Alan Kovarik

This is also interesting. Maybe Hitchcock was thinking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance#Visual_angle The ideal optimum viewing distance is affected by the horizontal angle of the camera capturing the image. One concept of an ideal optimal viewing distance places the viewer where the horizontal angle subtended by the screen is the same as the horizontal angle captured by the camera. If this is the case, the angular relationships perceived by the viewer would be identical to those recorded by the camera. A mismatch in this regard is traditionally disregarded, but some rotating motions can make these distortions very noticeable as a pincushion effect. This is likely in 3d video games, so gamers are likely to adopt close viewing positions matched to a game's fixed field of view. If the camera's angle were always the same, an optimal viewing distance could be easily calculated. However the camera's horizontal angle varies as the focal length of its lens changes. If the camera's sensor has fixed dimensions, a shorter focal length (wide angle) lens captures a wider angle of view, requiring the viewer to sit closer to the screen. Conversely, a longer focal length (telephoto) lens captures a narrower angle of view, demanding a more distant viewer position. Such opposing viewing distances would not only be impractical, but would negate the very purposes of telephoto shots (for example, to see a distant object in more detail, or minimize distortion in facial images) and wide-angle shots (causing the viewer to sit too close to the screen, where undesirable image artifacts would be visible). One compromise assumes the lens is "standard" (a 50mm focal length, for a standard 35mm format). A "standard" lens preserves the same spatial relationships perceived by a spectator at the camera location. For a "standard" lens image, viewing distance should be equal to the diagonal length of the screen. It has been demonstrated that viewing a display that occupies a greater visual angle (also referred to as field-of-view) increases the feeling of presence.[8] More importantly, the wider the visual angle (to approximately a plateau point of 80 degrees), the greater the feeling of presence. Horizontal, vertical and diagonal field of view.

According to this the standard lens for 35mm is 50mm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens#Cinema http://neiloseman.com/the-normal-lens/ SMPTE (the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers), or indeed SMPE as it was back then, decided almost a century ago that a normal lens for motion pictures should be one with a focal length equal to twice the image diagonal. They reasoned that this would give a natural field of view to a cinema-goer sitting in the middle of the auditorium, halfway between screen and projector (the latter conventionally fitted with a lens twice the length of the camera’s normal lens). A Super-35 digital cinema sensor – in common with 35mm motion picture film – has a diagonal of about 28mm. According to SMPE, this gives us a normal focal length of 56mm. Acclaimed twentieth century directors like Hitchcock, Robert Bresson and Yasujiro Ozu were proponents of roughly this focal length, 50mm to be more precise, believing it to have the most natural field of view.

BTW, what is the standard (non-wide, non-telephoto) lens for 35mm movie camera? For a full frame still camera it is 50mm, but I suppose for 35mm movie camera it would be something like 30mm?

So that would be something like 40mm on Canon 5D?

I found this commentary on another forum: Did Hitchcock really shot the whole Psycho with 50mm?

I dont have any experience with 35mm film cameras. I own Canon 5D MII full frame camera. I wonder what full frame camera lens would be equivalent to Hitchcock's favorite 50mm movie camera lens. If I am right, it would be something around 70-80mm on full frame sensor. I am a bit confused, because Hitchcock used the 50mm lens because it mimicks normal human vision. But if its equavalent on a full frame camera is around 70-80mm, it doesnt mimick human vision at all. Its more like a portrait lens. Spielberg's favorite lens is 21mm. Lets say I want to mimick this focal length on my full frame Canon 5D camera. What lens should i use?

This artile says that all of the Imax release prints were made from the orignal negative? https://theasc.com/articles/dunkirk-wrangling-two-large-formats I dont get it. How they edited the movie? They cut the original negative?

So the sensor has the same size, resolution and aspect ratio? Why use IMAX lenses?

New Avengers movies are shot with this camera. I wonder what is the sensor size. Does anybody know how is it different from the Arri 65mm camera? Maybe the aspect ratio is different?

Thare's a lot of grain too in few scenes, but i think it was good for the movie.

I just saw Dunkirk in IMAX (great experience) and I noticed how many shots where sometimes slightly out of focus when the actors was moving too quickly. Was this intentional or is it too hard to keep quickly moving subjects in focus with IMAX cameras? I think it actually helped the movie to look less staged.

I just saw the movie. The image was very blurry. Did they use some softening filters? It was very distracting.

These kind of lamps are most common... http://markkoh.me/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/vlcsnap-2015-03-08-15h34m24s174.png

Another thing I see in todays movies are "thousands" of table lamps (usually witch lampshades) in interiors which are all switched on (even when the main light is on and sometimes even in full daylight). Their purpose is only decorative and it looks really weird. Have you noticed it? :) Nobody in real life has six table lamps switched on in every room. :)

If you compare older movies and new movies, you notice that the cinematography these days is increasingly more flawless. Perfect lighting, perfect camera movement, perfect focus, perfect color grading, movies are relying too much on CGI... I watched some cinematographers at work and they fine-tune every detail (even though ordinary viewer cant notice these details, even unconsciously). It seems there is no excuse for faults these days. Everything has to be too perfect and computerized, the environments become too sterile and clean... On the other hand when you watch older movies you notice the lighting is not overly perfect, you notice clumsy camera movements, sometimes actors go out of focus, there was no color grading, no digital polishing... There was something more life-like about it. What do you think?