Focal length and Frame width

WSC

What settings do you use to get a more accurate depth perception? For portraits with a real camera, I used to use 85 - 100, but I don't think that translates. How about general scenes?

margrave

Generally, lower values will give you more depth perception.

Terry Gilliam uses very low focal lengths, like 24mm. That gives you shots which have so much depth they warp what you see.

I remember reading somewhere that 45mm focal length is about what the human eye sees, so that would be the most "accurate". Higher ones like 100 to 120 will flatten the image and remove depth completely.

WSC

margrave said:

Generally, lower values will give you more depth perception.

Terry Gilliam uses very low focal lengths, like 24mm. That gives you shots which have so much depth they warp what you see.

I remember reading somewhere that 45mm focal length is about what the human eye sees, so that would be the most "accurate". Higher ones like 100 to 120 will flatten the image and remove depth completely.

45mm. interesting. When I did potraits or shot people, I always used the 80+ range. Daz default is 65. I might experment at the lower 45 ish range.

margrave

WSC said:

45mm. interesting. When I did potraits or shot people, I always used the 80+ range. Daz default is 65. I might experment at the lower 45 ish range.

If you compare Daz models to real people, you find many of them have abnormally large eyes. But you don't notice it as much, because humans find larger eyes aesthetically pleasing. What's correct isn't always what looks the best. In portraits, you probably want less depth to achieve some kind of psychological impact.

Fishtales

Using cameras for portrait pictures I was told 135mm was the go too lens. 36mm is the frame width of 35mm film, the other frame widths are for different film types.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

 

mindsong

Per @fishtales, the portrait oriented 100-135mm lens numbers being discussed are specific to the 35mm film format, so for other film formats the optimal/equivalent focal lengths for the same 'effect' will differ.

I don't know what the internal DS 'film' size/aspect equivalent is.

I recall a series of 'lens' preset products in the store that formulated well-established lens and framing formats (e.g. https://www.daz3d.com/ig-photographers-toolbox-35mm-cameras).

For roughing it out yourself, if the 65mm DS default focal length seems to be the 'normal' lens, so, using the 55mm as the 35mm film standard, I would guesstimate that a good portrait setting for DS would be around 130mm/140mm in DS units - a bit more than the 35mm equiv. Move the camera back to fill the frame to taste and see if that 'feels' right, etc.

best,

--ms

WSC

margrave said:

WSC said:

45mm. interesting. When I did potraits or shot people, I always used the 80+ range. Daz default is 65. I might experment at the lower 45 ish range.

If you compare Daz models to real people, you find many of them have abnormally large eyes. But you don't notice it as much, because humans find larger eyes aesthetically pleasing. What's correct isn't always what looks the best. In portraits, you probably want less depth to achieve some kind of psychological impact.

Certainly in my case as I do a lot of toon/anime.... Not sure I like the lower ranges. My try some experimenting at higher ranges.

WSC

Fishtales said:

Using cameras for portrait pictures I was told 135mm was the go too lens. 36mm is the frame width of 35mm film, the other frame widths are for different film types.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

 

I typically didn't go over 100 for portraits when I was in to photography. May try it here. I think for more full scenes, I may leave it in the 65-80 range.

Fishtales

With the 135 I think the idea was that the camera and photographer weren't in the subjects face which allowed them to relax better. With the camera farther away they didn't feel as intimidated. Also the closer the camera the more crossed the eyes got as they tracked the camera the closer it got to their face.

WSC

Fishtales said:

With the 135 I think the idea was that the camera and photographer weren't in the subjects face which allowed them to relax better. With the camera farther away they didn't feel as intimidated. Also the closer the camera the more crossed the eyes got as they tracked the camera the closer it got to their face.

I can completely see that. As a poor HS student with one 50mm lens, yes I was right on the subject.... The attachment is a good example of the distortion at different focal legnths. Even at 70mm, she's still looking kind of "beakish". 135 is really good thought my radar's going off a bit on gamesmanship. It's a better pose/expression. Diminishing returns with the higher mms.