I think this is an editing decision regarding if you cut to the gun and then the BCU..

You're asking for us to comment on what is a really poor set of shots that you keep repeating.

You're the director, it's up to you to decide if these work within the context of your scene,

It's a scene that we know nothing about.

Oh okay. I was told by one other so far that the shot looks weird cause we need to see the gun in front of the face in order to tell there is one, otherwise it looks confusing.

If that's the case, then I will have to get the gun in front of the face during a close up of the face, which means either forced perspective or a much longer lens then it seems... If he is right that it would look confusing without seeing the gun. I was only calling it forced perspective though, cause that is the term the DP used, if that is correct.

Surely if you need the face with the gun you just adjust the actor and camera position to make it work. Why do you need to create something that doesn’t really need creating. This would be a good use of a storyboard frame? You need the audience to see the detail in the face and to know he has a gun? Can this be two shots rather than something contrived and weird looking? Like in the closeup he drops his eyes down to reveal in the next shot, the gun held in his hand. Nicer to watch.

If the gun is established in a wider shot the audience will know where and how the gun is being held.

A forced perspective shot would have a larger version of the gun made by the art department in the foreground instead of the real gun.

Oh I was just told that if I show a close up of the face without the gun in front of it, that it's confusing, cause now the audience is going to ask, where did the gun go, or at least that is what I was told. Does it look like that in the clip I posted?

The gun is there in front of him in the wide shot, but then you don't see in it in the close up? Does that cause confusion?

No, not if it appears that you're closer than the gun.

Oh okay then. Cool. I can either do that and move closer than the gun, or have the gun in front of the face, and used forced perspective then.

Another thing is, it was said on here before, that even if the scene is well light, I will still need fast lenses just in case. However, the DP asked, said that fast lenses would be a mistake for horror/action scenes, cause I am going to want more DOF when there is a lot of action going on.

Does he have a point, or should I just use fast lenses, and live with all shallow DOF during the action scenes then?

No he isn’t right. The iris on a fast lens can be closed down just as much as a slow lens so it’s very flexible where as a slow lens can’t be opened up in low light. We’ve already been over this.

You’re also constantly doing things at cross purposes. You insist on shooting with super telephotos for it’s ability to compress but it also yields a shallow dof. You then insist you want deep focus. While closing down the iris will increase the dof it will still yield a relatively shallow dof.

You keep insisting you need compression, but I’ve explained it’s unnecessary especially the way you are mis using it. You haven’t given a good reason to use compression.You have very bad instincts when comes to visual story telling. What you keep showing us looks disjointed and bad. All you can think about is compression all the while you are failing at the basics.

Stop with this compression nonsense!

Don't you read the messages in this thread?

Fast lenses has been answered earlier in the thread,

Yes I know, I guess I am just scared to use them because of such shallow DOF to work with, but will try get more comfortable. Plus I feel it would make the focus puller's job a lot harder, and I want to make it easier.

Please read up on optics and lenses, because your last sentence doesn't make any sense, given the information you've been given.

Oh okay, what am I missing on the optics?

Go back through the thread.

Ryan if the optics are confusing then you should only concern yourself with how the shots should be framed. When you film the scene then pick the proper lens based on the situation.

Use the tried and true practices:
- Establishing wide shot: wide angle lens 24-35mm
- Medium shot two people having a conversation: normal lens 35-50mm
- Closeup for head and shoulder to face: telephoto lens 70-100mm
3 prime lenses is all you should need.

Stop with this compression stuff. Prove that you can walk before trying to run. Maybe you should try filming a silent 2 minute short every week until visually storytelling becomes second nature.

Why do you constantly read up on clever camera trickery and try to incorporate it into what SHOULD be a very simple part of the production - this is just madness, and you cannot cope with it, and it's overpowering you.

You are also now obsessed with this opinion that you have shallow DoF as a consequence of all these things and if you are having difficult with a workable band of acceptable focus, you're doing it wrong!

I very rarely shoot with DSLRs, but when I do, with a modest camera and modest lens, I have NEVER had issues with sharpness. I suspect you just confuse all these people you bounce every idea off and they are starting to just get fed up and deliberately give you false information.

All of this is easily available information. The notion that you believe fast lenses makes it worse is laughable! For goodness sake - study a little of lens optical theory and try to understand it.

If you have a fast lens and a sensitive camera - your available depth of field can be varied a huge, huge amount from mm to many metres, in good quality, high definition. Your constant assertions that are wrong are now getting very annoying - you don't listen and ignore our comments and advice, then you fire it back at us and we have to repeat it, over and over.

If you were one of my students, by now you would have alienated the entire class, lost their respect and they would probably let you sink. We've persisted here, but you either cannot, or will not believe us.

You have so many negatives these projects are I am afraid, doomed.

BAD ACTORS
BAD SCRIPT
BAD AUDIO ABILITY
BAD CAMERA ABILITY
BAD PLANNING
BAD BUDGETING
BAD UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC CINEMATOGRAPHY
BAD LEVEL OF BASIC SCIENCE

AND WORST OF ALL

BAD ATTITUDE TO OTHER PEOPLE TRYING TO HELP


Sorry Ryan but can you really not see how your video world is a trail of disasters that didn't need to be if you could follow basic simple movie making practice?

Remember the old maxim - KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid, and the military 6 Ps - proper planning prevents piss poor performance.

Frankly Ryan, I'm now of the opinion that this is not the industry for you to effectively work in. You are the movie version of a trainee Doctor who can't quite understand how to identify the common cold, but intends going heart surgery tomorrow.

Oh okay, I just that that a very shallow DOF would be a nightmare for the focus puller. How does shallow DOF make things more advantageous?

Unfortunately, you seem to be totally unaware that you can stop down fast lenses, so that you can achieve a deeper DOF.

No one is forcing you to use fast lenses wide open. In fact, unless you're willing to spend thousands of dollars on each lens, you're better stopping down them down a couple of stops because the quality improves.

Oh I know you can stop down fast lenses, but then what's the point of using a fast lens if they are stopped down? Stopping down slows down the speed of light coming in, so doesn't that defeat the purpose of using a fast lens? But let's say I just stop down to say f3.0. That's still really shallow though to pull focus on, isn't it?

Ryan if you're up for doing a little of your own work, search for an online dof calculator. Select any MFT camera and experiment. Keep in mind 25mm lens be equivalent to 50mm on a MFT.

Longer lenses are used mostly when subjects are standing still having a conversation. These closeups are wider framing (head and shoulder) than yours. Most moving shots will be shot with a wider lens.

If you're lazy and don't want to take the time for blocking, you don't buy proper cinema lenses, and you insist on using long lenses, then yes you will have problems pulling focus.

Oh okay, well I only wanted to use long lenses, for the chase sequences, so I can pan with the actors for a long time. But thought it was worth pulling focus in order to have those pans. Most of the other shots will be done with wider lenses though.

Ryan - I really despair.

The point of any product you buy is that it is more capable, and less likely to halt your production flow. Fast lenses probably spend most of their working lives not remotely wide open, but when they need to let more light through, they can, effortlessly.

It also occurs to me that you have never discovered that skill allows a single cameraman to maintain focus throughout a pan, even with shallow DoF and a long lens - with practice, and a decent head. A panning shot is NOT a super clever complex shot. It's first week of cameraman training stuff. You need a focus puller when the focus requirement goes beyond what a single person can do properly - maybe the focus change suddenly needs to stop at a certain point, leaving the street sign in sharp focus, or you have marked spots to hit that require eyes outside of a viewfinder to make accuracy vital. Once the working stop closes to 5.6-maybe 11 on many lenses there is no need to focus at all - the mid point sharp focus point is deep enough that the focus puller, if you have one has nothing to adjust.

With a decent viewfinder - you should be able to manage those panning shots, with a long lens perfectly well.

If I saw a list of shots, that one simply doesn't jump out and ring alarm bells. Personally, I always find wide angle, close in shots that need very precise start and finish points for moves far more challenging. Horizontals slip, little things pop in and out of the edges, distracting the viewer, and making sure the close objects don't become prominent keep me far busier. I also find "most of the other shots will be done with wide angles" puzzling? Why?

The lens that most closely follows how human eyes see real life are in my view, the most transparent to watch - and can immerse the viewer in the scene because when you pan around, the perspective matches well in your brain - the subject settles, being easily able to process it. Wide and tight lenses compress or expand reality, and that in most cases is an effect because of the subconscious 'tweaking' effect it has. All these artificial attempts to reproduce it create unease, or the impression the viewer has been manipulated. Do you wish to create this tension? If not, use a normal lens, and move the camera and the actors so it fits!

Oh okay, sorry to make you despair, I am trying to come up with the best of ways of doing this that I can see for the shots.

So your'e saying I don't have to shoot wide open, it's just good to have that option whenever I need it pretty much?

As for panning with a running subject in the example I posted before, she stayed in focus the whole time, but that was at a more closed aperture in the day, compared to wide open of course. Thought that would be trickier.

Oh when I said I would use a wide lens for most of the other shots, I didn't mean for the while movie, I just meant for the chase sequence. Unless I shouldn't use wides for most of that?

And yes, the shots where I wanted to use a longer lens, I wanted to create certain feelings or tension perhaps, with it.

Hey Ryan, here's a concrete suggestion for you.

Buy the BMPCC 4K camera you have talked about. The Micro Four Thirds one.

Add the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 prime lens. Cheap, reasonably fast, and sharp.

Get a decent but inexpensive fluid head tripod (Sachtler Ace, maybe).

Now, script, storyboard, block and shoot your entire scene using only this lens and camera. (Obviously, you'll need to add some sound and lighting equipment, but use only these items for the visuals.) Move the camera in and out, up and down, and all around the action to get all the shots you need. Don't even think about whether it would be easier with a different lens. You only have one. Emphasize appropriate cuts over long static shots or camera movements.

Edit the scene and show it to us here. My hunch is that it will look a lot better than if you tried to do all the fancy stuff with long lenses, narrow DOF, focus pulls, night shots at F11 and the rest.

Repeat for additional scenes until the movie is finished.

(I read that the recent film "1917" was shot with 40mm lenses exclusively. On their full frame Alexa Mini LF cameras, that's the exact same angle of view as a 20mm lens on a M43 sensor, just a smidge wider than a so called "normal" lens, but not enough to cause any noticeable perspective distortion. Despite the limitations, that seems to have won them an award or two if I remember correctly.)

I sometimes think that having too many choices to make tends to paralyze your planning process and leads you down an endless maze of details and "what if" questions. Remove as many variables as possible and you'll be better able to concentrate on the story and performances.

Let us know how this works out. If you do well I might let you buy a second lens for your next film. :-)

- Greg

Oh I know you can stop down fast lenses, but then what's the point of using a fast lens if they are stopped down? Stopping down slows down the speed of light coming in, so doesn't that defeat the purpose of using a fast lens? But let's say I just stop down to say f3.0. That's still really shallow though to pull focus on, isn't it?

I'm not sure where you get this all this from. With most lenses it's not a good idea to shoot with them wide open, especially the cheaper ones. I had a set of Zeiss Super Speed Distagons which are T1.3 and most of the time they were used at T2.8, where the quality was excellent. The quality dropped of wide open, but it was good enough to be used on a professional production and was way better than the Schneider f1.4 lens that I also had at the time.

The speed of light is a constant, it doesn't change, the stop changes the amount of light going through.

T3.0 is a pretty standard stop used on feature films, it allows you to use a modern zoom lens slightly stopped down and you're not making life too difficult for the focus puller, with the older Cooke zooms you might have gone to T3.5 to T4 because they had a slightly softer look when wide open at T2.8.

This isn't a shallow DOF, which comes in at f2 and wider. It becomes even less shallow if you;re shooting with a MFT camera,

Just because you've got an f1.4 lens, you don't need to use them wide open, most of the time they won't be wide open. However, they tend to be the higher quality lenses in a manufacturers range, so are worth buying for that reason if you're a demanding user, and they fit in your budget.

When I first started making films, the 8mm camera only had a 12mm kens, but you could still tell a story with it. I worked on a Super 16 feature film that only used a 16mm lens, restrictions can work to your creative advantage.

Most college and university course do a very early film making 'test'. They give you a simple camera, with a fixed lens and ask you to go and tell a story with it. No editing outside of the camera. You plan and then shoot each scene consecutively One mistake wrecks the entire thing. It forces you to plan properly, rehearse and then follow the plan. Very often the results of the lack of technology are poor at first - but usually the second version is miles better. You have your 'rule book' but so many of the rules in it are context driven, and you use it as absolute - as in 'always' or 'never' do things.


So much of your content makes me think you have read, attempted to understand but never actually tried.

Greg's idea to buy that camera and that simple but decent lens is solid. You get a product with so much capability, yet few distractions to go wrong.

If you want to persist with your zoom. Go somewhere close to a road, or maybe an airport with light aircraft (because they're slow) and practice filling the frame and getting the focus sorted. even with servo zooms, you can learn how they react, and learn to adjust on the fly - so you can focus forwards, then smoothly focus back again as objects drive or fly across the frame. Roadside, or maybe using railways is always a good and repeatable learning session. Shooting a train approaching, gradually widening, then panning, then zooming in again while holding focus is a great thing to do - I bet you have never spent time honing your skills like this. Busy roads can be tricky because you can be a distraction to them, but airports and railways are used to people taking video - so stress is lower. Zooming and focusing at the same time will soon become second nature and you might even wonder why you even need a focus puller for your simple stuff?

Back in my Broadcast TV days, our studio viewfinders had so much better resolution than the home TVs that you could see something start to go soft and fix it before the home TVs would ever notice it!

Think too about outside broadcasts where for baseball, cricket and golf, a single cameraman with a VERY long lens can fill the frame with a ball, in sharp focus, flying through the air. No tape measures, not focus puller, and no chance for a second try. Just a feel for focus rate of change, so you know which way the focus wheel has to move, and your skill assists you with how fast. Outside broadcasts make all your trouble with panning shots look quite foolish. They are not problems to the typical cameraman or film maker who has practiced.

Why not spend a few hours with your existing camera and lens getting to know it better.

Read a few lens books with diagrams and the maths on optics. It's all perfectly understandable. Do not ask people. Do this yourself and repeat till it sinks in.

A recurring theme with Ryan is he creates impossible scenarios which there are no solutions or rather none that he will accept. This recent tangent was what camera to buy and subsequently what lenses to use. This leads to unearthing all of these obstacles and wacky ideas Ryan has on the subject.

I can’t even convince him to get a starter kit of the most basic cinematic primes any filmmaker would need because he doesn’t want to pull focus! or there some particular scene that they don’t work. Instead of getting proper camera and lens and planning a movie around that, he instead plans a movie that he can’t shoot.

He keeps talking about this chase scene where he has locked himself into one way of filming it (no doubt that he has seen in a movie). He doesn’t want to consider alternative ways to film it that don’t involve panning a telephoto .

This thread reminds of his audio recorder thread. All he needed was an inexpensive compatible power supply, but he wouldn’t buy it.

He's already been told how to do his telephoto running shot without the need to pull focus and you don't need f11.. It's a very old trick and I don't know why he hasn't moved on to other things.

He's already been told how to do his telephoto running shot without the need to pull focus and you don't need f11.. It's a very old trick and I don't know why he hasn't moved on to other things.
Yeah I saw that was a great idea filming in a circular path so the distance to subject remains the same.

I get the feeling he is misusing deep focus idea as a means to avoid buying cinema lenses and pulling focus, not only this scene but the entire movie.

That could the case, but he risks messing up his entire film because he's trying to save relatively small amounts compared to his total budget. You can sell the lenses after you've finished the film.

Some of the Blackmagic 4k Pocket Camera lens options are listed here: https://wolfcrow.com/the-best-lenses-for-the-blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera-4k/

Oh well as far as getting a starter kit goes I already have one of those from before, so I thought it was time to upgrade to other things rather than keeping using a camera with three primes all the time.

Yes I know I can have the actor run in a circular motion, but that only works for some of it. If the story narrative calls for the actor to change direction, I might have to pull focus then. But as long as a focus puller can handle it.

I just wanted to make a movie how I see the shots, rather than keep following a prior formula all the time.

You can make an extremely sophisticated with just 3 prime lenses. it's how you use them that counts.

A reasonably competent focus puller should be able to manage a change in direction, although a long lens may restrict the direction of change if you want it to have any real impact on screen.

Oh okay thanks. Well if the actors are going to run in circles then I might not need very long lenses then, since they are going in circles. However, will the audience notice this?

If they see the same background pass by three times, will they say, how come they are running in circles, and pick up on it?

But as for the audio thing before, I bought the power supply plug in, that I as advised to.

Ryan - this notion you have about pulling focus. The circular track means no distance change, so no focus change. A track where they come towards and the go away from could easily be fully sharp with a smaller aperture. Even worst case, you have to use the lens wide open, on a long focal length, this is a simple matter for a a competent single operator - there really is no need to employ somebody to do this unless the camera operator is so busy it's impossible.

Yes for sure, I know what you mean about the circular track having advantages, I just thought it would have some possible problems that come with that need to be addressed.

Such as, what if the audiences notices the same background passing by over and over again, then they will figure out that the actors are running in circles. Plus the location may not allow for a circular motion, if the story calls for the actors, to have to run into certain parts of the location, after a bit. Things like that, I thought might be possible problems with the circular track idea, thought I thought I would ask about so I know how to implement it, that's all.

Oh well as far as getting a starter kit goes I already have one of those from before, so I thought it was time to upgrade to other things rather than keeping using a camera with three primes all the time.
What do you mean upgrade? Primes are the life blood of cinemaphotographers. Since when did you have 3 cine primes? What brand/model do you own?

Yes for sure, I know what you mean about the circular track having advantages, I just thought it would have some possible problems that come with that need to be addressed.

Such as, what if the audiences notices the same background passing by over and over again, then they will figure out that the actors are running in circles. Plus the location may not allow for a circular motion, if the story calls for the actors, to have to run into certain parts of the location, after a bit. Things like that, I thought might be possible problems with the circular track idea, thought I thought I would ask about so I know how to implement it, that's all.
Your visual ideas seem very limited and inflexible. A typical chase scene often alternates between a wide shot then of the pov of the person chasing. There too many variations to even list. Its also common for moving subject to enter out of focus and leave out of focus. But all you can think of is shooting with a telephoto lens.

Oh I have a 50mm prime and a 24mm and an 85mm for my Canon T2i from before. Well by upgrade I meant use a long zoom lens if I wanted to for some shots, rather than stick to just 3 primes.

For the chase, yes I wanted the telephoto lens for the wide shot of the chase, to give the chase some panning movement during the chase, rather than a still wide lens. As for entering out of focus and leaving out of focus, I feel that might draw attention to itself, during the chase, or what would be the reason to be out of focus during the entering and leaving?

If you're using a 300mm lens, it;s going to be a pretty big circle, so the shot is going to get a bit boring if you hold it so long enough that it repeats. If they run in a straight line past the camera, the shot probably won't last as long and the subject's size will change as they approach and move away, Also,it will only be a profile view for a short time.

I thought you were going to buy a BlackMagic, 4k Pocket Cinema Camera, if you're doing that, you'll need new lenses.

Oh sorry, I meant let's say I use an 85mm lens instead since I was suggested I use wider lenses. If I were to use the 85mm would the circle be big enough?

When you say if they run past the camera and the shot won't last long, are you referring to if I choose to keep the opening and closing of the shot, out of focus?

Oh I have a 50mm prime and a 24mm and an 85mm for my Canon T2i from before. Well by upgrade I meant use a long zoom lens if I wanted to for some shots, rather than stick to just 3 primes.
Are these cine lenses?

Do you ever think things out?

For what you're talking about an 85mm might be OK if you were shooting on 16mm film or a 2/3" video camera

Ryan - you have these primes yet insist on using the zoom you've already rubbished? In every scenario I can think of, your chase should not be remotely a problem.

As for the start or end being soft - I can see you creating a rule about this one. I'd advise you to forget it if you cannot understand it from Pete's comment. I think most of us know exactly what he's describing.

You now reveal you have a zoom and 3 primes. Why are we having this conversation ? You have the tools you need. Now you need to learn how to use them. My jaw is dropping undestanding why a chase scene is causing so much grief. Establishing shot showing the location, closeup of runner, cut to chasers in longshot or cloer in deoending on context, cut back to runner, cut to chaser, cut to runner, add longshot with both subjects if you wish to add in real distance. Sharp focus on runner, but blurred background, or sharp everywhere - your choice. Where does a requirement for a long running tight shot come from. Pace dictates probably cuts will be fast and furious here, not one tight shot. At least, that's how I would do it.

Are these cine lenses?

No they are Canon lenses that go on the Canon T2i camera I've had. Now if I am getting the BMPCC then I can get new lenses for that of course, yes.

Do you ever think things out?

For what you're talking about an 85mm might be OK if you were shooting on 16mm film or a 2/3" video camera

Oh okay, well it was said before that I should stick to 3 wider prime lenses, so wouldn't an 85mm be okay in those 3, are is that not okay to use?

Oh I have a 50mm prime and a 24mm and an 85mm for my Canon T2i from before. Well by upgrade I meant use a long zoom lens if I wanted to for some shots, rather than stick to just 3 primes.

No they are Canon lenses that go on the Canon T2i camera I've had.
These are not Cine lenses. Do you not know the difference?

Yes I know the difference I think. The sign lenses have aperture rings on them and they do not have the option of IS if you want it. Are there other differences to be aware of? I got them cause they fit onto the camera no problem, and I just tried to use them as best as possible.

As far as cine lenses, go, I have also rented a Rokinon kit of cines from time to time for projects as well.

Yes I know the difference I think. The sign lenses have aperture rings on them and they do not have the option of IS if you want it. Are there other differences to be aware of? I got them cause they fit onto the camera no problem, and I just tried to use them as best as possible.

As far as cine lenses, go, I have also rented a Rokinon kit of cines from time to time for projects as well.
I didn't ask you if you rented a cine lens, I asked if you own one.

You also don't understand what a Cine lens is. Their most important feature is their ability to pull focus. The lenses you have are for photography and most likely are fly by wire lenses that don't have manual focus. We've been over this before.
https://www.howtogeek.com/356738/what-makes-a-cine-lens-different-from-regular-lenses/

Oh okay, well it was said before that I should stick to 3 wider prime lenses, so wouldn't an 85mm be okay in those 3, are is that not okay to use?

The shot that you seem to basing this panning shot on was probably shot at the long end of a 25mm to 250mm zoom, which was discussed before in another thread. How does an 85mm lens fit into this particular panning shot?

It might work if you mounted the camera on a vehicle and tracked along side the runner, but not if you're panning on a tripod.

The three lenses were general lenses, which you could possibly shoot the film with, if you give up the panning shot.

Yes I know you can pull focus on cine lenses. I want to get new lenses for the camera, yes.

The shot that you seem to basing this panning shot on was probably shot at the long end of a 25mm to 250mm zoom, which was discussed before in another thread. How does an 85mm lens fit into this particular panning shot?

It might work if you mounted the camera on a vehicle and tracked along side the runner, but not if you're panning on a tripod.

The three lenses were general lenses, which you could possibly shoot the film with, if you give up the panning shot.

Well it was suggested to me on here before, not to use such a long lens. So I suggested using an 85 to do the circular track pan, since it was advised to me on here, to not use a longer lens. So I am trying to therefore, do the shot with a short lens, since it was said before, just to use three lenses.

I suspect they were suggesting you find another method for you to shoot your chase scene that doesn't involve using a long focal length lens. However, since you regularly seem to be given 4 + 4 and yet manage to come up with 3 it could be a misunderstanding on your part.

You are hung up on mimicking big budget cinema production - giving each shot a 'title'. You are constantly talking about this "panning shot" as if it's somehow something special, yet in your movie, it seems to be just another connecting shot in the story telling.

Pete's talking about focussing on a real cine lens, while you seem to think that turning a focus ring on a lens is pulling focus, in terms of a role, or process. You've got into thinking technical terms are indicative of the link with a role. The difference between a photography lens and a moving image lens clearly you haven't quite got a handle on, so when people give advice, they have to guess if you really mean what you ask?

I'm often left wondering if the movies you shoot would be better off made on a simple handicam - point, zoom, and shoot. Some of these have quite decent sensors, but are a balance package of components. You could plonk the camera down, jiggle the actors around and have a notional lens angle of say 73mm, rather than this mystical movie focal length of 85mm? Would it matter? For you I doubt it would - you could use the zoom to set the composition, and wouldn't need to reblock actors and move the camera.

You are trying to shoot movies with tiny bits of pro movie production technique, and this isn't working. You started out with a training course that did NOT cater for your individual learning style, so you have picked up lots of really bad habits that you cannot now shake off. You have a warped interpretation of technical matters, and have nearly understood things. People give advice. You take little strands of it, and then apply it in new situations out of context. You MUST start to try to understand this. You are building a rule book that is flawed, yet you cannot understand this, or why it has happened. You are treating movie making as a collection of little elements that when all done guarantee a great movie. Your scripts - the very basic building block of movie making are from what we've seen, not very good at all. You use actors who really cannot act, mixed in with a few who can. You struggle to direct them, or often, let them direct themselves.

Nothing you can do with technology will improve the fundamental problem. I think yesterday we finally convinced you that lenses don't magically change the speed of light, and that fast lenses can produce deep depth of field - something you really should have been aware of when trying to make buying choices. Today, your cine lenses turn out to be photographic lenses. What else have we misunderstood from your posts?

Ask yourself some questions. Do you NEED cine lenses, or will the ones you have work well enough in your production. I suspect they will. Have you ever checked how accurate the lens markings actually are? Pop one on, find a suitable subject and find the sharpest focus setting - measure it. Then change the stop and repeat. Does the sharpest point shift? You may be surprised how much it does. Next question is does it matter? To a professional focus puller, used to marking tape with pens, yes it does. If the cameraman needs to change aperture, all the marks will be wrong. Is this something you're aware of.

If your team's technique is to set up, and then focus visually and then shoot, that's actually fine - but it is not how real cinematographer crew work. Is all this stuff sorted in your head?

There is a really informative and entertaining interview with Art Adams, who while discussing one of the new Arri lenses that costs more than the budget of Ryan's film, explains all the technical aspects of a cine lens and lenses in general. However,, I'm reluctant to post it since Ryan seems not to have the basic knowledge to follow it, so could become even more confused.