The effect of focal length on emotion and atmosphere in film

September 4, 2019 4:24 AM

Accomplished Cinematographer Tom Sigel eloquently demonstrates how focal length influences mood in cinema (SLYT).

A concise video using examples from films like Drive, Bohemian Rhapsody, and Three Kings (which he all shot). Even if you think you understand this stuff, it's rare to see it so well illustrated.

posted by smoke (14 comments total)

Not to pick nits, but focal length is but one aspect of what describes a lens, as Tom makes clear, and lenses with identical focal lengths can have vastly different looks, and thus effects. I don't have 40 years in film like Tom, nor do I get off on making things appear more complex than they have to be. But I am indeed irritated when things are made to appear simpler than they actually are, particularly for the sake of a headline or fun fact.

It's possible I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I'll come back to see if I was unnecessarily crabby.

I don't think so.
posted by Empty Planet at 4:34 AM on September 4, 2019

Was just watching Time Bandits at the gym this morning and was was marveling at how ugly Gilliam makes people look with his use of very wide-angle lenses.
posted by octothorpe at 4:49 AM on September 4, 2019 [1 favorite]

How fascinating, just the other day I chanced on this Tumblr post talking about focal lengths regarding the apparently outdated maxim about the camera adding ten pounds on you. People look thinner in their pix now because they tend to be taken with phones, which have short focal lengths.
posted by cendawanita at 5:07 AM on September 4, 2019 [4 favorites]

That ~28mm equivalent focal length of smart phones is really the defining look of the 2010s.
posted by octothorpe at 5:33 AM on September 4, 2019 [3 favorites]

I struggled for a long time to understand how film shots are selected and composed, and then I started doing a lot of still photography. When you start looking at each shot in a film as a still, and consider the lens and perspective used, it all starts to make sense.
posted by selfnoise at 6:01 AM on September 4, 2019 [1 favorite]

The Camera Versus the Human Eye, PetaPixel:

Superficially, its pretty logical to compare the eye to a camera. We can measure the front-to-back length of the eye (about 25mm from the cornea to the retina), and the diameter of the pupil (2mm contracted, 7 to 8 mm dilated) and calculate lens-like numbers from those measurements.

You’ll find some different numbers quoted for the focal length of the eye, though. Some are from physical measurements of the anatomic structures of the eye, others from optometric calculations, some take into account that the lens of the eye and eye size itself change with the contractions of various muscles.

To summarize, though, one commonly quoted focal length of the eye is 17mm (this is calculated from the Optometric diopter value [dead link]). The more commonly accepted value, however, is 22mm to 24mm (calculated from physical refraction in the eye). In certain situations, the focal length may actually be longer.

However, as the article explains further, The Eye is Not a Camera System. What you see is not necessarily what you get.
posted by cenoxo at 6:20 AM on September 4, 2019 [1 favorite]

I watched this during a break from loading the car for a dump run. I love learning little things like this. Thanks!
posted by KleenexMakesaVeryGoodHat at 7:18 AM on September 4, 2019

I'll come back to see if I was unnecessarily crabby.

Honestly? Yes, it was unnecessarily crabby. If you're going to drop in a big first comment complaint about the subject of a post over-simplifying, it'd be helpful if you actually state what is being elided. As someone with decades of experience with film photography and an interest in cinematography, I honestly cannot even guess what specific problem you're getting at, because your comment is just "ugh this is oversimplified" (with no detail about how).
posted by tocts at 8:08 AM on September 4, 2019 [11 favorites]

This was great! I know the physics of photography, but I'm still learning about the artistry, and I found this to be a very potent demonstration of how the choice of focal length can affect the intimacy of a scene. Thanks!
posted by Westringia F. at 8:09 AM on September 4, 2019 [1 favorite]

That ~28mm equivalent focal length of smart phones is really the defining look of the 2010s.

I haven't watched the piece yet, (so this might be repetitious) but this episode of Every Frame A Painting talks about the Coen Brothers use of 28mm lens and the emotions it draws from the viewer.
posted by devious truculent and unreliable at 10:41 AM on September 4, 2019 [1 favorite]

Not to pick nits, but focal length is but one aspect of what describes a lens

I must have missed the part where either sigel or myself said that focal length is the only thing that characterises lenses? You seem to be having an argument in your own head about this, kinda wish you'd kept it there to be honest.
posted by smoke at 1:43 PM on September 4, 2019 [2 favorites]

This was great, thanks!
posted by snsranch at 2:11 PM on September 4, 2019

That ~28mm equivalent focal length of smart phones is really the defining look of the 2010s.

Phone cameras have been creeping wider over the years. The original iPhone was quite natural at 37mm equiv, the iPhone 4 went to 30mm equiv, and these days things are wider still, as described.
I welcome the trend of phone with multiple lenses like my 7 plus, which lets me choose a longer lens when I want.

I hadn't heard of Frazier lenses before. Apparently they are ultra high depth of field wide angle lenses with a right angled bend, invented by an Aussie cameraman. Panavision appears to be the sole licensee of the tech.
posted by w0mbat at 5:29 PM on September 4, 2019 [1 favorite]

In my long-ago life as a dp and shooter, lenses gave me the most nerd pleasure . . . like math made out of solid light . . .
posted by pt68 at 7:32 PM on September 4, 2019 [4 favorites]