ONCE Advertising Cinematography Research · Advertising Cinematography Research 02/10
Research article / Work analysis · ONCE Editorial Team

In review rooms, focal length is often treated as an emotional shortcut: 35 mm feels immediate, 85 mm feels premium, a long lens compresses space, and a wide lens exaggerates people. Such phrases can help a crew speak quickly. They can also collapse four different decisions into one number: where the camera stands, how much of the scene the lens includes, which planes remain legible, and how large the finished image appears to its viewer.

This article does not ask which lens is more cinematic. It asks: how does a commercial use viewpoint and optical conditions to organize the relationship among people, products and space? Our central claim is that focal length is not a perspective button. Camera position first determines the projected relationships among objects. Focal length and recording format select how much of that relationship enters the frame. Aperture, focus position and subject distance organize sharpness. Cropping, aspect ratio and viewing conditions then alter the spatial force that viewers actually receive.

This does not deny the optical character of a lens. Distortion, flare, field behavior, breathing, close-focus rendering and out-of-focus imagery all matter. It only asks us not to attribute the combined result of moving the camera, changing focal length, changing format and changing aperture to a millimetre figure alone.

Materials and scope: what we examined, and what we did not

This study uses three groups of material. The first consists of two official comparisons and technical notes in ARRI's Signature lens brochure: one changes zoom settings from a static camera position; the other moves the camera with each prime focal length to maintain the subject's size. The second is Panavision's interview with cinematographer Alexis Zabé and its accompanying project frames from Klarna's The Four Quarter-Sized Cowboys and McDonald's Thank You for Driving Thru. The third is ZEISS's March 24, 2025 interview with Brandon Peterson and stills from an ORS Hair Care beauty campaign.

We inspected the official comparison images and project stills on these pages and read the cinematographers' disclosures about cameras, lens families, formats and movement. We did not complete a frame-by-frame or sound analysis of the three advertisements. We do not infer undisclosed focal lengths, apertures, lighting positions or compositing methods from stills. A manufacturer interview documents what its participant disclosed; it is not an independent lens test. The discussion below distinguishes direct observation, documented production fact, our interpretation and proposed experiment.

Start with the misconception: changing focal length at one position does not automatically change perspective

In a simplified pinhole model, the projected height of a point can be written as:

y = f(Y/Z)

Here, f is focal length, Y is the point's height relative to the optical axis, and Z is its distance from the center of perspective. If the camera remains fixed, both a person and the background are enlarged or reduced by the same f. Focal length cancels in the ratio of their projected sizes. At a fixed viewpoint, a longer lens gives a narrower crop. Cropping the center of the wider view to the same subject size preserves the same ideal foreground-to-background proportions. Resolution, aberrations and depth-of-field appearance may differ, but the objects' geometric perspective has not suddenly been compressed.

ARRI's official images make the distinction unusually visible. In the static-camera Signature Zoom comparison, stepping from 45 mm through 510 mm magnifies the person and background together while including progressively less of the surroundings. On the facing Signature Prime page, ARRI explicitly states that the camera position was changed for every focal length so the person's size remained constant. The 12 mm camera must be close; the 280 mm camera must be far away. Facial proportions, shoulders and the apparent size of the tower behind the subject all change. The sequence commonly described as focal length changing perspective is, in fact, a demonstration of focal length and viewpoint changing together.

ARRI's technical legend also identifies the entrance pupil as the center of perspective. The entrance pupil of a real lens is not necessarily at the front of the barrel or on the sensor plane. For precise compositing, panoramic stitching or close-range camera movement, it is not enough to mark a generic camera position on the floor; the team needs to know the geometric reference around which rotation or translation is being considered. For most commercial discussions, however, the first practical question remains simpler: where is the camera relative to the person, product and background?

“Long lenses compress space” can therefore function as set shorthand, but it is incomplete as an explanation. The familiar compressed result usually comes from a workflow: the camera is moved farther away after a longer lens is fitted to preserve subject size. Moving back changes the ratios between camera-to-foreground and camera-to-background distances; the lens then enlarges a narrower field into the same frame. If the director actually wants the person to feel closer to the product, the city to feel closer to the person, or a face to render more evenly, the relationship should be stated directly instead of being replaced by “go long.”

Klarna: spectacle is not made by one lens alone

Panavision's project interview identifies Klarna's 2021 commercial The Four Quarter-Sized Cowboys, directed by Andreas Nilsson and photographed by Alexis Zabé. Maya Rudolph appears as four quarter-sized cowgirls riding miniature ponies. The source states that the production used the Millennium DXL2 with Auto Panatar anamorphic lenses. Their 1.3x squeeze used the full sensor for a final 2.39:1 image, and the high-resolution capture also supported postproduction involving the four characters. We do not extend those facts into an undisclosed VFX workflow.

In one still on the official page, a small rider and pony stand before an enormous barn doorway, with the figure occupying little of the wide frame. In another, normal-sized fingers hold a tiny parcel beside the reduced figure. The direct observation is that neither image communicates scale by making the character small in isolation. Barn doors, floor, horse, fingers and parcel create comparable references.

Our interpretation is that the spatial joke depends on arranging those references in the same image. A medium close-up of the four small characters might preserve performance but not immediately establish how small they are. An environment-only view would lose facial expression. Camera height, eyelines, the hand-to-parcel relationship, environmental scale and consistent compositing jointly establish the spectacle. The 2.39:1 frame gives those elements room for lateral juxtaposition, but the aspect ratio does not manufacture miniaturization by itself.

This is also why a vertical adaptation cannot be reduced to a centered crop. If a 9:16 version removes the fingers, door frame or adjacent characters, the subject remains, but its evidence of scale may disappear. Commercial cinematography therefore needs to decide before production which reference must share the frame with the person or product, and how that relationship will be recomposed for landscape, portrait and square deliverables. The previous study on a director's visual thesis asked what must remain stable within a changing image. Here that stable element becomes a concrete viewpoint and visible reference.

McDonald's: in a wide-angle portrait, the decisive fact is whom the camera actually approaches

The same Panavision interview states that Zabé used the DXL2 and Sphero 65 lenses for McDonald's Thank You for Driving Thru. The commercial required close views of people collecting food and singing inside cars. The space was tight, so the camera could not be far away. Zabé describes the aim as close-range, wide-angle portraiture that retained the context around the performers while allowing control over depth of field. Under the production's pandemic protocols, in-car shots made while the vehicles were moving and performers were singing with closed windows had to be locked off. No per-shot focal lengths are provided.

The published frame includes two faces, seats, windows, a paper bag, fries and a burger in a horizontal close view. Food occupies the foreground while the environment outside the car remains legible. The visible fact is that people and product have not been separated into context-free close-ups. The documented production fact is that the camera could not withdraw in the confined vehicle and the cinematographer deliberately chose close-range, wide-angle portraiture. Our interpretation is that intimacy begins with the camera being admitted into the small zone shared by the people and their food, not with the word wide-angle on its own.

That viewpoint carries costs. As the camera moves closer, the differences between the face-to-camera, hand-to-camera and food-to-camera distances grow. Objects at the image edge may also combine perspective-related stretching with the lens's geometric distortion. Pushing a burger toward the lens can give the product agency, but it can also make hand scale overwhelm performance. Move the camera back and use a longer lens to retain the same face size, and proportions may become calmer while the car context becomes harder to include. The decision is not natural versus exaggerated. It is whether the viewer should observe from outside the vehicle or enter the everyday action.

Large format should not be reduced to “shallower depth of field” or “more dimensionality” either. The same focal length covers a wider angle on a larger recording area. To recreate the same framing, a crew may use a longer lens, move the camera or crop later. Each changes a different variable. A depth-of-field comparison only becomes meaningful when subject size, camera position, focal length, aperture, focus distance, final crop and acceptable circle of confusion have been stated. Otherwise, “large-format look” merely packages a group of operating habits as a camera property.

ORS: when the performer approaches, zooming is not the same as moving the camera

ZEISS's ORS Hair Care interview offers a different spatial problem. Peterson states that the campaign used Supreme Radiance 28–80 mm and 70–200 mm zooms, with the camera mainly on a jib. For some dynamic shots, the model walked the length of the studio from approximately 50 feet away while the production used the full 70–200 mm zoom range, ending tight on the braids at minimum focus. The first assistant controlled zoom and focus, and zooming was coordinated with jib panning, tilting or tracking.

One official still shows a model standing within a bright warehouse space where windows and floor create depth. Another fills most of the frame with face, braids and hand. The stills support compositional observations; they do not establish that both frames belong to one continuous move. What the source directly discloses is that performer movement, zoom, focus and camera movement were designed in combination.

This material reminds us that zooming changes angle of view and magnification; it does not equal camera translation. If the camera remains fixed while a performer walks toward it, the performer-to-background perspective changes because the performer has changed position. If the lens zooms longer, the jib moves and focus travels at the same time, the result is produced by several synchronized variables. A storyboard note reading “70–200 push to close-up” does not tell postproduction whether the priority is corridor depth, the rate of approach, braid detail or a zoom that should almost disappear. A technical number must return to the purpose of the action.

Format, depth of field and viewing distance: space keeps changing after the camera stops

Commercial cinematography has at least three more layers that are easy to overlook.

The first is recording format and crop. Focal length only determines angle of view together with the active image area. The same lens records different extents in different sensor modes. A 9:16 crop from the same master may remove the foreground, background or human relationship that established scale. Multi-format delivery should protect the critical relationship during testing, not ask after the shoot why the product has been cut away.

The second is depth of field and attention. Depth of field is not perspective. Blurring a background removes spatial information; it does not geometrically move a building toward a person. Aperture, focal length, focus distance, subject magnification, format assumptions and delivery resolution all influence the accepted zone of sharpness. If both person and product must remain assessable, the answer may be a smaller aperture, a different plane arrangement or a different viewpoint. Merely fitting a wider lens will also alter framing and may force another camera move.

The third is viewing condition. One image subtends different visual angles on a cinema screen, a conference monitor and a phone. A product that fills a hand on a vertical mobile display may be a small silhouette on a distant television. Projection geometry can describe precisely how an image was formed, but it cannot directly establish that every viewer will feel intimacy or pressure. Aaron Hertzmann's 2024 Journal of Vision review argues that strict linear perspective does not explain all spatial perception in paintings and photographs and proposes that viewers integrate pictures through locally interpreted perspectives around successive fixations. Experiments published in 2025 offered support for a per-fixation account. These are studies of picture perception, not of advertising effectiveness. Their practical warning is that a focal length should not be turned into a universal psychological law: gaze, composition, content and display conditions also matter.

A minimal experiment that has not been performed: separate the lens look into four tests

We propose a repeatable test after the location is known. It has not been conducted for this article and has no results.

  1. Change focal length from a fixed viewpoint. Keep person, product, background, lighting and camera position unchanged. Record three focal lengths, then crop the widest image so the subject matches the longest. Compare product-to-background pixel ratios, while separately noting distortion, sharpness, bokeh and breathing.
  2. Maintain subject size while moving the camera for each focal length. Keep the person or product at the same image height. Record the distance from the center of perspective to both subject and background. Compare facial or product front-to-side proportions, background reference size, and whether foreground action can still enter the frame.
  3. Hold the spatial thesis constant while changing format and depth of field. First state which of product, person and background must remain legible together. Then test recording modes, apertures and focus positions. Do not simply pursue the shallowest field; record which layer of information disappears first.
  4. Review real deliverable formats on real devices. Export 16:9 and 9:16 tests. Inspect them on the intended phone and large display at plausible viewing distances. Record which scale references are cropped and which details only survive close viewing.

Teams can measure product-to-person image height, background-marker-to-person height, or the visible front-to-side ratio of a product. People outside the production may also be asked who feels closest, who dominates, and whether product and person appear to occupy the same space. Such responses are exploratory; they do not prove sales, brand memory or a universal psychological effect. Performance variation, lens distortion, focus, display brightness and viewer familiarity can all interfere. Those failure conditions belong with the results.

Return from millimetres to a sentence about space

A director and cinematographer can replace “use 35 mm” or “make it premium” with five questions:

  • Where does the viewer stand: at eye level with the person, beside the product, or inside the action?
  • Which objects must share a frame, and what are their size and occlusion relationships?
  • How much environment must remain, and which reference cannot be lost in landscape or portrait versions?
  • Which planes must be simultaneously legible, and which information can be carried by a focus transition?
  • Which lens characteristic actually serves these relationships, and which is simply an equipment preference?

This sequence does not remove a cinematographer's intuition. It gives intuition something testable and contestable. Focal length remains important, but it no longer bears oversized words such as intimate, premium or oppressive by itself. Commercial space is made from a complete set of distances between camera, person, product, background and eventual viewer.

For the production context, see ONCE's TVC and commercial production scope. When a brand proposition, product sample, critical action and primary delivery formats are ready, send ONCE the project brief and begin with one spatial relationship the film must preserve.

Sources and research note

Sources were checked on October 4, 2026.

This is an original research article and comparative work analysis by the ONCE Editorial Team; it has not undergone academic peer review. Its original commercial concept cover depicts none of the analyzed advertisements, ONCE client projects, production sets or experiments. No third-party advertising stills are republished.

← The Director’s Visual Thesis: How a Brand Enters an Image Who Drives the Frame? Three Tests for Camera Movement in Advertising →