What Does CINEMATIC Really Mean?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Sign up for CuriosityStream and get a free Nebula subscription so you can watch the season finale curiositystrea...
Watch this video ad-free on Nebula nebula.app/vid...
We throw around the word "cinematic" a lot but...what actually makes something cinematic?
PATREON ► / patrickhwillems
MERCH ► bit.ly/2Q7cPdc
REDDIT ► bit.ly/2Uj44j0
______________________________________
Editing by Ryan Alva
Research by Raven Thigpen
______________________________________
TWITTER: / patrickhwillems
INSTAGRAM: / patrickhwillems
______________________________________
Music by Epidemic Sound
______________________________________
SEND US SOME MAIL:
Patrick Willems
P.O. Box 380333
Brooklyn, NY 11238
Whoops, one little 4-second glitch got through. Luckily on Nebula I can swap out the video file and fix that. So if you want to see more glitch-free AND ad-free videos, check out Nebula! curiositystream.com/patrickhwillems
Nebula doesn't send spam and has the best revenue model for creators.
Was it where you showed Anthony Kennedy instead of Potter Stewart?
Yes, finally got Nebula! Looking forward to your film, just like I always look forward to your great essays. Thanks for making these tough times a little better!
@@axellukkien so how much is Nebula exactly?
@@merriammerkabah408 It's 15USD for a year, in combination with Curiosity Stream, if you follow the links under Patricks video's.
Funny thing I remember about Soderberg is that he talked about being so absolutely blown away by George Miller's seamless storyboarding and editting of action sequences in Mad Max Fury Road to the point that he even denigrated himself as a director. He even implied that his signature style was more or less a series of distractions to trick you into thinking its all seamless. Imposter syndrome for sure but it just really spelled out for me how many different ways directors can approach their tool kits to film a scene.
Most directors must have felt like shit watching that movie. Miller is just on another level.
Soderbergh is the best director of all time,... according to me😂.
Love so much about that guy. He and Michael Bay and Adam Sandler aren't quite that different. But he adapts so well even within his personal limits.
The main thing I feel that makes Fury Road work so well is that Miller has that medical background. He knows very well the limits of how eyes work. So when he set out to do a movie he knew would need wild quick editing he made goddamn sure the eyes of the audience always knows where to look. If that means all action shots are center framed at all times... Then so be it. In all the insanity there is never confusion about who is where and doing what.
But I feel Soderbergh should cut himself some slack. He isn't one of those who struggle with directing the eyes of audience members either. I have my issues with the Oceans movies. But the audiovisuals isn't one of them. And I've seen enough outside that franchise to know I want to see whatever he does in the future.
@@jmalmsten Yeah, this is the thing that gets me about all the praise for Miller's style: why isn't this just considered basic good filmmaking? Know what your audience should be looking at, and put it in front of their eyes. I'm not saying this to slight Miller, just, it seems like something that should be common sense. Yet it's not.
@@a.KniteOwl he’s awesome, creatives do their best work when they work with constraints
Seeing moments as “cinematic” reminds me of being a bookish kid and solemnly pointing out things like old falling-down barns or wailing sirens in the distance as “metaphors”. If I had been a kid before novels, I would have been the creepy kid pointing out inauspicious omens.
:-) You wrote this in a very cuniform way, and that is a compliment. ;-)
I look forward to the day when the canon becomes so convoluted that a newcomer- friendly, hip update is necessary. Give me Ultimate Patrick, who wears vertical stripes and says “fuck” a lot.
All-New All-Different Patrick
Patrick NOW!
I wonder when the non-canonical beach episode is dropping
Charl’s beach bod will literally break UA-cam
I'll wait for the onsen episode instead.
Maybe it’s actually apart of the finale since the season began on a tropical beach
Patrick: "I don't want this to feel like a UA-cam video."
Doug Walker: *chuckles nervously, whistles innocently*
We don't mention those who shall not be named
let's be honest, his stuff is below youtube tier
even for youtube, Doug walker videos look bad
Doesn't help that Walker's a notoriously below average filmmaker on a technical level.
Doug is youtube's Tommy Wiseau
So “Cinematic” means using the film medium to tell a story in a way film can only do. Makes sense.
Rhymes with automatic ( a hint)
"Don't worry. It's not canon.
But, this is."
:::rolls out a big cannon::::
Canon DSLR?
"Steven Universe" reference?
@@CrashJakFan1994 definitely
when the editor typed "hi" in the corner, i waved at my screen. apparently i'm a small child lol
Never let that part of you die. It will preserve your ability to feel joy
hahaha
16:36 Now THAT shot is most definitely "cinematic"
I was thinking the same thing. Of all the shots at the end of the video, that looked the most cinematic to me. I think it’s a combination of the Ra k focus and the lighting, but I can’t figure out why past that.
Kannan Chandra also the color correction
Patrick: So you don't have to point it out in the comments
Me, watching on Nebula: Heh, lucky for you Nebula doesn't HAVE comments!
**scrolls down to type this into the Nebula comment section**
...oh.
Yes, I DID come to the UA-cam version just to say that.
Thankyou! I laughed.
This is actually a great tutorial! This is like 2 years of film school philosophy in however minutes it is! Showed it to my teacher and he literally said if you do that everything else will be icing!
4:55 So no one's gonna point out that that's Anthony Kennedy? I know him when I see him.
Now this is cinnamon verde.
As a film hobbyist at best, I still found the essay thoroughly informative and engaging.
"cinematic is when you put black bars on the screen" - video games or something
The line about true cinema being best served by a theatrical viewing really resonates with me now. Over the few years, my local indie started playing old movies and I've been struck by how Lost in Translation, Pulp Fiction and Rashomon benefit from that just as much as Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park and Blade Runner.
I don't know much, but I'm a little surprised Stanley Kubrick wasn't mentioned when you talked about making deliberate choices with each shot. He was obsessive to the point of abuse, but he was definitely a director who knew why every choice in his film was made
okay fine i'll get nebula.
commenting before the video to see how well my take lines up. i can define what makes something "cinematic", but when it comes together, it's something that feels like it should be watched on a movie screen. like it's at home there, and not just "bigger". this is partially visible, partially thematic.
"something that fits in the medium of theatrical film, better than it would fit in a different medium"
I don't know, but once you tell me I'll sure spread the definition around like I did
As someone who learned photography and video entirely through youtube, this idea has been buzzing around in my head for years. You're bang on that the UA-cam filmmaker space is just obsessed with aesthetic, specifically aesthetic that separates them from the 'normies'. With how powerful phone cameras are now, it's no surprise that the elements UA-cam filmmakers have latched onto are depth of field, gimbals, aerial shots and colour grading, all elements that distance themselves from someone with an iPhone 13 Pro.
'Cinematic' is ultimately impossible to define neatly, but I have come to think as you do, that deliberateness is at the core of the concept. A feeling that thought and care has gone into every element of what we are seeing.
This was an awesome discussion. I'm so stoked for the finale!
This is such a genius, generous question and process to talk us through. Thanks!
I think the Keeling quote is really true. I've had moments reading books recently where I think about how cinematic the description or action is. How can a book be cinematic? I'm honestly not sure, but some authors make it happen!
Well if cinematic is "use something other than the dialogue to convey the story", then if a book makes you feel something without dialogue or telling you what to feel, there you go.
This all has me thinking why I enjoy Wes Anderson’s filmmaking choices. He doesn’t do many dynamic tricks like diagonal shots or something. His camera moves left, right, up, or down. It makes me think he could do stage very well. But then he also has these great close ups of characters and overhead shots of props. I don’t know whether to call it cinematic or not, but when you see it you know it’s Wes.
My favorite part of this is recalling all the discussions about how to make tabletop roleplaying games feel cinematic.
I enjoyed this. I've always thought of the cinematic as simply being larger than life. I love your definition, but there are moments in life that are cinematic; the word refers to real-world experiences as well as film experiences.
I think you've pretty much nailed it Patrick, but one thing you didn't mention that I feel is important about the "cinematic" thing is the whole idea of "directed focus".
Most of the "UA-cam cinematic" techniques you mention "pull" the audience's attention to some part of the frame, as well as some of the others you mentioned (eg back lighting, which also draws attention to a particular character). The anamorphic ratio is more of a general focus pulling tool (eyes scan left and right more easily than up and down), while drones are the exception that prove the rule, asking us to focus on and understand a shot's setting (or less commonly, juxtaposing a single element against that setting - typically to demonstrate how it is out of place). Things like strong character movement and head turns serve the same purpose of getting us to look in the right spot.
Documentaries, on the other hand, are often shot to avoid manipulating the viewer's focus in a single way. They encourage experiential viewing rather than directed viewing, with our eyes roving across the frame freely.
I feel this is why Hitchcock was lukewarm on Rope, because he struggled to control audience focus through the extended shots. The "Spielberg Oner", on the other hand, shows that it can be done effectively with multiple framing devices used through the shots.
I started shooting video in 1991. I worked on more documentary / news reporting style projects as well as weddings. Working alone, I sometimes found myself right next to "Professional" crews when covering an International Boxing Hall of Fame weekend. I coveted the more expensive equipment used by the pros, but I also received 'at-a-boys' from those crews when they saw me in the right spot, to get the right shot during a live, unstoppable event. They asked to see the footage and agreed that I had captured something great. Fast forward to 2010 when I purchased a DSLR for video. This would be the first time I owned a proper stills camera. What dawned on me then was that I had been designing my video shots all along as interesting still shots. What I think most teaching UA-camrs are showing is "Composition". The saying goes, "A picture is worth a 1000 words." Many people will just document a moment in time instead of telling the story with the frame. Everything in the frame from lighting, to people, to blur is all the same things we find esthetically pleasing in a still shot. In my opinion, "Cinematic = Moving Pictures."
I agree with you on the shift from aesthetic to visual literracy, but I think there is two kind of "cinematic piece of art". The first one focus on choosing for each story beat / feeling the right artistic combinaison (light, focal lenght, camera movement, composition, focus, editing etc.). The second kind of "cinematic piece of art" try to choose ONE decisive element to apply to the whole, in order to make its meaning more relevant. Si if each cinematic movie ask "what do my choices mean ?" they are not answering the same way. On my channel I try by short movies and video essays the second way of the cinematic language.
So happy you really get to flex your cineamtic muscles on the season finale. You and the team have worked so long and so hard at this. You deserve to go big. Sidenote: Nothing frustrates me more in movies than too many close ups. I never understood why directors kept making than mistake, but now I realise it is often from being too used to working for TV.
I'm so glad for that spoiler alert at the beginning because it's pretty hard to get caught up on the Canon here.
Hearing “cinematic” so many times is giving me vibes of that “99 Beef, 1 chicken RSVP” commercial from the ‘90s.
I know this is an old video, but just a note on the job posting at the beginning; if it was for a video game company, a “cinematic” is another word for cutscenes. So it was a director of cutscenes, and they were looking for people with cutscene experience. So not the best example to use for the intro.
Doesn’t negate the rest of the video, obviously, but I just thought I would point that out.
Yeah, it's wild that there aren't more comments pointing this out. Willems kind of goofed there.
“Cinematic” is the friends we made along the way.
I think a lot of these guys obviously understand that professional quality photography is an element of what makes something "cinematic" but I also think the factor most don't talk about is intention. What makes something cinematic is when the images on the screen, the composition, the movement, the editing, have artistic intention. I always kind of scoff at a lot of the "look at my one take fight scene on a gimbal where I just kind of move the camera everywhere constantly like a dance video instead of creating any kind of story" videos because they feel like dangling shiny keys in front of your eyes. Cinematic isn't just technical it's artistic as well.
Possibly this dovetails with the Malick video from a couple of years back. I recently saw The Thin Red Line and it's probably the most beautiful film I've ever seen... but that beauty isn't just there for its own sake and feeds into the emotions of the film in incredibly powerful ways.
I think Cinematic = Emotional.
I believe Cinematic is the quality of convey emotion into the narrative. Something that touch you or move you in an Emotional level.
I think Emotion is the Key to Cinematic Aesthetic.
To me... cinematic is like being romantic.
You are chasing that feeling you felt when an incredible film spoke to you, showed you things you never expected to inspire you, and touch your soul in a way that stayed with you out of theater.
It’s like falling in love and you are aspiring to find that feeling again.. finding someone to share that experience with.. express a language you aren’t perfectly fluid in but try relentlessly to speak to others who can’t see what you see. And even though you won’t perfectly copy the traits that fit your favorite film of all time, you give your own attempts your own personal spin with the hopes that someone will fall in love with what you’ve made. And oddly enough, that pursuit in on itself.. is cinematic.
when game studio want "cinematic" person it basically means a film-maker that knows 3D software and game engines more than adobe premiere.
Funny how you made a video essay/trailer for the finale. Congrats.
Patrick, this an excellent exploration of an idea, that when I honestly thought about it (watching your video outdoors, on my iPhone), is not so easy to define. I’d taken the word for granted.
So once I got back to my desk, and to a larger screen, I raced to the dictionary to see if what it said would be helpful…
“Cinematic
|phoneticatious gobbledygook|
ADJECTIVE.
Relating to the cinema.
•having qualities characteristic of films.”
Okay, that helps.
The one characteristic of a cinematic experience no one is talking about enough (or not at all with some folk) *is not on the screen* and it’s not coming from the sound system.
A truly cinematic film *must include an audience in a communal experience *, else what are those hundreds of seats for?
Let’s put aside aspect ratio, and frame rates and film grain and depth of field. Let’s put the Steadicam back on its stand.
They’re all valid narrative tools, but *please remember the cinematic experience and energy of 600 people enraptured in a moving story*
It is our job to make the audience forget the filmmaking tools, render them invisible so they can feel like they’re *in the story*
*Cinematic is who we’re making this for*
There’s a special feature on the Criterion BluRay for “Memories of Murder” where Guillermo Del Toro discusses the movie as a work of art and it changed a lot of how I’m watching movies lately.
Particularly, he described cinema as an art based in light (the line between cinema and not is a subjective understanding of when the use of light constitutes art) and explains how the goal of a filmmaker is “filling that rectangle with as much emotion as possible.”
Scorsese talks about light as a center piece as well. I don’t mean to just point at famous directors but I felt like this was a good place to toss into the conversation.
It's funny how the same elements of visual language can become associated with completely different things, as someone who doesn't watch travel vlogs and such my first thought at the examples of "cinematic" yt videos was "This looks like an Azaeproduction music video" lol
Your definition is basically the one I got in film school. Wonderfully said!
Thanks for providing a better working definition of "cinematic".
I remember years ago trying to explain my dislike for the aforementioned 60fps Hobbit films. I was trying to explain it in terms of "film language", but the discussion got bogged down because the other person misunderstood that as me being a "purist" for actual *film*. It was hard to convey that my objection wasn't to the medium, but rather that it seemed to be deployed differently for no apparent reason. Kinda hoping some day some film maker deploys the tech for artistic effect... I'd be curious to see it.
Patrick: "Nebula was nominated for a Streamy Award, so you know it's good!"
Me: "Yeah!" * surreptitiously googles what a Streamy Award is *
Better turn SafeSearch ON, just in case you make a typo.
Patrick has added in little bits of a story into his videos, spoon feeding us little bits of something many of us didnt know we wanted, like hiding
Driving our engagement
So he could finally make that film
4:11 I interpret “cinematic” as visually appealing, making use of visual elements in the story… thoughtful style in camera techniques.
Oh good, Matti Haapoja, Peter McKinnon and the guy from Indy Mogul (Ted Sim) got to be on the "cinematic" compilation!
I think these "cinematic" tutorial videos go into the same direction of others where they tell people starting out to "buy a Red camera" and all that. They think the tools make it better - while people made really good and celebrated movies without much of anything.
Also I hope the season finale will teach us the importance of Family.
Yeah a big thing is having wider shots, not only to show the world (ie not just an actor, an action, or a thing) but so when you use the tighter shots they have more weight to it. That's harder than one would think, because during the shoot everything is watched on tiny screens so you just have to fight that urge to get too close.... weirdly enough the opposite of what a lot of people have problem with when it comes to still photography... but I digress.
And filling such a wide shot is expensive, you need people in frame, it has to be lit properly, so you have to figuratively paint the frame(shout out every frame is a painting) and it all has to work together to tell the story of the movie. It is a conscious decision on every level. That's what makes something feel cinematic to me.
17:17 Yes!! This is inspirational stuff to hear. I think it was during a McQuarrie Mission: Impossible commentary, that I realized how every single shot is just as important as every other shot, because -- money shot or second-unit insert -- it all ends up on screen together. I'm rusty with the technicals of cinematography but I'm pretty good at grasping what an image's conveyed meaning can be, and that's a skill I hope I can be mindful of employing in my own works.
*Waves* HI RYAN!!!!
I think your definition of Cinematic is the same as mine. Jasper Fforde is a SFF writer and oftentimes, he'll make certain jokes that can only make sense in book form. For me, that's the fun of certain media, seeing how it uses everything to stick out from other forms.
I still think about his "screech of tyre" joke from The Fourth Bear (and chuckle) quite often.
Great video here. Speaking as a photographer, the term cinematic is used quite regularly as a descriptor of photos, on social media at least. In this context I think it is generally referring to the mood created. This will often be down to one of the many aspects you talk about in this video, a certain frame or lighting etc. But mostly I think it is used as shorthand for the overall experience and could be as simple as the feeling that the image suggests a broader story being told beyond just the frame being presented, with a focus on narrative story telling. Interestingly, I've noticed that although the use of things like zoom lenses or shallow depth of fields will often elicit the term, it doesn't require that sort of visual similarity. Plenty of square images also get the moniker, which brings me back to thinking for the most part it is about the overall mood of an image. Whilst this is obviously different than in the context from the video which is more exclusively about moving images, I think it is probably useful to consider the way the term is used in stills photography when considering what people mean by the term in other mediums as well. Anyhow, thanks for the thoughtful video as always.
I think you nailed it. Something that is cinematic is a work that uses film language and techniques to tell a story. All these UA-cam sites that attempt to teach how to be "cinematic" are merely teaching the fundamentals of film language. But it takes an artist to use these to tell the story visually. Like, why is there a drone shot showing a lone car on a highway? Why do we zoom into an actor's reaction? Why is the camera moving in a dolly shot? Why use shaky camera and video verite? A director I can think of that knows the words and makes pretty shots that have no cohesive meaning is Michael Bay. He knows the words but he doesn't put them together to make the work have any meaning.
9:51 Jean Baudrillard has entered the chat
I think about stuff like this all the time. As an aspiring filmmaker myself, I love these type of videos! Keep up the great work man.
I like your definition. It’s the reason movies like The Room or Danzig’s Verotika, despite both being shot with pricey cameras, still look like cheap garbage.
I didn't call maintenance
Cinematic is an expectation which is delivered upon.
Really like this. More like this please! Reminded me a bit of the Gary Winnograd quote: "I photograph to see what the world looks like photographed." Meaning photographs aren't real - they have a quality / language / etc unique to them that is interesting to explore. Similarly Ansel Adams' photos of Yosemite are not realistic - their power comes from taking what the camera and the print can uniquely reveal. I think your definition of cinematic is enough - that which can only be done in cinema. (Now go and define cinema. We have all day...)
Mid-2000s no budget film kids with mini DV of the world unite! I made so much garbage movies on my mini DV camera back then (I thought I was part David Lynch and part George Miller). When I was younger I got my hands on a Hi8 camera and that thing was so crazy to try to use the mini DV seemed like an upgrade
Cinematic as a term for video games, like the cinematic director at Monolith Studios, is a synonym for cutscene. Just a part of the story where the player does not control the character. The skills they are looking for are technical as well as artistic.
I applied for a full-time job at Warner Bros. and it was the most humiliating experience of my life. They made me take a Windows 10 test to be a *script reader* in the hope that I would fail and reportedly passed my results around for a laugh. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the job posting for a "cinematic director" was some kind of prank and/or scam.
PATRICK HAS UPLOADED !!!!!!! THIS IS NOT A DRILL
Really loving the use of the Mice & Murder theme at the beginning :P
(An excellent essay as always, my guy!)
I wish that HFR had more opportunities to be seen in the theater with films that people would consider *good* regardless of the frame rate. People are iffy about the Hobbit trilogy, Gemini Man didn’t win many people over, and Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk is a film I’ve never heard anyone say the title of out loud. So it’s pretty much just Peter Jackson and Ang Lee so far.
I got to see the first Hobbit film in the theater, and after getting used to the 60fps, I really enjoyed it. I also caught Gemini Man (twice) in HFR in the theater - only at 60fps (and once in 60fps and 3D which was awesome, even if the movie wasn’t that great). I own BLLHW on a 4K60fps BluRay, but it was filmed in 120fps and I would have liked to have seen that. Ang Lee did that as well as Gemini Man and I think that he has the right idea with not needing to show the entire film in HFR, but rather by doing a more conventional frame rate in some sequences and HFR in others.
The turret gun scene in Gemini Man is a great example of how amazing it looks when you film at a high frame rate and then also in slow motion, and can take your time with every frame on the screen. But conversations don’t need all of that. I know a lot of people will find it blasphemous, but I use my LG OLED’s TruMotion set to “Smooth” while watching TV and films quite often now. I think partially because I’m a gamer and have become accustomed to 60fps, but also there are some sequences like the long camera pan in Doctor Sleep (that goes from the chalkboard to the bathroom door and back to the chalkboard over probably a full minute) and that camera judder just makes me so uncomfortable.
I’m hoping that James Cameron pulls off the unexpected, and gives us all a reason to give a shit about another three or four Avatar movies. I’ve heard that they might be in HFR (and I assume 3D) and maybe theaters will plan on upgrading their protectors in order to properly display whatever format he ends up with, similar to how many did with the first Avatar, or with sound systems when Jurassic Park came out. HFR does make it harder to film a good fight sequence as you can’t hide the fact that you’re not punching someone as easily, but it really does have a fantastic and smooth quality to it that I find to be quite cinematic. And I hope that HFR gets a film worth seeing in the theater that will cause audiences to give it a real chance and see if they aren’t more excited about it.
Totally The definition of cinematic is like the definition of Film Noir, it is more than just a collection of signifiers that carry some cultural meaning, it's not really a style nor an aesthetic, it's a feeling an attitude .
"And next time we'll go further"
Always excited to see what you make next Patrick ☺️
Smashing video as always
Hey great video as always Patrick. Just wanted to add some info on widescreen that people might find interesting. On a typical film camera the 35mm film film stock would move vertically through the image gate (sensor in digital parlance) and with a spherical lens attached it produced the 4:3 academy ratio of early cinema. When widescreen ratio’s we’re Introduced not all of them actually gave the image any more width. The 1.661 - 1.85.1 ratio’s effectively just had the top and bottom cropped (slightly more complicated, the number of perforation used on the stock played a part) which is the same as adding black bars. The 1.85.1 Vista Vision did have a wider image as the film passed horizontally passed the image gate. The wider aspect ratios like 2.35.1 and beyond were largely archived using anamorphic lenses on vertical fed cameras. I believe even on today’s digital super 35mm cameras the 16:9 ratio doesn’t actually translate to a wider image than say a traditional camera with the same lens.
11:30 that's weird, that actually happened to me except it was a Starbucks and it was Fix You instead of The Scientist
Somehow, the UA-cam algorithm just now introduced me to you. Your videos are great! I should have been in bed hours ago, but I'm just sitting here binging your videos. Looking forward to watching more... after I sleep.
I’m so genuinely happy that this video came out but was actually sad that it was “only” 20ish minutes long haha. I realized just how invested I am that I’m going to subscribe to Curiosity stream to see the finale. Keep it up Patrick!
This is a relatively small detail but in the games industry, "cinematic" generally refers to cutscenes as opposed to gameplay, which is why Monolith was looking for a "cinematic director"
I think "cinematic" is exactly how OP describes it: it is the successful capturing of an IDEA. His "break up story" example was heavy-handed, but it shows the essence and, really, the difficulty, of "cinematic-ness." It's easy to be dramatic. That is, to capture the dramatic. It's easy to tell a story that obviously captures a simple idea. However, it's hard to accurately capture all the essence of a complex idea, an idea ridiculed with nuance, with variety, with shortcomings or tradeoffs. Where not everything is so black hat and white hat. When you can truly capture the plethora of emotions and realities of these sometimes paradoxical experiences, that is when you truly have captured "The Cinematic."
The higher quality of acting in a film, the more cinematic the film becomes. For example, I really like the essays in these videos but it's the bad acting which makes the "story" sections in between... more student film, and less cinematic. That isn't to say that a student film can't achieve cinematic greatness, but without quality acting the immersiveness vanishes and so does the illusion of having a cinematic experience.
Fascinating and true- I had a cinematic moment this morning standing in a meadow by a horse… and I am super excited for your finale finally
Cinematic has a specific meaning in game dev. It means the not gameplay bits. Whether pre rendered or realtime, the bits with nearly all control taken from the player.
My "Favorite" recurring explanation is "just put black bars at the top and bottom, that means it looks more like a movie"
To me, cinematic means 'worthy of being the only light in a dark room for over an hour-and-a-half' (whoa! that went more specific than it started-out). Lots of books I like have been cinematic ... usually the ones that are made into movies.
But when can I see the video essay on Locke ?
I've waited for so long.
I didn't notice Charl until the end of the video. Truly a master of hiding in plain sight.
Nice this just put a little meaning to film making for me
This video makes me want to write a movie that contains no dialogue and uses all of the elements of cinema to tell the story, imagine a person waking up and everything that happens to them over the course of a day is told in the elements of cinema to the absurd level. Music queues, lightning, movement etc. during a scene where the person loses a job every element demonstrates it even while the actors dialogue is nonexistent and maybe even purposefully vague, the elements of cinema make it absolutely clear what is happening. it would be a fun challenge, that as someone who has no experience writing anything other than English essays in community college I have no ability to realize.
Love what you do Patrick. Glad to see you making things that you want to make.
Ohhhh finallllllly Patrick made a video about this.
Watched this on Nebula last night, but came here to make sure you got the views here as well. Really enjoyed this and can't wait for the Charle finale!
I think cinematic is when narrative form become motivation for the using of filmmaking and dramatic tools to create certain logical and emotional impact with the audience
so cool. loved the kara keeling ref, will be reusing that myself!!! thanks for the great work
TLDR: when visuals and sound work together to make you feel something powerful
At 4:57, that is Justice Anthony Kennedy, not Justice Potter Stewart. Sorry for nitpicking. Love your videos.
For a start it could mean to use the available range of values for pixels from 0 to 255.
The use of "cinematic" in the Warner videogame job listing almost certainly just means "cutscene" - the games industry uses "cinematic" as a noun more often than as an adjective.
If you’re using it as a noun… oh, whoa, I’m late to the “it means something different in game development” party, good show, commenters
I FUCKING LOVED 48FPS AND NEED IT TO RETURN PLEASE AND THANK YOU.
Don't feel bad about "chasing that collective idea of what a real movie looks like".
This video won me over - you're a nice dude and I hope to learn from you. All I've directed so far are music videos (that weren't strong narrative videos)
Great take on the essence of cinematic...👌 Cause all UA-camrs has only type of cinematic take... Great you've differentiate them....
The funny thing is 24 fps was not chosen for its cinematic look but to get better sound
when the frame rate was 16 fps and sound was added it was terrible
to keep the cost of film to minimum and obtain decent sound they increased the frame rate until 24 fps gave the the desired sound
there is nothing magic about 24 fps
If the finale doesn't end with a ferris bueller style ending, I may be disappointed.
Also, not that you asked for our takes on what "cinematic means," but here's mine!
In both cinema and theater lighting (cinematography) and blocking are what make the difference between amateur and professional (looking). Its why TV suddenly became "cinematic" and it's why Academy ratio films, films with or without shallow depth of field, and films with or without smooth shots can all still be "cinematic" and not contradict one another.
The difference between cinema and theater though is of course the camera and editing. These two tools have allowed the disciplines to branch. In cinema actors talk to each other, rarely break the fourth wall, lighting changes and music cues usually don't happen to direct your attention to something new (though that does happen occasionally). The camera allows movies that don't use special lighting like the Ocean's films to still be cinematic. Because the camera allows you to "put" the light where every you want. There isn't a stage the actors are on. You can always put the sun off to the side of the actor, and that counts as lighting the scene. The camera allows you to move the stage instead of the lights. Where in theater the stage is fixed and you can only move the lights. So the camera gets folded into both "lighting" and "blocking." Plus, bad actor blocking is just a terrible thing to witness.
And then editing brings a whole new dimension.
So, in the end lighting, blocking, editing. That makes cinema cinematic.
Cinematic is the visual language of intent. The reason films look cinematic is because the camera is placed in the right location to convey the point of the scene. The lens is chosen to provide a specific field of view. The aperture is used to isolate just what the film wants you to see. Then there's lighting, editing, color grade, music, foley... etc.
Cinematic isn't a look, it's the combination of all the elements of the movie or show working to present a specific vision.