What makes a video CINEMATIC?

[User]

There is a chain of command and protocol on the big shoots, so it's not like Youtubers come in a monkey with that... otherwise they wouldn't be there in the first place.

Can someone please start another thread that is actually interesting? Pretty please?  

[kye]

3 hours ago, User said:

Can someone please start another thread that is actually interesting? Pretty please?  

Done.

 

[User]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Done.

 

Nice one Kye. Introspection seems a healthy place to start. More soon.

[kye]

16 minutes ago, User said:

Nice one Kye. Introspection seems a healthy place to start. More soon.

Yeah, and let's talk about something other than equipment

[Kisaha]

7 hours ago, kye said:

I don't know about messing things up, but I recall someone on other forums saying that sometimes YT people get hired on a film set and IIRC they said that they are pretty useless overall because YT is just so different to a large set and how it works.

Youtubers are similar to phtographers, and wedding videographers. Usually 1 guy doing stuff. Used-to-be-photographers-now-doing-video-because-is-just-so-easy-to-press-rec and youtubers and wedding videographers are producing a lot of video and they are the most common to see around because they mostly share their work through social media, and are willing to play the social media game, and they do because that is what they do.

I met a few of those on a couple amateurish sets I helped the last couple of years (though, I am avoiding such places lately - such a waste of time and just a hopeless situation that drains a lot of energy for no particular reason at all). Iif they were on a real professional production would have started crying from the pressure and the lack of knowledge and incompetance.

Also, noone hires a "youtuber" to be part of a crew, the industry works differently. I do not even have a social media presence (do not even have any social media account) and I am feeding a whole family, barely, but still..!!

[kye]

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

Youtubers are similar to phtographers, and wedding videographers. Usually 1 guy doing stuff. Used-to-be-photographers-now-doing-video-because-is-just-so-easy-to-press-rec and youtubers and wedding videographers are producing a lot of video and they are the most common to see around because they mostly share their work through social media, and are willing to play the social media game, and they do because that is what they do.

I met a few of those on a couple amateurish sets I helped the last couple of years (though, I am avoiding such places lately - such a waste of time and just a hopeless situation that drains a lot of energy for no particular reason at all). Iif they were on a real professional production would have started crying from the pressure and the lack of knowledge and incompetance.

Also, noone hires a "youtuber" to be part of a crew, the industry works differently. I do not even have a social media presence (do not even have any social media account) and I am feeding a whole family, barely, but still..!!

Yeah, I've been on maybe a dozen no-budget film sets, probably all 6-12 people crews, and it's nothing like making films by yourself.  Being a Youtuber might half-qualify you for being a runner, but that's barely a qualified position anyway, so....  

[DBounce]

To answer the question... there is one thing that almost always makes a video seem cinematic... and that is slow motion. Even smartphone video seems cinematic in slow-mo. That's one of the reasons I detest when people post footage from new cameras but only use slow-mo. It's a cheat, because you can't film usable dialog in slow-mo. 

If slow-mo can make a smartphone seem cinematic, then we can conclude it's an important part of the cinematic recipe. This can be further evidenced by looking at the other extreme; record in 30p or 60p and you have instant "video" look. So the key would seem to be tied to motion. Sure lights and framing play a part, but I honestly feel the major component is motion.  And that motion can also be helped or harmed by how the camera is moved. Speed of camera movement is important. Panning too fast produces a visible judder. Though I'm not certain this is an issue with GS cameras? Direction that the subject moves is also critical. One should try to avoid having subjects move parallel to the lens from one side of the frame to the other; favoring instead movements toward or away from the camera at an angle to enter or exit the frame.

 

[thebrothersthre3]

Some interesting observations I noticed when watching Iron Fist and than Raiders of the Lost Ark later in the day (sick as a dog so catching up on TV time)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CaVXeTZasg7zrElwlLomWrBTXMKSj2T6/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_fGiVkt_mT1eOf9dIBmLmYwdH4zikIhl/view?usp=sharing


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cw6kkbYIVOUmPNRecZbjoqR8Ygg_crUo/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l4BvqK-0baVAKDy2jAF3uXAiwDQKgDbs/view?usp=sharing

Much shallower DOF, regardless of daylight or night shows. 




Iron Fist is definitely less traditional in how its shot. They seem to prefer to blow the highlights when it comes to things like windows. I don't see this with the other Netflix Marvel shows.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cox43pZ-DQj7TYwOm3edFKawZgXZCbbH/view?usp=sharing

 

 

[Django]

i'm not quite sure the overuse of super slow-mo shots, cheap pistol gimbals with that floaty effect, "film stock" LUTs, or ultra shallow DoF are the correct answer..

Super35 sensor + Cine lens is a good start imo.. follow with 10-bit log or RAW and you're more than halfway there assuming you know what you're doing!

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Iron Fist is definitely less traditional in how its shot. They seem to prefer to blow the highlights when it comes to things like windows. I don't see this with the other Netflix Marvel shows.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cox43pZ-DQj7TYwOm3edFKawZgXZCbbH/view?usp=sharing

 

So much for the Claimed 20 stops of DR on the Red Weapon Dragon! ?

[kye]

3 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Some interesting observations I noticed when watching Iron Fist and than Raiders of the Lost Ark later in the day (sick as a dog so catching up on TV time)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CaVXeTZasg7zrElwlLomWrBTXMKSj2T6/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_fGiVkt_mT1eOf9dIBmLmYwdH4zikIhl/view?usp=sharing


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cw6kkbYIVOUmPNRecZbjoqR8Ygg_crUo/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l4BvqK-0baVAKDy2jAF3uXAiwDQKgDbs/view?usp=sharing

Much shallower DOF, regardless of daylight or night shows. 




Iron Fist is definitely less traditional in how its shot. They seem to prefer to blow the highlights when it comes to things like windows. I don't see this with the other Netflix Marvel shows.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cox43pZ-DQj7TYwOm3edFKawZgXZCbbH/view?usp=sharing

You could be right, but those shots don't seem to be good examples to prove your point.

The first two shots are two-person shots and in both the closer person is similarly out-of-focus, it's just that the Indy shot has a closer background and the Iron shot is further away.  The background isn't important in either shot, so how obscured they are doesn't matter.

In the second two single shots, what matters is how related the character is meant to be to the background.  The Indy shot shows the character in the setting more strongly, whereas the Iron shot shows the character disconnected from the setting, perhaps for dramatic reason and perhaps not.

The thing about DOF discussions is that saying "DOF is great and looks lovely" or "DOF is a cheat and is overused and was never used in cinema" are both completely missing the main point of DOF, and that is that it is an artistic device used by the film-maker to control the scene.  If you want to isolate a subject then you blur the background, which is true from an optical perspective but also from a dramatic perspective.  They famously used very shallow DOF in The Handmaidens Tale to give it a claustrophobic sense, in accordance with the dramatic context, and the fact you couldn't see that far or get a wider perspective was also in line with the dramatic context of the world of the main character.  
DOF should be used to communicate and reinforce the dramatic context of the story.

I make home videos as a hobbyist and it seems like I'm the only one here talking like fast lenses are a tool rather than a toy.

It's like people think that buying a fast lens means you have to use it wide open the whole time.....

[webrunner5]

Yeah but you don't Have to buy a fast lens to get shallow DOF. You can use a mid telephoto lens or a tele one that is f4 and do the same if you have the space to get back. Hell of a lot cheaper. I like the compression look a lot. It really forces you to look at the subject more so than the background. It is like tunnel vision. I mean you can't, and shouldn't use it all the time but there are Tons of cheap lenses like that out there to buy.

[kye]

18 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but you don't Have to buy a fast lens to get shallow DOF. You can use a mid telephoto lens or a tele one that is f4 and do the same if you have the space to get back. Hell of a lot cheaper. I like the compression look a lot. It really forces you to look at the subject more so than the background. It is like tunnel vision. I mean you can't, and shouldn't use it all the time but there are Tons of cheap lenses like that out there to buy.

True, but only being able to get shallow DOF outside or in a warehouse isn't always practical.

Buying lenses is kind of like buying a set of paints.  If you buy a slow lens then you're missing some colours, and you might want to use them sometimes.  Of course, if you buy a fast lens and get all the colours, you'd be stupid to only use the extra colours you don't get with a slower lens.  

Buy all the colours and then use the ones that make the best painting.

[thebrothersthre3]

41 minutes ago, kye said:

You could be right, but those shots don't seem to be good examples to prove your point.

The first two shots are two-person shots and in both the closer person is similarly out-of-focus, it's just that the Indy shot has a closer background and the Iron shot is further away.  The background isn't important in either shot, so how obscured they are doesn't matter.

In the second two single shots, what matters is how related the character is meant to be to the background.  The Indy shot shows the character in the setting more strongly, whereas the Iron shot shows the character disconnected from the setting, perhaps for dramatic reason and perhaps not.

The thing about DOF discussions is that saying "DOF is great and looks lovely" or "DOF is a cheat and is overused and was never used in cinema" are both completely missing the main point of DOF, and that is that it is an artistic device used by the film-maker to control the scene.  If you want to isolate a subject then you blur the background, which is true from an optical perspective but also from a dramatic perspective.  They famously used very shallow DOF in The Handmaidens Tale to give it a claustrophobic sense, in accordance with the dramatic context, and the fact you couldn't see that far or get a wider perspective was also in line with the dramatic context of the world of the main character.  
DOF should be used to communicate and reinforce the dramatic context of the story.

I make home videos as a hobbyist and it seems like I'm the only one here talking like fast lenses are a tool rather than a toy.

It's like people think that buying a fast lens means you have to use it wide open the whole time.....

Just two examples but in general the entire show is generally shot this way and I don't really see a point to it. IMHO if the audience is concentrating more on the background than the subject it's probably because your story isn't engaging not because you used long DOF. To me having a shallow DOF tends to be more distracting than anything else as it looks unnatural. Just my opinion and stylistic preferance. That said I always buy fast lenses. A 1.4 lens is usually sharper stopped down to 2.8 than a 2.8 lens wide open.

[Mako Sports]

Just now, thebrothersthre3 said:

Just two examples but in general the entire show is generally shot this way and I don't really see a point to it. IMHO if the audience is concentrating more on the background than the subject it's probably because your story isn't engaging not because you used long DOF. To me having a shallow DOF tends to be more distracting than anything else as it looks unnatural. Just my opinion and stylistic preferance. 

I agree. Its interesting because when all these YouTubers use the term cinematic + shallow DOF together, yet the last couple of times I went to the movies its always been a deep Dof.

[kye]

4 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Just two examples but in general the entire show is generally shot this way and I don't really see a point to it. IMHO if the audience is concentrating more on the background than the subject it's probably because your story isn't engaging not because you used long DOF. To me having a shallow DOF tends to be more distracting than anything else as it looks unnatural. Just my opinion and stylistic preferance. That said I always buy fast lenses. A 1.4 lens is usually sharper stopped down to 2.8 than a 2.8 lens wide open.

Yeah, if there's no point to it then that's when it's distracting and lowers the quality of the output rather than adding to it.

Faster lenses are sharper, although we can apply the same logic - are you chasing sharpness because it adds to the dramatic context of the project, or just because "it's cool"?  There's a long history of photographers pursuing sharpness because if you want to make a large print and have it seem lifelike then resolution matters.  In moving images I don't think that this automatically translates.

5 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

I agree. Its interesting because when all these YouTubers use the term cinematic + shallow DOF together, yet the last couple of times I went to the movies its always been a deep Dof.

Using shallow DOF for no reason is just as bad as using deep DOF for no reason in my book.  Of course, big budget productions have the luxury of making sure the background is relevant to the plot, so having a deeper DOF doesn't automatically add in unrelated elements to a storyline.

[thebrothersthre3]

I'm not into ultrasharp. I rarely add sharpening and always Dial it down in camera. That said some of my fast lenses are just soft wide open. For me it looks unnatural. Certainly could work for a certain style project but in general it's more of a hindrance. 

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, kye said:

True, but only being able to get shallow DOF outside or in a warehouse isn't always practical.

Buying lenses is kind of like buying a set of paints.  If you buy a slow lens then you're missing some colours, and you might want to use them sometimes.  Of course, if you buy a fast lens and get all the colours, you'd be stupid to only use the extra colours you don't get with a slower lens.  

Buy all the colours and then use the ones that make the best painting.

Philip Bloom seems to do ok using tele lenses. He lives and dies with a 70-200mm, 100-400mm lens. Fast lenses wide open tend to be the worse lenses ever made. A camera like the PK4 with no optical corrections is a recipe for disaster using a 0.95 lens on it unless you are going for a 60's psychedelic look LoL. Even high dollar Cine lenses aren't really that fast. How many really fast lenses were ever made 30, 40, 50 years ago when movies were the I think the best?

I am not knocking new technology, but all these fast lenses are I think unessential, especially with better low light ability. Sure maybe using a BMPCC with a s16 sensor, but s35, FF not so much. Hell even m4/3 buy a speedbooster and use a half affordable decently made lens on it. Cheaper than all these fast ass gimped lenses.

I think you done drank the Kool Aide all those fast Chinese lens makers are pushing. They look more like fun house mirrors than quality glass. Now I must admit the clickless aperture and longer focus throws are nice but.. Just some food for thought. Plus you will look just like everyone else does with them dumb lenses. You Really want to take videos of your wife, kids with a wonky looking lens, really?? ?

[Mako Sports]

48 minutes ago, kye said:

Faster lenses are sharper, although we can apply the same logic - are you chasing sharpness because it adds to the dramatic context of the project, or just because "it's cool"?  There's a long history of photographers pursuing sharpness because if you want to make a large print and have it seem lifelike then resolution matters.  In moving images I don't think that this automatically translates.

 

Personally I'm an event shooter that specializes in sports with the occasional documentary. I prefer a sharp clinical look as it tends to look more true life. If I shot short films or was interested in the so called "cinematic" look maybe i'd go for a softer/organic look. 

[kye]

15 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Philip Bloom seems to do ok using tele lenses. He lives and dies with a 70-200mm, 100-400mm lens. Fast lenses wide open tend to be the worse lenses ever made. A camera like the PK4 with no optical corrections is a recipe for disaster using a 0.95 lens on it unless you are going for a 60's psychedelic look LoL. Even high dollar Cine lenses aren't really that fast. How many really fast lenses were ever made 30, 40, 50 years ago when movies were the I think the best?

I am not knocking new technology, but all these fast lenses are I think unessential, especially with better low light ability. Sure maybe using a BMPCC with a s16 sensor, but s35, FF not so much. Hell even m4/3 buy a speedbooster and use a half affordable decently made lens on it. Cheaper than all these fast ass gimped lenses.

I think you done drank the Kool Aide all those fast Chinese lens makers are pushing. They look more like fun house mirrors than quality glass. Now I must admit the clickless aperture and longer focus throws are nice but.. Just some food for thought. Plus you will look just like everyone else does with them dumb lenses. You Really want to take videos of your wife, kids with a wonky looking lens, really?? ?

Now you're just shit stirring!  So much to comment on.

So I'll shit-stir back...  

• "He lives and dies with a 70-200mm, 100-400mm lens."
  Have you ever filmed anything inside a house?  If you had, you'll realise that a 70mm+ lens is only good for videos where the voice-over starts with "Has acne haunted you all your life?"
• "Philip Bloom seems to do ok using tele lenses"
  No he doesn't.  He loves getting shallow DOF with his camera tests, which are exclusively shot at long focal lengths because he's shooting people (or cats) without their permission.  When he makes a real film he uses whatever focal lengths are appropriate, and for the B-roll goes to great pains to choose angles where there's foreground, like putting the camera on the ground or peeking out from behind foliage or posts or whatever.
• "but all these fast lenses are I think unessential"
  Using red in painting is unessential. Film-making is unessential.  So are clothes, ice-cream, and sports of any kind.  If we're going to live like that then let's all just live in caves - you go first
• "30, 40, 50 years ago when movies were the I think the best"
  You're right, I got it all wrong!  It was the lenses that made cinema of the 70s/80s/90s greater, not the availability of cheap VFX, the 2-second attention span of modern society, or the fact that the movie on the big screen is competing with Instagram, Twitter and instant messaging 
• "Kool Aide all those fast Chinese lens makers are pushing" // "wonky looking lens"
  Rent some expensive fast glass - you'll be surprised!  Any lens gets sharp when stopped down two stops, that means f0.95 lens gets sharp at f1.9, when typical lenses are still blurrier than when they just woke up   Besides, don't people think the modern look is too sharp?  I know you do - you think that camera lenses were what made classic cinema better than Michael Bay, in which case, lenses being a little soft when wide open is just what the doctor ordered

Besides, are you aware of the changes in DOF with focal length?  If I have a 50mm lens at f4 and want to have the same DOF with a 24mm lens, to match a shot, you know you need faster than f1 for the same DOF at the same distance, right?  What about if I need to add a bit of 3D to a super-wide landscape shot?