what is best Lens to be used in naturalistic approach on screen?

[pradeepkumar]

Hi my beloved art friends.

I have a doubt on wat are all the good lenses to be used to perform on very naturalistic conditions?

:)

• To depict the mood of pleasent
  
• to emphasise the viewers to grab them into a lonely venue>
  
• the sun shadows play on our world surface!!!!!!!!
  
• how that shadows imply the audience perceptions
  

:) :) :)

[Brian Dzyak]

Hi my beloved art friends.

I have a doubt on wat are all the good lenses to be used to perform on very naturalistic conditions?

:)

• To depict the mood of pleasent
  
• to emphasise the viewers to grab them into a lonely venue>
  
• the sun shadows play on our world surface!!!!!!!!
  
• how that shadows imply the audience perceptions
  

:) :) :)

 

 

Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm not grasping the intent of your questions on Cinematography.com. :huh:

 

What precisely IS a "naturalistic condition"? Arguably, NO lens will ever capture something in a "pure" way. By virtue of the focal length, exposure chosen, shutter speed, frame rate, film stock/digital format, height of camera, quality of camera, and when the Operator chooses to hit the "On" and "Off" buttons, there is absolutely NO way that "reality" can ever be captured in any type of "pure" form.

 

Say, in reality, we have a fairly serene setting of a bunny rabbit eating something in a pristine white snowy setting. Now, one could easily shoot that with a long lens (so as not to frighten the bunny) and lock it off or do some very graceful moves to and from the bunny with a crane or jib or with a geared head.

 

OR, the exact same setting could be shot with a VERY long lens, handheld, with a tight shutter at high grain/gain and create tension where there "really" is none.

 

The POINT of Cinematography, as I see it, is to control what the audience will eventually see. That could be purely informational or for entertainment. Regardless, the camera/lens/medium is NOT an impassive observer. The choices we make in all the elements involved in "photographer/cinematography" shape what is real into something else no matter how "pure" we intend to preserve a moment, like a bunny eating on a serene snowbank.

 

So, you're asking which lens can best capture reality? In my opinion, none of them do, because there are too many other variables involved in image acquisition to make one singular element prominent enough to "capture reality."

[pradeepkumar]

First of all thank you for your post.

Ofcourse there must be not a substitute for our own vision of viewing.

But we always cant agree on technology because even high frame rate cameras helping us to discover some naturalistic speed into our own perception speed!!!!!!!!

Like that we would create some good naturalistic lighting and using some correct lenses. (i am not sure how far i am correct is)

[Brian Dzyak]

First of all thank you for your post.

Ofcourse there must be not a substitute for our own vision of viewing.

But we always cant agree on technology because even high frame rate cameras helping us to discover some naturalistic speed into our own perception speed!!!!!!!!

Like that we would create some good naturalistic lighting and using some correct lenses. (i am not sure how far i am correct is)

 

 

The crux of your question revolves around very subjective phrases like "naturalistic lighting" and "correct lenses." There is no such thing. Unless you find a way to record an event with your eyes and brain and exhibit that exact image in some way so that others have perceived it just like you did, then there is no "naturalistic" or "correct." Even your own choices of when to look at something and when to look away color the event in a way that others might not agree with.

 

Photography and Cinematography are about CREATING a new reality apart from one that we perceive and judge with our own eyes, brains, and experience. There is absolutely NO WAY to capture "reality" with a camera. A Cameraman (still or motion-picture) is ALWAYS making choices that remove what is "real" from the experience that an audience will see later on.

 

So again, I'm not precisely certain what your questions are aiming to achieve. :huh: :(

[Paul Bruening]

First of all thank you for your post.

Ofcourse there must be not a substitute for our own vision of viewing.

But we always cant agree on technology because even high frame rate cameras helping us to discover some naturalistic speed into our own perception speed!!!!!!!!

Like that we would create some good naturalistic lighting and using some correct lenses. (i am not sure how far i am correct is)

 

I think I may see what you're asking about. I'll try an answer and you can tell me if it is what you were looking for:

 

Each format has a lens range that is commonly called "normal." A normal lens is one that makes a picture look closer to how the human eye sees things. In the 35mm cine format (not anamorphic) a lens in the range of 32mm to 50mm in length is considered normal (most natural). In 35mm still camera format a 50mm lens is considered normal. In 16mm cine format, a 1 inch or something around a 24mm lens is considered normal.

 

Is that useful? If so, we can explain why "normal" lens lengths are considered normal.

 

Also, we understand that you come from a country with different naming systems from ours. But, can you change your name listing to something with a separate first and last name?

[pradeepkumar]

Thank you brian:):)

I accepting that word "realistic" differs person to person. Each of them looking some thing most interest according to their perception of interest.

I bit confused. But the way you guided me helped lot thank you brian.

How is your cinema industry covering social Problems? Think your problems totally different from us. How they depicted it on screen? Is their any impact on that?

Thank You

[pradeepkumar]

Thank you paul :) :)

I am not technically strong. But these things were i already know. The standard range should be the length of that lens.

My intension to put this topic is to gain some friends like you to share our social problems. You can ask why i should know some unknown person's problems. But this is not like that. We are all awesome human beings.

So we should share our knowledges and bring changes to civilized society. Even your community have some problems. When i thought of this. What should be the tool to make it. And i chose CINEMATOGRAPHY art. This could be help us to share our informations to our peoples through this powerful medium. Ofcourse we must entertain them all. But our main focus should make them feel shame on their stupid idelogies in their societies.

Hope you should understand what i am trying to convey

 

Thank you Paul. (Name is just an identification for us, last name and first name just modernized.)

 

Thank YOu :) :)

[Brian Dzyak]

Thank you brian:):)

I accepting that word "realistic" differs person to person. Each of them looking some thing most interest according to their perception of interest.

I bit confused. But the way you guided me helped lot thank you brian.

How is your cinema industry covering social Problems? Think your problems totally different from us. How they depicted it on screen? Is their any impact on that?

Thank You

 

 

Our problem in "the West" is the constant battle with selfish greedy "Capitalists" who think nothing of raping and pillaging the world for their own profits no matter who suffers and dies. Not that there is anything wrong with Capitalism per se, it's just the attitudes of those who think nothing of what their relentless pursuit of profit at any cost has an impact on people and the planet and they don't tend to care at all. It's all about making money.

 

So, with that in mind, "Hollywood" DOES frequently address this issue which is perhaps why Conservatives here like to label "Hollywood" as being "Liberal." Movies like AVATAR and ALIENS (both just happen to be James Cameron projects) clearly show that those in charge (Corporations) really do not care if people die or the environment is damaged so long as there is profit to be made. Other movies show the "hero" tossing away his business interests in favor of love. Star Wars was ABOUT a small group of Liberals tossing off the oppression of an evil Empire that promotes Fascism and Totalitarianism... definitely a lesson for today as our Republican Party in the US has a Fascist Agenda that's been brewing for more than thirty years.

 

Those are all fiction so the "message" may not get through clearly, but with any luck, younger generations will "absorb" the greater lessons to be learned. There is also some non-fiction work that goes directly to the point. Great factual movies like those by filmmaker Michael Moore, Errol Morris, and the movies about our food supply, like FOOD INC., clearly show the insidious forces that conspire to make a profit no matter who suffers, lives, or dies.

 

Is any of it making an impact? Maybe. We can hope so before it's too late. The problem is when a political party has it's own propaganda arm that is in the living rooms and truck stops of impressionable people every day. The movies mentioned above require voluntary effort for an audience to see them. But our Corporate owned Conservative Corporate controlled News is just a click away on TV. While FOX "News" is the most egregious example of "government" propaganda that consistently and unabashedly delivers lies and misinformation to support the Conservative Agenda at any cost, our other major networks certainly don't give Americans the entire truth either. For example, our NBC network is owned by General Electric which is a Corporation that is involved in the Defense Industry. We are not likely to ever see any negative reporting of GE's activities on NBC.

 

So, while Fascism is taking hold in the USA, there are efforts by non-fiction and fiction filmmakers to educate the public as to the Truths about the world they live in. Whether any of it can overcome the propaganda efforts of Corporate controlled media will take years to determine. And, it has far less to do with the lens that's on the camera and much more to do with the words and pictures being shown... or NOT being shown. Media (Film and TV and Radio and Internet) CAN be used to affect social change for the better of all, but it takes a lot of money and influence to get the projects in front of eyeballs. And for the moment, Corporations have more money than "We the People" so they have more power to force feed the public THEIR agenda than "We the People" have.

[pradeepkumar]

I am not much aware of your internal politics. but i can understand that there is a capital thinking persons are surviving. The main reason is not they are all selfish, ofcourse they wont accept it. But If those corporate companies and government looking for that in democratic country, that might be huge defeat to them.

I saw that you are the second assistant cameraman in Titanic. James camerons TITANIC is far better than AVATAR (to my knowledge) in avatar movie the persons all came in screen were not close to us. I am not saying that movie is 'not good'. What i mean is movies should deal with some our own problems to fight against the life. Like i admired Beautiful mind, American Beauty, Pursuit of Happiness, Milk.

You can note that these movies could lead most powerful impact on social consious. Even this kind of movies make us feel into positive temper and make us to think in our own survilence. i cant express what these movies did to me. But it makes me to think and drive my thoughts into social causes.

So, the movies can be a big tool to make the audience to think on their own community, society. So that they all gradually getting developed, this kind of development is only the actual development. This is what the actual civilisation. So we working on the social impact. We are all have most important roles in the society to share the knowledge, share the informations which should lead our community towards positive goal