Shoot Like a Cinematographer, Not a Videographer

in Europe, we're at 25fps. Then it's not a deal breaker with 24p.
But I've found a thing for B-roll to get dreamy style is shooting 30p at 1/50 or 1/48 shutter, change the clip to 24fps, and you get a tiny bit of slowmotion, doing a dreamy style. But it really need to be writing first, to not get stupid stuff ^^'

Sorry if I'm behind the curve a bit here.. but what's the Jimmy Saville frame about at the beginning 🤔

Life can be extremely dark, but walking with Jesus along the way is so much better than walking alone. There's no need to try to control everything in you life. The One that created you knows how many hairs are on your head. His plan for you is waaay better than the one you could ever come up with in your mind. He loves you so much that He wants to have a relationship with Him. He doesn't want you to fall into the trap of religion or "spirituality" that is not from Him.

Put your faith in His Son Jesus today and be saved from the wrath we all deserve. Jesus is the One that provides us with true peace, love, and guidance in life. He changed my life forever and I'm so grateful for His abundant grace, because I definitely don't deserve His mercy.

If you've read it this far, I know that God is calling you. Please put your faith in Christ today. Turn away from the lies of the devil. God bless you!

Good information, thanks for sharing. You've got a few terms backwards though. 2.8 on a typical zoom lens is the maximum aperture, not minimum. Less depth of field means less things in focus, more depth of field is the opposite, more things in focus. Shooting at a tighter aperture (or wider lens) means you are getting more DOF, depth of field.

Take a drink everytime you say cinematic

It’s fascinating to me that you’ve come from a DP background and find the videographer look unrealistic. No judgement — it’s been 20 or 30 years since I was first surprised this was the complete opposite of how I was brought up, on broadcast tech. What used to be the only “TV look” is now known as the sports mode, but just know that there’s logical sensible reasons why both of us think that “reality recreation” is two polar opposite things.

After which I’ll just pick up a couple of minor points: Even on sports 60fps, there are a ton of examples of blurry images. Shutter speed is still a thing. This is why one of the most amazing demonstrations has been that 300fps gets more true visibility than going from 1080p to 4K and so on.

The other thing is “30fps” for USA and “25fps” for Europe. That’s not it: It wan always 60 and 50, and there’s a whole ton of broadcast engineering knowledge slowly draining away that used to know the difference between a field and a frame. Bottom line is still that everyone hates interlacing but the images were and always will be 50 or 60 distinct images per second.

Decades of internet video have obliterated the original motion detail of almost a century of television — the whole corpus of online video was created by dropped every second field (or even frame). It’s sad. I’m fighting a rearguard defense to preserve some of this, but that’s my war.

I’m still awed by how old TV look amazing if they were shot on film — they look EXCELLENT when rescanned into HD or 4K. I feel that movies after 2000-2010 still looked better when shot on film not digital, even though they were edited on a DI.

Finally ask me about how pre-1990 video wasn’t really SDR or 100 nits, but needs HDR to let us see how god intended it — like a CRT — but this is really my niche.

i dont know but . i watch this video again and again. something i learnd again & again.. as a beginner

Thank you .. 😊

Amazing video man!

yada yada yada, all this cinematic stuff is only being noticed by the people who care about cinematics.. Film is made for an audience, the same audience who has absolutely no clue about frame rates, light settings, shadowing or whatever.. The only thing 99% of people care about is the story. If the story is good, nobody gonna notice the technical aspect of a piece...but if your story sucks, they gonna notice everything else and trash you no matter what. My tip for filmmakers is - get your story straight.

That was a great video. Thank you so much

Overall good video, but your use of the term “depth of field” could be confusing to some. To have “more depth of field” it to have less bokeh. To have more depth of field literally means the field of view that is in focus is deeper. To achieve the bokeh effect you need less dof or a “shallow depth of field.” Anyway, thanks for the video!

Awesome tips, Luc. Thanks!

I'm guessing audiences who are used to video games running at 60-120 fps are not as attached to 24 fps for film. Even for me, 24 fps feels pretty bad for panning shots

Dp mean?

Uk shoots at 25fps because TV system there is PAL, not for any aesthetic reason. When shooting for movie distribution they still shoot at 24. 25 is for TV in the UK just like we shoot 30 for TV distribution in US.

I'm probably late to the party, but I encountered this video today and the misuse of terminology is driving me nuts. You don't get more depth of field with a wider aperture. You get less. The term "depth" still means depth even when combined with "of field".

Then, what you keep describing as "minimum aperture" is actually maximum aperture. The word "aperture" means opening, and the number the lens marketers use is the maximum aperture size described by the smallest number on the dial.

Finally, the word "bokeh" does not mean the blurry places. It refers to the quality of the blurry places, which is better with higher-quality lenses.

You may think I'm being pedantic, but these words have real meaning that is not changed just because a concept is unintuitive.

i fucking love this video i love you im you biggest fan PLEASE GIVE ME A CHANCE PLAESE PLAESE PLEASE I JUST WANT YOU

what baseball cap do you wear? its super cool :)

just putting a lut called cinema, don’t ever frame subject in the center use a lot of slo-mo, then I should be able to film a 10 minute take without cuts being interesting at least as Innarritu does.

Aperture conversation is backwards - should be maximum not minimum aperture. Your language is backwards and confusing.

Thanks for the vid. This is a lot of help. Especially the crash zoom I often did that. The light also a lit tip. 👍

What did you mean by shooting on f11 with a wide lens that makes it more cinematic? I didnt get it

This guy doesn’t know what “back lighting” is. And then he shows examples of scenes where one scene features back lighting and then 3 others that show none, lol. “Back lighting” is not just a light in the background. And someone thinks the lighting in Shawshank Redemption looks natural? lol. I think what he’s trying to say is Roger Deakins works with the production designers to incorporate a lot of practical lighting into the shots. This is not the same as natural light, and in a sense it’s the opposite of natural light. It’s light that’s purposefully placed for dramatic effect, but with a plausible reason for being there.

Great job

Subbed! Your channel is super helpful! Keep making great stuff!

I mostly shoot 24fps, but was impressed with some of Griffin Hammond's mini docs, and he does a really good job with 4K 60fps. So it's sometimes good to mess about with different frame rates, without them being too sharp.

Thanks man I watched this a few months ago and got a few prime lenses and took these tips into consideration and my latest music video came out even better than the one I paid for previously. I also have shot over 10 music videos for other artists and created another stream of income appreciate it!!!

I would have loved some examples which focal lengths are used for specific scenarios and why.

The UK uses 25fps for TV not for film... 24 is standard for film.

Nice video

Most news broadcasts/cable tv are interlaced 60fps drop frame. Technically that can break down to 30fps but that just isn’t the whole story.

Have you actually blind tested your 24fps theory? And with a big sample size? I still think this is made up

Lol gimme a break! No one fixated on terms videographer vs cinematographer

A veteran cinematographer doesn't even need to touch a camera tho lol. He/she would just direct a cam op, a gaffer and a key grip to achieve the look.

cinematic is so overused.. the word.. but it is still not overused as storytelling :))

Colour grading and depth of field make the biggest difference.

24fps is completely unnecessary and actually creates uneven frame times on today’s common 60Hz displays which creates a stutter in horizontal pans. Weird advice tbh.

Great great tips... Thanks!!!

Darun….Carry On 👍🏻

Hobbyists have no idea what a DP is. I had to look it up.

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.

Quick hit of wisdom. Appreciate!

Dude your eyelashes are so pretty!

Good tips.

One things I'd definitely add to these (good and well made) points, is to not blow your highlights - especially with regards to the subject. You just don't see big blown highlights in big budget films (except for around a strong light source etc).

Thank you!!

What do you think about shooting at a higher frame rate, like 60fps, but render the video at 30fps? (especially when you want some slo-mo)

Backlight is great but that is an oversimplifIcation. Sometimes backlight is cliche and makes things look like wannabe Dallas episodes. every situation is unique and if there is separation backlights can worsen a look. I love backlight and use it 75% of the time but formula is the death of cinematography.

Not sure about your vision but reality is sharp and vivid... and smooth. Also, we do NOT view life @24fps . This is a legacy of the economy and compromises of the beginning of cinema. So much great art was created that we have been trained to consider that to be the standard. No one argues that one artist's canvas interpretation is "not artistic " over others. The over used "cinematic" examples you gave do not look "real" at all. They resemble hyperrealistic contrived, artful paintings or other man made fantastical scenes. Nothing wrong with that . That is part of the story . Part of the art. It's amazing stuff to aspire to create and take us out of our everyday reality. However, to say that "cinematic " looks "real" when it obviously does not is not an accurate description of what is going on here. The escape from actual reality into the constructed, focused, world of story telling, dreams, memories and super real fantasies as well as insights into reality ( documentaries) is what "cinematic " truly is. It is an experience.

what a boring video man