Shoot Like a Cinematographer, Not a Videographer

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.

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.

“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!

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.

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 YouTube video. Give your subjects the respect they deserve. This is a vital factor if you want your work to "look" cinematic.

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".

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.

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.

Mindset, hustle and cinematic are my favourite words who give me goosebumps. I feel like they’re often overseen.

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.

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 !

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.

What you have hit on here is essentially the difference between cinematography and videography. Yes, I agree with your assessment 100%. You always seem to have a lot of very useful information in your posts. Thanks, Luc.

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.

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

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.

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

Thanks for the advice. Really appreciate these videos. Best channel for filmmakers by far.

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.

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.