8 years boy POV

[Matteo Quagliano]

hello fellow ops,

 

I need an advice. How would u go for a POV as described in the title? Consider one meter high. Low or high mode? Very neutral or fast drop time? Regarding the operating do you have some suggestions? Yesterday I was practicig and I found myself comfortable with almost neutral and low mode but not with F bracket, meaning I hold the post not on gimble but below it. Is it bad?

 

Many thanks to all of you.

Matteo

[RobinThwaites]

Hi Matteo

 

It's called high low mode and it's fine. No need to change drop time.

Robin

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

hello fellow ops,

 

I need an advice. How would u go for a POV as described in the title? Consider one meter high. Low or high mode? Very neutral or fast drop time? Regarding the operating do you have some suggestions? Yesterday I was practicig and I found myself comfortable with almost neutral and low mode but not with F bracket, meaning I hold the post not on gimble but below it. Is it bad?

 

Many thanks to all of you.

Matteo

 

 

Why would you change your operating? it's just like shooting a 38 year olds POV....

 

To get the camera lower but in high-mode, take your F bracket and use it as if you were going to go into low mode.

[Matteo Quagliano]

Thanks for the very good tips. I'll try as you say Eric and see how it works. This way I should manage to hold the gimble properly.

I was thinking as operating that a boy is watching a world sized for adult so probably looking everything from bottom up. This way tilted stage might help giving that feel.

As for watching down I suppose you lift up while doing and not just tilt down, to keep the eyes level the same. Is it correct?

[Brad Olander]

My eight year old and her friends are well over four feet tall. A meter and a half in Italy I believe. Nearly as tall as Rob Vuona's car.

 

And, they look straight ahead, or down (she's telling me this now). Depends on your motivation, but kids aren't looking up all the time just because we're taller.

 

Good luck,

Brad

[Matteo Quagliano]

Thanks Brad.

I did a mistake in representing what I'm going to do... to be more understood I'll tell you what's about... danger in the house, like kitchen fire, like radio or tv close to a tub, like plug with no kids stop, stuff like that representing potential dangers in a normal house.

To be honest I was delivered a wrong script... the final version is with a 4 years boy and his 2 years little brother, the POV is from 4 years so this brings back to a kind of one meter high and more like watching things from bottom up (that's what my 2 years son does when he's not into something but just watching around for what to consider...) let's consider stoves, he's watching from bottom up.

 

What I'm very interested about is your opinion on wich focal lenght best represent human eyes. My consideration is that wide gives more the feeling of a person watching, but when moving it's too much slow to make it natural. Instead a bit tele gives more that realistic natural feeling in watching around. thoughts?

Edited June 12, 2009 by Matteo Quagliano

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Well people... to be more understood I'll tell you what's about... danger in the house, like kitchen fire, like radio or tv close to a tub, like plug with no kids stop, stuff like that representing potential dangers in a normal house.

To be honest I was delivered a wrong script... the final version is with a 4 years boy and his 2 years little brother, the POV is from 4 years so this brings back to a kind of one meter high and more like watching things from bottom up (that's what my 2 years son does when he's not into something but just watching around for what to consider...) let's consider stoves, he's watching from bottom up.

 

What I'm very interested about is your opinion on wich focal lenght best represent human eyes. My consideration is that wide gives more the feeling of a person watching, but when moving it's too much slow to make it natural. Instead a bit tele gives more that realistic natural feeling in watching around. thoughts?

 

 

The human eyes FOV is (in 35mm 1.85:1 terms) a 32mm

[Matteo Quagliano]

and compared into 1/3 ccd world? wiith a camera like Panasonic HVX 200 with no lens adaptor infront? I did a search but could't find a chart that converts 35mm into 1/3... I know that can't be compared for a lot of reason but just to get an idea, totally wide open, a bit tele, in the middle of its zoom range, totally zoomed in?

 

thanks for helping

[Brian Freesh]

Matt, to convert from 35mm to 1/3" chip, divide by 4.5. So a 32 on 35mm is equivalent to 7 on 1/3"

 

For future reference, divide by 2 for 16mm, 2.5 for 2/3", and 3.4 for 1/2"

 

As for what lens to use, I think slightly wide is probably the way to go. Maybe even a little wider than 32, maybe not. Kids are often taking in more than they can process at any one time, though they will pick things to focus on and not pull away for a while. Also, the world looks much larger to them than to adults, so the wide angle will help produce that.

 

Personally I've never put much stock in the whole FOV thing relating to human eyes. It doesn't account for peripheral vision, which provides me with somewhere around 220 degrees FOV and most people with at least 180 degrees. Granted, due to the nature of film, including peripheral vision would look very odd, but that's my point. Even if you get the field of view accurate, there's still a flat display surface, monocular vision (well, all the 3D lately...), depth of field, value range, perspective, etc... that don't look like human vision. So it's gonna be stylized no matter what, so you might as well pick a lens based on what style and story you're going for as opposed to what looks "natural." So if you're going for that wide-eyed awe of the large world around them, use a wider lens, let it wander (not randomly. Let some things "catch your eye" along the way), and when the child sees something important to the story (unguarded plug) lock it in the center of the frame. That says child to me. Maybe another style makes more sense to you. This whole paragraph is a bit moot though, since I basically agree with using a 32mm lens... Maybe 25-28 though.... |-)~

 

I don't understand what you mean by a wide angle lens making movement look slow. a wide angle lens distorts the frame, making the image look more expansive than it truly is, so when you move only a foot it looks like you've moved farther. So it actually appears to speed up movement.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Personally I've never put much stock in the whole FOV thing relating to human eyes. It doesn't account for peripheral vision, which provides me with somewhere around 220 degrees FOV and most people with at least 180 degrees. Granted, due to the nature of film, including peripheral vision would look very odd, but that's my point. Even if you get the field of view accurate, there's still a flat display surface, monocular vision

 

 

220 degrees? I think not. The geometry of our heads won't allow that.

 

With peripheral vision you get 160-180 degrees depending on the person and it's only the middle 60 degrees that registers detail. Peripheral vision only registers movement

[Brian Freesh]

When looking straight ahead at a target, I can discern contrast, both value and color, whether or not it is moving, behind the plane my eyes are on. I'm only estimating when I say 220, My guess is it's between 200 and 220.

 

My favorite thing to show non-industry peeps when I give them a tour of Clairmont is a 6mm Nikkor fisheye that has a 220 degree FOV. Maybe I should compare my peripheral to that...

 

 

Brian |-)~

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

When looking straight ahead at a target, I can discern contrast, both value and color, whether or not it is moving, behind the plane my eyes are on. I'm only estimating when I say 220, My guess is it's between 200 and 220.

 

My favorite thing to show non-industry peeps when I give them a tour of Clairmont is a 6mm Nikkor fisheye that has a 220 degree FOV. Maybe I should compare my peripheral to that...

 

 

Brian |-)~

 

 

Then you need to get to an optimist quick so they can write a paper about you since you are claiming a 40 degree wider field than what's know.

[Brian Freesh]

Then you need to get to an optimist quick so they can write a paper about you since you are claiming a 40 degree wider field than what's know.

 

 

Haha! I can't tell if that's an intentional pun or not! Well, an optimist would probably agree with me just by talking. An optometrist might want to test me first! I simply have above standard FOV, not unheard of, but not common either. I'm not the only person I know with greater than 180 degree FOV. Unfortunately my sense of smell (and by extension, taste) and my hearing suck. My sense of touch and sight have been above average for as long as I can remember.

 

My initial comment aside (I usually go for awe factor with this and can tend to exaggerate) , I truly only claim greater than 180, my guess is between 200-220. Maybe it's only 181, I'm not an optometrist. Though I am an optimist. |-)~

 

Back to topic, whether I am accurate or not in my claim still doesn't affect my above argument (not that anyone actually challenged this) that film/video never looks natural even if you get one factor to be the "same" as human vision (which varies from person to person anyway. So the filmmaker might as well just decide what looks best to them)

 

Brian, the all-seer |-)~

[Iain Baird]

Perspective aside I would say that all POVs are not created equal, and nor should they be approached with the same frame of mind. Any character, depending on age or life experience, looks at the world a little differently and said POV should reflect such. 32mm might be what our eyes capture but what the represented character is paying attention to is equally important and this is what should be considered when thinking about any POV - what frame of mind or perspective are you trying to represent? JMHO.

 

IAIN

[Gus Trivino]

Hi Matteo

 

Usually, when I work with kids, I use the J bracket in regular mode.

(The same when the scene is about somebody walking and after taking a chair)

I found it very comfortable and quickly instead go to low mode.

 

Best to all,

 

Gus