time. It's important to understand how all this works, not just rely on an arbitrary rule. That said, most of us probably would benefit from stopping down a little more in an age where we're spoiled by the quality of fast optics and excellent sensors.
I still like to shoot with a 24mn f/1.4 lens, so I have an option of even shallower depth of field. However, keeping a subject in focus is increasingly difficult unless the subject is absolutely stable. On the other hand, I recently used a shallow depth of field on an interview shot outdoors, and the blurry background felt distracting to me. Is that just me?
It all depends how much you want to see in the background. For example Roger Deakins likes to see more in the background than have it all blurry and out of focus. This is all about story telling and not about make the background out of focus just to make it nicer.
@@edpr2244 - I just saw a film, "Happening," and I noticed that depth of field is so narrow throughout that it felt distracting to me. I think that depth of field should be used to advance the storytelling, and focus the viewer on the parts of the image that matter the most. Moreover, "racking focus" is o.k. if you deliberately want to suddenly reveal information to the viewer, but it doesn't substitute for presenting images that are easy to view and not distracting from the overall story. I guess I'm developing my directing style.
The best aperture is whatever works for the shot
Its always story based, to pick a “best shooting stop” for filmmaking in general is missing the point
If only Tony Northup learned about this...
anyone who does any sort of cinema work with manual focus lenses know that trying to focus wide open lenses continuously sucks
Well, I have a black magic pocket cinema camera. Does that apply to that?
So what's the equivalent of f2.8 full frame if you're using a micro four thirds camera and lens?
Around f1.8 or f2
@@malozfilms okay, thanks 👍
Damn… the background music is annoying.
Excellent channel!……..I’ve learned much from this channel!
what is the best aperture for using 4/3 camera
f/2.8 on a Super 35mm-sized frame is the full-frame equivalent of f/4.2. So, to get the same DoF on a 4/3 camera, you would need the lens to be at f/2.1
@@MWB_FoolsParadisePictures thank you so much ive been using the Panasonic BGH1 great camera, But i want to get even more technical to not have any limits or as little as possible
The opposite is true, deep focus is the best.
Main rule : choose any aperture as long it gives a nice picture.
1:28 anyone know what movie this is?
LA DOLCE VITA (1960) by Federico Fellini. Actress is Aninta Ekberg. The movie is considered one of the best films of all time. If this is true, you have to decide for your own. But the camera work, lighting, composition and visual storytelling is really great! Definitely recommend it!
@@ullrichkohler5520 Im so surprised I have't seen it... I admit I have not watched most of Fellini's work. But I have seen so many films so I know I must give this a try!
Sooooooo amazing. Love your teaching and knowledge.
The best aperture is the one that services the story, scene, and shot best. There is no one aperture that is objectively better than the others.
@@rc4648 that’s literally what I said
The fight scene XD 5:35 lmfao
EI and ISO are interchangeable equivalents according to Kodak. 1:45
Nice video!
But the explanation with the diffraction effect is mixed up: at "fullframe" you can go to like f11, but on "apsc/super35" only to like f8 before the effect of diffraction starts.
It depends of the density of the photosides/pixels on the sensor.
The higher your resolution the diffraction begins earlier.
On a high resolution super35 camera like the blackmagic ursa mini pro 12k theoretically diffraction starts at f1.8..
Generic question: what is the difference between t-stops and f-stops? Is a 2.8t the same as a 2.8f?
Are t-stops just what we say for film/video only and f-stops for photography only?
T-stops (transmission-stops) work with the amount of light that really reaches the sensor after passing through the lens. The lost of light is included in the calculation. T 2.8 (and also each other number like 4.0, 5.6 etc.) is always the same, indifferent of the focal length in use or indifferent if you use a cine lens from Zeiss, Rokinon, Meike, Walimex or whatever. You will always get an identical exposed picture. Therefore different lenses are interchangeable on set.
F-stops (fraction stops) are non-dimensional ratios. With some math, the f-number tells you the diameter of the aperture (iris diaphragm). F 1.0 on a 50mm-lens means, that the diameter of the aperture is 50 mm (equal to the focal length). The F-number does not tell you how much light really hits the sensor after passing the optical system. Therefore lenses with f-stop increments are not simply interchangeable. I examined all my lenses and noticed that exemply causa my sony 50mm and 35mm lens are less permeable to light than my sigma 16mm or Kamlan 28mm or Sony 18105G. For the test, the exposure was locked and the pictures of the Sony50mm and Sony 35mm were darker (light parameters like f-stop, time and iso(gain stayed the same). There are some charts of still lenses with their real transmission value.
Just to add, T-stops were essentially used because of the development of large zoom lenses in the early 70’s where there was significant loss of light through the many lens elements inside the complex cinema zoom lenses. This needed to account for this loss using T(transmission) stops rather than a theoretical F(fraction) stop. So it’s less of a film vs photography and more a lens phenomenon.
Actually if it's film it's f4 w/the commonly used big zoom lenses like Angénieux,
and then faster when using super speed primes.
I agree. F/2.8 on APS-C and F/4 on full-frame is what I always film in. More open is too much bokeh.
Some important videos have been removed from your channel....😢😢😢😢
What about with 16mm
I like this conversation and on the whole its a good generalisation. I think its more accurate to say there is a range. Most cine lenses past 135mm were not t2.1 back in the day. I have zeiss mk2 standards that are t2.1 and i have a 180mm that is t4. Most telephoto lenses back then were slower. I totally agree that stopping down is necessary on these old lenses, half a stop down and they are a lot sharper than wide open. Same with super speeds. Master primes and lenses made after that you could open them right up but certainly not the old gear. 2.8 - 5.6 has been the aperture range most films ive worked on, except in extreme circumstances. Wide lenses at 2.8 and longer lenses you can shoot 4, 5.6, just to control how much nd you use and so it doesnt go completely mushy.
That being said having a benchmark to start from, consider 2.8 and then break the rule deliberately is the best thing. Thats why i think this is a good video.
Does "most common" equal "best"?
It's the same for framerate for example. Everyone is doing 24 because that's what everyone uses and that's what viewers expect. Even though it's historically a compromise for audio. Where 18 could have been enough.
So why make that choice with aperture? Make a choice and then use it appropriately. Some people stop down when going with a longer lens for a close up, so the background doesn't changes apparent appearance... Which means you aren't chosing a T stop, but a entrance pupil to sensor size ratio ...
It seems like aspect ratio is still free to experiment with. Just because 2.39:1 is very common, doesn't mean everyone is using it. And no video out here is saying it's the best. Perhaps it isn't.
There is choice.
I dont know all the terms but f2.8 on a f2.8 lens renders nothing like a f2.8 on a f1.2 lens. The f1.2 lens will still have much shallower dof even at the same fstops. Thats also a reason why faster lenses are so much more expensive.
I always learn SO MUCH from your videos. I always wonder what is optimal for RUclips videos and play with it all the time.
One thing i notice in common, pro movies always have dim exposure and brightness. Which is 40% lower light than our mobile phone exposure.
T as in toneh
A wiseman on set once told me f/0.0 hides all mistakes. He's f-stopping in heaven now.
i remember the days when I used a canon 5D at 1080p at f2.8 with a semi wide angle lens, u couldnt even tell if there was any depth of field or not, the image was just overall blurry (not being able to tell which is in focus and not), i think thats the reason DSLR shooters had to compensate by opening the lens to like 1.4 to even get the sense there is seperation between background and forground
“Illuminating”
Great in-depth video bro ❤️❤️❤️
True master class! Thank you soooooo much!!!
What works for Tron and the Matrix doesn't work on Django and Romcoms
That explains why even my xf 27mm on Fujifilm when is at 2.8 has a particular look
Great video, but I find the background music very annoying with that repetitive ringing sound.
3:50 lack of contrast, main problem of German movies prior to 2010
So funny, when I finally had a lens that would go 2.5-2.8 I said wow 2.5 is my sweetspot
Best 10 seconds video I've spent 10 minutes watching.
Troll video
Why 35mm ? Everyone knows the more you get to eye vision the better more intimate scene will be .. 50mm
Not sure of most of what you are talking about but I do know that I can't see a damn thing in half of the content put out these days which I attribute to hdr implementation not well thought out. I don't know
Thank you
I think I remember on the BTS for the Refn movie "Drive" they said they used 2.8 for indoors and 5.6 for outdoors (day)
Didn't you post this video a few years ago?
Cool, way cool. I shoot stills only but this was very informative. Thanks.
LOL. I see many comments here still trying to defend their F1.4 lenses on a full frame. Because they have been mostly fooled by so called "RUclips influencers" that they need a lot of bokeh for "cinematic look". If you spend a lot of money on an actually useless item, you will surely try to defend that decision. :) That's human behaviour :)
Informative and illuminating up to t2.8.
Really appreciate just getting to the point and then offering to find out why. Which I did. Thank you.
can you explain why its important? asking as a new filmaker
The aperture of the diaphragm completely depends on other things in specific situations, (correct exposure, composition), there isn’t really a standard and 2.8 it’s not necessarily the best aperture for interiors.
Just bought T2.8 zoom cine lens
lol photography nerds thinking their F stop is the same as a T stop.
😆
What is that pie shot in the intro with the whipped cream from? I can’t place it
why do u fake your accent . cant u speak with an indian accent?
Well I didn’t know this guy on a film shoot right now going to apply this moving forward
There is no best aperture except what is required to tell the story.
Assuming that you're shooting an exterior scene :
ISO NATIVE (800)
Shutter Speed 1/50
F 2.8
Isn't that overexposed ?
They're using filters to bring down the exposure ?
That’s exactly what ND filters are for
thanks for including it in the thumbnail
what is the sweet spot for Red Komodo in your opinion?
Fascinating! Didn't realise this.
This is one of your most useful videos. This topic can be very confusing for beginners, and it's easy to lose sight of the pros & cons for any preferred aperture. It's always a balancing act between different wants, needs, and limitations (needing tons of light for deep focus look; the troubles with leaving lens wide open; sharpness; focus pulling; etc).
Glad it was helpful!