Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

What Does "Cinematic" Mean Anymore?

I watched the first one - Patrick Willems did a good job, I think. I enjoyed it, and I sympathised with his enthusiasm. He even used a heavy-handed LUT to make a point.

But my definition is actually very simple, and doesn't take 20 minutes to explain: cinematic = deliberation.

I.e., everything you see and hear is deliberate. Composition, framing, camera movement, lighting, background, colour (where possible), pacing, timing, music, sound. It's all deliberate. No room for sloppiness.

Some parts of some movies aren't cinematic - and that's perfectly fine.

Kane is not alone in its approach to focus. Most films back then were deep focus, or close to it. So was most of TV. Rope is another example of that. Shallow focus is no more cinematic than deep focus. Only an NPC would think so. How to confuse a modern film maker: aerial shots are almost always deep focus. Uh, oh.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
I watched the first one - Patrick Willems did a good job, I think. I enjoyed it, and I sympathised with his enthusiasm. He even used a heavy-handed LUT to make a point.

But my definition is actually very simple, and doesn't take 20 minutes to explain: cinematic = deliberation.

I.e., everything you see and hear is deliberate. Composition, framing, camera movement, lighting, background, colour (where possible), pacing, timing, music, sound. It's all deliberate. No room for sloppiness.

Some parts of some movies aren't cinematic - and that's perfectly fine.

Kane is not alone in its approach to focus. Most films back then were deep focus, or close to it. So was most of TV. Rope is another example of that. Shallow focus is no more cinematic than deep focus. Only an NPC would think so. How to confuse a modern film maker: aerial shots are almost always deep focus. Uh, oh.
Click to expand...

Karim,

I would agree with all those things you mentioned above . Plus to do all of that to tell a specific story and to convey a specific view point about that story. And something that effectively takes me out of my reality into another reality.
 
IMO Karim and Rand are on the right track but I prefer the Rand description. Karim speaks to deliberate elements. This is important - everything seen should have a purpose and should be well crafted. Rand speaks to the story telling and the filmmaker taking the viewer into the story. To me, the drawing in stems from emotional or psychological response to what is being shown. This, I think, is the real essence of cinema. The filmmaker tells a story that pull the viewer in and evokes feelings. We want to know what is coming next. The craft involved in doing that varies and the emotions vary but getting the response (happiness, sadness, excitement, fear, etc.) is the essence of great films.
 
Mark,

I think every movie that I loved and have re-watched either took me into someone else's mind space , their reality and perception about a certain event in history or about a time that I remember but experienced completely differently.

I think both you and. Karim are correct. There has to be a concerted effort behind the images you are seeing and how all those things come together to convey something that is visually appealing. Plus those things must also be used to convey a specific emotional, spiritual and intellectual understanding about life in a way we might not have thought of, a way that reaffirms our own understanding of things and or to take action or condition a new or different reaction than before.

So all of those things combined is what I would call "Cinematic". I mean who wants to see a session of images that doesn't take you from one understanding about life to another understanding about life through someone else's eyes, soul or mind.
 
Rand,
Among other things, I came to a realization that my landscape videography is NOT cinematic from the point of view that it doesn't "convey a specific emotional, spiritual and intellectual understanding". The footage is, at least sometimes, very nice to see but it doesn't grab the viewer emotionally.
It may be difficult but I think I need to "adjust" my story telling to correct that deficiency.
Mark
PS: Isn't it nice when you start down a thread and then come to a realization that you may not have reached otherwise? Thus, your post had real value for me.
 
Mark,

I, at the very least, always try to start a thread that I think may be interesting to someone else other than myself. Thank you for your feedback!

I think with every still or moving image we present to the world we should always reveal to this world a little more about ourselves. Otherwise why take that photo or make that movie.
 
The grandeur and complexity of nature captured and conveyed to a viewer can inspire awe and humility and wonder.

Landscape images can also evoke emotion and inspire introspection and internal reflection in the viewer.

If a scene appears naturalistic and at the same time other-worldly (or from another time or place outside of ones normal reality) it can transport the viewer via their imagination 'into' that other world.

These 'effects' aren't easy to achieve though, and they're qualitative, not quantitative, so it's a matter of luck and creativity (and work) that allows them to be captured and conveyed.

It's also dependent on the viewers personal ability to recognize and relate to what they're seeing, relying more on their taking time to engage with the imagery and make of it what they will and less on their being 'told' what it is they're seeing and how they're supposed to react to it (not that more immediate and superficial surface-level effects can't also be used/applied).

It's interesting that landscape imagery came up in the conversation, as it's related to one of the main and most important things I consider 'cinematic'.

And that is, the sheer scale of the image when projected in an actual theater.

Of course there are other elements that need to be considered when working on that 'canvas', and it's not like art can't be presented on a smaller scale at all, but for me the big screen presentation is an integral and fundamental part of what 'cinematic' means/is.


Edit -

Just watched the video in the original post. Only the slightest mention, in one of the quotes he referred to, of the making use of the big screen as being important to the cinematic experience, when (imo) so much of everything else called 'cinematic' is influenced by or a direct result of that one element alone. So, yeah...
 
Last edited:
Rand,
I am not sure that we need to reveal a little more about ourselves. I believe that revealing the beauty of nature in ways that many cannot see (because they can't go there or other) is also a worthy pursuit. For me, sometimes its a slow pan or maybe a time-lapse sequence that shows the scene. In the case of the time-lapse one can alter time and show mists dancing as they rise above the warming forest floor. Without the vehicle of time-lapse you can't see it. I prefer to go slow and show the scene in 8K as if you were standing there by me in awe of the scene.

Les,
Your thoughts are interesting regarding landscape (my most frequent topic), I am getting ready for a trip and will be thinking about how to enhance the cinematic qualities of my work.

If either of you wish to take a few moments to consider my work you can find some of it on YouTube. Type 'MarkAJaeger' in the search bar and you can navigate to the videos. I value constructive criticism.

Best regards, Mark
 
Last edited:
Mark A. Jaeger said:
Rand,
I am not sure that we need to reveal a little more about ourselves. I believe that revealing the beauty of nature in ways that many cannot see (because they can't go there or other) is also a worthy pursuit. For me, sometimes its a slow pan or maybe a time-lapse sequence that shows the scene. In the case of the time-lapse one can alter time and show mists dancing as they rise above the warming forest floor. Without the vehicle of time-lapse you can't see it. I prefer to go slow and show the scene in 8K as if you were standing there by me in awe of the scene.

Les,
Your thoughts are interesting regarding landscape (my most frequent topic), I am getting ready for a trip and will be thinking about how to enhance the cinematic qualities of my work.

If either of you wish to take a few moments to consider my work you can find some of it on YouTube. Type 'MarkAJaeger' in the search bar and you can navigate to the videos. I value constructive criticism.

Best regards, Mark
Click to expand...

Mark,

Everything you described above just told everyone who read it more about you. It's not something we have to think to do we do it automatically whether we realize it or not.
 
Andrew Dease said:
Theres also the debate does "cinema" matter anymore.

Any real filmmaker knows they are a dinosaur. And that films dont matter, cinema doesnt, etcetera.

We dont need "other realities" we need realty.
Click to expand...

You live in reality everyday. Who wants to go see what they already know? Unless you're the one making the movie it never will be your reality.Whose reality should we make the universally accepted standard?
 
Last edited:
Mark A. Jaeger said:
...Les,
Your thoughts are interesting regarding landscape (my most frequent topic), I am getting ready for a trip and will be thinking about how to enhance the cinematic qualities of my work.

If either of you wish to take a few moments to consider my work you can find some of it on YouTube. Type 'MarkAJaeger' in the search bar and you can navigate to the videos. I value constructive criticism.

Best regards, Mark...
Click to expand...

Hi Mark, I watched a couple of your video's.

I got a different impression of what you were doing when you mentioned landscape and time-lapse shooting. It looks like you're doing more of a travel documentary kind of thing, with lots of scenic shots and a narration describing what's being shown. That's a genre that limits the amount of 'cinematic' elements you can include, as it relies more on documenting things as they are and less on interpreting and presenting things fictionally/cinematically.

Within that travel documentary genre though, there are still things you could do to make the conveying of information more interesting and engaging for the viewer (fancy graphics & editing etc.). You could also include more cinematic elements by pushing the 'narrative' aspect of the journey to and through (and being in) the place, via showing more of the people undertaking the journey and the incidental details you find along the way. It requires planning though, and would take more of your time per video to shoot and edit, so you'd have to weigh up the time/effort required vs. end result ratio, after deciding if it even interests you in the first place.

It's also one of those things where it's hard to be critical of the work without knowing what its intent was. Taken at face-value, all I'd say is, strive for perfection in every little aspect of the production, as the closer you get to achieving it the less cause you give for the viewer to doubt the worth of what they're watching and disengage from/dismiss it. Before that though, it helps to be really honest and clear with yourself exactly what end result you're aiming to achieve with what you're shooting, that way you can know for yourself whether you've succeeded or not and no-one else's opinion really matters.
 
Les, Thanks for taking the time to watch, evaluate and suggest. I think your comments are correct. Now, what to do... what to do? Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top