by Mark Woods

I often hear comments about lenses like wide lenses "distort" and long lenses are for beauty. It's obviously more involved than that since all lenses distort and shape "reality" to some degree. Each lens has it's own personality, and this helps define characters and scenes. Wide lenses draw and shape the world they present. Long lenses limit perspective, and make the world into more of a graphic. These lenses also can either push the subject into the background, or lift him from it. In the following article, I've outlined some emotional differences lenses evoke in me. I'm sure there are many more. One of the main points of this article is to break with the thought that close-ups should always be shot with a long lens, and a very wide lens indicates caricature. There is a middle ground with an established history in strong and dynamic films, three of which I'll discuss.

HISTORY

The classic films from the Golden Era were shot with prime lenses. With short production schedules and limited technology, the director and cinematographer solved part of the problem of close shots and asides to the audience very simply. The actor either walked into a close-up, or turned to the lens as the camera dollied into a close-up from the master. Those masters were probably shot with a 25mm or 35mm lens, particularly when the three main lenses were 1-inch, 2-inch and 3-inch lenses (i.e., 25mm, 50mm, 75mm).

From those decisions, based on practicality, a dramatic style emerged with the German Expressionism that was in vogue then. In fact, elements of German Expressionism still permeate our craft today. Now the director, or sometimes the actor, can demand to have the zoom lens put onto the camera so the close-up won't be walked or dollied into, but will be zoomed into for expediency and the cosmetic effect of the longer lens. This trend to use longer lenses (75mm and above) for close-ups has meant a loss for many directors and directors of photography to make dramatic visual statements with close-ups while revealing more of the location, or other action.

THE LENS FAMILY

A lens is a perspective into a world that we create. It is the window to the characters we film. It is the tool we fix them with in relation to their environment. And the lens is a tool that can help express a character's uniqueness. I like to think that each lens also has its own personality.

A 25mm feels like my aunt. She's someone who wants to include all the family at her large house but can be very dramatic when confronted up close and personal. Although when she whispers a ribald joke in my ear, she's hilarious.

An 80mm lens is much like a niece of mine who is very pretty and self absorbed. Often, she doesn't see beyond the depth of her mirror, and isolates the situations she's confronted with without considering the "bigger picture." This is a long lens perspective if I ever thought about one.

What are some of the other personalities? William Fraker, ASC, with director Roman Polanski, used a 25mm lens on Rosemary's Baby. One might ask him about that choice. Why use that lens in the apartment and other interiors? Why shoot the close-ups with that lens? Why do the inserts with that lens? The answer could be an intellectual justification of almost anything. But the reality is, that lens works really well for the visual exposition on this picture.

I know that Caleb Deshanel, ASC, with director Hal Ashby, almost exclusively used a 50mm lens on Being There. Why? You might ask him, and he might say that he wanted a "normal" perspective for the presentation of an abnormal situation. The shots that were an exception from this approach didn't affect the overall exposition, while the overwhelming number of shots with the 50mm lens set the tone for the film. The way the actors appeared in the film in the close-ups and other shots set the mood and complemented the lighting.

I recently shot a pilot for a children's TV show in 16mm. The directors wanted a particular style that included the use of extremely wide lenses. Our "go to" lens was a 9mm. During pre-production, I referred to this as our "wide world." More than occasionally we shot with a 6mm lens. The children's single shots were all shot with a 25mm lens with the idea they would be the only "normal" elements in the show. Our main character was over 6 feet tall, and the location we shot had a ceiling that sloped lower than the 8-foot ceilings in most houses. With the 9mm lens, I could see three walls, the floor, and the ceiling. These five converging planes framed our main character, and emphasized his size in relation to the children. During the production we were able to maintain our "wide world" look, and the results were fun and wonderful.

DISTORTION VS. PERCEPTIBLE PERSPECTIVE

In the past, directors of photography needed to be concerned with distortion in wide-angle lenses. Computer-aided lens designs have virtually eliminated the more common problems with wide lenses, barrel and pincushion distortion. The perspective is still forced, but the distortion of the older wide-angle lenses has been eliminated.

Wide-angle lenses change the perspective, but it's the capability of these lenses to draw the image that interests me. This is not distortion in the purest sense of the word, but a presentation of a perspective different than what we normally experience. Lines converge more radically, buildings keystone, and noses protrude more than an actor's vanity might allow. None of these items are "distortion" in the purest sense. They are shifts in perspective.

An old Angenieux 5.9mm, or a fish eye lens, "barrel" distorts the image, but a Zeiss 25mm or Primo 27mm lens does not distort the image. The latter lenses will affect the perspective, but line them up parallel with a grid chart, and the lines will be straight and parallel on the film plane. Tilt the camera to the grid, and the lines will keystone. All lenses except corrected swing shift and Perspective Control (PC) lenses will keystone (and these will keystone if left in an uncorrected "neutral" in position). The keystoning with longer lenses will simply be less noticeable. Today, more than ever, the choice of a lens is artistic. If the director doesn't like the keystoning with a fixed wide lens, the director of photography can opt for the same millimeter lens on a swing shift mount, or a Perspective Control lens.

LENSES SET THE STAGE FOR THE ACTORS

I think of the lens as defining the actor's stage. If she or he is in a close shot, the actor may be working in a stage the size of a 5-gallon aquarium. All the subtle hand motions s/he worked up won't be filmed unless they're included in the aquarium.

If s/he's in a medium shot, the stage may be the size of a telephone booth. Somehow the actor must focus his expression, speed of execution, and the relative "size" of his actions into this area.

If s/he moves too quickly, we'll both be in trouble: the actor because the moment won't be caught on film, and the operator because s/he unintentionally allowed the actor to escape from the stage. If the actor is made aware of his venue, he's better able to gauge the speed and size of his performance.

I've mentioned to actors that a full shot, one that is head to toe, or wider, really is "body" language performance because of the scale. If the actor is focused on small motion or eye movement, it won't be seen. As the actor becomes larger in frame, the acting shifts to smaller actions, the moments that define a fine performance.

When I frame a close shot, or an ECU, the action is quite literally in the eyes. And we all know the eyes are the windows to the soul. As the director of photography, I am compelled to document that soul's expression. If I don't achieve that, I feel I've failed. It's up to the director to help the actor peel away the layers to the innermost expression of the character at any given point in the script. It's up to the director of photography to stay in visual step with them both, much like a percussionist. Sometimes the shot is on the beat, sometimes it's syncopated or against the moment, on other occasions it's static to emphasize the action, yet in other instances the shot (i.e., camera) may panic in the face of a calm actor. The combinations for expression are limitless.

ZOOM OR PRIME?

I don't want this article to digress into a discussion about the quality of prime lenses versus zoom lenses, but I feel there is one major difference I need to address: minimum close focus.

On wider primes, the close focus is often less than one foot. With the newer designed zooms like the Arri Variable Prime lenses, the close focus on the #1 and #2 is 2 feet, while the #3 is 2.5 feet. The closest focus on any of the Primo Zooms is 2.5 feet. In most instances these zooms work equally well as prime lenses. Only when the cinematographer wants to bring the focus of the shot closer than the minimum focus will s/he run into problems-and this is the area where the image size in relation to the background becomes most interesting to me. More about that in a minute.

DEPTH OF FIELD AND RELATIVE IMAGE SIZE

By the way, one should be aware that switching to a wider lens (shorter millimeter lens, e.g. changing from a 50mm to a 25mm lens) does not increase the depth of field if the image size remains constant. For example, if an actor was framed in a shot with a 25mm lens, and then framed to the exact same size with a 150mm lens, both lenses would yield the same depth of field. Many non-technical folks might think a wider lens would result in more depth of field. Unfortunately, the same relative depth of field results in the same relative size of the individual in the shot-no matter what lens is used.
As I say to my directors, "it's one of those camera things," when we reach for the lens we feel is most correct for the shot.

LENS PERSPECTIVE AND RATIOS TO THE BACKGROUND (THE DIAGRAM)

Let's look at a couple of examples of a similar image size with different lenses. In the diagram below indicating lens angles for a 25mm, 50mm, and 150mm lens, a few things become very clear. First, let me describe what you're seeing. The subject's nose is 10 feet from the background. The 25mm lens is 2 feet from the subject's nose. This image size is one I like, and feel it illustrates the different lenses' personalities. Also, the subject distance to the film plane is the minimum close focus for the newest zooms.

As my 1st assistant whispers to me on a regular basis, "Don't set the mark at the bottom of the barrel, since the actor may lean closer, or miss his mark." More often than not, he's right about this. So you could use a zoom, but a prime would give you an added safety margin for focus, and the "look" of some actors at 18 inches is really interesting-in a positive sense.

Okay, with a 25mm lens the most obvious difference is the amount of background included in the shot. But another interesting aspect is the relationship of the subject from the film plane to the subject's distance from the background. Except for the 25mm lens, I've rounded off the focus distance to the nearest foot. (Please note, the distance for a given lens may vary since a lens's focal length is a close approximate.)

The 25mm lens ratio is 2:10 (or 2 feet between the subject to the film plane, to 10 feet between the subject to the background). That same ratio for the 50mm lens is 4:10 (or 4 feet to 10 feet).

The ratio for the 150mm lens is 12:10. I think the ratio of the subject's proximity to the lens and the background begins to express the various lenses' relationship. The strength of the close-up with the 25mm lens is akin to engaging in a conversation with someone standing close. The actor is closer to the lens than he is to the background. This optical relationship creates an exaggeration of depth. The audience sees and feels more. While a close-up with the long lens is-well, there's nothing like that in the natural world-short of gazing at someone with binoculars or a telescope. There's a definite distance from the subject. Perhaps it's a more objective view along with the compression we associate with the long lens. The compression is a result of the spatial relationship of the lens to the actor to the background and increases with the length of the lens.

SHAPING TIME WITH THE GLASS

The spatial relationships of different millimeter lenses affects how movement is portrayed. Film is a linear, temporal, medium. It has the ability to change the perceptions of time along with shaping the world it portrays. This "real" perception on screen is actually a "reel" presentation of a surreality that only exists on film. The lens choice is a major contributor to this film illusion, even in the digital CGI world. This is subtler than the mechanical manipulation of exposure, frame rate, and the presentation speed.

The slow-motion used in the NFL football games contributes to this thought. The "iso"-or isolation-lens is a very long telephoto lens that takes a player, or encounter, out of the environment and presents him in a manner that's bigger than life, coupled with the added weight of slow motion. This combination truly presents the players in a magnificent and spectacular manner. This is similar to the effect one achieves when using high speed coupled with wide lenses when shooting miniatures. Think of the (miniature) ship, RMS Titanic, breaking in half in the film Titanic. Anyone who shoots miniatures must know the relationships of:

o Frame Rate:Focal Length:Miniature Scale

In this type of cinematography, and other effects work, it is critical to think of the subject in terms of the scale of the world being filmed, to appear in the scale in which we live or want to create.

oLens Choice v/s Production Limitations

If you've shot many images on film or video, you've probably encountered a particular lens, or millimeter on a zoom lens that you like. Or, on the other hand, you've only thought about the quickest way to get the size of the object or person in the frame in relation to where you are.

I'm afraid the limitations of some productions limit our ability to determine the lens we prefer over the lens that keeps the camera out of the shot of another operator, say on a multi-camera shoot. But in single, or even two-camera productions, we have the opportunity to determine the lens, and thereby determine the speed the actors move to and from the camera. We can emphasize a moment in their action with the lens, perhaps in conjunction with a dolly move.

oThree Approaches from Three Great Films

Let's take a moment to think about three films: Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon, and Searching for Bobby Fischer.

In Citizen Kane, Gregg Toland, working with director Orson Welles, used wide lenses continually through the production. Think of the scene where Kane writes the bad review of his wife's performance. Kane sits at the typewriter (facing the camera) in a close shoot. In the distant background, Stanford emerges, drunk, from the doorway of his office and walks into a medium shot where he is told he's fired. One shot, one lens, and great intensity.

Arthur Edeson was the director of photography on The Maltese Falcon, working with director John Huston. Often when Sam Spade makes a realization, or a point, the camera quickly dollies into a close shot, with the lens about chin high. The coverage of two-person conversations in this film appears to be filmed with wider lenses, generally with both people in the shot. The singles are generally filmed from a low angle to emphasize magnitude and power. In fact, when Spade meets Gutman the camera is so low and close to Gutman's stomach that his head appears to grown out the mountain of his gut. When was the last time you set up a shot like that, even in comedy? These low angles also reveal the ceilings in both films, so partial returns, or complete ceilings had to be constructed. This caused production problems, to be sure, but what a presentation of characters! In that style, how could those shots convey the same emotion with longer lenses? How could the environment around the characters be portrayed with the narrow angle of view of a "long" or "cosmetic" lens? They would be different films.

On the other hand think of the more contemporary treatment in Searching For Bobby Fischer. Conrad Hall, ASC, the director of photography, with director Steven Zallian, used longer lenses to isolate the characters and actions. Think about the speed chess games on the street, the tournament games, and how the long lens enhanced the aggressive play of the pieces on the board. The "iso" camera we've grown used to, but it was used marvelously in this film. The longer lenses utilized for the close-ups presented the characters in a better reality than we would see them in the "real" world. The close-up lens was certainly longer than a 50mm lens (some of them were probably shot with the 150mm to 600mm zoom lens). This choice of lenses emphasized the child's focus and concentration on the game, and helped present the difference between the boy's reality and the rest of the world.

How does this affect the temporal distortion I mentioned at the top of this section? Think how the lens helped speed the characters' movement in Citizen Kane. This is particularly evident when Kane is campaigning for political office and thus moves slowly and deliberately. He could walk that way, and still move into a medium shot quickly since he didn't have far to walk because of the lens used. The final shot looking up from knee high resembles the Expressionistic wood block prints of Lynd Ward. On the other hand, look at the quick aggressive chess moves within a very limited stage in Searching For Bobby Fischer. One shot is created by being inclusive of the set and subject, while the other's effect is created by the total focus on the subject, where small moves are enlarged along with the exclusion of the larger world.

WRAP

Over the years the editorial process has dictated more and more how live action production is filmed. In the case of effects work, this is understandable. Television programming demands coverage to help fit a show into the commercial breaks.

But in feature films and MOWs, I'm not sure why directors and producers feel that they can "save" bad acting or directing if they have the elements (i.e., read as much coverage as possible). This approach smacks of not knowing the rhythm and focus for the film until after it's been shot. Some of my favorite films, and great films, have been shot cheaply and quickly. They share a director with a vision demanding not to "just get it," but get it right at the helm. This is the mantra I like to chant with the directors whom I work with.