I believe the problem nowadays is that we move the camera too much, just because we can. Sliders, cranes and gimbals have become very affordable, so we tend to forget the good old tripod, the steady shot, the pan and tilt. When camera does not move, the audience forgets it's a movie and concentrates more on the story, is drawn into the movie, the acting becomes central.
I like minimal frames with no movements, Still some are doing I liked the way they shot "Better call Saul" which I watched recently, eventhough it's not a movie, I liked the way they framed the shots
the issue is cut scenes. when the director has no idea what they are doing it can be mitigated by a soup of cutscenes. case in point one of the mary sure jedi fights 13 cuts in 10 seconds. its jarring and takes you out of immersion
I don't think it's a matter of how often a camera moves, but, the motivation for camera movement. Spielberg was known for moving his camera when characters in the shot were walking or moving. It was a clever way of combining multiple angles in one shot. But, again, the key is motivation. My biggest pet peeve are the "floating camera" shots. The shots where the actors are talking but not moving at all, but the camera is floating around as if floating on water. For me, such shots take me out of the movie because it reminds me that I'm watching a movie. It's especially distracting when it's an emotional scene.
I like when its still, it provides more attention on characters rathen than pure action. An you have to be much more active on steady shot to entertain. Also gimbals are often misued, overused or underused.
something very obvious about the Spielberg scene that you didn't mention, he is actually using a "wipe cut" in conjunction with an Axial Cut so it is does not appear like a jump cut, the people walking across the frame close to the camera create the Wipe, in that respect the Spielberg scene is quite unique compared to the other examples you show.
Spot on, the wipe created by the people walking past Brody mask the axial cut and create a completely different technique to all of the other examples in the video
@@jgrab1 I found it interesting...another cut type i had not considered.I think you maybe responding to the title of the video....but that's just you tube click bait strategy stuff...
I would just call it an "axial wipe cut" or an "axial cut with wipe transition". The shot alignment makes it axial, while the transition between the shots makes it a wipe. Despite being called "cuts", they describe different elements of the cut. I really like the axial wipe cut. People make good wipes, but so do vehicles. I think I've seen it done with cross traffic on a road, but I can't recall the source material.
Each level of zoom in the Jaws cut represents a sudden change in how Brody is perceiving his environment. He's looking all around him, then notices something, then examines something. The progressive zoom shot is the flush of panic and realization. You can literally feel the adrenaline hit his bloodstream. HAL-9000's zoom reminds us that HAL is watching. He's recording and thinking at all times. Earlier he was shown passively like in the famous rotation ladder scene, you may not have noticed, HAL is on the wall in that shot. HAL is passively displayed early on, but we aggressively zoom on him once the audience is meant to know he's omnipresent.
0:59 - The camera is actually _higher_ for the second shot, as shown by the fact that you can see _into_ the saucer, whereas in the previous shot you could only see its edge. Also, in the previous shots, if the camera "didn't change its axis" and you just "zoomed in and continued filming", the subject would have been left out of frame. Finally, the title of the video asks a question... that the video doesn't even attempt to answer.
Thanks for this - I've been waiting for around 52 years to hear about this shot with respect to Spielberg's specific use of it, so this video is much appreciated. I did notice the axial cut you mention in Jaws because it reminded me of the first time I had seen it which was in Spielberg's TV movie Duel with Dennis Weaver (1971). He did it in pretty much the same way as I recall, using people moving in front of the camera as a means to go from one cut to the next. I was pretty young when I saw both Duel and Jaws and even then thought it was a good visual, so for me, it had a positive effect on the presentation, it also made me feel like it was a Spielberg 'signature' shot even though he probably inly used it twice. Funny how some things can imprint on you like that. Having noticed this, but never seen it mentioned anywhere before, I had commented to others about it (who often didn't know what I was talking about), so I appreciate you making this video. It's nice to know it's something worth commenting on and I hadn't noticed it for no reason. I just enjoy movies and I'm not a movie buff, but if a particular movie shot does something in a positive and outstanding way, enhancing the presentation, I tend to notice it and it will stick in my mind, much like the other shot Spielberg did in Jaws by moving Schneider closer to the camera on a dolly, while also zooming the camera at the same time just as the Kintner boy is attacked by the shark. It really enhanced Brody's feeling of shock/realisation for the audience. These things may have been done before, but these were the first times I had seen them, and for me they made a big difference.
That remark on how something small and insignificant can stay with you for life... reminds me of how most nicknames come to be... It's typically some either extremely poorly or absolutely perfectly timed joke that only happens once or twice and bang! you're labelled for years or, more often than not, for life.
"...by moving Schneider closer to the camera on a dolly..." No. That's an optical illusion. The shot is done by moving the camera forward while zooming out, hence the term "push in/zoom out shot". I've used this technique in some of my own movies. You can also do the reverse: pull back/ zoom out.
Man I love your videos! Being a professional videographer myself, I have to say, you are one of the few and rare channels that don't bullshit people! I pull my hat to you! I think Spielberg used the axial shot in this specific scene in a multiple genius way. First he uses the people passing by for transitions. The viewer therefor relates to the experience of somebody blocking your view. If you focus on something and get distracted by any obstacle your stress level rises, because you fear missing something in exactly this moment, when your view is blocked. This rising stress level is perfectly captured by every axial cut after somebody passes the actor's view. It's almost like the viewer pinches his eyes to see clearer, what is going on with the actor. Having this slow building of tension in mind at the beginning of the scene, the later dolly zoom is like the opposite of slow tension building. It is like a rush of adrenalin. Like the viewer opening his eyes wide and full of fear. So I think Spielberg was very aware that he will use the axial shot in the beginning. He uses the same location, the actor sits in the same place. But the viewer gets a build up through the axial shot that climaxes 2 miutes later in the dolly zoom shot.
Excellent observations.Spielberg uses the axial cut BECAUSE he's planned the zoom later. This takes the whole sequence, the whole scene into account: it's all planned out for maximum ramp up effect. The big picture, the entire sequence is SO important and the initial axial cuts are not just for the fun of it. Its PART of the entire set up.
The most significant director to rely on axial cuts was Sam Fuller, and the most pristine example, since they are literally enlarged close-ups using a process. (the increased graininess gives it away) He leaned on it heavily to edit his numerous long takes that he he very often did not shoot coverage for. His editor Gen Fowler Jr, recorded his frustrations about it in the Server interview book.
Look closer, in the first example (man sitting at table with cup in hand) the second shot is from a higher position, but uses a different focal length, a wider angle lens, because the camera is closer. you can see this because the top of the plate (or saucer) is more visible in the second shot, and the top of the sugar bowl is more visible, demonstrating that the camera is higher. We also see things behind him on the left side of the frame that wouldn't be visible if the focal length had been increased from the first shot. So clearly not an axial cut, but also not where the camera was lowered and the lens zoomed in.
The Axial cut in jaws did draw attention to itself when I first saw it, more so because it happens twice consecutively. It was before I studied film so couldn't articulate why, but I saw the artifice momentarily although it was easy to get back into it as there are no other distracting edits I can recall in that film. Perhaps if it just cut from the farthest away shot directly to the closest shot with only one cut it might have been less jarring.
A jump cut is a temporal cut; it cuts to another point in time (usually forward in time) while keeping a similar camera position. It should not be confused with a cut that changes, e.g., angle or framing without a temporal change. Thank you for your informative videos.
Are you saying that Spielberg didn't use an axial cut after Jaws? I hate to be the contradictor here, but he used an axial cut in E.T. Cutting closer and closer on Elliott just before he cut back to a shotgun, cut to Elliott closing his eyes, cut to E.T.'s face, then to the wide shot as the bikes all lifted into the air. I count three Spielberg films with an axial cut - Duel, Jaws and E.T.
What a brilliant video! And with great examples! I've seen most of these examples, but hadn't understood what was really going on. I especially like the comparisons to the zoom, and what each means.
You should render your audio loudness to -16 dB and true peak -1.5 dB. So that people don't have to turn up the volume to listen to you. It's a bit of a turn off for many. Thanks for the video:)
I haven't had Premiere. All the video I do is in fcpx and it's not much. Can it handle vst plugins or any other format? The ideal tool is Izotope RX but you don't need that much. A single Waves pluging would do. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. If it's just loudness control and you don't find a way to fix it just tell me. I'll help you. Cheers!
@@a-51labsstudio90 I did not make this video....I know that when you try to set the overall loudness in premiere with out plugins...you can only choose -23. There is a method to change this to -16 but it is very hacked and you have to go in to the file of premiere externally and change some code. Premiere allows you to bring vsts I do believe through the track mixer. I am not an expert on this side of thing. Also I don't know what the creator edited on any way...but if premiere it may explain the -23lufs
Understood! :) I think 5hat premiere has a mixer but I'm not even sure. In my opinion video editors are just that. Serious audio works needs a DAW and RX. ;) Thanks for sharing!
@@a-51labsstudio90 100% agree, that being said, many editing jobs dont need a deep level of audio. An editor also has to know a decent amount about audio...afterall its at least 50% of the experience
While this doesn't change anything, at 1:01, the camera isn't actually lower in the second shot, in fact it's higher - you can see down into the saucer where you couldn't previously. What's happened is the camera has been relocated closer to the table, and a few inches higher. The picture on the wall is lower in relation to the actor because the camera angle has changed; it is now angled up where in the first shot it was level with the surface of the table. I think it's also possible the second shot has a wider focal length - the picture behind the actor is only slightly larger in frame while the actors head and the teacup are much larger in relation to his shoulders. This nonlinear change in size - FG vs BG - is characteristic of a wider lens.
I was gonna say the same thing, but figured maybe the narrator knows this but had no way of saying it as concisely as "is lower" and so chose to keep it simple. ...then after finishing the video, I scrolled down to the comments and see this is the first comment :)
I think he means lower relative to the subject. The second shot is dramatically lower relative to the subject. We're basically looking up his nose in the second shot. Definitely a wider lens than the previous shot.
@@stevetrausch Lower _angle_! Yes, that's true. The camera is literally higher in elevation, but because the camera is closer to the subject, the angle relative to the subject is lower. e.g., as you drive under an overpass, the closer you get to it, the greater the angle you are beneath it (aka, lower) until you're directly under it at a full 90° from the horizontal plane that runs through the centroid of the overpass. And that remains true even if you're driving slightly uphill as you approach the overpass, which is analogous to the example in the video.
The Die Hard example works because we see that John only has 1 bullet left. He's looks concerned. He's thinking about how he's going to manage if he only has one shot. Shot 1: Arbitrary sight line. We see a mundane cart with random Christmas stuff. Not out of place since it's Christmas Eve. Shot 2: Focused on the cart. "Is there something there I can use?" Shot 3: Close up on the tape. He has an idea.
Exactly. The passers by act like an natural screen wipe to the next zoomed in shot without jump cutting the scene. To quote another Spielberg film “clever girl”.
This was good, despite the fact that the click-bait title isn't really answered. --But, what's really missing here is why, in a video based on Spielberg's jump cuts, "axial" and otherwise, no mention was made of his first film "Duel", which came out four years before Jaws. At exactly the 1:09 minute mark, when Dennis Weaver's character begins an offensive stance against the menacing truck driver, Spielberg jump cuts three times from a medium body shot, to a facial close-up. I don't think it's axial, as the camera angle subtly changes with each closer cut. --But in a video based on jump cuts, that reference absolutely needed to be included in this video. Anyone really familiar with Spielberg's early films wouldn't have left it out.
I was going to recommend - if we have to use Spielberg - the boom boom boom cut in ET : The Extraterrestrial, when the kids are being chased on their bikes, and the camera cuts to Elliott. It does a triple "axial" cut to close on his face as he sees the men with guns. However, I am sure he got it from The Birds, when Jessica Tandy goes over to the farmer's place in the early morning, and sees his body pecked, and then his eyes pecked out. That was a good, shocking one.
The wiping mask (be it someone walking across camera or some other object that travels from one edge of the screen to the opposite edge) is a very convenient way to join filmic effects - that effect was all over some of the more arty films of the past like "Citizen Kane" - but I am not sure that Welles uses an Axial cut in Kane?
Despite the fact that the title and question had little to do with the video at large was only placed in the video for clickbait... Question: Why did Spielberg stopped using Axial Cuts? Answer: I donno, he just hasn't used one in awhile, meaning he likely just hasn't found a reason to use on. Rather pointless premise of the video, dont you think? Dude just wanted to talk about Axial Cuts but decided to create a 7min video to answer a question that he has no answer for. Good informaton for sure. Isnt clickbait? Nah its clickbait.
Thanks for video! But do we know it was Spielberg’s intent to use the axial cut there in Jaws? Or might it have been a cutting room improvisation by editor Verna Fields? Would it be in the script and/or storyboard? Thanks, again!
The whole "axial"-theme is misleading because what is discussed here is the scenario where the camera does not move at all (not even on an axis). Only focal length changes and of course the camera has to pan to keep the subject in the same relative spot in the frame, unless the subject is dead centre. The narrative is presented as if there were a lot of weight behind the statements but most of the time he is making a mistake or does not capture the essence of an example. The editing from Jaws is obviously not using jump cuts because of the effective wipe transition, for instance. The low quality of discussion fits the clickbait title. The title is a clickbait title as only some shaky speculation is offered instead of one or more known reasons.
Usually, axial cuts are avoided by having a shot between the two axial shots. So you might have an OTS of someone watching someone off in the distance, cut to the reaction of the viewer, then cut back to the subject in the distance but now closer. However, this can also waste time as sometimes it's not really necessary to always see the reaction of the character.
@@nagatom although it was a good experience, it was 15 years ago and the world was very different. I would not recommend doing it today. There’s so much you can learn from paid courses that will save you tens of thousands of dollars and a lot of brain rot.
Should've gone to a better film school, asked more questions, paid more attention, looked for mentorship opportunities, networked with industry figures, and challenged yourself on projects. Learning is not a strictly passive experience.
@@davidtinoco2484 Networking is probably the best thing you can get out of the course I imagine. You still going to end up completing against neopotism. The other thing is, much of the work now is for online editing which is much different. Not steaming, I mean yt etc.
The reason Spielberg's actial cut works effectively in Jaws is because it's made less distracting because of the beachgoers walking in front of the lens in between each cut. Regardless, it still is used very effectively in accentuating the drama and introducing tension. Axial cuts are extremely useful when used sparingly to accentuate a specific idea, object or moment. L annee derniere at Marienbad has a lot of jarring Axial cuts (used purposefully for this effect) and lots of other fun stuff. Hitchcock's The Birds also has a famous axial cut scene with Tippi Hendren on the bench progressively being surrounded by birds. The thing about Axial cuts is that it temporarily breaks immersion ;) Axial cuts are amazing when used well! :D
Interesting discussion. I don’t think directors feel compelled to stick to the completely naturalistic style of classical Hollywood filmmaking anymore. After the innovations of New Wave, the independent American filmmakers of the late 60s and early 70s and so on, allowing the camera to contribute to the storytelling through foregrounding aspects of filmmaking became a common practice. The axial cut in the Die Hard sequence works to convey Willis’s anxious scanning of the scene and his finding the item amidst a welter of dangerous distractions. I think it works fine. It seems to me that “jump cut” is simply a derogatory name for an axial cut you don’t like. There’s nothing wrong with briefly disorienting your audience if it serves your story or thematic purpose. I’d say that both Spielberg and Lucas avoid jump cuts because they want to evoke that seamless, nostalgic sense of old fashioned filmmaking even as they use special effects to revolutionize the frame’s mis en scene.
You see these a lot in silent films. It's easier to just punch in than to change the angle, and I suppose it took a moment before changing the angle became the industry standard. I would never call them jump-cuts so long you change the size drastically enough (roughly 50%). A wide to a medium, or a medium to a close up. The Jaws example *would* have been a jump-cut, but Spielberg uses foreground wipes to disguise the cut, making it seamless.
I think sound cues are often a key aspect to these kinds of cuts - like that triple Die Hard example - pretty sure I remember it being synced with the score.
Yeah, in Die Hard it was timed with a little burst of jingly-bells Christmas music which gave it a lighter note and almost made it comic relief. I thought it worked quite well.
By axial, if you mean the optical axis and if you say that the optical axis wasn't changed in that Jaws scene, the only way it would have been possible (without enlarging in post) would have been by image pane shifting.
I'm not sure he knows what a jump cut is. It's more or less a single shot that's cut to give the appearance of time passing. There may be a change of ward drobe or actors in it, but the whole point of it is to show a jump in time. You wouldn't normally use it to indicate the closeness of the characters like you might when going back and forth between actors as they talk. He gets away with it here because there are people blocking the shot which helps to hide the cut. For example, Jay and Silent Bob hanging out in front of the convenience store. The jump cut helps establish that they hang out there far more than is reasonable. It would be difficult to convey that with the more usual cuts that are intended to blend into the background or hide things.
Hi, at 0:54, your assertion that the camera is lower is not correct in the Ikaru example. You can see that the lens is below the table in the first shot and above it in the second. This is verified because we cannot see the bottom of the saucer in the first, but we can in the second. But there are two things that are different. 1. The camera is tilted up. 2. The lens longer - which compresses the perspective, which accounts for the relative composition of the frame. The tilt up would not explain the frame to body differences, but the longer lens and different camrea height sure will. But back to Brody at the beach, I would guess but do not know for sure, that the tighter shots are actually crops of the same frame, not longer lenses on the camera in the same position. The reason for this is that there is zero composition difference between the wide and following shots. If there were longer lenses used, the background would compress with the foreground changing the perspective and how brody matches to the background. There is a difference in depth of field - which could explain that Speilberg expected to crop in later in the edit. I dont know that Im correct about Brody - but I've work on film sets for 25 years in the camera and now vfx departments so I have some background here. But interesting video!
Increasing the focal length and cropping are exactly equivalent. Cropping also "flattens perspective" and decreases depth of field. The only difference is that cropping will reveal limitations of the lens and film (magnifying grain, for instance), while an optical zoom won't be a stress test to IQ (modulo possible quality loss due to using a higher focal length).
Spielberg is also using a different DoP and has a different relationship to Janusz Kaminski that he had to Bill Butler. In Jaws he would have likely had less influence on the cinematography to what he has now. Also, zoom-type shots (cut or moving) were far more popular in the 70’s and early 80’s. Now the dolly is used far more and, with exception, zooms are often overused by amateurs and students. Crash zooms in particular.
It's called a dolly zoom. It's achieved by moving the camera closer to the subject but zooming out at the same time, such that the subject stays the same size.
In my opinion a jump cut is less about sensing the camera position change and more about sensing a discrepancy in subject motion or position in the scene. Since cuts between shots are cuts between takes, there will be a difference in actor movement but by moving the camera 30 degrees or more, enough material in the image has shifted that the viewer is unable to track or notice the discontinuity. This is how people get away with cheats between shots. You can put an actor up on an applebox to see her clearly over a table but if the shot was on the same axis as the wide, the actor will jump up in height. But if the closer shot is low over the table, the audience cannot percieve the change in height as readily since all visual reference in the shot has changed. By radically changing shot size in axis, you are again changing up so much visual reference that it can take the place of moving the camera off axis. Jump cuts occur when people or objects seem to be "jumping" in space without fluidly moving there. This depends on persistence of vision. This is why we also avoid showing somebody walking down a hallway in one shot and then immediately cut to them walking down a beach in another similarly sized shot without having them enter or exit frame. The audience tracks an object and it feels the object jump when the object appears to teleport in space or in this case, the environment jump. It's persistence of vision and animators are well acquainted with it. As a script supervisor, I had to watch out for shots in coverage that were too similar for jumpcut reasons, however, when we were shooting two cameras at the same time, I had to worry less because both angles were catching the exact same movement. If you cut between the shots, it would feel more like digitally cutting to a larger or closer crop of the same shot instead of to a different shot. The cut would create energy and draw attention to itself, yes, but it wouldn't be disruptive like the object jumping would. Anyway, editors could probably tell you how easy or hard it is to actually get these shots to cut in the editing room. This is just my opinion as a script supervisor and storyboard artist. Also, the Jaws example is maybe not the best example because the people passing creates a full screen wipe, which is a true transition into another shot. So they're not hard cuts on axis, there is a transition. Wipes let you get away with a lot. Last note is Steven Spielberg takes full advantage of the storyboarding process!
Alfred Hitchcock kind of nailed this when he said that movies are in fact montages of different shots done at different times, but pretending to be a set of continous scenes. So, as you @Zack describe, anything which draws attention to this trick - for example full-on jump cuts or cuts between two vantage points of the same scene with obvious discrepancies - tends to jar and look amateurish. Of course, this is used to great comedic effect in some work in movies and on TV. For example, some of UK comedian Harry Enfield's Cholmondly-Warner sketches, which masquarde as cheaply made 1940s cinema documentaries, made frequent use of clumsy jump cuts - and movies that spoof classic formats ("Murder by Death" is a good example) poke fun at the genre by a more subtle use of the same.
It's always a joy to watch a good older movie from the early 90s and prior. I find I'm much more drawn into the actual story because the camera isn't breaking the 4th wall by saying 'LOOK AT ME' every second shot.
90's - early 2000's cinematography is the gold standard to me. I legitimately think 99% of movies don't look as good today as the big budget movies of that era shot on film did.
A very interesting video overall, but the title asks a question for which the video offers a fairly boring answer! "Because he didn't find need for one" is almost tautological: all film techniques should be used with intention. If the topic of the video really is that question (rather than simply an exploration of the axial cut), I'd say that the obvious follow-up question is "What changed about Spielberg's filmmaking style (or broader filmmaking conventions) such that it no longer called for axial cuts?" I don't mean to be harsh in my criticism. I presume the real reason for presenting it as a question is that viewers are more likely to be drawn in by an apparent mystery involving a name they recognise, than by an essay about a term they don't. As I said, the actual content was very interesting.
On a side note, FYI: The "Dolly Zoom" is also called the _Vertigo Shot_ because it was invented by Alfred Hitchcock and first appeared in _Vertigo_ [1958]. While Hitchcock invented it, he could never perfect it. Spielberg would perfect Hitchcock's Vertigo Shot in 1975's _Jaws,_ as seen briefly in the video above @ 5:05 and called the Dolly Zoom Shot. Hm, I don't remember what I heard was Hitchcock's reaction to that at the time...
@@nellomaxim : I think it means pulling the dolly backward away from the center subject, while at the same time zooming the camera-lens in toward the subject, producing a strange photographic effect.
Is it only axial if the camera stays in the same spot (with different focal lengths to “zoom in” on each cut)? Or can the camera move towards or away from the subject, as long as it stays on the same line between subject and camera? Because in the latter, the background’s relationship to the subject will change with each shot
Great breakdown! I think the Axial cut in Die Hard works because McClane is scanning for a useful object amongst a pile of junk and it cuts closer as he zeroes in. A zoom would not have worked as well here because it would have felt too deliberate like he knew exactly where it was. The only minor problem is the 2nd shot feels a little too close to the 1st shot, but the sparks do a nice job of masking the cuts and increasing the intensity.
1:00 ok wait, the camera is NOT lower. look at the table, the centerline of the lense is maybe an inch above the plate on the table. in the closeup? it's actually HIGHER up off the plate (by a couple inches) than it was in the previous shot. the difference in the two shots is that the camera moved FORWARD and a little UP. it does NOT move down like you are saying, and the painting behind him appears lower only because we're much closer to the man and the camera has clearly panned up slightly. I would still call this an axial cut because the main move is forward on the cameras axis. the camera is not lower, it's actually a bit higher. but that doesn't matter because to the audience we don't feel lifted up we feel pushed forward.
"The most famous axial cut ever?" Are the three axial shots in Jaws more famous than the farmer's bedroom scene in the Birds, more famous than in the shower scene in Psycho? than in the Odessa Steps scene in Eisenstein's Potemkin? I don't think so. Let's face it--Spielberg got the idea of the three axial shots from Hitchcock, as well as the simultaneous zoom and track from Vertigo and Marnie.
Why is the Spielberg example an axial cut? Surely if the axis remained the same, wouldn't the object in the middle of the shot get bigger, not the object to the right edge of the frame?
I use "Axial Cuts" all the time when I crop. But I use a cross dissolve, so it looks like a zoom. But maybe I don't need the Cross Dissolve? 1. when there's no back round detail? Maybe... 2. when I am showing detail? No, it looks cheap IMHO
We are at a stage of cinema where audiences are not at all fazed by any type of jump cuts, or any variant such as what you describe as the axial cut. I think what you're trying to say is that we shouldn't use them without real motivation, and that I agree with. I haven't even heard the term thrown around really at all on a professional basis, probably because by its definition it's way more common that you think. Any show that's a 'one camera' show that's really shot with two cameras side-by-side (one for CU and the other wider for example) so they are essentially on the same axis, for example, will more than likely have some form of this cut. As always, good directors and editors will use certain types of cuts that do 'bump' or draw attention to themselves for emphasis to better tell the story. But can you really call a simple cut from a wide establishing shot to a CU on the same axis, a shot that calls attention to itself? Like some of the Kurosawa shots you mentioned, that's all those are. They are distinct from the Brody shots in Jaws, where it's very clearly a single, just closer and then closer again. That very clearly does feel intentionally bumpy and are true jump cuts, especially with the natural wipes from the foreground figures. IMO they DO create a jolt, but in a good way. They really get you into Brody's increasing alarm. Similarly, the Leone shots or the Ikiru shot that goes from the wider shot to the extreme closeup of the hat do call attention to the cut, but for different reasons. The extreme close-ups of the faces and the hat are so graphically different from the preceding shots that they demand attention. But these shots aren't technically jump cuts at all because they're in continuity. They create their feeling by mere force of the two images bumping up against each other. Wide shot to extreme close-up that graphically emphasizes a subject.
Thank you! I also notice that with Leone's cuts he aims to do a POV by placing the wide shots after closeups to show what the characters are looking at. Its a very based edit.
@@sevenobinna3883 its also important that in the film we are resolving a major story arc, it's the central mystery Harmonic and Frank's conflict. Everything is building towards that final fight. Plus the other thing is, its not just a couple of edits, its a long scene just them circling. Good film.
Giant Film Cameras historically made it a true pain to move shot! Axial Shot is traditionally lazy...but Speilberg uses extras fore-ground moment to hide transition, only reason it works...
New host, or did you work on your accent? Cause I sware it's almost gone. Btw if you ever need a story for a film. I got a head full of them. I just need an excuse to write them.
Is the famous cut in "300' also a axial cut? They have used three cameras with three different lenses, so they are per definition not in the same axis. Although the viewer wont be able to recognize the difference
I agree with all of your commentary and cinematic analysis; however, I wonder if you are using conventional or standard nomenclature. The difference of the two above adjectives is that _convention_ describes any argot particular to a field or skill; _standard_ has the same goal but necessarily employs a universal descriptor. _Zooms, rack zooms_ (aka _crash_ or _smash_ zooms), _dolly-zooms_ (which necessarily move _both_ the camera _and_ the lens FL simultaneously), and now this new term “axial cut“? I understand what and why you say the term “axial“, but for the matter of the word itself, there is no shot that is _not_ axial. (Well, a zoomable _slip-shift lens_ and the shot thereof -- (is there such a thing?) -- could technically be a counterexample). The technically correct and already established term is _collinear._ I also think this valuable insight of yours would have been clearer to the viewer if you had introduced the idea of the perspective change that occurs between wide and “telephoto“ shots when utilizing zoom-_able_ lenses. It´s sometimes, ah, _tricky_ to determine if the camera has been relocated by “mere“ observation of a zoom or zoom cut, especially in the matter of foreground relative to background -- not to say this is pertinent to the example you give here.
Exactly. If you trimmed out the frames of the person "wiping" the screen by walking past, those shots moving closer on Brody would certainly be jarring jump cuts. The video's points about axial cuts are true, but not discussing the technique used to hide the jump cuts in JAWS is a glaring omission.
A jump shot normally doesn't have anything blocking the shot, it's usually used to show that time has passed between the two bits. Which can be important if you've got back to back scenes in the same place. Without a jump shot, the audience might not know that time has passed. Or to show that characters are still hanging out in the same place a long time later. If you've got something passing through the shot, then that's more like the more typical film move where you're zooming in and out depending upon the closeness of the connection to the character, you just don't have the usual intervening shot of somebody else.
I believe the problem nowadays is that we move the camera too much, just because we can. Sliders, cranes and gimbals have become very affordable, so we tend to forget the good old tripod, the steady shot, the pan and tilt. When camera does not move, the audience forgets it's a movie and concentrates more on the story, is drawn into the movie, the acting becomes central.
I like minimal frames with no movements, Still some are doing
I liked the way they shot "Better call Saul" which I watched recently, eventhough it's not a movie, I liked the way they framed the shots
the issue is cut scenes. when the director has no idea what they are doing it can be mitigated by a soup of cutscenes. case in point one of the mary sure jedi fights 13 cuts in 10 seconds. its jarring and takes you out of immersion
I don't think it's a matter of how often a camera moves, but, the motivation for camera movement. Spielberg was known for moving his camera when characters in the shot were walking or moving. It was a clever way of combining multiple angles in one shot. But, again, the key is motivation. My biggest pet peeve are the "floating camera" shots. The shots where the actors are talking but not moving at all, but the camera is floating around as if floating on water. For me, such shots take me out of the movie because it reminds me that I'm watching a movie. It's especially distracting when it's an emotional scene.
I like when its still, it provides more attention on characters rathen than pure action. An you have to be much more active on steady shot to entertain. Also gimbals are often misued, overused or underused.
Funnily enough I think these days there are 2 schools of movement, either too much or no movement the camera must stay still at all costs.
Lol "Why Spielberg stopped using axial cuts"
Answer: "i don't have a reason he just hasn't used one in a while."
It's a good video I just hate click bait titles
Shhhhhh... You're going to cause him to use them again.
@@into.the.wood.chipper. hopefully they’ll be in The Dial of Destiny? ;-)
This.
Maybe it was a genuine question to UA-cam viewers, like he’s really confused
something very obvious about the Spielberg scene that you didn't mention, he is actually using a "wipe cut" in conjunction with an Axial Cut so it is does not appear like a jump cut, the people walking across the frame close to the camera create the Wipe, in that respect the Spielberg scene is quite unique compared to the other examples you show.
This whole video was a waste of time. Asked a good question and never really answered it.
Spot on, the wipe created by the people walking past Brody mask the axial cut and create a completely different technique to all of the other examples in the video
@@jgrab1 I found it interesting...another cut type i had not considered.I think you maybe responding to the title of the video....but that's just you tube click bait strategy stuff...
@@hypnodelica Correct. Is there a name for this technique? (axial cuts transitioned with a foreground wipe element?)
I would just call it an "axial wipe cut" or an "axial cut with wipe transition". The shot alignment makes it axial, while the transition between the shots makes it a wipe. Despite being called "cuts", they describe different elements of the cut.
I really like the axial wipe cut. People make good wipes, but so do vehicles. I think I've seen it done with cross traffic on a road, but I can't recall the source material.
Spielberg used axial cuts in the bike chase of ET right before all the kids went flying. Also, in The Last Crusade w/ the rhino scene on the train.
Each level of zoom in the Jaws cut represents a sudden change in how Brody is perceiving his environment. He's looking all around him, then notices something, then examines something.
The progressive zoom shot is the flush of panic and realization. You can literally feel the adrenaline hit his bloodstream.
HAL-9000's zoom reminds us that HAL is watching. He's recording and thinking at all times. Earlier he was shown passively like in the famous rotation ladder scene, you may not have noticed, HAL is on the wall in that shot. HAL is passively displayed early on, but we aggressively zoom on him once the audience is meant to know he's omnipresent.
Die Hards three shot works like this for me. 1 - Looking for anything to help. 2 - Seeing something useful. 3 - Ah, an idea!
0:59 - The camera is actually _higher_ for the second shot, as shown by the fact that you can see _into_ the saucer, whereas in the previous shot you could only see its edge.
Also, in the previous shots, if the camera "didn't change its axis" and you just "zoomed in and continued filming", the subject would have been left out of frame.
Finally, the title of the video asks a question... that the video doesn't even attempt to answer.
Excellent piece.
A cut is only a jump cut when it is cut in, not out.
In Jaws, the cuts are blended by using the beachcombers as a wipe.
Thanks for this - I've been waiting for around 52 years to hear about this shot with respect to Spielberg's specific use of it, so this video is much appreciated.
I did notice the axial cut you mention in Jaws because it reminded me of the first time I had seen it which was in Spielberg's TV movie Duel with Dennis Weaver (1971). He did it in pretty much the same way as I recall, using people moving in front of the camera as a means to go from one cut to the next. I was pretty young when I saw both Duel and Jaws and even then thought it was a good visual, so for me, it had a positive effect on the presentation, it also made me feel like it was a Spielberg 'signature' shot even though he probably inly used it twice. Funny how some things can imprint on you like that.
Having noticed this, but never seen it mentioned anywhere before, I had commented to others about it (who often didn't know what I was talking about), so I appreciate you making this video. It's nice to know it's something worth commenting on and I hadn't noticed it for no reason.
I just enjoy movies and I'm not a movie buff, but if a particular movie shot does something in a positive and outstanding way, enhancing the presentation, I tend to notice it and it will stick in my mind, much like the other shot Spielberg did in Jaws by moving Schneider closer to the camera on a dolly, while also zooming the camera at the same time just as the Kintner boy is attacked by the shark. It really enhanced Brody's feeling of shock/realisation for the audience. These things may have been done before, but these were the first times I had seen them, and for me they made a big difference.
I've been wondering about this for awhile myself.
That remark on how something small and insignificant can stay with you for life... reminds me of how most nicknames come to be... It's typically some either extremely poorly or absolutely perfectly timed joke that only happens once or twice and bang! you're labelled for years or, more often than not, for life.
"...by moving Schneider closer to the camera on a dolly..."
No. That's an optical illusion. The shot is done by moving the camera forward while zooming out, hence the term "push in/zoom out shot". I've used this technique in some of my own movies.
You can also do the reverse: pull back/ zoom out.
I'd argue that the axial example in Jaws isn't a cut but a transition with the people passing by the camera - which is why it's less jarring.
A transition is something that happens at the cut point. It needs to be a cut for a transition to exist.
Man I love your videos! Being a professional videographer myself, I have to say, you are one of the few and rare channels that don't bullshit people! I pull my hat to you!
I think Spielberg used the axial shot in this specific scene in a multiple genius way. First he uses the people passing by for transitions. The viewer therefor relates to the experience of somebody blocking your view. If you focus on something and get distracted by any obstacle your stress level rises, because you fear missing something in exactly this moment, when your view is blocked. This rising stress level is perfectly captured by every axial cut after somebody passes the actor's view. It's almost like the viewer pinches his eyes to see clearer, what is going on with the actor. Having this slow building of tension in mind at the beginning of the scene, the later dolly zoom is like the opposite of slow tension building. It is like a rush of adrenalin. Like the viewer opening his eyes wide and full of fear. So I think Spielberg was very aware that he will use the axial shot in the beginning. He uses the same location, the actor sits in the same place. But the viewer gets a build up through the axial shot that climaxes 2 miutes later in the dolly zoom shot.
Fantastic explanation thank-you. Will try to incorporate.
Agree! The cut plus the transition makes this an iconic movie moment. So good
Excellent observations.Spielberg uses the axial cut BECAUSE he's planned the zoom later. This takes the whole sequence, the whole scene into account: it's all planned out for maximum ramp up effect. The big picture, the entire sequence is SO important and the initial axial cuts are not just for the fun of it. Its PART of the entire set up.
The most significant director to rely on axial cuts was Sam Fuller, and the most pristine example, since they are literally enlarged close-ups using a process. (the increased graininess gives it away) He leaned on it heavily to edit his numerous long takes that he he very often did not shoot coverage for. His editor Gen Fowler Jr, recorded his frustrations about it in the Server interview book.
I remember that "dolly zoom!" I wondered as a youngster how they did that.
Look closer, in the first example (man sitting at table with cup in hand) the second shot is from a higher position, but uses a different focal length, a wider angle lens, because the camera is closer. you can see this because the top of the plate (or saucer) is more visible in the second shot, and the top of the sugar bowl is more visible, demonstrating that the camera is higher. We also see things behind him on the left side of the frame that wouldn't be visible if the focal length had been increased from the first shot. So clearly not an axial cut, but also not where the camera was lowered and the lens zoomed in.
Thanks for this. I learned a lot.
The Axial cut in jaws did draw attention to itself when I first saw it, more so because it happens twice consecutively. It was before I studied film so couldn't articulate why, but I saw the artifice momentarily although it was easy to get back into it as there are no other distracting edits I can recall in that film. Perhaps if it just cut from the farthest away shot directly to the closest shot with only one cut it might have been less jarring.
A jump cut is a temporal cut; it cuts to another point in time (usually forward in time) while keeping a similar camera position. It should not be confused with a cut that changes, e.g., angle or framing without a temporal change. Thank you for your informative videos.
Eli Wallach's hand descending into frame 6:52 is an amazing but simple bit of cimematography. That scene gets my attention every time I watch TGTBATU.
I've never heard of the Axial Cut :OOO thank you!
Are you saying that Spielberg didn't use an axial cut after Jaws? I hate to be the contradictor here, but he used an axial cut in E.T. Cutting closer and closer on Elliott just before he cut back to a shotgun, cut to Elliott closing his eyes, cut to E.T.'s face, then to the wide shot as the bikes all lifted into the air. I count three Spielberg films with an axial cut - Duel, Jaws and E.T.
THANK YOU!!! I came right to the comments to see if anyone made this comment. It's the first thing that popped in my head.
Damn, beat me to it.
What a brilliant video! And with great examples! I've seen most of these examples, but hadn't understood what was really going on. I especially like the comparisons to the zoom, and what each means.
I use it without changing the axis by zooming in to a different focal length when time isn't there to change lenses or positions/angles.
That dolly-zoom shot later, why does the surroundings seem to fold in on Brody ?
Cheers and thanks for the video!
You should render your audio loudness to -16 dB and true peak -1.5 dB. So that people don't have to turn up the volume to listen to you. It's a bit of a turn off for many. Thanks for the video:)
Not easy to do in premiere...resolve can do it
I haven't had Premiere. All the video I do is in fcpx and it's not much. Can it handle vst plugins or any other format? The ideal tool is Izotope RX but you don't need that much. A single Waves pluging would do. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. If it's just loudness control and you don't find a way to fix it just tell me. I'll help you. Cheers!
@@a-51labsstudio90 I did not make this video....I know that when you try to set the overall loudness in premiere with out plugins...you can only choose -23.
There is a method to change this to -16 but it is very hacked and you have to go in to the file of premiere externally and change some code.
Premiere allows you to bring vsts I do believe through the track mixer.
I am not an expert on this side of thing. Also I don't know what the creator edited on any way...but if premiere it may explain the -23lufs
Understood! :) I think 5hat premiere has a mixer but I'm not even sure. In my opinion video editors are just that. Serious audio works needs a DAW and RX. ;) Thanks for sharing!
@@a-51labsstudio90 100% agree, that being said, many editing jobs dont need a deep level of audio. An editor also has to know a decent amount about audio...afterall its at least
50% of the experience
One of the most important film channels on UA-cam. Thank you.
While this doesn't change anything, at 1:01, the camera isn't actually lower in the second shot, in fact it's higher - you can see down into the saucer where you couldn't previously. What's happened is the camera has been relocated closer to the table, and a few inches higher. The picture on the wall is lower in relation to the actor because the camera angle has changed; it is now angled up where in the first shot it was level with the surface of the table. I think it's also possible the second shot has a wider focal length - the picture behind the actor is only slightly larger in frame while the actors head and the teacup are much larger in relation to his shoulders. This nonlinear change in size - FG vs BG - is characteristic of a wider lens.
I was gonna say the same thing, but figured maybe the narrator knows this but had no way of saying it as concisely as "is lower" and so chose to keep it simple. ...then after finishing the video, I scrolled down to the comments and see this is the first comment :)
What does FG vs BG mean. Please enlighten me
@@sevenobinna3883 Foreground and background
I think he means lower relative to the subject. The second shot is dramatically lower relative to the subject. We're basically looking up his nose in the second shot. Definitely a wider lens than the previous shot.
@@stevetrausch Lower _angle_! Yes, that's true. The camera is literally higher in elevation, but because the camera is closer to the subject, the angle relative to the subject is lower. e.g., as you drive under an overpass, the closer you get to it, the greater the angle you are beneath it (aka, lower) until you're directly under it at a full 90° from the horizontal plane that runs through the centroid of the overpass. And that remains true even if you're driving slightly uphill as you approach the overpass, which is analogous to the example in the video.
The Die Hard example works because we see that John only has 1 bullet left. He's looks concerned. He's thinking about how he's going to manage if he only has one shot.
Shot 1: Arbitrary sight line. We see a mundane cart with random Christmas stuff. Not out of place since it's Christmas Eve.
Shot 2: Focused on the cart. "Is there something there I can use?"
Shot 3: Close up on the tape. He has an idea.
The Jaws edit isn't a jump cut because there's a transition in between -- the person walking in the foreground. It's a clever way to hide the jump.
Exactly. The passers by act like an natural screen wipe to the next zoomed in shot without jump cutting the scene. To quote another Spielberg film “clever girl”.
This was good, despite the fact that the click-bait title isn't really answered. --But, what's really missing here is why, in a video based on Spielberg's jump cuts, "axial" and otherwise, no mention was made of his first film "Duel", which came out four years before Jaws. At exactly the 1:09 minute mark, when Dennis Weaver's character begins an offensive stance against the menacing truck driver, Spielberg jump cuts three times from a medium body shot, to a facial close-up. I don't think it's axial, as the camera angle subtly changes with each closer cut. --But in a video based on jump cuts, that reference absolutely needed to be included in this video. Anyone really familiar with Spielberg's early films wouldn't have left it out.
I was going to recommend - if we have to use Spielberg - the boom boom boom cut in ET : The Extraterrestrial, when the kids are being chased on their bikes, and the camera cuts to Elliott. It does a triple "axial" cut to close on his face as he sees the men with guns. However, I am sure he got it from The Birds, when Jessica Tandy goes over to the farmer's place in the early morning, and sees his body pecked, and then his eyes pecked out. That was a good, shocking one.
The wiping mask (be it someone walking across camera or some other object that travels from one edge of the screen to the opposite edge) is a very convenient way to join filmic effects - that effect was all over some of the more arty films of the past like "Citizen Kane" - but I am not sure that Welles uses an Axial cut in Kane?
But what's the answer to the question posed in the video title?
How do you zoom on a 35mm lens?!
Thanks for an information-packed video that isn't clickbait and doesn't have annoying cuts.
Despite the fact that the title and question had little to do with the video at large was only placed in the video for clickbait...
Question: Why did Spielberg stopped using Axial Cuts?
Answer: I donno, he just hasn't used one in awhile, meaning he likely just hasn't found a reason to use on.
Rather pointless premise of the video, dont you think?
Dude just wanted to talk about Axial Cuts but decided to create a 7min video to answer a question that he has no answer for. Good informaton for sure. Isnt clickbait? Nah its clickbait.
Thanks for video! But do we know it was Spielberg’s intent to use the axial cut there in Jaws? Or might it have been a cutting room improvisation by editor Verna Fields? Would it be in the script and/or storyboard? Thanks, again!
I don’t know if any clips are on UA-cam but he answers that question on the documentary found on the Blu-ray’s and dvds
I appreciate the way you’re building suspense but what is the answer? 🧐
Brilliant stuff
Maybe I'm confused about something, but if the camera has to stay on the same axis then wouldn't the subject always have to keep center frame?
The whole "axial"-theme is misleading because what is discussed here is the scenario where the camera does not move at all (not even on an axis). Only focal length changes and of course the camera has to pan to keep the subject in the same relative spot in the frame, unless the subject is dead centre. The narrative is presented as if there were a lot of weight behind the statements but most of the time he is making a mistake or does not capture the essence of an example. The editing from Jaws is obviously not using jump cuts because of the effective wipe transition, for instance. The low quality of discussion fits the clickbait title. The title is a clickbait title as only some shaky speculation is offered instead of one or more known reasons.
Usually, axial cuts are avoided by having a shot between the two axial shots. So you might have an OTS of someone watching someone off in the distance, cut to the reaction of the viewer, then cut back to the subject in the distance but now closer. However, this can also waste time as sometimes it's not really necessary to always see the reaction of the character.
I have learned more, watching your videos over the years than I ever learned in my four years of film school
Dónde estudiaste?
As someone applying for filmschool it's a bit disturbing to hear you say that!
@@nagatom although it was a good experience, it was 15 years ago and the world was very different. I would not recommend doing it today. There’s so much you can learn from paid courses that will save you tens of thousands of dollars and a lot of brain rot.
Should've gone to a better film school, asked more questions, paid more attention, looked for mentorship opportunities, networked with industry figures, and challenged yourself on projects. Learning is not a strictly passive experience.
@@davidtinoco2484 Networking is probably the best thing you can get out of the course I imagine.
You still going to end up completing against neopotism. The other thing is, much of the work now is for online editing which is much different. Not steaming, I mean yt etc.
The reason Spielberg's actial cut works effectively in Jaws is because it's made less distracting because of the beachgoers walking in front of the lens in between each cut. Regardless, it still is used very effectively in accentuating the drama and introducing tension.
Axial cuts are extremely useful when used sparingly to accentuate a specific idea, object or moment.
L annee derniere at Marienbad has a lot of jarring Axial cuts (used purposefully for this effect) and lots of other fun stuff.
Hitchcock's The Birds also has a famous axial cut scene with Tippi Hendren on the bench progressively being surrounded by birds.
The thing about Axial cuts is that it temporarily breaks immersion ;)
Axial cuts are amazing when used well! :D
This was axially interesting
Great stuff!
Interesting discussion. I don’t think directors feel compelled to stick to the completely naturalistic style of classical Hollywood filmmaking anymore. After the innovations of New Wave, the independent American filmmakers of the late 60s and early 70s and so on, allowing the camera to contribute to the storytelling through foregrounding aspects of filmmaking became a common practice. The axial cut in the Die Hard sequence works to convey Willis’s anxious scanning of the scene and his finding the item amidst a welter of dangerous distractions. I think it works fine. It seems to me that “jump cut” is simply a derogatory name for an axial cut you don’t like. There’s nothing wrong with briefly disorienting your audience if it serves your story or thematic purpose. I’d say that both Spielberg and Lucas avoid jump cuts because they want to evoke that seamless, nostalgic sense of old fashioned filmmaking even as they use special effects to revolutionize the frame’s mis en scene.
Zooming makes it feel like you’re seeing the film through a camera. It has an analog horror vibe, like it was filmed by someone in real life
The Seven-Ups is just a great old flick with Roy Scheider that must be seen.
I got to say this channel offers such valuable and clear cinematic information. Thank you so much for this.
You see these a lot in silent films. It's easier to just punch in than to change the angle, and I suppose it took a moment before changing the angle became the industry standard.
I would never call them jump-cuts so long you change the size drastically enough (roughly 50%). A wide to a medium, or a medium to a close up. The Jaws example *would* have been a jump-cut, but Spielberg uses foreground wipes to disguise the cut, making it seamless.
Saw this last year on IMAX, with a friend who had never seen it before. So good.
I think sound cues are often a key aspect to these kinds of cuts - like that triple Die Hard example - pretty sure I remember it being synced with the score.
Yeah, in Die Hard it was timed with a little burst of jingly-bells Christmas music which gave it a lighter note and almost made it comic relief. I thought it worked quite well.
By axial, if you mean the optical axis and if you say that the optical axis wasn't changed in that Jaws scene, the only way it would have been possible (without enlarging in post) would have been by image pane shifting.
Informative ❤️❤️❤️
Are the 3 shots of Brody jump cuts? The 3 shots are separated by motion blur shots suggesting people walking between the camera and the subject.
I'm not sure he knows what a jump cut is. It's more or less a single shot that's cut to give the appearance of time passing. There may be a change of ward drobe or actors in it, but the whole point of it is to show a jump in time. You wouldn't normally use it to indicate the closeness of the characters like you might when going back and forth between actors as they talk. He gets away with it here because there are people blocking the shot which helps to hide the cut. For example, Jay and Silent Bob hanging out in front of the convenience store. The jump cut helps establish that they hang out there far more than is reasonable. It would be difficult to convey that with the more usual cuts that are intended to blend into the background or hide things.
Great video
Hi, at 0:54, your assertion that the camera is lower is not correct in the Ikaru example. You can see that the lens is below the table in the first shot and above it in the second. This is verified because we cannot see the bottom of the saucer in the first, but we can in the second. But there are two things that are different. 1. The camera is tilted up. 2. The lens longer - which compresses the perspective, which accounts for the relative composition of the frame. The tilt up would not explain the frame to body differences, but the longer lens and different camrea height sure will.
But back to Brody at the beach, I would guess but do not know for sure, that the tighter shots are actually crops of the same frame, not longer lenses on the camera in the same position. The reason for this is that there is zero composition difference between the wide and following shots. If there were longer lenses used, the background would compress with the foreground changing the perspective and how brody matches to the background. There is a difference in depth of field - which could explain that Speilberg expected to crop in later in the edit.
I dont know that Im correct about Brody - but I've work on film sets for 25 years in the camera and now vfx departments so I have some background here.
But interesting video!
Increasing the focal length and cropping are exactly equivalent. Cropping also "flattens perspective" and decreases depth of field. The only difference is that cropping will reveal limitations of the lens and film (magnifying grain, for instance), while an optical zoom won't be a stress test to IQ (modulo possible quality loss due to using a higher focal length).
1:01 I think the camera is actually higher in the second shot, and has moved closer.
Can't immediately call one up, but Kurosawa loved John Ford. Would love to see if/how Ford used the technique.
IIRC, Ford liked to film his scenes in long master shots with minimal cutting. I doubt he would use such a technique but I could be wrong.
From what movie is 1:50? I do not recognize it.
lol I was scrolling through the comments hoping to find the answer to my very same question.
Can you share with me if you find out? Thanks
Sir make a video on how to earn money from our independent feature movies
Man, that was an awesome, informative video, with a completely misleading title.
Spielberg is also using a different DoP and has a different relationship to Janusz Kaminski that he had to Bill Butler. In Jaws he would have likely had less influence on the cinematography to what he has now. Also, zoom-type shots (cut or moving) were far more popular in the 70’s and early 80’s. Now the dolly is used far more and, with exception, zooms are often overused by amateurs and students. Crash zooms in particular.
Do you think The Office got everyone wanting to crash zoom? 😂
How do they do that thing where the background zooms out from the main character? Example: simba in lion king original during stampede
It's called a dolly zoom. It's achieved by moving the camera closer to the subject but zooming out at the same time, such that the subject stays the same size.
I always like Leone's and Kubrick camerawork. Villeneuve and Nolan are good heir to the mantle.
I describe a jump cut. As a cut of a similar subject with the same focal length.
Spread the axial love.
In my opinion a jump cut is less about sensing the camera position change and more about sensing a discrepancy in subject motion or position in the scene. Since cuts between shots are cuts between takes, there will be a difference in actor movement but by moving the camera 30 degrees or more, enough material in the image has shifted that the viewer is unable to track or notice the discontinuity. This is how people get away with cheats between shots. You can put an actor up on an applebox to see her clearly over a table but if the shot was on the same axis as the wide, the actor will jump up in height. But if the closer shot is low over the table, the audience cannot percieve the change in height as readily since all visual reference in the shot has changed. By radically changing shot size in axis, you are again changing up so much visual reference that it can take the place of moving the camera off axis. Jump cuts occur when people or objects seem to be "jumping" in space without fluidly moving there. This depends on persistence of vision. This is why we also avoid showing somebody walking down a hallway in one shot and then immediately cut to them walking down a beach in another similarly sized shot without having them enter or exit frame. The audience tracks an object and it feels the object jump when the object appears to teleport in space or in this case, the environment jump. It's persistence of vision and animators are well acquainted with it.
As a script supervisor, I had to watch out for shots in coverage that were too similar for jumpcut reasons, however, when we were shooting two cameras at the same time, I had to worry less because both angles were catching the exact same movement. If you cut between the shots, it would feel more like digitally cutting to a larger or closer crop of the same shot instead of to a different shot. The cut would create energy and draw attention to itself, yes, but it wouldn't be disruptive like the object jumping would.
Anyway, editors could probably tell you how easy or hard it is to actually get these shots to cut in the editing room. This is just my opinion as a script supervisor and storyboard artist.
Also, the Jaws example is maybe not the best example because the people passing creates a full screen wipe, which is a true transition into another shot. So they're not hard cuts on axis, there is a transition. Wipes let you get away with a lot.
Last note is Steven Spielberg takes full advantage of the storyboarding process!
Alfred Hitchcock kind of nailed this when he said that movies are in fact montages of different shots done at different times, but pretending to be a set of continous scenes. So, as you @Zack describe, anything which draws attention to this trick - for example full-on jump cuts or cuts between two vantage points of the same scene with obvious discrepancies - tends to jar and look amateurish. Of course, this is used to great comedic effect in some work in movies and on TV. For example, some of UK comedian Harry Enfield's Cholmondly-Warner sketches, which masquarde as cheaply made 1940s cinema documentaries, made frequent use of clumsy jump cuts - and movies that spoof classic formats ("Murder by Death" is a good example) poke fun at the genre by a more subtle use of the same.
The clips of Ran gave me a craving to watch it again. I haven’t seen Ikiru yet, but will put it at the top of my list.
And when you do it without thinking it becomes Axial-matic.
It's always a joy to watch a good older movie from the early 90s and prior. I find I'm much more drawn into the actual story because the camera isn't breaking the 4th wall by saying 'LOOK AT ME' every second shot.
90's - early 2000's cinematography is the gold standard to me. I legitimately think 99% of movies don't look as good today as the big budget movies of that era shot on film did.
Does change focus tho
Jaws is amazing, I can't believe he was only 28 when he made it
A very interesting video overall, but the title asks a question for which the video offers a fairly boring answer! "Because he didn't find need for one" is almost tautological: all film techniques should be used with intention. If the topic of the video really is that question (rather than simply an exploration of the axial cut), I'd say that the obvious follow-up question is "What changed about Spielberg's filmmaking style (or broader filmmaking conventions) such that it no longer called for axial cuts?"
I don't mean to be harsh in my criticism. I presume the real reason for presenting it as a question is that viewers are more likely to be drawn in by an apparent mystery involving a name they recognise, than by an essay about a term they don't. As I said, the actual content was very interesting.
On a side note, FYI:
The "Dolly Zoom" is also called the _Vertigo Shot_ because it was invented by Alfred Hitchcock and first appeared in _Vertigo_ [1958].
While Hitchcock invented it, he could never perfect it. Spielberg would perfect Hitchcock's Vertigo Shot in 1975's _Jaws,_ as seen briefly in the video above @ 5:05 and called the Dolly Zoom Shot. Hm, I don't remember what I heard was Hitchcock's reaction to that at the time...
The dolly zoom has lots of named...zolly....trombone shot etc
@@nellomaxim :
I think it means pulling the dolly backward away from the center subject, while at the same time zooming the camera-lens in toward the subject, producing a strange photographic effect.
thanks for the info!
Is it only axial if the camera stays in the same spot (with different focal lengths to “zoom in” on each cut)? Or can the camera move towards or away from the subject, as long as it stays on the same line between subject and camera? Because in the latter, the background’s relationship to the subject will change with each shot
Great breakdown! I think the Axial cut in Die Hard works because McClane is scanning for a useful object amongst a pile of junk and it cuts closer as he zeroes in. A zoom would not have worked as well here because it would have felt too deliberate like he knew exactly where it was. The only minor problem is the 2nd shot feels a little too close to the 1st shot, but the sparks do a nice job of masking the cuts and increasing the intensity.
"axial love" - that's an excellent title for an epic rave hymn. or maybe an 80s style power-metal song.
1:00 ok wait, the camera is NOT lower. look at the table, the centerline of the lense is maybe an inch above the plate on the table. in the closeup? it's actually HIGHER up off the plate (by a couple inches) than it was in the previous shot. the difference in the two shots is that the camera moved FORWARD and a little UP. it does NOT move down like you are saying, and the painting behind him appears lower only because we're much closer to the man and the camera has clearly panned up slightly. I would still call this an axial cut because the main move is forward on the cameras axis. the camera is not lower, it's actually a bit higher. but that doesn't matter because to the audience we don't feel lifted up we feel pushed forward.
Excellent video! Thank you for educating me!
"The most famous axial cut ever?" Are the three axial shots in Jaws more famous than the farmer's bedroom scene in the Birds, more famous than in the shower scene in Psycho? than in the Odessa Steps scene in Eisenstein's Potemkin? I don't think so. Let's face it--Spielberg got the idea of the three axial shots from Hitchcock, as well as the simultaneous zoom and track from Vertigo and Marnie.
I just mentioned The Birds in another comment, knowing Spielberg loved Hitchcock.
Why is the Spielberg example an axial cut? Surely if the axis remained the same, wouldn't the object in the middle of the shot get bigger, not the object to the right edge of the frame?
Axial love for the algorithm ❤
with dire hard, 3 shots to me is a Dun Dun DUhhh! kind of rhythm. also, cool things come in 3's.
Tarantino, Anderson and Malick use these jump cuts and zooms on purpose. That should be acknowledged vs making it seem like they are out of place.
0:58 The camera is actually _higher_ in the second shot
I love this technique!
I love the "Axial Love" video information. Thanks for sharing. Well done as always.
interesting video
I use "Axial Cuts" all the time when I crop. But I use a cross dissolve, so it looks like a zoom. But maybe I don't need the Cross Dissolve?
1. when there's no back round detail? Maybe...
2. when I am showing detail? No, it looks cheap
IMHO
We are at a stage of cinema where audiences are not at all fazed by any type of jump cuts, or any variant such as what you describe as the axial cut. I think what you're trying to say is that we shouldn't use them without real motivation, and that I agree with.
I haven't even heard the term thrown around really at all on a professional basis, probably because by its definition it's way more common that you think. Any show that's a 'one camera' show that's really shot with two cameras side-by-side (one for CU and the other wider for example) so they are essentially on the same axis, for example, will more than likely have some form of this cut. As always, good directors and editors will use certain types of cuts that do 'bump' or draw attention to themselves for emphasis to better tell the story.
But can you really call a simple cut from a wide establishing shot to a CU on the same axis, a shot that calls attention to itself? Like some of the Kurosawa shots you mentioned, that's all those are. They are distinct from the Brody shots in Jaws, where it's very clearly a single, just closer and then closer again. That very clearly does feel intentionally bumpy and are true jump cuts, especially with the natural wipes from the foreground figures. IMO they DO create a jolt, but in a good way. They really get you into Brody's increasing alarm.
Similarly, the Leone shots or the Ikiru shot that goes from the wider shot to the extreme closeup of the hat do call attention to the cut, but for different reasons. The extreme close-ups of the faces and the hat are so graphically different from the preceding shots that they demand attention. But these shots aren't technically jump cuts at all because they're in continuity. They create their feeling by mere force of the two images bumping up against each other. Wide shot to extreme close-up that graphically emphasizes a subject.
Thank you! I also notice that with Leone's cuts he aims to do a POV by placing the wide shots after closeups to show what the characters are looking at. Its a very based edit.
@@sevenobinna3883 its also important that in the film we are resolving a major story arc, it's the central mystery Harmonic and Frank's conflict. Everything is building towards that final fight. Plus the other thing is, its not just a couple of edits, its a long scene just them circling. Good film.
Giant Film Cameras historically made it a true pain to move shot! Axial Shot is traditionally lazy...but Speilberg uses extras fore-ground moment to hide transition, only reason it works...
There is bus wipe in "JAWS" scene, so technical it is not an axial cut
Love axially
Volume too low. Much lower than the ads and previous video I had just watched.
I tuned out when the other examples after jaws just looked like normal cuts.
New host, or did you work on your accent? Cause I sware it's almost gone. Btw if you ever need a story for a film. I got a head full of them. I just need an excuse to write them.
Didn't know these kinds of cuts had a name, when done well they're really satisfying.
Axial Love
Spielberg hasn’t used a wipe axial cut sequence again because the one in Jaws is so famous
He didn't use the wipe but he used the cut in ET.
Is the famous cut in "300' also a axial cut? They have used three cameras with three different lenses, so they are per definition not in the same axis. Although the viewer wont be able to recognize the difference
Technically, those were zoom shots, even though the zoom was simulated in post and extremely rapid.
You explained why it's not in your own question.
I agree with all of your commentary and cinematic analysis; however, I wonder if you are using conventional or standard nomenclature.
The difference of the two above adjectives is that _convention_ describes any argot particular to a field or skill; _standard_ has the same goal but necessarily employs a universal descriptor.
_Zooms, rack zooms_ (aka _crash_ or _smash_ zooms), _dolly-zooms_ (which necessarily move _both_ the camera _and_ the lens FL simultaneously), and now this new term “axial cut“?
I understand what and why you say the term “axial“, but for the matter of the word itself, there is no shot that is _not_ axial.
(Well, a zoomable _slip-shift lens_ and the shot thereof -- (is there such a thing?) -- could technically be a counterexample).
The technically correct and already established term is _collinear._ I also think this valuable insight of yours would have been clearer to the viewer if you had introduced the idea of the perspective change that occurs between wide and “telephoto“ shots when utilizing zoom-_able_ lenses.
It´s sometimes, ah, _tricky_ to determine if the camera has been relocated by “mere“ observation of a zoom or zoom cut, especially in the matter of foreground relative to background -- not to say this is pertinent to the example you give here.
I wouldn’t call it a jump cut bc he utilizes a passing person to hide the cut so that it doesn’t feel jarring
Exactly. If you trimmed out the frames of the person "wiping" the screen by walking past, those shots moving closer on Brody would certainly be jarring jump cuts. The video's points about axial cuts are true, but not discussing the technique used to hide the jump cuts in JAWS is a glaring omission.
A jump shot normally doesn't have anything blocking the shot, it's usually used to show that time has passed between the two bits. Which can be important if you've got back to back scenes in the same place. Without a jump shot, the audience might not know that time has passed. Or to show that characters are still hanging out in the same place a long time later.
If you've got something passing through the shot, then that's more like the more typical film move where you're zooming in and out depending upon the closeness of the connection to the character, you just don't have the usual intervening shot of somebody else.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade exactly
Oh i thought you where going to do that famous cut where it zooms into his face while his background moves.