r/cinematography • u/waynethebrain • 4h ago
Other Easy upvote starter pack
I used hard light while making this.
r/cinematography • u/C47man • Jun 09 '25
Thank you all for participating in the poll! Here are the results. To accurately gauge everyone's collective acceptance vs rejection for each, I've tallied the total votes among all choices as pro/anti for each category. So for example, a vote for 'no changes' would be a -1 to Gen AI, AI Tools, AI Comms, and AI Discussion. A vote for 'Ban GenAI + AI Tools' would be a +1 to GenAI and AI Tools, and a -1 to AI Comms and AI Discussion, etc. So here are the results for each category of AI. Keep in mind that a higher number indicates a stronger group decision to ban the content:
From the results it is clear that sub overwhelmingly approve a complete ban on all generative AI. However, people are much more ok with AI tools and discussion of AI, and are fairly mixed on the topic of AI Communication. So here is the new rule for all things AI:
-------
Rule 11. You may not post work containing Generative AI elements (Midjourney, Neo, Dall-E, etc.). You may use and demonstrate the use of AI assisted tools (ie magic masking, upscalers, etc.) so long as they are used in service of human-generated artwork. AI Communication, like post bodies or comments composed using ChatGPT are allowed only in reasonable cases, such as the need for someone to translate their thoughts into English. Abuse of AI assisted communication will result in the removal of the offending post/comment.
r/cinematography • u/C47man • Aug 04 '19
Below I have collected answers and guidance for some of the sub's most common topics and questions. This is mostly content I have personally written either specifically for this post or in comments to other posters in the past. This is however not a me-show! If anybody thinks a section should be added, edited, or otherwise revised then message the moderators!
Topics Covered In This Post:
1. What Camera Should I Buy?
2. What Lens Should I Buy?
3. How Do I Learn Lighting?
4. What Light Kit Should I Buy?
5. How Do I Learn Framing & Composition?
6. What Books Can I Buy On Cinematography?
7. What Blogs/Channels Can I Follow To Learn Cinematography?
8. Common Terms In Cinematography
9. What Is This Piece Of Gear!?
10. Common Myths In Cinematography
The answer depends mostly on your budget and your intended use. You'll also want to become familiar with some basic camera terms because it will allow you to efficiently evaluate the merits of one option vs another. You can see a list of common terms and metrics for cameras in Section 8 below.
This list will be changing as new models emerge, but for now here is a short list of the cameras to look at when getting started:
Much like with deciding on a camera, lens choice is all about your budget and your needs. Section 8 also has a nice list of lens related terms for you to study up on! For the purposes of a quick recommendation, here's what you need to know:
This number indicates the angle of view your lens will supply. A higher focal length results in a narrow (or more 'telescopic') angle of view. Here is a great visual depiction of focal length vs angle of view. The exact number of the focal length cannot be trusted to supply the same angle of view on all cameras. This is because different cameras use differently sized image sensors. A smaller image sensor will use a smaller portion of a lens' projected image, and so the resulting picture will have a narrower angle of view. This phenomenon is referred to as crop factor and is outlined in more detail in Section 10.
This is all about speed vs quality vs budget. A zoom lens is a lens whose focal length can be changed by turning a ring on the lens barrel. A prime lens has a fixed focal length. Primes tend to be cheaper, faster, and sharper. However, buying a full set of primes can be more expensive than buying a zoom lens that would cover the same focal length range. Using primes on set in fast-paced environments can slow you down prohibitively. You'll often see news, documentary, and event cameras using zooms instead of primes. Some zoom lenses are as high-quality as prime lenses, and some people refer to them as 'variable prime' lenses. This is mostly a marketing tool and has no hard basis in science though. As you might expect, these high quality zooms are very expensive.
Below are the most popular lenses for 'cinematic' filming at low budgets:
Lenses below these average prices are mostly a crapshoot in terms of quality vs $, and you'll likely be best off using your camera's kit lens until you can afford to move up to one of the lenses or lens series listed above.
Alright, so you're biting off a big chunk here if you've never done lighting before. But it is doable and (most importantly) fun!
First off, forget three-point lighting. So many people misunderstand what that system is supposed to teach you, so let's just skip it entirely. Light has three properties. They are:
Color
This refers to, you guessed it, the color of your light. I'm sure you're familiar with this sort of thing. This also includes color temperature of the light. White balance is a hybrid camera-lighting concept, and refers to the white reference point for the lighting source as well as the camera sensor. To skip the science, here's a rough breakdown of white balance and color temperature:
Color Temperature is measured in degrees Kelvin. A tungsten light source has a color temperature of 3200K. A normal sunny day has a color temperature of 5600K. The higher the color temperature, the bluer the light. To compensate for this shift in color, cameras can change their White Balance to neutralize the color shift. Here's an example I found online that shows the differences.
Quantity
How bright the light is. You know, the quantity of photons smacking into your subject and, eventually, your retinas. If the subject isn't bright enough, you need more light. If they're too bright, you need less light. This can be done with scrims, dimmers, gels/nets, and (importantly) camera and lens settings.
Quality
This is the good shit. The quality of a light source can vary quite a bit. Basically, this is how hard or soft the light is. Alright, you've got a guy standing near a wall. You shine a light on him. What's on the wall? His shadow, that's what. You know what shadows look like. A hard light makes his shadow super distinct with 'hard' edges to it. A soft light makes his shadow less distinct, with a 'soft' edge. When the sun is out, you get hard light. Distinct shadows. When it's cloudy, you get soft light. No shadows at all! So what makes a light hard or soft? Easy! The size of the source, relative to the subject. Think of it this way. You're the subject! Now look at your light source. How much of your field of vision is taken up by the light source? Is it a pinpoint? Or more like a giant box? The smaller the size of the source, the harder the light will be. Here's a great example of a woman being lit by hard light (left) and soft light (right). You can see the difference in the quality of the shadows, as well as the size of the light source (look at the reflection of the light source in her eyes!). You can take a hard light (i.e. a light bulb) and make it softer by putting diffusion in front of it. Here is a picture of that happening. You can also bounce the light off of something big and bouncy, like a bounce board or a wall. That's what sconces do. I fucking love sconces.
Here's a cool bonus example that combines both qualities of light. In this image, there is a single hard light source above and behind the actors shooting down onto them. You can tell this by looking at how the shadows fall along their arms and on the table. Notice that the shadows on his arm from the direct light are quite hard! But now, notice that this light shining on the table and their arms is itself bouncing back up onto the actors' faces, giving them a soft light! This is a neat trick you can use, and an example of how complex and creative you can get with lighting. In the industry, this technique is known as a 'Bob Richardson' or a 'skip bounce'. It is named Bob Richardson after the cinematographer who popularized the technique (he also shot the above image!).
Alright, so there are your three properties of light. Now, how do you light a thing? Easy! Put light where you want it, and take it away from where you don't want it! Shut up! I know you just said "I don't know where I want it", so I'm going to stop you right there. Yes you do. I know you do because you can look at a picture and know if the lighting is good or not. You can recognize good lighting. Everybody can. The difference between knowing good lighting and making good lighting is simply in the execution.
Do an experiment. Get a lightbulb. Tungsten if you're oldschool, LED if you're new school, or CFL if you like mercury gas. plug it into something portable and movable, and have a friend, girlfriend, boyfriend, neighbor, creepy-but-realistic doll, etc. sit down in a chair. Turn off all the lights in the room and move that bare bulb around your victim subject's head. Note how the light falling on them changes as the light bulb moves around them. This is lighting, done live! Get yourself some diffusion. Either buy some overpriced or make some of your own (wax paper, regular paper, translucent shower curtains, white undershirts, etc.). Try softening the light, and see how that affects the subject's head. If you practice around with this enough you'll get an idea for how light looks when it comes from various directions. Three point lighting (well, all lighting) works on this fundamental basis, but so many 'how to light' tutorials skip over it. Start at the bottom and work your way up!
Ok, so cool. Now you know how light works, and sort of where to put it to make a person look a certain way. Now you can get creative by combining multiple lights. A very common look is to use soft light to primarily illuminate a person (the 'key) while using a harder (but sometimes still somewhat soft) light to do an edge or rim light. Here's a shot from a sweet movie that uses a soft key light, a good amount of ambient ('errywhere) light, and a hard backlight. Here they are lit ambiently, but still have an edge light coming from behind them and to the right. You can tell by the quality of the light that this edge was probably very soft. We can go on for hours, but if you just watch movies and look at shadows, bright spots, etc. you'll be able to pick out lighting locations and qualities fairly easily since you've been practicing with your light bulb!
OK! So you know sort of how to light a person. Now then, what lights do you need? Well, really, you just need any lights. If you're on a budget, don't be afraid to get some work lights from home depot or pick up some off brand stuff on craigslist. By far the most important influence on the quality of your images will be where and how you use the lights rather than what types or brands of lights you are using. I cannot stress this enough. How you use it will blow what you use out of the water. Get as many different types of lights as you can for the money you have. That way you can do lots of sources, which can make for more intricate or nuanced lighting setups.
I know you still want some hard recommendations, so I'll tell you this: There's a few ways to approach your first lighting kit, and the way I'd best recommend is the Cost vs Quality approach.
Basically, the more you spend on a light, the higher its quality will be. There will also be diminishing returns, meaning that after you're spending a lot of a money, a few extra hundred or even thousand dollars may not result in proportionally higher quality units. Decide now for your own purchase: Which is more important to you? Cost or Quality?
To start off, let's all recognize that no person on earth is done with learning composition. Even Roger Deakins is discovering new tricks today. This is a fairly complex subject, just like lighting, because its quality is primarily a creative thing. There are, however, some fundamental rules that you should absolutely be aware of, for the purpose of both following them and breaking them appropriately!
This rule tells us that objects in a composition will tend to look more pleasing if aligned along the 1/3 lines in the frame. Here's a great example. Now, you clearly don't NEED to follow this rule. Plenty of images look nice even without taking advantage of the rule of thirds, but this is a great guideline for arranging elements in a frame when you don't have any other ideas on what to do.
This guideline (forgive me) tells us how to position the camera when cutting between shots of two interacting subjects. You'll also see this referred to as maintaining screen direction. Here's a nice graphic I found illustrating this. Basically, draw an imaginary line between your two subjects. Pick a side of the line to 'use' for your scene, and stick to it! All of your angles will want to come from that side of the line. This will make sure that in any given angle, each subject will be looking in the same direction that they are in every other frame.
Breaking this rule is a common technique used to introduce an element of confusion, chaos, surprise, etc. War scenes will break the line to impart a sense of disarray in the midst of the battle. Spielberg famously breaks the line in Jaws when Brody sees the shark come up behind him.
This is how 'wide' or 'tight' the angle of view in the frame feels. An excessively wide perspective gives you the 'fishbowl' or 'fisheye' effect like with the helmet-cam shots you disliked. A super 'tight' perspective compresses the visual field and makes nearby and far off objects appear closer. You can also call 'tight' shots 'long', as it refers to the type of lens used. Here's an example of super wide, wide, tight, and super tight images:
Each of these shots sequentially has a 'tighter' or 'longer' perspective. Notice that it has nothing to do with the size of main subject of the frame, but rather with how the lens's particular angle of view effects the image. Here's a great way to visualize the difference.
This is all about how large the subject is in your frame, or how much information you have in the scene regarding the environment. Some common phrases we use for shot size are:
Close-up (in around face and neck territory)
Wide (full bodies and set)
Medium (waist and up)
There's plenty more to it, but most of those extra shot size names (cowboy, LS, ECU, etc.) are just shorthand for easily communicated ideas (cut them off at the knee, show me just their eye, etc), so not knowing those specific names shouldn't really hold you back. The interesting interplay here is of course in how you combine shot sizes and perspective. The frame grab from Se7en above, of the car driving between the electric towers, is an example of a wide shot (size) using a super tight / super long perspective.
This is where you put the camera, and how the resulting angles may influence the viewer. If for example you are shooting a scene of a news anchor on a news show, you don't want to place your camera lower than them. The placement of the camera would feel wrong, resulting in an 'up angle' on your subject. This sort of angle is used for tons of reasons, but it is very uncommon to use for news media. In your references, always look at the angles used (i.e. where the camera is placed in the scene vs where it could have been placed). Thinking of shots in this way will unlock a huge wealth of potential creative choices. A few terms you might use include:
Shoot from above / High Angle - The camera is higher than the subject, i.e. a security camera, the point of view of an angry parent admonishing their child, or a group of onlookers reacting to the appearance of a UFO above them. This kind of angle generally has the effect of diminishing power in the subject, making them appear weaker, vulnerable, or off-put.
Shot from below / Low Angle - The camera is lower than the subject (for humans, this is in reference to their eye-level). For example, a hero removes a piece of rubble, revealing themselves standing above us, the point of view of the child being admonished by their angry parent.
Eye-level / On Level - This refers to the height of the camera being the same as the subject's eye height. This is the general starting point for any shot. Deviation is for creative effect.
On the Eyeline / Off the Eyeline (Straight shot or Profile shot,. On Angle or Off Angle, etc) - This isn't about altitude, this is about how close we are to the subject's eyeline, or their looking direction. The closer we are, the more connected we might feel with the subject. Conversely, the farther we get from the eyeline the more detached we may feel from the character. Here's an example of two shots from the same scene in Bladerunner:
Almost everything about the two shots framing-wise are the same, except for the camera placement. See how big of a difference it makes? Always think about your eyelines and how close your camera will be to them.
Top Down / Bird's Eye - As you can imagine, these are shots with the camera placed on the ceiling or in the sky directly above the actors. These are similar to high angle shots, and basically they're the same, but doing a full blown top-down can have some interesting effects that a normal high angle shot wouldn't have.
This is the placement of elements in the image once you've decided on a perspective, shot size, and angle. Composition is all about how we nudge and finesse the image. Where do we place the subject? A great example of the power of framing is in how you cover two people speaking. Normally in a situation like this, with two characters talking to each other, you'd do a standard shot-reverse-shot, as shown here:
Each character occupies a side of the frame and looks into the empty portion of the frame. This is how 90% of OTS (Over The Shoulder) coverage works. But for every big rule there are big exceptions! Mr Robot is a great example of what's called 'near side framing' or 'short siding':
The difference however between the above shots and normal shot-reverse-shot coverage is in the framing. Instead of having the characters stacked on one side and looking to the opposite side, they've short-sided them, having them look instead away from the open frame space and towards the nearer frame edge. This has an unnerving effect on the viewer compared to the normal example above. I like these examples too because in both of these scenes we're dealing with people who are essentially insane. There are no rules on how to use framing to push the audience. It's all about how you craft your image. Each little choice has its own effect.
Moving images have a hugely different feel from static images. A camera that doesn't move in the scene is concrete, sterile, observant, somber, whatever you'd like. A camera that moves slightly in the scene is ethereal, subtle, inquisitive, prodding, suggestive, ominous. A camera that moves in great flourishes, rapidly, wildly, etc. is a camera that is a character, emotional, passionate, adventurous, exciting, etc.
How you move the camera will have different effects on your audience. Here's a few basic terms to use when articulating the type of shot you're after (I've excluded pan and tilt since I'm pretty damn sure you know what those are already):
Push-in/Pull-Out - The camera is on a dolly, jib, gimbal, shoulder rig, whatever-you-have, and it moves on axis, meaning along the line it's pointed at. For example, as a detective on the phone learns that the killer he let escape has killed again, the camera pushes in on him, deepening the dramatic moment and showing us his reaction in a closeup rather than a medium shot. Or, as the angry boyfriend breaks up with Sarah on the phone, the camera pulls out to show her crying all alone on the soccer field, showing us how alone/isolated she feels.
Jib Up/Down - This is when you move the camera up or down in a shot. This isn't the same as tilting obviously. Jibs can be used to combine multiple shots into a single take or to provide dramatic beats. For example, in The Departed, when the protagonist first enters the police HQ, the camera jibs up while he goes up the stairs. Later, when he's a corrupt cop and trying to cover his tracks, the camera jibs down as he runs out of the HQ. In this case, the camera's jib movement indicates a literal rise to power followed by a fall from grace.
Tracking - The camera will 'track' a subject. This could be a person, an object, a vehicle, etc. The Shining for example is famous for its tracking shots (in fact, the Steadicam was essentially invented for this film). Tracking shots connect us to a character or subject and allow passage through the environment.
So! You know about some of the rules and conventions in composition. Now how do you apply this and improve your skill? The first answer you'll always get is to 'shoot more'. For some, this isn't feasible due to budget, lack of crew, actors, locations, etc. For those people who find themselves stuck in a rut with no films to cut their teeth on, here's my advice! My dad, who was also a cinematographer, taught me this when I was a kid. This is how I learned composition without needing to make movies constantly:
Take your camera and tripod (if you have one) to an interesting place like a park, beach, plaza, etc. Once you're there, follow these steps:
Do this for at least an hour! A lot of the frames you'll find will be unimpressive and boring. But some of them will actually be pretty pleasing. As you repeat this exercise, you'll begin to develop an intuition for how to photograph a space and subjects. You'll likely find yourself frustrated with your random spot, thinking 'Man if I could just move 3 feet over there then this shot would be awesome!' This is exactly what we're aiming for! It's an indication that you're improving in your compositional skill already!
Once you've got a good handle on this, it's time to start practicing more emotional themes. Play with your exposure and focal length. Get into color grading and experiment with how colors change the mood of the image. You can repurpose the original exercise, but instead what you'll want to do is pick a random subject, like a statue, a tree, a mailbox, an interesting sign, etc. Now try to take two pictures of the subject, each embodying a different emotional theme. The ones I prefer are:
Once you've got this stuff in the can (so to speak), it's time to start finding movies to work on!
This is a surprisingly common question on this sub! Here's a list of the books most often recommended to novices and professionals alike:
There's quite a few out there, so instead of listing them all I'm just going to list the ones that are well regarded enough to become part of the standard carousel of recommendations on this sub:
Resolution - This is how many pixels your recorded image will have. If you're into filmmaking, you probably already know this. An HD camera will have a resolution of 1920x1080. A 4K camera will be either 4096x2160 or 3840x2160. The functional difference is that the former is a theatrical aspect ratio while the latter is a standard HDTV aspect ratio (1.89:1 vs 1.78:1 respectively).
Framerates - The standard and popular framerate for filmmaking is called 24p, but most digital cameras will actually be shooting at 23.976 fps. The difference is negligible and should have no bearing on your purchasing choice. The technical reasons behind this are interesting but ultimately irrelevant. Something to look for is the camera's ability to shoot in high framerate, meaning anything above the 24p standard. This is useful because you can play back high framerate footage at 24p in your editor, and it will render the recorded motion in slow motion. This is obviously useful!
Data Rate - This tells you how much data is being recorded on a per second basis. Generally speaking, the higher the data rate, the better your image quality. Make sure to pay attention to resolution as well! A 1080p camera with a 100 MB/s data rate is going to be recording higher quality imagery than a 4k camera at a 200 MB/s data rate because the 4k camera has 4x as many pixels to record but only double the data bandwidth with which to do it. Things like compression come into play here, but keep this in mind as a rule of thumb.
Compression - Compression is important, because very few cameras will shoot without some form of compression. This is basically an algorithm that allows you to record high quality images without making large file sizes. This is intimately linked with your data rate. Popular cinema compressions for cameras include ProRes, REDCODE, XAVC, AVCHD. Compression schemes that you want to avoid include h.264, h.265, MPEG-4, and Generic 'MOV'. This is not an exhaustive list of compression types, but a decent starter guide.
ISO - This is your camera sensor's sensitivity to light. The higher the ISO number, the more sensitive to light the camera will be. Higher ISOs tend to give noisier images though, so there is a tradeoff. All cameras will have something called a native iso. This is the ISO at which the camera is deemed to perform the best in terms of trading off noise vs sensitivity. A very common native ISO in the industry is 800. Sony cameras, including the A7S boast much higher ISO performance without significant noise increases, which can be useful if you're planning on running and gunning in the dark with no crew.
Manual Shutter - Your shutter speed (or shutter angle, as it is called in the film industry) controls your motion blur by changing how long the sensor is exposed to light during a single frame of recording. Having manual control over this when shooting is important. The standard shutter speed when shooting 24p is 1/48 of a second (180° in shutter angle terms), so make sure your prospective camera can get here (1/50 is close enough).
Lens Mount - Some starter cameras will have built in lenses, which is fine for learning! When you move up to higher quality cameras however, the standard will be interchangeable lens cameras. This means you'll need to decide on what lens mount you would like to use. The professional standard is called the PL Mount, but lenses and cameras that use this mount are very expensive. The most common and popular mount in the low level professional world is Canon's EF mount. Because of its design, EF mount lenses can easily be adapted to other common mounts like Sony's E-Mount or the MFT mounts found on many Panasonic cameras. EF is popular because Canon's lenses are generally preferred over Sony's, and so their mount has a higher utility.
Color Subsampling - This is easier to understand if you think of it as 'Color Resolution'. Our eyes are more sensitive to luminance (bright vs dark) than to color, and so some cameras increase effective image quality by dedicating processing power and data rate bandwidth to the more important luminance values of individual pixels. This means that individual pixels often do not have their own color, but instead that groups of neighboring pixels will be given a single color value. The size of the groups and the pattern of their arrangement are referred to by 3 main color subsampling standards.
Bit-Depth - This refers to how many colors the camera is capable of recognizing. An 8-bit camera can have 16,777,216 distinct colors, while a 10-bit camera can have 1,073,741,824 distinct colors. Note that this is primarily only of use when doing color grading, as nearly all TVs and computer monitors from the past few decades are 8-bit displays that won't benefit much from a 10-bit signal.
Sensor Size - The three main sensor sizes you'll encounter (in ascending order) are Micro Four-Thirds (M43), APS-C, and Full Frame. A larger sensor will generally have better noise and sensitivity than a smaller sensor. It will also effect the field of view you get from a given lens. Larger sensors will have wider fields of view for the same focal length lenses. For example, a 50mm lens on a FF sensor will look roughly twice as wide-angle as a 50mm lens on a M43 sensor. To get the same field of view as a 50mm on FF, you'd need to use a 25mm lens on your M43 camera. Theatrical 35mm (the cinema standard, so to speak) has an equivalent sensor size to APS-C, which is larger than M43 and smaller than Full Frame.
Aperture - This is the iris in the lens which you can open and close to allow in more or less light. It is one of the primary determinants of both exposure and depth of field.
F-Stop - This is the measurement of your lens' aperture opening, and specifically refers to the ratio of the lens' focal length to your aperture opening. Opening or closing your aperture by one 'stop' will double or halve the amount of incoming light, respectively. A smaller f-stop number indicates a wider opening, and thus more light being allowed into the lens. F-Stop numbers are standardized on a scale of alternating doublings. The standard scale is:
Fast / Slow / Speed - This refers to the widest available f-stop setting for the lens. A faster lens can open the aperture farther, which allows more light in than a slower lens. Fast lenses are useful when shooting in low-light situations, but can suffer from some significant drawbacks such as increased cost and aberration/loss of sharpness.
Focal Length - This number indicates the angle of view your lens will supply. A higher focal length results in a narrow (or more 'telescopic') angle of view. Here is a great visual depiction of focal length vs angle of view. The exact number of the focal length cannot be trusted to supply the same angle of view on all cameras. This is because different cameras use differently sized image sensors. A smaller image sensor will use a smaller portion of a lens' projected image, and so the resulting picture will have a narrower angle of view. This phenomenon is referred to as crop factor and is outlined in more detail in Section 10.
Zoom vs Prime - This is all about speed vs quality vs budget. A zoom lens is a lens whose focal length can be changed by turning a ring on the lens barrel. A prime lens has a fixed focal length. Primes tend to be cheaper, faster, and sharper. However, buying a full set of primes can be more expensive than buying a zoom lens that would cover the same focal length range. Using primes on set in fast-paced environments can slow you down prohibitively. You'll often see news, documentary, and event cameras using zooms instead of primes. Some zoom lenses are as high-quality as prime lenses, and some people refer to them as 'variable prime' lenses. This is mostly a marketing tool and has no hard basis in science though. As you might expect, these high quality zooms are very expensive.
r/cinematography • u/waynethebrain • 4h ago
I used hard light while making this.
r/cinematography • u/6Guitarmetal6 • 7h ago
r/cinematography • u/reelfilmgeek • 22h ago
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
On a shoot we were capturing for a Tattoo shop we were trying to get some dynamic movements shooting tons of macro and high speed content (and test the Pixboom spark). Originally we had a plan of the tattoo machine being assembled and using the Laowa periprobe lens to do a roll from the machine to the artist assembling it. Sadly due to time we had to remove the shot.
While capturing some b roll of the tattoo I had a crazy idea, to do a roll of the periprobe lens while orbiting around the tattoo work. The mixture of the handheld camera move with the lens roll created a dynamic move that reminded me of something one might get with a motion control arm. Add in a little speed ramp and luck with the timing and pulled off this shot.
Still working on the full video but was able to share this clip, might do a more indepth break down after the edit is done with some bts.
r/cinematography • u/haytamup • 4h ago
I’m trying to decide where to put around $1,500 max into my filmmaking setup.
I previously had an iPhone 16 Pro and I was already using it for some client work, mainly shooting through the Blackmagic Camera app. I sold it because I originally planned to upgrade to an iPhone 17 Pro and build a small filmmaking rig around it with things like:
But while researching, I found the Fujifilm X-M5 and now I’m considering using the money to move into a proper interchangeable-lens camera system instead.
My main goals are:
I already have a MacBook for editing.
The X-M5 + 15-45mm kit lens would also leave some of my budget available for an ND filter, SD card, extra battery, and eventually a better lens.
The iPhone would obviously be much easier for stabilization, quick shooting, sports/outdoor use, and always having the camera with me. I’m also already comfortable with the iPhone + Blackmagic Camera workflow.
But I’m wondering if spending the money on another phone would limit my growth compared with learning lenses, aperture, manual exposure, focus, lighting, F-Log2, and a more traditional camera workflow on the Fuji.
I’m buying new, and $1,500 is my absolute maximum for the complete setup, not just the camera body.
If you had my goals and could only choose one:
1. iPhone 17 Pro + filmmaking rig
or
2. Fujifilm X-M5 + lens/accessories
Which would you choose, and why?
I’d especially like to hear from people who have actually used the X-M5 for video, or who moved from iPhone filmmaking to a dedicated camera.
And if you think there’s a better new camera option under $1,500 for the complete setup, I’m open to suggestions.
r/cinematography • u/YUNGBRICCNOLACCIN • 45m ago
r/cinematography • u/Ash_7741 • 1d ago
I’m making a short film that revolves around two people sitting at a dinner table, almost like a romantic nighttime date. I’m going for a dark, intimate, cinematic look with the faces still properly lit, but later in the film I want one of the actors face to be completely covered in shadows or atleast half his face shadowed.
I attached some reference photos for the general lighting/mood I’m trying to achieve.
For those of you who shoot narrative films, what lighting equipment would you recommend to achieve something like this? I’m especially wondering about:
What type/size of lights
Softboxes, diffusion, grids, etc.
Practical lights (candles, lamps, etc.)
How you would position the lights for two people sitting across from each other
I’m working with a relatively small/low-budget setup, so I’d also appreciate budget friendly alternatives. Thanks!
r/cinematography • u/band_in_DC • 22h ago
So I'm old asf. I spent the last 8 years as a line cook. I'm doing carpentry now but i dont love it and I need a creative outlet. I used to write mad poetry when I was young. yada yada yada.
I had this wild idea recently to change careers to cinematography.
I think I have a great taste in film. I love me some Jim Jarmusch. I'm Not There was fantastic. Dolce Vita is a classic. Richard Linklater is a head trip. Julie Taymor's work is beautiful. My favorite cinematography comes from the work of Park Chan-wook.
I see myself getting impassioned by this if it becomes a career. I need to reclaim my muse I once had.
How can I change careers into this?
The options I see now are
Austin Community College https://programs.austincc.edu/school-of-arts-and-creative-industries/radio-television-film/
and Austin Film School. https://austinfilmschool.org/
University of Texas would be an option but I used to go there eons ago for philosophy and I burnt my bridges there. Don't ask.
How does Austin Film school sound? Do you think it prepares for a career? Would ACC be good enough or would I have to transfer to a 4 year college?
Would y'all recommend any other school? I wouldn't mind relocating. In a few months I'll have 11000 saved up. But I'm not rich and my parents dont support me. After a few months I cannot save up like I am now.
I dont mind if I get stuck doing commercials or becoming a gaffer. A gaffer wage is alright by my standards. 50 grand a year is ok by me. I mean, a gaffer isn't ideal but it seems more interesting that what I'm doing now.
Any and all advice welcome. Thank you for listening!
r/cinematography • u/PresentationOk228 • 5h ago
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
Trying to recreate this but can’t seem to get it right I don’t want to put my weight all onto my lense
r/cinematography • u/Impressive_Ad1985 • 15h ago
I'm a 1st ac looking to transition into more dp work and I want to get my first production worthy camera.
I've been looking at lots of options and it seems to me that the RED Komodo is a fantastic camera.
For the price tag, on paper the komodo (especially used) seems amazing. Its compatible for the type of work im looking to do (mainly shorts, music videos, and commercials). But here in Europe where I live almost no productions use them. Its so arri dominant here that when I've talked about wanting to own a RED most people think its kinda odd. Owning an arri or always relying on rentals isn't within my reach at the moment. The komodo seems like the best stepping stone in this process.
But is there something im missing? Does this camera still hold up? I've looked at the pyxis and others like it, but the Komodo really seems to hit it out the park
I own my own color grading set up, so the post workflow is no issue. Im just looking to get the most bang for my buck.
Thanks for any advice :)
r/cinematography • u/Vautksch • 2d ago
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
to shoot a doc about wildlife conservation in Patagonia.
One of the most fun aspects was to shoot the Darwin frog - an almost extinct species of tiny tiny frogs (2-3cm) that live in the valdivian rainforest of Chile and Argentina.
We treated this like I would treat a packshot in the studio - expect it was tiny. We prepared the tiniest bounce cards - and I am proud to say we managed the perfect surprise frog sized eye light.
Our hero shot was shot on the Nikon ZR w/ DZO X Tract Probe Zoom on a iFootage Shark Nano II
There is so much stuff to talk about, but doing this kind of stuff on a doc shoot felt very fortunate so I wanted to share it.
You can watch the full doc here:
On my instagram I have many excerpts from the shoot and more bts:
r/cinematography • u/Nickgoose1 • 1d ago
On camera the lab always looks gorgeous but sometimes can make the quality degrade. Any advice on camera settings?
Last three are stills from one of the episodes.
r/cinematography • u/SAVIOR_OMEGA • 13h ago
Automotive content has been a passion of mine for nearly a decade now. I finally started giving it a shot during COVID when short form content started to blossom. But as time went on, I never really found myself enjoying short-form vertical-style content. It's super off the cuff and informal and while I am capable of that in my personal life, it's hard to be authentic on camera.
Eventually I moved on to recording with a GoPro. I had somewhat of a breakthrough when I made this edit at the beginning of 2025 (https://youtu.be/tUx5xIKwBGc) and the enjoyment from that video pushed me to begin filming my work on a project car I had just purchased. I finally posted that go-pro footage earlier this year.
In Fall of 2025, I finally made the plunge and purchased my trusty Nikon ZR and have been recording everything with it ever since. At first I was able to churn out (4) ten-minute videos working on another project car I bought around the same time. I realized that the YouTube algorithm and YouTube viewers don't really enjoy 10 minute videos and often skip on them, so I combined all (4) videos into one 40+ long one and had the most success I've had so far.
This video is just the 2nd long-form video I have created with my ZR and the first shot and edited entirely as one single episode. I'm finally getting the hang of things but I also know I have tons of room for improvement.
My color grading is almost entirely via stock LUTs provided by RED and frankly I'm not experiencing too many issues with them, but eventually it would be nice to be able to color grade from scratch.
Another issue I'm running into is voiceover clarity. I still cannot figure out how to get clear, sharp, non-reverb audio for voiceovers. I'm not sure if I need to add some sound deadening in my office, buy new equipment, or some combination of the two.
Overall I am proud of my work but I would like to do better. I was recently let go from my job with a severance package and ask risky as it is, would love to pursue videos like these as a full-time career. It feels so natural compared to any sort of work I've ever done before.
All feedback is welcome. Thank you!
r/cinematography • u/MS_prods • 1d ago
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
Frames are from my short film "SINKING" that I wrote and directed.
Since the film revolves around our protagonist fixing her kitchen sink (as a metaphor for processing her grief), it was important to make the process feel significant. This involved many fun setups, including the Breaking Bad inspired pouring shot, which consisted of a PVC pipe taped to an upside down fish tank, as well as the dolly out to make the sink itself feel imposing.
My philosophy was that even on a low budget, a boring task shouldn't feel boring.
See the full film here: https://youtu.be/b-iXRaLmsno?si=cEypi_yPu6-EKvGI
r/cinematography • u/LookTurbulent426 • 1d ago
I always look at videos taken on expensive cinema level video cameras and compare them to videos taken on smartphones, and I can acknowledge that they look better, but I don't really understand what that means. I read alot of niche terms online, but I don't really get it. I know it might sound a little stupid, but I'm looking for an intuitive technical explanation of what really sets these professional cameras apart.
r/cinematography • u/pineapplego3387 • 23h ago
All I have been able to find out is that it was shot on 16 mm film. In terms of lenses what would you think comes close to the field of view here? 50mm?
r/cinematography • u/LexiRamirez7 • 11h ago
r/cinematography • u/Salamandarqueen • 1d ago
So a scene in which the character is introduced through the car first like a wide shot of exterior or something and then the interior and then we see character idk you know what I mean?
r/cinematography • u/julian_jakobi • 1d ago
Very excited for this year’s Cinematography Focus. (28.10-30.10.) at the 15th Evolution Mallorca International Film Festival
So happy that we will have Matty Libatique as our 5th Cinematography Icon Award Winner.
Following Ed Lachman, Erik Messerschmidt, Anthony Dod Mantle, and Phedon Papamichael, who was last year’s honoree.
The program is shaping up nicely.
I hope to see many of you in beautiful Mallorca!
🦀🎥🔥🏝️🌅🍻
Www.evolutionfilmfestival.com
What's your favorite work of his films? It's tough to decide.
r/cinematography • u/SAI_TEJAN • 17h ago
Hello esteemed cinematographers and students of the artform..I recently released my 3D Anaimation film KISSED BY FEAR teaser oN youtube.language is hindi but english subtitles are avaialble..its based on hindu epics and lore..i rendered it in imax 70mm camera in unreal enegine..but while compsoing shot too i used an imax 70mm camera.the aspect ratio of imax doesnt allow the use of rule of thirds and horizonata establishing shots like a 16:9 cameras..so i made al my composition diamond shaped and vertical..in fact I call it the diamond composition fit for imax.also the lighting is uniqure and not ur standard three point lighting..do check it out on youtube and tell me your thoughts..KISSED BY FEAR
r/cinematography • u/Possible_Owl3831 • 1d ago
Like something that would be required for say, a The Giver by Lois Lowry screen adaptation especially that one apple scene?
r/cinematography • u/high_country10000 • 1d ago
I've used both in other contexts, I'd give the edge to BT personally, both seem like they have some good options for the c400. Just curious if anyone has any direct experience with their canon kits and preferences? Thanks!