Focal length

>same actress
>looks completely different
How can you trust the imagery depicted in film when it can be manipulated so trivially and you may not even know it, as your brain assumes its natural focal length of 50mm? Is this a flaw that lowers the merits of the medium, or do you think it's inconsequential?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hFPmTV_UqKA
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Another example

That's just cameras.

the virgin 20mm vs the chad 200mm

what an autistic thread. what makes you feel you have to "trust" the image instead of just experiencing it as it is? is a painting a lie compared to a blank canvas?

Holy shit user, it's almost like the art of cinema is in presenting an altered view of reality.

it’s just another tool in filmmaking

what focal length is the human eye? I know my front phone camera makes me looks like crap and the back doesnt

>question the validity of imagery in a visual medium
>autistic
It's the single most important question to ask. If you can't trust it, you're left with nothing, and are susceptible to any ulterior motives which may or may not be present. And to experience is to blindly trust, as it occurs on a subconscious level - at that point it may already be too late.
Do you trust this image of my hand?

Transparently you can funhouse mirror a camera.

>I'm too stupid to understand how lenses distort the light they capture
>this means cinema isn't valid or something
You spend too much time on the internet, lad.

I think around 50mm is the closest approximation for our field of view

But this isn't necessarily a good thing. Suppose you become infatuated with an actress in a given film, but then are dismayed to find out she's suddenly unattractive in real life because the focal length in the film contoured her face by 2 inches and presented her features favorably. See the problem? The film is then telling a lie, and is disingenuous. I would feel wholly tricked.

Wow and this is literally the only situation that isn't seriously reaching. So you're only upset because you don't want to find out your waifu is actually ugly, a problem no non-autist will have.

This is a serious issue though. Imagine if you shot a politicians just to impress an actress who was actually hideous in real life

OP is a mongoloid.

Fuck you

pretty valid post
not very valid post

>Suppose you become infatuated with an actress in a given film
Why are waifufags so fucking insufferable?

Longer lenses are more similar to what you see IRL dumbass.

Waifufags deserve it

OP is a drooling faggot gamer manchild accustomed to the same geometry ratio in his characters, thats why hes so jarred by varying focal lenghts. OP you virgin manbaby.

No, I question the validity of the imagery in question. Just like you would question the validity of a photoshopped image, etc. Why do you resort so quickly into an ad hominem, huh?
You cannot fully appreciate film without also appreciating the very people who take part in the work. Nothing wrong with it, but please argue otherwise.

You wouldn't say that to me face. You cannot discuss the relevancy of focal length to film, and instead spew baseless fallacies. You're the mongoloids.

You know the stories movies depict aren't real right?

DELET

Yes, and you're allowed to and even encouraged to question the meaning and validity of the fictitious elements presented. But imaginary exists outside of any narrative, as it's inherent to the medium. Which makes it more important than anything else.

Kek. Based Kubrick btfo Shelley Duvall on exactly this point. She wanted a lens to look pretty in and he completely ignored her. Link related
youtube.com/watch?v=hFPmTV_UqKA

>pic
OH NO NO NO HHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Amazing. I heard he made he cry on set - a true auteur who wasn't afraid to take control of his vision.

What's wrong with the pic nigger? Looks like a generic guys arm to me