Roger Deakins is wrong.

[John F Hebert]

 DP's can you answer me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h4MQ8zA_Vg starting at 2:08 Roger Deakins says and I quote "if your film is from one characters perspective you wanna shoot that main character on a wider lens and the person they're talking to "whos not the main character" on a longer lens. To me the opposite would make sense?? The whole scene would have the main character far away and the supporting character filling the frame of every shot!? Makes no sense??

[M Joel W]

There's no right and no wrong. 

But I think he's talking about focal length, not shot scale.

The way I see things, the audience feels closer to and empathizes more with a character that is physically closer to the camera (and therefor the audience).

Spielberg and Deakins tend to shoot dialogue (shot/reverse) on relatively wide lenses around 28mm to 40mm I think (correct me if I'm wrong) for the protagonist and maybe the secondary character on a longer lens. So with the wider lens at the same approximate shot scale, the camera must be physically closer to and more intimate with the protagonist. If the distance between both characters and the camera were the same and just the focal length varied, it might feel strange, I agree; the framing would simply be wider with the main character and the physical distance between the camera and characters about the same.

Most people I think would tend to match focal lengths and distance from camera. There's no right and wrong.

But in this case I agree with his point.

And I think he's talking about using the same shot scale for both characters in shot/reverse but varying the focal length to create familiarity and empathy with the protagonist by shooting them a bit wider.

Edited August 14, 2024 by M Joel W

[John F Hebert]

Okay, so then I can see what you're saying. As long as the main character and the supporting character fill the screen in the same way the audience will feel more for the main guy as long as he's on a wide lens and less for the supporting on a long lens. 

[M Joel W]

I think that's the idea behind it! At least it's my interpretation of it. And it probably varies depending on the scene.

[Sebastian Bock]

Interesting topic. Have you considered asking him that question directly in his own forum on his personal website? 

[Uli Meyer]

15 hours ago, John F Hebert said:

Okay, so then I can see what you're saying. As long as the main character and the supporting character fill the screen in the same way the audience will feel more for the main guy as long as he's on a wide lens and less for the supporting on a long lens. 

A human's field of view is wide that's why a wider lens feels more intimate, like you were standing right next to the character. A longer lens creates distance to the character, as if seen from further apart.

[David Mullen ASC]

He's not talking about shot size, but focal length -- shooting the main character up close with a wider-angle lens makes it feel like the camera is "with" the actor, space-wise. Shooting what they see from a farther position with a longer lens makes you feel some distance even if the shot size is the same.

Maybe you should edit the original title of the post or at least add a question mark...

[silvan schnelli]

I think it’s also important to mention that boiled down in essence, I believe it’s perhaps even more so about the distance of the camera to the individual and hence the perspective.

To me at least thinking this way also makes it more intuitive when it comes to choosing the focal length of a lens. Personally its usually a question of how close do you want to be to the subject and how much do you want to see around the subject.

- The distance to the subject is what ultimately dictates the perspective and how physically close the audience will usually feel to the said subject .

- The focal length, size of sensor and cropping then dictates the Angle of view, or in other words how much we can see.

I feel like that if we are exactly at the same distance to the subject, no matter if it’s a 25mm or 50mm, the audience will feel the same closeness to the character, because the camera is quite literally at the same distance. However, the amount of the frame that you can see (the AOV) of course also influences this.

It’s also good that a similar depth of field can often be achieved even on different focal lengths and/or distances, if the exposure allows for it.

This is just my take on the question though, and I think is also what Roger Deakins is talking about, when he talks about focal lengths and intimacy. 

 

Edited August 15, 2024 by silvan schnelli

[Diego Obledo]

The original title of this post should definitely be edited to reflect "Is" at the beginning and add a question mark at the end.The title comes across as accusatory and not from a professional curious perspective. 

[Albion Hockney]

Na, I agree.  Pshhh Roger deakins —what does that guy know.

 

[Samuel Berger]

On 8/14/2024 at 12:03 PM, John F Hebert said:

Makes no sense??

If you watch the video you linked, at 6:23 this rule is inverted. The truck stop hookers are framed wider than the officer.

[Robert Hart]

In shooting the close-ups with a wide lens with the camera closer to the actor, the sound guy has at least some chance of grabbing some decent intelligible dialogue. Too much dialogue these days sounds like it was delivered with the actor's face buried in his or her armpit. 

[David Mullen ASC]

The shot size determines how close the mic can get, not the camera distance / focal length. If anything, in the days of film, sound people complained about shooting close-ups with a wide-angle lens because the camera noise was too loud. Spielberg nixed shooting "Empire of the Sun" in 65mm when he felt that available cameras were too loud to record sound when close to an actor's face on a wide-angle lens.