Shoot Like a Cinematographer, Not a Videographer

How can you make your documentary films look more like Hollywood and less like cheap video? The word “cinematic” gets thrown around too much on the internet, but in this video I’m going to break down some simple techniques you can use to up your visual game and make your next doc project pop!

#filmmaking #documentaries #cinematography

📱 *SCHEDULE 1:1 CAREER DEVELOPMENT OR PROJECT CONSULTATION CALL WITH ME*📱

CHAPTERS

0:00 - Intro
1:39 - Shoot at 24fps
3:29 - Shallow depth of field and Bokeh
5:52 - Use your Zoom as a variable Prime
7:51 - Backlight your subjects whenever possible
9:02 - Supplement natural light, but keep it natural

🎥 🔥 📷 GEAR I USE

*Some of the above are affiliate links, but all are personally vetted and recommended*

✋ SAY HI

IG: @lucforsyth (BTS content, but I’m TERRIBLE at DMs - sorry!)

IG: @lucforsyth

[matinee]

Realistic lighting is the most difficult element to achieve. I'm 81 and I was shooting film in 1970 and I'm still trying to learn how to master lighting.

[dannypgrizzle]

24fps was actually not an esthetic decision, not in the beginning. The original engineering was centered on minimizing film cost. Thomas Edison did the initial research and determined that 16fps was sufficient to trick the brain into seeing continuous motion, but 16 fps was not sufficient to overcome the eye's biological/chemical reaction to light, called persistence of vision. Edison determined that the strobing action of light inherent in projection required 48 flashes of light per second in order for persistence of vision to be overcome and for the eye to perceive continuous light with no flicker. The solution was to place a shutter in projectors, like a spinning pinwheel with 3 vanes, so that each frame filmed at 16fps was flashed on the screen 3 times -- thus achieving 48 flashes of light per second while consuming only 16 fps of precious film stock -- a huge savings considering the economics of motion picture reproduction and distribution.

While 16fps was standard for silent movies, 24fps emerged as the standard with the arrival of talkies. When sound was incorporated into motion pictures, it was eventually standardized to an optical track, where an actual visible audio waveform was printed on one edge of the movie film alongside the sequence of images. For this, 16fps proved to be unsuitable due to poor audio quality, but increasing the frame rate to 24fps gave the desired audio resolution and fidelity.

I don't dispute aesthetic arguments about 24fps providing more "cinematic" results because higher frame rates inherently compromise motion blur. And there may be codec advantages also when fewer frames are compressed, allowing more image data to be allocated for any given data maximum data rate that a given storage system is capable of. It is not inappropriate to discuss esthetics of frame rate, and there has been a long history of experimental work, notably Douglas Trumbull who tried to market a special theater concept called Showscan, if I recall.

Personally, I'm grateful for this conversation here because I am personally about to standardize on a frame rate thanks to the fact that I have just purchased 6 Tentacle Sync Track E Mk II timecode clocks, and from this day forward all my cameras will be locked down to a standard configuration. We've avoided a huge discussion of fractional frame rates here, something that evolved in the analog era to accommodate color in much the same way that 24fps replaced 16fps to accommodate optical sound. Edison's original research still holds, and all filmmakers would do well to be grounded in basic principles of continuous motion and perception of vision. Not only for esthetics, but also to understand the interaction between camera sensor scanning and various non-continuous light sources such as rasterized screens, fluorescent lighting, and LED sources.

[mitchmedmedia]

“Cinematic“ is used so often and for so long that any video with that word in the title is usually something I skip over. You put out such good work that I wanted to see what your take on it was, and I’m glad I did. I really appreciate your definition and objective take on it rather than leaving it as some nebulous term. Lots of good info all around. Thanks for posting quality stuff!

[gregmckenzie]

When considering how to make your work LOOK more cinematic you should also consider the sound. Choose an editor who knows how to cut scenes to look more "natural." That means giving the subjects a chance to consider, understand, and react emotionally. First rule: Talking subjects need oxygen. Tell your editor to give plenty of pauses so that both the speaker and the viewer have that extra 1/2 second to hear and react. No motormouth editing! The real action in human speech occurs BETWEEN the words. Give your actors a pause to inhale. The best professional speakers, actors, and narrators know that cutting out all of the pauses in the narrators speech will make your work look like a YouTube video. Give your subjects the respect they deserve. This is a vital factor if you want your work to "look" cinematic.

[raynaudier]

3:46 - "this is called depth of field"; this is called *use of* depth of field; 4:11 to 4:29 - please clarify that the *numerically* smaller numbers (f/1.2, 1.4, 2, etc) are, in fact, the lenses' *maximum* aperture, its' *largest* aperture, where the lens is wide open; 4:40 - when you say, "wide angle lenses have less dof than telephoto lenses.." - wide angle lenses have *more* dof than longer lenses. DOF is the distance in front of and behind the plane of focus where sharpness is acceptable; 4:45-4:51 - an f/4 kit lens at 24mm, will have *more* dof than a 50mm lens at f/4 [everything else being the same - same camera-to-subject distance]; *DOF* is not *blur*, it's the distance in front of and behind the plane of focus where sharpness is acceptable; you can choose a (numerically smaller, physically larger) particular fstop, particular focal length, + distance from camera to *get* less dof for a blurred background & foreground, isolating the subject nicely, but people are going to think "DOF is blur".

[prch]

I don't think cinematic is just framerates and filters. There are moments in big movies that seem odd and moments with cheap cameras that are packed with emotions. And then I remember Kurosawa speaking about a moment he filmed that was real cinematic. If there is a big moment that make us feel the scene, that is cinematic. And big cinematigraphers just figured it out what and how to present.

[brycepatingre]

7:20 a cameraman I worked with when I caught my break producing a television doc style show always use to say this. "Move your feet." It's the reason I loved editing what he shot and didn't enjoy some of the footage from other shooters.

I will say though — boy, do I love a good crash zoom, even in docs.

[estebanrestrepo]

Luc great videos! However it seems like you're confusing what depth of field really means.
Depth of field is not how blurry the background is, it's how wide or narrow your plane of focus is. In other words, MORE depth of field means wider focus depth, the background is more in focus. LESS depth of field means shallower focus depth, meaning blurrier backgrounds.

Also "smaller" aperture means the lens is closed down, as in using f16 of f22. Wider apertures are the ones you were referring to, ie 1.4 or 2.8.

[LeoChanlch]

*maximum aperture* is printed on the lens for the given focal length. The f-number is inversely proportional to the size of the aperture

[shaps]

It’s about story and motivation.

A camera move should appear motivated by either the story (as in django) or by other elements in the scene. For example handheld to emphasise the uneasiness or tension in a scene.

Lighting is no different, it looks “cinematic” if it feels motivated. For example if a subject is lit in a scene where the viewer can imply the light is coming from a nearby window or street lamp, etc then it feels like the subject was in a real place.

All of these exist to help the viewer forget there’s a camera, pointing at an actor, with a team of people lighting and directing the scene.

They’re just tools to support the story.

I didn’t write a comment intending to criticise the creator of this video, but I do feel he’s missed far more elements personally. The stuff he’s covered I’ve often found in other YouTube videos and it’s missing the point imo.

[weetuscren]

I think the depth of field concept is sometimes framed as “looking cool and cinematic” when it should better be used as “control of information”. Sometimes it’s a “hey, pay attention to this” or even sometimes a manipulation to purposely obscure information from your audience. I think most people don’t think about it because it’s difficult to achieve properly especially when you don’t have a focus puller. I feel like the difference between videographer and cinematographer is about 5-10 years of extra experience, knowledge, and experimentation.

[HAPPLIP]

This is a great video in cinematography.

I simplified the meaning to take the complexity out of it.

Videographer: Knows how to run the tool/s.

Cinematographer: Controls of the entirety of the LOOK and FEEL of the scene/shot/atmosphere.

Like musicians, some people are great, strictly the instrument alone, then you have the composer/writer who brings the musicians altogether to create the feel/atmosphere of the SONG. That is similar to a cinematographer.

Being a photographer prior to a videographer I realized I am on already on the path of cinematography always achieving the '' look '' and '' feel '' of what I'm shooting.

[HDFilmShooter]

Great video but you speak of depth of field backwards. More depth of field means more is in focus. Less DOF means less (shallower). The “cinematic look” has less depth of field, not more.

[wojciech]

2:25 The answer is not really the frame rate but the scanning method. Since the beginning of cinema, movies are being shot progressively, that is one frame after another. Broadcast, on the other hand, uses the interlaced scan which gives an illusion of 60fps in USA and 50fps in Europe. Most people say that interlaced is obsolete whereas it is still used to this day and the finest example is the news broadcast.

Also, TV cameras use 2/3-inch and 1/2-inch sensors that aren't the best option for shallow depth of field and are actually meant to make everything as sharp as possible.

[GeekTherapyRadio]

Back lighting might require slightly more discussion. A dim light in the background is an interesting visual complement to good frontal lighting.

If you're going to shoot a subject against a bright back light (sun, giant window, etc...) you better have a fill light or reflector in front of the subject so the subject isn't just a silhouette or the back light isn't completely blown out while adjusting exposure for the subject.

[alpinemedia]

That Variable Prime idea is gold. Solid info and well organized!

[zaracusca]

Great video Luc, thanks for sharing a lot of interesting knowledge. Although I must mention a confusion in terms. ”Depth of field” is not a phenomenon but a measure: the distance between the nearest and the furthest objects that are in focus. Consequently, ”the news” (i.e. the old video image used in television) has MORE depth of field, and usually cinema has LESS. Wide angle lenses have increased depth of field (the image is in focus on a greater interval) and telephoto lenses have shallower (reduced) depth of field. There's no doubt in my mind that you know all these effects but you used the terms somehow confusing manner. (ex: 4:34 and following)

[demonhogo]

This is a great video. I hope young filmmakers also remember that all 5 of those tips can be reversed or broken with equal success. your point about intention was was supreme.

[JaghataiK]

First time I’ve heard the word “cinematic” without cringing super hard. Kudos on the excellent video!

[edshotsdotcodotuk]

I've always thought of the term "cinematic" to be a way of using each frame to tell the story. Using layers within the frame to aid with context. Think about all those amazing westerns that have deep depth of field but still look cinematic as you feel like you're there and can see clearly what the characters are doing. Blurring everything out means you lose a sense of place and the intention of the shot. 'Joker' manages to throw a lot out of focus but with lighting and layering you always know what's going on.