After having a chat with Robin about my film I feel inspired by a better understanding of focal lengths and how they alter the sense of depth of field. As I had the idea to track from a high angle and then slowly descend to an eye ‘level tracking shot, it would be more aesthetically pleasing if I were to frame the girl by placing perhaps an painting on the wall behind her. This would mean that when the camera itself neared her there would be a greater depth of field between the girl and the painting behind her, rather than a plain white wall, which would diminish that depth of field.

Side note

Long focal length = Shorter Depth of Field

Short focal length = longer depth of field

Certainly, each focal length has its advantages and disadvantages and should be used appropriately with the consideration of the set, the lighting, the cast and props etc. Robin showed me a film whereby a lens with longer focal length was used inside a moving car. The result was, a frantically driven car with the external surroundings appearing unnaturally close to the car, as though having been flattened. The result was certainly not the most realistic, had the director used a lens with a shorter focal length, the external surroundings would have appeared further away in the field and thus more realistic. However, I admired the intrusiveness achieved through the longer focal length and it created a sense of abstract chaos that I actually appreciated. To bring this back to my project for this semester, If I were to use a lens with a long focal length, then, Id assume when I approached nearer to the girl the frames behind her would be very close and the depth of field would not be great. Alternatively If I sued a short focal length, when nearing the girl, I would witness a greater depth of field, which will make the mis-en-scene appear more dynamic (that is perhaps advantageous since I am only doing a long take with a very tedious tracking shot).

I HAVE ADDED PAINTINGS TO THE SET AND CHOSEN A FOCAL LENGTH.

ONE STEP CLOSER