You sir are genius cause not only am I learning actual film techniques and whys, you give it with hilarious comedic edit additions and a flare of personality. You show your interest and critic you don’t just talk like you know everything. God that’s rare on TH-cam.
Yeah, making sure everyone gets where exactly you are coming from and what the fuck it is you are talking about has become way too rare. These days it is more about claiming shit and hoping the audience will trust you because you make it sound cool and thrash others' point of view. I love anything that is a little more in-depth and precise and analytical. It doesn't have to be overly humble. It doesn't have to pack a thousand details in and last for half an hour or even longer. It just has to be upfront about the scope of what it going to talk about, about the angle it picks, briefly mention what is being left out and why, and then STICK THE FUCK to that outline. That's how you are HONEST about subjectivity. The rest is skill, looking closely, dissecting it, attributing meaning, then wrap it up in precise and short language. Make the audience understand how you see it, then let them decide on whether they find your line of thought convincing and agree with your conlusions. Don't try talking people into agreeing with you by using rhetorical tricks. Stick to one topic, present it as is, point to details, then let them think for themselves. I am happy I found this channel; it does this most of the time, and I have hungered for it.
I think what Zack Snyder meant to say was superheros (and supervillains) are larger-than-life characters, and a taller frame is better for emphasizing that. When you have a character like Superman or Darkseid, who are tall and broad-shouldered, filming them in 4:3 allows them to dominate the frame with minimal unused space to their left and right, thereby making them look bigger. The counterexample would be Battlefield Earth, which features nine-foot-tall aliens called Psychlos. The movie was shot in scope for no reason other than that's what people expected movies to look like at the time, so any time a Psychlo appears in a wide shot, the camera has to be pulled really far back to fit them in the frame, and this consequently makes them appear smaller while showing too much of the environment which they're not filling up. Thus, these characters who are supposed to be huge and intimidating don't appear so. I suspect the filmmakers realized this to some degree, so they tried to reintroduce some verticality to their frame by tilting the camera, and then they tried to play it off like it was a stylistic decision and just made the whole movie Dutch angles.
This is thought provoking and challenging. I'm going to take a while to consider it, then re-watch the video to see if I agree. This is why your channel is so good. It treats us as adults, and trusts us to be able to grasp more difficult concepts. Or at least concepts that may not be all that familiar to us. Well done.
I’m a scope fanboy. Some months ago I was watching “Cold War” and I was stunned of the way it looked, so I started shooting in OpenGate 4:3 spherical lenses. Then I watch this analysis… In two weeks, I’ll shoot a short film. I will rethink every frame and leave the anamorphics for other time. This insight is what I needed. Thank you very much.
Love this. One thing: "Good films. Poor directing." betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a director does. But other than that, this is amazing.
Nolan doesn't even use a monitor when he's directing. He prioritises other things. Like efficiently shooting and keeping his studio happy with his enormous budgets. I think it has worked out very well for him.
Finally! Someone has agreed with me on Chris Nolan. I’ve always thought he made pretty good movies. But the directing wasn’t the reason for their quality. There is no way Nolan is on a level of directing with the likes of-let’s say-John Ford, one of the most unrecognized greatest directors of all time. By the way, I think you are on the cusp of something big. High quality will eventually be discovered. Your channel is going to blow up soon.
The problem with Nolan is that dude has no imagination. How can you make such a dull movie about dreams & subconscious, when 10 years earlier Tarsem Singh made "The Cell".
John Ford is probably the most cited and one of the most recognised directors in general in the history of the film. He's unrecognised only in the sense that his films came out 70-90 years ago and so, shockingly, fewer people have seen them today.
@@maxjones503 I do think John Ford is somewhat underrated even among classic filmmakers simply because his most well-known films are almost all westerns, and not everyone connects with them. The Searchers is usually ranked as one of the greatest of all time, and it is, but it definitely has its flaws, unlike something as universally beloved as Casablanca. I can't think of a Ford film that I would consider an unadulterated masterpiece. Maybe The Grapes of Wrath? It's been too long since I've seen it. Compositionally, Ford is definitely one of the best, though. I love the simple visual philosophy he shared with young Steven Spielberg, that Spielberg included at the end of The Fabelmans.
@@kennydolby1379 The is the most concise way I have read anyone describe Nolan's filmmaking. No Imagination. I always described it as sterile. Not limited to just Inception but Tenet, Dunkirk, and interstellar all share that feeling that underwhelms me when watching his movies. Its all plain, even lit, and clean sets. It just screams zero imagination.
Maby you can use both. What people don't realize about IMAX films is that thay use different aspect ratios through out the movie but because the screen is so big most people dont notice. But when you watch it on dvd it becomes more apparent.
Barbie was shot 2 to 1 on Alexa 65. It looked great on the big screen. There was one especially artful shot halfway thru, (*very slight spoiler)where there is a room, framed in complete blackness on the top and sides, but on the bottom, the light from the room spills down, reflecting on the floor, extending out of this frame. It was mesmerizing.
Discovered your channel thanks to TH-cam suggestions. Let the videos rolling. Thought I was in a hundred thousands views per video channel, and was shocked that you don't have more views. Quality of your videos is off the charts, it's really clever, precise and full of cinema lessons. Even the description of the video is well written and seriously treated. Thanks for sharing this knowledge and points of views, truly interesting and valuable.
Recently found this channel. Binged all of the videos in two days. Came back to see if I missed any and to rewatch. Low and behold, a new video! Thanks movie wise!
So glad to see that I am not alone in my judgement of the willful carnage wrought by film directors. I often re-watch movies just to grade the shooting, the props, camera motion, and editing cut flubs. Thanks Moviewise, for the fun.
There has been a similar revolution in comics, that comics used to always be read left to right (or right to left for manga). Now they are up to down, as most reading is down on a phone. Most webcomic sites now offer vertical scroll.
The best comics use all directions. They are not confining themselves to a small screen and monodirectional reading. They are not confining themselves to a certain frame width or height either. They are free to use the whole page, or two pages at once, structuring and restructuring the space freely. They create an abundance where the spectator can make up their own course of reading in terms of direction. They guide the eye to the suggested plot narrative, but they provide material enough to go exploring and read against the grain. Great comics are aware that they are not an illustrated novel. They tell stories and are meant to be read by and through the image as much as by and through the letter. Letters and pictures have a dialog, or rather a trialog with the comic book reader - if both author and spectator know how the medium works (BEST). Many people are comic-book-illiterate, though, and some comic-authors are almost comic-illiterate as well.
While there are some webtoon creators that take advantage of the verticality(hellper and sweet home ) . Most webtoon creators do the bare minimum of composition and treat their vertical comics like storyboards . Which isnt a bad thing but makes you appreciate guys like Guarnido and Urusawa for their panel composition.
My take on the abysmal state of cinema screening tables right now is: Hollywood's approach to film making right now is avoiding financial risks at all (creative, craftsmanship, idiosyncratic, inspirational, intellectual, original) costs. It is suits running a business with an artform they don't know anything about, could not care less for, and yet don't trust actual artists enough to let them do their thing. There are so-called "original movies", few and far between, still being made, but even most of these feel like modular painting by trope numbers and references to similar movies of the genre. Even with these "somewhat original" movies, Hollywood is not going to take any risks. The Matrix, District 9, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Inception, Elysium, Logan, Joker, Ad Astra, Willy's Wonderland, The Dead Don't Die are such films - good movies per se, but all resembling stories and conceptual ideas we had seen on film before. I just wish more of these "somewhat original" movies were going further in trying out something new, pushing topical boundaries as well as exploring the artform, and went way beyond being modular remixes of truly original movies that have already proven successful time and time again. Hollywood not allowing for original pitches that do not reference past successes, makes for a cinematic world where "mildly entertaining" has become about the best I can hope for in a mainstream movie. (And that is sad. Even more so, when arthouse movies are becoming fewer and farther between each season. At least where I live, which is not a mega-city.) The only films that still felt fresh to me in recent years (one or two decades back) were: Persepolis, Loving Vincent, Captain Fantastic, The Kids Are All Right, Only Lovers Left Alive, Still Alice, The VVitch, Beasts of No Nation, Moonlight, Cam, Mandy, All These Small Moments, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Parasite, System Crasher, The Lighthouse, Booksmart, Linoleum, We Don't Dance For Nothing, Brothers, Parsley, Way Out Ahead of Us, The Northman, Pig, Renfield, Barbie. About a third of these movies I had to travel a day and stay over night to attend film festivals for - or I would never have been able to watch them at a movie theatre. That is an average of about two fresh and original movies (that left an impression) per year (only 2 per year, dammit!) across ALL genres - and I had to go to great lengths to attend them. In the second half of the nineties - at a small town cinema - I got the same amount out of the genre of science fiction alone - masterpieces such as: Gattaca, Ghost in the Shell, eXistenZ, 13th Floor, Dark City, Strange Days; and a bit more pedestrian, yet also quite entertaining and unique in style: Alien Resurrection, The Matrix, Event Horizon, Escape From L. A., Lost in Space, The Fifth Element. So, what's the matter with cinema today? Here is an interesting analysis with which I can agree on many points: th-cam.com/video/RQF82Kj-v0E/w-d-xo.htmlsi=kFK9ysccEcrChM-k
When I started the video with the information that it would be about aspect ratios, I expected it to put me to sleep. Instead I feel I learned a lot and have a better appreciation for framing in film. Thank you.
You have succeeded in bringing your point across in an efficient way, without trying to make an independent movie modernising the use of classical film ratio which will embitter you after it gets buried and archived by Barbenheimer/ Fast and the transformers... or other. Great work.
Great video! This man has clearly studied cinema-you can literally see it. This channel has become my favorite; please don’t ever stop making these videos.
I have learned more watching this channel than in 4 years of Video film production in School...wow I will look at everything differently now, I love the Academy ratio, depth and the height.
Why not just go 16:9, it works perfectly well for vertical and horizontal staging while filling up the entirety of the most common TV and monitor screen aspect ratio in existence. You can then stage scenes utilizing both compositional languages without having to jump around between them like in Nolan's movies. It's perfect for streaming, perfect for IMAX (and if cropping is used to utilize IMAX aspect ratio, it's not as extreme as going from IMAX to cinemascope), and perfect for a normal cinema screen. Just look at Cronenbergs movies, almost all were shot in 1.85:1 and they're perfect in both cinema and on modern 16:9 TVs. IMAX shot movies are perfect for IMAX, but since the rest of the world aren't looking at screens in that aspect ratio, it would be much better to just reshape IMAX screens to 5:3 or 16:9 instead. Since TVs are also much bigger today without taking up space, it's going to get more common having a large home cinema screen. It also works great for people watching movies on their phones, but they can go to hell and shouldn't be adapted towards.
I'm not sure how 16x9 was arrived at... May have almost been a manufacturing decision when it came to flat screen TVs... But it seems to be approximately the sweet spot between the obnoxiously wide and the slightly too square ends of the spectrum. I know for laptop computers they are doing a lot more 16x10 because the way software has so many toolbars across the top that take up space. That's unrelated to movies, but might be a case for another sweet spot. I think a core issue is that all our cinemas are now built for widescreen so when you shift to smaller aspect ratio a lot of the people's heads and objects look small to audiences... So it might take some time to gain popularity enough that theaters would be built with accommodation for really tall screens and smaller aspect ratios. One nice feature is the curtains at a lot of theaters will adjust for the aspect ratio of the movie making a new space on the sides not stand out. It seems like with stadium seating there ought to be a lot more openness to making the screens even taller so they could adapt to a lot of choices and still keep the scale of the image large.
in videogames you do this primarily for performance. the black areas don´t need to be rendered and you have more memory for the actual image and you can add more detail
That is an interesting idea: Make the ratio fit the narrative, not the other way around. One thing that might alienate audiences: Not being used to a switch in ratios might break suspension of disbelief. On the other hand: If audiences could adapt from unbroken angle shift continuity (theatre) to cut-(and-pasted) camera angle continuity (edited movies, with camera-to-focus distances widely varying between edited frames), why should this not be possible as well? I guess some people will just refuse to train their eyes/brains to a new way of "reading" movies.
@@elevenseven-yq4vu If not now, then soon, a majority of people in the western world will easily adapt to differing aspect ratios in cinema because they already do this when looking between their smart phone, computer display, neighbour, and back again. It is directors, not the audience, who need to figure out how to change aspect ratios while telling a story.
@@elevenseven-yq4vu It was tried in 1957/8 for an adaptation of H. G. Wells classic short story, 'The Door in the Wall'. It's a short film and online too.
Video game don’t incorporate letterboxing just because it looks “cinematic.” It is done to indicate a change between gameplay and full motion video. It is done to narrow the field of view during specific aiming portion. It is sometimes even used to hide loading textures and models.
It is also done to reduce the number of displayed pixels on screen. I think this started late PS2-era when Resident Evil 4 had letterbox to make it run better.
As if not having your buttons register isn't enough indication. You can bet they do it to seem more 'cinematic' but what you said about them wanting to hide rendering assets is also true.
The annoying irony is that it almost always is just overlayed black bars, so if you actually try to play it on, say, a 21:9 monitor, it's freaking windowboxed. More modern games are starting to make them dynamic, though. The problem there is that the extra room on the sides that is "cut off" when played normally in 16:9 suffers occlusion culling, where models get degraded or are missing to help guarantee proper performance. Bioshock remaster was so incompetently applied that it was just one of several terrible presentation issues that made me uninstall it 20 minutes in.
You could narrow the field of vision or number of pixels also by going to a square bang in the middle of your screen. For some reason they tend to prefer wide-screen, however.
An important insight which is true to many fields. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and making us just a bit smarter. At least moviewise Can't wait for the next one!
I think what’s really rad about this channel is you do a really great job expressing your love for movies without being incredibly pompous with your opinions or criticisms. Keep it up man.
Nice video. Of course, now televisions are universally 'wide', there is no need to frame compositions with how they will transfer to television in mind. There are no excuses for lazy, half-arsed framing and blocking any more! I'm off to see what Jim Emerson said about Nolan.
An amazing use of Scope (2.55:1 in this case) is Disney's Lady and the Tramp. Dogs are horizontal, and the whole film is told from their perspective. We pretty much never see humans above the waist.
The algo be praised for suggesting me this. The competence, the rhythm, the excellent humour (the bipeds thing just floored me), and - why not - the accent.. top. Bashing Nolan & Snyder at the same time: priceless! Have a great weekend!
I thought when snyder was talking about superheroes being vertical he was talking about how the comic page is shaped. A comic page is so often when you see superheroes in comics with single page art work or if uou are looking at the cover everything tends to be vertical and stacked.
@@SolarScionNor with telling a story. I think he would make a good person behind the camera or DOP. His single shots can be amazing. But setting up a scene and directing/overseeing the whole script/screenplay/storyboard to set/blocking/acting process, not so much.
The thing about Snyder's comment is, though he's articulating it about as well as Snyder articulates anything (more's the pity) I kinda understand what he's getting at. Comics pages are, of course, vertical as opposed to horizontal, so there's a particular iconic image that recurs of the towering hero, standing out in front of their page and their story in such a way as to express their iconic nature. Iconography is absolutely essential to superheroes. They usually wear logos that come to mean whatever value or theme the character represents. And even if they don't have a logo per se, the characters themselves almost always have an iconic appearance. There's James Bond in his tux, but then there's Batman with his ears, cape, and bat logo. Or even Wolverine with his distinct hairstyle, steel claws, and animalistic expression. Anyone can wear a tux. No one looks like Wolverine but Wolverine. In comics, the splash page, or just a vertical full figure panel, appears frequently to present the character's iconic image. This image delivers the product of the comic, a character who's an iconic representation of their story's theme, with accompanying story to reinforce or challenge that theme. So I get that Snyder wanted to capture the towering, iconic image of superheroes, standing taller than their story. Not all characters need that, regardless of being bipeds that happen to stand vertically. But superheroes as a genre can really benefit from it.
Good comment, love this channel but maybe the author couldn't resist uncharitably interepting Zak's incoherent rambling because the punchline of bipeds was too good to not be used 😅
The trend will be whatever fits a smart phone screen, with everything shot in extreme close up so people can see it. Great video, I had never really thought much about how aspect effects camera work and story telling. 10/10
very enlightening and convincing. A lot of what you said I knew subconsciously but could never quite put my finger on it. Something seemed off but I wasn't sure why. Then when seeing those clips of Inception, I kept thinking "That's great in Academy!" and then realized it was in scope and stuff cut off. Inception really would have been better in Academy. So much fit into tight, square-shaped, area anyway and little to no landscapes. Scope served no purpose in it.
The fact that you can exactly say what wrong from bad to great director is doing is marvellous. It's easy to spot the blunder of the movie is bad but really hard when done in good movies. But not only that you are able explain your point very well. That's some skill. Thanks for sharing your deep knowledge. Just a recommendation can you make a video on Raj Kumar Hirani and Sanjay Leela Bhansali movies. They r some of the renowned Bollywood (Indian Hindi language movie) directors of current time.
This has really affected the way I watch movies. Now I can't stop thinking about this with every movie I watch. I saw It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World a few days ago. I noticed in every shot the actors' faces were wholly in frame. The giant W was perfect in frame. Then when I watched Till, I noticed the same thing. Faces in frame, and when the widescreen left a gap, it was always filled with something. Usually large props, like a vase or piece of furniture. Sometimes the gap would be filled with a door way which someone would soon use. It made me appreciate the film more.
EX-CELL-ENTE ! I always wondered why Dark Knight gave me a headache, and seems so claustrophic and circimcised, mutilated. I didn't know it was shot for Imax. Also, now I realize why Woody's late 70's and early 80's films look so good in scope (with him having shot unecessary tops and bottoms), compared to his contemporaries who framed with useless left and right sides.
I really like your channel and insights! To me the biggest challenge is keeping the objects big enough, i.e. screen size. If movie screens were much bigger, more like IMAX, I think it would be easier for audiences to embrace the squarer format again. But there is tremendous inertia behind all our movie theaters being designed and built for widescreen, so projecting squarer looks smaller. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem. Would be great to have more theaters with the screen size like IMAX but maybe not tied to a proprietary film type, so the aspect ratio could be taken advantage of more...Otherwise people's heads and faces start to look really small on the screen... Need taller screens! So the industry would need to start building bigger screens that allow for the classic aspect ratio. Certainly 16x9 is a bit squareer than the old cinema scope, so perhaps that will help filmmakers not get too wide, but there is a notion that "more is better" that really takes hold in the public and executives minds. You flashed Jurassic Park a couple times and at least that used 16x9 (1.78:1) recognizing the need for verticality more than the super wide formats that are like 2.1:1.
My favorite square movie in recent years is Robert Eggers' "The Lighthouse" in spectacularly grim 1.19:1. I loved that shape so much I saw it twice on a giant screen. The dripping **** scene would been much less ******** in scope.
It is magnificent. First film I watched with Robert Pattinson in it, which sold me on watching The Batman in spite of superhero fatigue. Great actor. I had already loved The VVitch, but Eggers upped his ante with The Lighthouse. I can not begin praising how he changed his visual style and yet stayed true to his narrative style, both being always great, and at the same time carving out his unique thematical niche. Robert Eggers has, over the course of just three movies, become his own - very varied yet recognizable - genre: "Psychologically immersive and consistent, myth-laden, historically accurate contextualized, surreal social horror movie". When I watched a - relatively tame and un-psychedelic - trailer for "The Northman" I was afraid he might have left his own budding "genre" to become a mercenary Hollywood mainstream contractor doing what's in (Streaming-) fashion for the masses: Game of thrones styled, Viking/Barbarian themed schlock. But boy, was I wrong! That guy is a genius filmmaker with a vision, a style, talent for the ages, and the perfect core team for him. What a ride!
Even for something as mundane as local government meetings - not even talking about feature film here, or anything artful, of course - I miss the 4:3 TV ratio for getting single shots of speakers at the tables. When we went to HD and 16:9, it looked great for the elected officials at the dais, but for people at the tables, it has always been hard to get a decent-looking single shot, since everyone's sitting right next to each other. At best, we can only get "dirty singles" with other people's half-cut shoulders on the edges of the shot - unless, of course, we get tighter head-and-shoulder shots, which look too uncomfortably close.
If a significant financial benefit of the wide screen comes from more aisles, and hence more seats, you might be right. fewer public viewings might alter the format, and the overwide television screens will feature "cinematic" black bars on the sides.
Just found this channel the other day through the video on I, Claudius. I've spent the last two weeks watching everything and regret nothing. Looking forward to what you do next!
hey I wanted to mention Eisenstein's essay called 'The Dynamic Square' where he discusses the aspect ratio stuff like you're doing so brilliantly here. You probably already know it, but, in the unlikely chance it has escaped your encyclopedic mind, I highly recommend. Cheers
I was born in the early '80s, so I grew up watching TV in 4:3, and seeing movies at home in the same ratio on VHS. I learned about pan and scan when teenage me saw Braveheart at home on tape after seeing it in the cinema - after that, I noticed it on all movies seen at-home, and couldn't unsee it. So many pan-and-scan scenes approach random abstraction, even simple dialogue-swap set-ups, with essential visual information obscured or deleted entirely. I became a collector who always preferred the letterboxed "widescreen" edition of VHS movies - anything less was sh!t. When DVD came along, and TVs started going 16:9, letterboxing for 'scope became the standard, which made me happy. But I do think it created a misconception within me that wider immediately equals better: when I'd see something in the theatre, and the screen would stretch out to 'scope at the feature-start, it'd always make me go "yeah!" to myself. Now I'm watching movies from all eras at home on a projector, the nuances and relative merits of each ratio have become so much clearer. I agree that too many directors today opt for 'scope without making proper use of it, without a clear, driving visual objective. Conversely, those who commit to 1.37 (or, personal underdog fave, 1.66) nowadays tend to really consider their images, so now I go "yeah!" to myself when I start a movie and see that it's in Academy ratio.
It's unfortunate that the biggest push for vertical framing recently was that weird Short film by Damien Chazelle, "The Stunt Double." That was probably the worst way to push it, and as a result made many people cringe at the idea. Hopefully more people realize that all types of aspect ratios have their advantages and disadvantages and we can see more diverse directing in the future.
To be fair, though, The Boys doesn't lazily slap on the “cinematic” black bars on top and bottom of the frame, they actually shoot with anamorphic lenses-the resulting image can only be 2.35:1 (or a variant thereof).
I watched Zach Snyder's Justice League in full 4:3, but I honestly felt like I was seeing borders at times. I'm frankly not used to it. I did like how incredible the shots looked, but it felt very narrow.
At least now with digital projection it's easy to show academy ratio (or any other shape ) in a conventional cinema. Once cinemas converted to widescreen most could no longer project academy because they didn't have the correct focal length lenses. It was only arthouse cinemas which often showed older films which retained the ability to show both academy and widescreen.
We have two eyes horizontally, so our (peripheral) vision is more horizontal than vertical. The bottom line is that it is much better to use a horizontal screen for movies - implemented correctly - just like you commented with Nolan.
Hi man, a new fan from India here. Just found you through the excellent "useless backstory" video. Here, I'm really happy to see that you have addressed the ignored "aspect" of the "Aspect Ratio" debate. I personally prefer the 1.85:1 ratio. I believe it's the best AR that bridges the old 1.33:1 ratio that helped frame fantastic Vertical shots and the new cinemascope ratio that brings in Horizontal landscape & atmosphere. So it really pisses me off when some movie buffs claim that movies can't look pretty or cinematic in that AR. It's like these people have never watched any of Guillermo del Toro or Barry Sonnenfeld movies. And a few Steven Speilberg classics like Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan, E.T, etc. No one in their right mind can call the 1.85:1 AR movies made by them ugly or uncinematic. I also love that Cameron's Avatar films are released with the 1.85:1 ratio but I guess liking Avatar movies will have the movie snobs disqualify me from taking my thoughts on movies seriously. P.S: Now regarding that snipe at Nolan. Nolan and his long-time Cinematography collaborator Wally Pfister confessed in an interview that his Cinematography style was banal by choice. But it was his experience with IMAX for The Dark Knight that changed him. Patrick (H) Willems has even made a fantastic video on "How IMAX Made Christopher Nolan a Better Filmmaker". But at the time of Inception, they hadn't figured out the rig for the bulky IMAX camera to shoot complicated action scenes. So Nolan didn't shoot Inception action scenes with IMAX cameras, especially after an IMAX rig broke under the bulk during The Dark Knight shoot. Starting with Dunkirk, a majority portion of his movies are shot in the IMAX ratio. But one of the best things about his IMAX movies is that when they're released on Bluray, he makes sure the IMAX portions are cut to fully fit the modern 16:9 TV ratio that's closer to 1.85:1. So that off-frame issue you pointed out in Inception is eliminated. A lot of Studios & makers don't make the effort to cut their IMAX shots for home releases, especially now that physical media has become a mostly collector's thing. (I was very disappointed that Dune's IMAX shots were not cut for the home release and it was all just the plain "standard" cinemascope.) But I also don't like Zack Snyder's decision to release his cut of Justice League in the boxy 1.33:1 IMAX ratio. I mean, the cut was primarily released for 16:9 AR TVs. The whole point of IMAX scenes in genre movies is to present the action, spectacle & landscape on the biggest screen possible. But when it's released on TV, it should be cut to the 16:9 ratio. But with Snyder's JL, we now have black bars on the sides instead of the top & bottom. What a genius move. Guess that's what happens you have convinced yourself that you're an "autre" who prefers to preserve "purity" over everything. As a lower-middle-class, married Indian, barely holding it together in terms of money, the one thing that I save and spend money on is movies. I "splurged" on a 50" TV a few years ago as a movie buff. But watching makers automatically set everything to Cinemascope (2.35:1 to 2.66:1) ratio kills any joy I hope to squeeze out of my big screen TV because half the screen is taken up by the black bars and so the 50" really doesn't feel like a big screen. (Obviously 50 inch is not that big compared to modern 65, 75, 85 inch 4k screens but 50" is all I can afford now.) Most movies, after their initial theatre run, go from generation to generation through TV. So when movie makers mindlessly shoot/letterbox movies for the Cinemascope feel, I feel like they are ignoring the legacy of their own work. End of rant.
The reason we have widescreen, is because that is how our vision works, it is wider than it is tall, by quite a lot. We however have more focus on what is in the center. So in theory, framing things in the center of a widescreen format it correct, that does not however mean that the shots are perfect, just because they framed them pretty well. Our limited vertical vision means we have to tilt our heads, when looking at a vertical perspective. So the director should plan for that. Instead of doing wide shots, when not suitable, they should rather tilt the camera to give us the vertical perspective, because that is what we as humans do. Having a vertical gun fight, is thus more realistic, the person seeing from the top, will have a better way of seeing both their environment and the target at the same time, giving the lower shooter an disadvantage, just like in real life. The issue with the wider screen formats, is when they are seen on small screens, so they don't fill the field of view, giving us the ability to see all of the fram at once. But with things like vision pro and the ever growing "normal" size of TVs and computer screens, we are getting closer to that cinematic experience of the video filling our vision, even at home (some have enjoyed that experience for years with projectors and large screens). The director should decide when framing a shot, is it a close shot, where you are not seeing everything at once, just like the human experience, when you are close to someone, where you can tilt you head to see other things, but then not look directly at the thing you think should be in focus (this is how many magicians do their thing). Or should you be placed at a distance while still hearing a dialogue like you are close, but have a superhuman experience and thus see more than you would actually do in real life so we get the narrator/all-knowing view. Some issues with widescreen is that it is squared, while the edges of our vision is rounded, and how the area isn't blurred and distorted at the edges, instead, we either get full focus in the frame, or just the depth of field phenomena that isn't as strong with our vision as it is in cameras, so when watching we are not told clearly that this is meant to mimic our vision, so we can wonder of the middle of the frame, as the format does not tell us clearly where we should watch, thus resulting in us seeing things clearly that we should not, if we followed the intended focus of the framing. If the focusing and the edges of the frame was better adopted to mimic our vision, it would be more natural to place people and objects that we would not normally focus on, in the same frame, filling the edges while we still maintain focus in the area intended to be in the focus of our vision at that moment, instead of the empty edges that you have a problem with. Filling the frame with important elements is not accurate framing of a shot. The pan and tilt should do the job of shifting focus, just like we have to turn our heads to see everything in focus, and at times giving us dizziness because how much we have to turn our head, to follow the action. And at times we will actually not be able to turn our heads to the right position, missing things that happen, putting characters out of our field of view. Portraits are not meant to fill our field of view, and there are many examples of wider than tall paintings. There are many reasons why this historic perspective can't be used to draw any conclusions about what we as humans prefer. You are correct in that a lot of the time it is about framing issues. But I don't agree with your conclusion. Widescreen is better, it is more natural, if the framing is done right, and typically it isn't. And directors need to use pan and tilt more as a way of framing the shot rather than go wide to fill more in to the frame and just leave it for us ourselves to try to figure out what we are meant to see, or how we should experience scale. I agree with you issue of framing of dialogue. If we were watching a dialogue, and trying to observe it, we would place ourselves in a position where we could mostly see both. Or we would only see one, and stay there, thus not getting the look of the other persons face. Switching from one face to another, is not realistic, and it does pull us out of the situation. This is of course referencing another of your movies. And you father was right. Traditionally, filming from behind was used as a way to be able to use a body double. Also the editing is done in a smilar way, where, there isn't a single natural dialogue, they either filmed specific parts from each perspective at the time, or they have edited together from two different filmed dialogues. Just like when body doubles were used, sometimes the dialogue was performed in it's entirety, sometimes it was performed in such a way that only specific parts were filmed from each perspective. it does give you the feeling that the person you don't see from the front, may just be a body double. And the dialogue as it is filmed separate does not feel natural (often the scripts doesn't help, when it comes to natural dialogue, with way less interruptions compared to a normal conversation, where people often have a hard time knowing when the other person intends for them to speak, or when getting frustrated that the other person has misunderstood and thus the person does not want to listen to the other person trying to make a point based on a misunderstanding). Having both people in the frame at the same time, would increase the demand for making the scene feel more natural. And in such a situation, in a widescreen format, panning should be used to focus, but not taking the other person completely out of frame.
Widescreen was driven primarily by screen sizes getting continuously larger. There's only so tall you can go because people don't like looking up and down. So you go wide. I'm okay with this as long as the wide is, as wide screen gaming forum used to put it, "h+" (e.g. Burnout Paradise), as opposed to "v-" (e.g. Elder Scrolls Oblivion).
This is scratching the surface of what I am trying to make myself. I mean. As a fellow person who have a morbid obsessive fascination with aspect ratios. Also. Using Titanic as an example of compromised framing is a bit wrong. To my knowledge. Cameron has not used anamorphic in any film. When he shot on film. It was on Super35. That way compositing and postwork was way easier. And he could reframe home video releases by adding back verticality from the 4 perf negative. And when he moved to digital with Avatar, he sticks to 16:9 or 1.85:1. I'm not entirely sure of the Avatar and the scope-releases for cinemas though. I do think he probably used the regular renders and cropped top and bottom with a bit of tilt and scan to keep things in view. But he very much could re-render most scenes with wider aspect ratios by adjusting things shot by shot. . But I think it was more of a quick crop. So... he didn't use to. But now he kind of has become part of the problem. :P
The issue with different ratios is that cinemas will always fight them. As it's just easier for them to have 1 and the same ratio for every film instead of adjusting. This goes for PC/TV screens as well, but to a lesser extent. I could definitely see the academy ratio coming back, that is after the Hollywood gets out of the dark ages we are in now. I feel the Zack Snyder point is actually the most important one even if he himself does not seem to understand it. Humans by nature are more vertical, therefore the only way a horizontal ratio makes sense is if you have multiple people next to each other or very far away. But then again the start of you video shows perfectly how beautiful shots, that showcase distance can be achieved vertically as well. I have a feeling your channel will blow up soon keep up the good work.
What is missing is that if you have a really big screen, like you often nowadays have, your eyes cannot focus on the entire part of it anyway. So what you have on the sides is often only there for more immersion. With a small screen, (especially old 4:3 television) you have a sharp focus area from top to bottom and left to right of the entire image.
@@menninkainen8830I'd argue that nowadays a lot more video content is watched on small screens of mobile devices and produced with that in mind. Hence the insistence on tight, fast editing and framing one object / face at a time, in pocket format.
The Widescreen is suitable for flat landscape panorama shots, as you would have with the army movements in Westerns, Sandal epics, or other historical War movies or Fantasy genre battles. You could also show some sort of evolution or unfolding stufd using CGI to spread it out from left to right instead of going for montage. All of that nowadays is rarely done in good movies (extras are expensive and CGI bound to look shite if not immediately then when outdated soon). So the Widesccreen format will rarely be played to strength, unless peoplea interests in subject matter shift back to this stuff.
@@elevenseven-yq4vu It may come as a surprise to you, but according to statistics almost 50% of Netflix viewers under the age of 35 watch their content on mobile devices. 36% of users between 36-54 years of age watch Netflix on their mobile devices. 30% of total number of users watch Netflix on their mobile devices. That's quite a significant number. Then, if you take into consideration video content which is not full length 'cinematic' movies, it turns out that most video content consumed today is via mobile devices. While not all of these are movies, movie makers need to compete with that, just like they had with daytime TV back in the day. The aesthetics of small screen videos could be influencing their choices, the same way that graphical aesthetics of comic books does.
![[Live] : ONE 168 วันนี้!! "โจนาธาน vs ซุปเปอร์เล็ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jIN65KgJsI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 78 | คู่เอก "ปกรณ์ vs ฟาบิโอ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSOmgl0Th2c/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the best film criticism channels right now
Totally agree!
💯
Absolutely agree. I get so much from watching these.
Agreed
I quit other film essay/analysis/criticism channels already because of Moviewise
Film history, film technique, delivered with jokes and quality editing through the whole video. I can feel my brain growing.
You sir are genius cause not only am I learning actual film techniques and whys, you give it with hilarious comedic edit additions and a flare of personality. You show your interest and critic you don’t just talk like you know everything. God that’s rare on TH-cam.
Yeah, making sure everyone gets where exactly you are coming from and what the fuck it is you are talking about has become way too rare. These days it is more about claiming shit and hoping the audience will trust you because you make it sound cool and thrash others' point of view. I love anything that is a little more in-depth and precise and analytical. It doesn't have to be overly humble. It doesn't have to pack a thousand details in and last for half an hour or even longer. It just has to be upfront about the scope of what it going to talk about, about the angle it picks, briefly mention what is being left out and why, and then STICK THE FUCK to that outline. That's how you are HONEST about subjectivity. The rest is skill, looking closely, dissecting it, attributing meaning, then wrap it up in precise and short language. Make the audience understand how you see it, then let them decide on whether they find your line of thought convincing and agree with your conlusions. Don't try talking people into agreeing with you by using rhetorical tricks. Stick to one topic, present it as is, point to details, then let them think for themselves. I am happy I found this channel; it does this most of the time, and I have hungered for it.
I think what Zack Snyder meant to say was superheros (and supervillains) are larger-than-life characters, and a taller frame is better for emphasizing that. When you have a character like Superman or Darkseid, who are tall and broad-shouldered, filming them in 4:3 allows them to dominate the frame with minimal unused space to their left and right, thereby making them look bigger.
The counterexample would be Battlefield Earth, which features nine-foot-tall aliens called Psychlos. The movie was shot in scope for no reason other than that's what people expected movies to look like at the time, so any time a Psychlo appears in a wide shot, the camera has to be pulled really far back to fit them in the frame, and this consequently makes them appear smaller while showing too much of the environment which they're not filling up. Thus, these characters who are supposed to be huge and intimidating don't appear so. I suspect the filmmakers realized this to some degree, so they tried to reintroduce some verticality to their frame by tilting the camera, and then they tried to play it off like it was a stylistic decision and just made the whole movie Dutch angles.
Thanks for the comment, Possum!
Meant to say...didn't say. Vertical isn't a synonym for larger than life.
Absolute riot of a video. As someone who constantly talks about composition and nobody cares, this felt like discovering an old friend
This is thought provoking and challenging. I'm going to take a while to consider it, then re-watch the video to see if I agree. This is why your channel is so good. It treats us as adults, and trusts us to be able to grasp more difficult concepts. Or at least concepts that may not be all that familiar to us. Well done.
Your channel is addictive. I'm daily watching at least one video.
It's like youtubers have forgotten how to make a video essay on movies.
To be fair, you have to watch A LOT of movies so you can have the footage to edit into demonstrations.
This im tired of greta gerwig white women video essayist trying to find the "queer" elements in movies like Predator and Point Break.
I’m a scope fanboy. Some months ago I was watching “Cold War” and I was stunned of the way it looked, so I started shooting in OpenGate 4:3 spherical lenses. Then I watch this analysis… In two weeks, I’ll shoot a short film. I will rethink every frame and leave the anamorphics for other time. This insight is what I needed. Thank you very much.
Hope your short looks amazing!
Just discovered your channel. Excellent work. Brilliant insights. Please keep going.
Love this. One thing: "Good films. Poor directing." betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a director does. But other than that, this is amazing.
Nolan doesn't even use a monitor when he's directing. He prioritises other things. Like efficiently shooting and keeping his studio happy with his enormous budgets. I think it has worked out very well for him.
Smart to use vertical in the shootout scenes. The people who have the high ground had an advantage.
Makes perfect sense....its like you are "over the shoulder" of the protagonist
@@Gianfranco_69 nah I just saw it in a foreign film from a long time ago.
@@Tigerfire75 just dont fall into Lava....it hurts
@MegaGfranco Worse than sand. Like sand that's on fire.
Finally! Someone has agreed with me on Chris Nolan. I’ve always thought he made pretty good movies. But the directing wasn’t the reason for their quality. There is no way Nolan is on a level of directing with the likes of-let’s say-John Ford, one of the most unrecognized greatest directors of all time.
By the way, I think you are on the cusp of something big. High quality will eventually be discovered. Your channel is going to blow up soon.
The problem with Nolan is that dude has no imagination. How can you make such a dull movie about dreams & subconscious, when 10 years earlier Tarsem Singh made "The Cell".
John Ford is probably the most cited and one of the most recognised directors in general in the history of the film. He's unrecognised only in the sense that his films came out 70-90 years ago and so, shockingly, fewer people have seen them today.
@@maxjones503 I do think John Ford is somewhat underrated even among classic filmmakers simply because his most well-known films are almost all westerns, and not everyone connects with them. The Searchers is usually ranked as one of the greatest of all time, and it is, but it definitely has its flaws, unlike something as universally beloved as Casablanca. I can't think of a Ford film that I would consider an unadulterated masterpiece. Maybe The Grapes of Wrath? It's been too long since I've seen it. Compositionally, Ford is definitely one of the best, though. I love the simple visual philosophy he shared with young Steven Spielberg, that Spielberg included at the end of The Fabelmans.
@@kennydolby1379 The is the most concise way I have read anyone describe Nolan's filmmaking. No Imagination. I always described it as sterile. Not limited to just Inception but Tenet, Dunkirk, and interstellar all share that feeling that underwhelms me when watching his movies. Its all plain, even lit, and clean sets. It just screams zero imagination.
@@kennydolby1379And then, The Cell is not even half as good as his other film about dreams, The Fall.
Actually I love the cinemascope productions from the 50s, I wish more films and directors would use this format as well.
Maby you can use both. What people don't realize about IMAX films is that thay use different aspect ratios through out the movie but because the screen is so big most people dont notice. But when you watch it on dvd it becomes more apparent.
Barbie was shot 2 to 1 on Alexa 65. It looked great on the big screen. There was one especially artful shot halfway thru, (*very slight spoiler)where there is a room, framed in complete blackness on the top and sides, but on the bottom, the light from the room spills down, reflecting on the floor, extending out of this frame. It was mesmerizing.
I don't know your film making background, but this is incredibly insightful and useful. Thanks.
Discovered your channel thanks to TH-cam suggestions. Let the videos rolling. Thought I was in a hundred thousands views per video channel, and was shocked that you don't have more views. Quality of your videos is off the charts, it's really clever, precise and full of cinema lessons.
Even the description of the video is well written and seriously treated.
Thanks for sharing this knowledge and points of views, truly interesting and valuable.
This channel is becoming more based with each upload. Never allow blocking and framing to become a lost art!
Based? Based on what?
@@zorothe9thbased in reality. It means he spits facts.
Recently found this channel. Binged all of the videos in two days. Came back to see if I missed any and to rewatch. Low and behold, a new video! Thanks movie wise!
So glad to see that I am not alone in my judgement of the willful carnage wrought by film directors. I often re-watch movies just to grade the shooting, the props, camera motion, and editing cut flubs. Thanks Moviewise, for the fun.
I'd never done that till recently. It's killed a few of my favourite films for sure.
Once you see something, you can't unsee it
There has been a similar revolution in comics, that comics used to always be read left to right (or right to left for manga). Now they are up to down, as most reading is down on a phone. Most webcomic sites now offer vertical scroll.
The best comics use all directions. They are not confining themselves to a small screen and monodirectional reading. They are not confining themselves to a certain frame width or height either. They are free to use the whole page, or two pages at once, structuring and restructuring the space freely. They create an abundance where the spectator can make up their own course of reading in terms of direction. They guide the eye to the suggested plot narrative, but they provide material enough to go exploring and read against the grain. Great comics are aware that they are not an illustrated novel. They tell stories and are meant to be read by and through the image as much as by and through the letter. Letters and pictures have a dialog, or rather a trialog with the comic book reader - if both author and spectator know how the medium works (BEST). Many people are comic-book-illiterate, though, and some comic-authors are almost comic-illiterate as well.
While there are some webtoon creators that take advantage of the verticality(hellper and sweet home ) . Most webtoon creators do the bare minimum of composition and treat their vertical comics like storyboards . Which isnt a bad thing but makes you appreciate guys like Guarnido and Urusawa for their panel composition.
Holed up in my room today sick and been binging your videos. Loved to see a new one just now!
My take on the abysmal state of cinema screening tables right now is:
Hollywood's approach to film making right now is avoiding financial risks at all (creative, craftsmanship, idiosyncratic, inspirational, intellectual, original) costs.
It is suits running a business with an artform they don't know anything about, could not care less for, and yet don't trust actual artists enough to let them do their thing.
There are so-called "original movies", few and far between, still being made, but even most of these feel like modular painting by trope numbers and references to similar movies of the genre.
Even with these "somewhat original" movies, Hollywood is not going to take any risks.
The Matrix, District 9, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Inception, Elysium, Logan, Joker, Ad Astra, Willy's Wonderland, The Dead Don't Die are such films - good movies per se, but all resembling stories and conceptual ideas we had seen on film before.
I just wish more of these "somewhat original" movies were going further in trying out something new, pushing topical boundaries as well as exploring the artform, and went way beyond being modular remixes of truly original movies that have already proven successful time and time again.
Hollywood not allowing for original pitches that do not reference past successes, makes for a cinematic world where "mildly entertaining" has become about the best I can hope for in a mainstream movie.
(And that is sad. Even more so, when arthouse movies are becoming fewer and farther between each season. At least where I live, which is not a mega-city.)
The only films that still felt fresh to me in recent years (one or two decades back) were:
Persepolis, Loving Vincent, Captain Fantastic, The Kids Are All Right, Only Lovers Left Alive, Still Alice, The VVitch, Beasts of No Nation, Moonlight, Cam, Mandy, All These Small Moments, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Parasite, System Crasher, The Lighthouse, Booksmart, Linoleum, We Don't Dance For Nothing, Brothers, Parsley, Way Out Ahead of Us, The Northman, Pig, Renfield, Barbie.
About a third of these movies I had to travel a day and stay over night to attend film festivals for - or I would never have been able to watch them at a movie theatre.
That is an average of about two fresh and original movies (that left an impression) per year (only 2 per year, dammit!) across ALL genres - and I had to go to great lengths to attend them.
In the second half of the nineties - at a small town cinema - I got the same amount out of the genre of science fiction alone - masterpieces such as: Gattaca, Ghost in the Shell, eXistenZ, 13th Floor, Dark City, Strange Days; and a bit more pedestrian, yet also quite entertaining and unique in style: Alien Resurrection, The Matrix, Event Horizon, Escape From L. A., Lost in Space, The Fifth Element.
So, what's the matter with cinema today?
Here is an interesting analysis with which I can agree on many points:
th-cam.com/video/RQF82Kj-v0E/w-d-xo.htmlsi=kFK9ysccEcrChM-k
Another interesting lesson! Thanks!
I just found your channel. No hyperbole here. This is one of the best videos I have ever seen
I'm so thankful for your videos. You're really showing the rest of us how it's done.
This really is the first channel where I actually start to understand directing. Really the best and funniest channel on the topic!
When I started the video with the information that it would be about aspect ratios, I expected it to put me to sleep. Instead I feel I learned a lot and have a better appreciation for framing in film. Thank you.
You have succeeded in bringing your point across in an efficient way, without trying to make an independent movie modernising the use of classical film ratio which will embitter you after it gets buried and archived by Barbenheimer/ Fast and the transformers... or other. Great work.
When you showed the Snyder quote about superheroes tending to be vertical, I was like ... "aaaannnnnd?"
... And then you went there. lol.
Great video! This man has clearly studied cinema-you can literally see it. This channel has become my favorite; please don’t ever stop making these videos.
I have learned more watching this channel than in 4 years of Video film production in School...wow I will look at everything differently now, I love the Academy ratio, depth and the height.
So happy to see a new video from you so soon!
I've always said this for all art, if you want to predict the future look to the past! Great video man
The "half a thing at a time" got me. That was good.
Why not just go 16:9, it works perfectly well for vertical and horizontal staging while filling up the entirety of the most common TV and monitor screen aspect ratio in existence. You can then stage scenes utilizing both compositional languages without having to jump around between them like in Nolan's movies. It's perfect for streaming, perfect for IMAX (and if cropping is used to utilize IMAX aspect ratio, it's not as extreme as going from IMAX to cinemascope), and perfect for a normal cinema screen. Just look at Cronenbergs movies, almost all were shot in
1.85:1 and they're perfect in both cinema and on modern 16:9 TVs. IMAX shot movies are perfect for IMAX, but since the rest of the world aren't looking at screens in that aspect ratio, it would be much better to just reshape IMAX screens to 5:3 or 16:9 instead. Since TVs are also much bigger today without taking up space, it's going to get more common having a large home cinema screen. It also works great for people watching movies on their phones, but they can go to hell and shouldn't be adapted towards.
I'm not sure how 16x9 was arrived at... May have almost been a manufacturing decision when it came to flat screen TVs... But it seems to be approximately the sweet spot between the obnoxiously wide and the slightly too square ends of the spectrum.
I know for laptop computers they are doing a lot more 16x10 because the way software has so many toolbars across the top that take up space. That's unrelated to movies, but might be a case for another sweet spot.
I think a core issue is that all our cinemas are now built for widescreen so when you shift to smaller aspect ratio a lot of the people's heads and objects look small to audiences... So it might take some time to gain popularity enough that theaters would be built with accommodation for really tall screens and smaller aspect ratios. One nice feature is the curtains at a lot of theaters will adjust for the aspect ratio of the movie making a new space on the sides not stand out.
It seems like with stadium seating there ought to be a lot more openness to making the screens even taller so they could adapt to a lot of choices and still keep the scale of the image large.
This channel is amazing! Can’t wait to watch it blow up.
Thank you for creating these videos-- some of the most original and insightful cinema content I have ever come across.
Simon
I've been trying to articulate why Nolan doesn't impress me for years. THANK YOU!
Bro... You made me rethink the 4/3 photography format.
You are so informtive and engrossing. We learn new things with each video. Thanks!
in videogames you do this primarily for performance. the black areas don´t need to be rendered and you have more memory for the actual image and you can add more detail
You made me want to watch a motion picture whose aspect ratio changes, instead of staying the same from start to finish.
Also, I remember Nolan's TDK does it during that skyscraper shot.
That is an interesting idea:
Make the ratio fit the narrative, not the other way around.
One thing that might alienate audiences:
Not being used to a switch in ratios might break suspension of disbelief.
On the other hand:
If audiences could adapt from unbroken angle shift continuity (theatre) to cut-(and-pasted) camera angle continuity (edited movies, with camera-to-focus distances widely varying between edited frames), why should this not be possible as well?
I guess some people will just refuse to train their eyes/brains to a new way of "reading" movies.
@@elevenseven-yq4vu If not now, then soon, a majority of people in the western world will easily adapt to differing aspect ratios in cinema because they already do this when looking between their smart phone, computer display, neighbour, and back again. It is directors, not the audience, who need to figure out how to change aspect ratios while telling a story.
Xavier Dolan's Mommy (2014) does that.
@@elevenseven-yq4vu It was tried in 1957/8 for an adaptation of H. G. Wells classic short story, 'The Door in the Wall'. It's a short film and online too.
This is the best video essay on Cinematography I have ever seen! I am now a subscriber; Thank You!
Video game don’t incorporate letterboxing just because it looks “cinematic.” It is done to indicate a change between gameplay and full motion video. It is done to narrow the field of view during specific aiming portion. It is sometimes even used to hide loading textures and models.
It is also done to reduce the number of displayed pixels on screen. I think this started late PS2-era when Resident Evil 4 had letterbox to make it run better.
As if not having your buttons register isn't enough indication. You can bet they do it to seem more 'cinematic' but what you said about them wanting to hide rendering assets is also true.
The annoying irony is that it almost always is just overlayed black bars, so if you actually try to play it on, say, a 21:9 monitor, it's freaking windowboxed. More modern games are starting to make them dynamic, though. The problem there is that the extra room on the sides that is "cut off" when played normally in 16:9 suffers occlusion culling, where models get degraded or are missing to help guarantee proper performance.
Bioshock remaster was so incompetently applied that it was just one of several terrible presentation issues that made me uninstall it 20 minutes in.
You could narrow the field of vision or number of pixels also by going to a square bang in the middle of your screen. For some reason they tend to prefer wide-screen, however.
An important insight which is true to many fields. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and making us just a bit smarter. At least moviewise
Can't wait for the next one!
I think what’s really rad about this channel is you do a really great job expressing your love for movies without being incredibly pompous with your opinions or criticisms. Keep it up man.
Nice video. Of course, now televisions are universally 'wide', there is no need to frame compositions with how they will transfer to television in mind. There are no excuses for lazy, half-arsed framing and blocking any more! I'm off to see what Jim Emerson said about Nolan.
An amazing use of Scope (2.55:1 in this case) is Disney's Lady and the Tramp. Dogs are horizontal, and the whole film is told from their perspective. We pretty much never see humans above the waist.
all this time ive wondered why i love imax so much, but now i think im realizing its mainly academy ratio i love
really enjoyed that, I learned so much about films, thanks😁
Informative and hilarious. I rarely subscribe to a channel after watching just one video. This is one.
The algo be praised for suggesting me this. The competence, the rhythm, the excellent humour (the bipeds thing just floored me), and - why not - the accent.. top. Bashing Nolan & Snyder at the same time: priceless! Have a great weekend!
I thought when snyder was talking about superheroes being vertical he was talking about how the comic page is shaped. A comic page is so often when you see superheroes in comics with single page art work or if uou are looking at the cover everything tends to be vertical and stacked.
Yeah, context. Also, Snyder is a visual genius, but isn't as good with words.
@@SolarScionNor with telling a story.
I think he would make a good person behind the camera or DOP. His single shots can be amazing.
But setting up a scene and directing/overseeing the whole script/screenplay/storyboard to set/blocking/acting process, not so much.
The thing about Snyder's comment is, though he's articulating it about as well as Snyder articulates anything (more's the pity) I kinda understand what he's getting at. Comics pages are, of course, vertical as opposed to horizontal, so there's a particular iconic image that recurs of the towering hero, standing out in front of their page and their story in such a way as to express their iconic nature.
Iconography is absolutely essential to superheroes. They usually wear logos that come to mean whatever value or theme the character represents. And even if they don't have a logo per se, the characters themselves almost always have an iconic appearance. There's James Bond in his tux, but then there's Batman with his ears, cape, and bat logo. Or even Wolverine with his distinct hairstyle, steel claws, and animalistic expression. Anyone can wear a tux. No one looks like Wolverine but Wolverine.
In comics, the splash page, or just a vertical full figure panel, appears frequently to present the character's iconic image. This image delivers the product of the comic, a character who's an iconic representation of their story's theme, with accompanying story to reinforce or challenge that theme. So I get that Snyder wanted to capture the towering, iconic image of superheroes, standing taller than their story. Not all characters need that, regardless of being bipeds that happen to stand vertically. But superheroes as a genre can really benefit from it.
Good comment, love this channel but maybe the author couldn't resist uncharitably interepting Zak's incoherent rambling because the punchline of bipeds was too good to not be used 😅
Ahh that explains why some 'cinematic' scenese felt so tight and like heads were always getting cut off.
This makes it all make so much more sense.
The trend will be whatever fits a smart phone screen, with everything shot in extreme close up so people can see it.
Great video, I had never really thought much about how aspect effects camera work and story telling. 10/10
very enlightening and convincing. A lot of what you said I knew subconsciously but could never quite put my finger on it. Something seemed off but I wasn't sure why. Then when seeing those clips of Inception, I kept thinking "That's great in Academy!" and then realized it was in scope and stuff cut off. Inception really would have been better in Academy. So much fit into tight, square-shaped, area anyway and little to no landscapes. Scope served no purpose in it.
The fact that you can exactly say what wrong from bad to great director is doing is marvellous.
It's easy to spot the blunder of the movie is bad but really hard when done in good movies. But not only that you are able explain your point very well. That's some skill.
Thanks for sharing your deep knowledge.
Just a recommendation can you make a video on Raj Kumar Hirani and Sanjay Leela Bhansali movies. They r some of the renowned Bollywood (Indian Hindi language movie) directors of current time.
Great content man keep it coming
I wish 4:3 would become the norm again, first for laptops and then for big home screens.
Keep these great videos coming.
I really hope you channel blows up. The amount of USEFUL information in each video is astounding. Keep up the great work. Instant sub from me.
This has really affected the way I watch movies. Now I can't stop thinking about this with every movie I watch. I saw It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World a few days ago. I noticed in every shot the actors' faces were wholly in frame. The giant W was perfect in frame. Then when I watched Till, I noticed the same thing. Faces in frame, and when the widescreen left a gap, it was always filled with something. Usually large props, like a vase or piece of furniture. Sometimes the gap would be filled with a door way which someone would soon use. It made me appreciate the film more.
Great video keep ‘em coming
My new favorite channel.
You know else tends to be more vertical: bipeds! Love it.
EX-CELL-ENTE ! I always wondered why Dark Knight gave me a headache, and seems so claustrophic and circimcised, mutilated. I didn't know it was shot for Imax. Also, now I realize why Woody's late 70's and early 80's films look so good in scope (with him having shot unecessary tops and bottoms), compared to his contemporaries who framed with useless left and right sides.
I really like your channel and insights! To me the biggest challenge is keeping the objects big enough, i.e. screen size. If movie screens were much bigger, more like IMAX, I think it would be easier for audiences to embrace the squarer format again. But there is tremendous inertia behind all our movie theaters being designed and built for widescreen, so projecting squarer looks smaller. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem. Would be great to have more theaters with the screen size like IMAX but maybe not tied to a proprietary film type, so the aspect ratio could be taken advantage of more...Otherwise people's heads and faces start to look really small on the screen... Need taller screens!
So the industry would need to start building bigger screens that allow for the classic aspect ratio.
Certainly 16x9 is a bit squareer than the old cinema scope, so perhaps that will help filmmakers not get too wide, but there is a notion that "more is better" that really takes hold in the public and executives minds.
You flashed Jurassic Park a couple times and at least that used 16x9 (1.78:1) recognizing the need for verticality more than the super wide formats that are like 2.1:1.
My favorite square movie in recent years is Robert Eggers' "The Lighthouse" in spectacularly grim 1.19:1.
I loved that shape so much I saw it twice on a giant screen.
The dripping **** scene would been much less ******** in scope.
That film is amazing and looks amazing!
The trailer of new film 'The Count' gave me a similar vibe, photography wise
It is magnificent. First film I watched with Robert Pattinson in it, which sold me on watching The Batman in spite of superhero fatigue. Great actor. I had already loved The VVitch, but Eggers upped his ante with The Lighthouse. I can not begin praising how he changed his visual style and yet stayed true to his narrative style, both being always great, and at the same time carving out his unique thematical niche. Robert Eggers has, over the course of just three movies, become his own - very varied yet recognizable - genre: "Psychologically immersive and consistent, myth-laden, historically accurate contextualized, surreal social horror movie". When I watched a - relatively tame and un-psychedelic - trailer for "The Northman" I was afraid he might have left his own budding "genre" to become a mercenary Hollywood mainstream contractor doing what's in (Streaming-) fashion for the masses: Game of thrones styled, Viking/Barbarian themed schlock. But boy, was I wrong! That guy is a genius filmmaker with a vision, a style, talent for the ages, and the perfect core team for him. What a ride!
I love seeing the occasional clip from Drums along the Mohawk pop up in these videos. It is easily my favorite of the color films of 1939.
Instructive and entertaining, made me laugh out loud.
Even for something as mundane as local government meetings - not even talking about feature film here, or anything artful, of course - I miss the 4:3 TV ratio for getting single shots of speakers at the tables. When we went to HD and 16:9, it looked great for the elected officials at the dais, but for people at the tables, it has always been hard to get a decent-looking single shot, since everyone's sitting right next to each other. At best, we can only get "dirty singles" with other people's half-cut shoulders on the edges of the shot - unless, of course, we get tighter head-and-shoulder shots, which look too uncomfortably close.
If a significant financial benefit of the wide screen comes from more aisles, and hence more seats, you might be right. fewer public viewings might alter the format, and the overwide television screens will feature "cinematic" black bars on the sides.
Interesting thoughts.
Just found this channel the other day through the video on I, Claudius. I've spent the last two weeks watching everything and regret nothing. Looking forward to what you do next!
hey I wanted to mention Eisenstein's essay called 'The Dynamic Square' where he discusses the aspect ratio stuff like you're doing so brilliantly here. You probably already know it, but, in the unlikely chance it has escaped your encyclopedic mind, I highly recommend. Cheers
Best film channel right now by far
I was born in the early '80s, so I grew up watching TV in 4:3, and seeing movies at home in the same ratio on VHS. I learned about pan and scan when teenage me saw Braveheart at home on tape after seeing it in the cinema - after that, I noticed it on all movies seen at-home, and couldn't unsee it. So many pan-and-scan scenes approach random abstraction, even simple dialogue-swap set-ups, with essential visual information obscured or deleted entirely. I became a collector who always preferred the letterboxed "widescreen" edition of VHS movies - anything less was sh!t. When DVD came along, and TVs started going 16:9, letterboxing for 'scope became the standard, which made me happy. But I do think it created a misconception within me that wider immediately equals better: when I'd see something in the theatre, and the screen would stretch out to 'scope at the feature-start, it'd always make me go "yeah!" to myself. Now I'm watching movies from all eras at home on a projector, the nuances and relative merits of each ratio have become so much clearer. I agree that too many directors today opt for 'scope without making proper use of it, without a clear, driving visual objective. Conversely, those who commit to 1.37 (or, personal underdog fave, 1.66) nowadays tend to really consider their images, so now I go "yeah!" to myself when I start a movie and see that it's in Academy ratio.
Entertaining and informing. Truly perfect
It's unfortunate that the biggest push for vertical framing recently was that weird Short film by Damien Chazelle, "The Stunt Double." That was probably the worst way to push it, and as a result made many people cringe at the idea. Hopefully more people realize that all types of aspect ratios have their advantages and disadvantages and we can see more diverse directing in the future.
Such a great video!
To be fair, though, The Boys doesn't lazily slap on the “cinematic” black bars on top and bottom of the frame, they actually shoot with anamorphic lenses-the resulting image can only be 2.35:1 (or a variant thereof).
I hope to god we don’t have a vertical trend. I WILL RESIST!
This is my favorite TH-cam channel.
My dude you've earned yourself a subscriber. I'm on an official film course right now and none of the points from your videos are explored
I watched Zach Snyder's Justice League in full 4:3, but I honestly felt like I was seeing borders at times. I'm frankly not used to it. I did like how incredible the shots looked, but it felt very narrow.
At least now with digital projection it's easy to show academy ratio (or any other shape ) in a conventional cinema. Once cinemas converted to widescreen most could no longer project academy because they didn't have the correct focal length lenses. It was only arthouse cinemas which often showed older films which retained the ability to show both academy and widescreen.
Brilliant video. The way you visualise the information with all the examples works extremely well.
Finally someone to replace every frame a painting.
Very good video. Thank You Sir.
This was both insightful and hilarious. Thank you.
I'll never watch a movie the same way again. Thanks!
We have two eyes horizontally, so our (peripheral) vision is more horizontal than vertical. The bottom line is that it is much better to use a horizontal screen for movies - implemented correctly - just like you commented with Nolan.
We don’t see the world as horizontally as this “cinematic” widescreen ratio.
That’s too horizontal, pal
Hi man, a new fan from India here. Just found you through the excellent "useless backstory" video.
Here, I'm really happy to see that you have addressed the ignored "aspect" of the "Aspect Ratio" debate. I personally prefer the 1.85:1 ratio. I believe it's the best AR that bridges the old 1.33:1 ratio that helped frame fantastic Vertical shots and the new cinemascope ratio that brings in Horizontal landscape & atmosphere.
So it really pisses me off when some movie buffs claim that movies can't look pretty or cinematic in that AR. It's like these people have never watched any of Guillermo del Toro or Barry Sonnenfeld movies. And a few Steven Speilberg classics like Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan, E.T, etc. No one in their right mind can call the 1.85:1 AR movies made by them ugly or uncinematic. I also love that Cameron's Avatar films are released with the 1.85:1 ratio but I guess liking Avatar movies will have the movie snobs disqualify me from taking my thoughts on movies seriously.
P.S: Now regarding that snipe at Nolan.
Nolan and his long-time Cinematography collaborator Wally Pfister confessed in an interview that his Cinematography style was banal by choice. But it was his experience with IMAX for The Dark Knight that changed him. Patrick (H) Willems has even made a fantastic video on "How IMAX Made Christopher Nolan a Better Filmmaker". But at the time of Inception, they hadn't figured out the rig for the bulky IMAX camera to shoot complicated action scenes. So Nolan didn't shoot Inception action scenes with IMAX cameras, especially after an IMAX rig broke under the bulk during The Dark Knight shoot.
Starting with Dunkirk, a majority portion of his movies are shot in the IMAX ratio. But one of the best things about his IMAX movies is that when they're released on Bluray, he makes sure the IMAX portions are cut to fully fit the modern 16:9 TV ratio that's closer to 1.85:1. So that off-frame issue you pointed out in Inception is eliminated. A lot of Studios & makers don't make the effort to cut their IMAX shots for home releases, especially now that physical media has become a mostly collector's thing. (I was very disappointed that Dune's IMAX shots were not cut for the home release and it was all just the plain "standard" cinemascope.)
But I also don't like Zack Snyder's decision to release his cut of Justice League in the boxy 1.33:1 IMAX ratio. I mean, the cut was primarily released for 16:9 AR TVs. The whole point of IMAX scenes in genre movies is to present the action, spectacle & landscape on the biggest screen possible. But when it's released on TV, it should be cut to the 16:9 ratio. But with Snyder's JL, we now have black bars on the sides instead of the top & bottom. What a genius move. Guess that's what happens you have convinced yourself that you're an "autre" who prefers to preserve "purity" over everything.
As a lower-middle-class, married Indian, barely holding it together in terms of money, the one thing that I save and spend money on is movies. I "splurged" on a 50" TV a few years ago as a movie buff. But watching makers automatically set everything to Cinemascope (2.35:1 to 2.66:1) ratio kills any joy I hope to squeeze out of my big screen TV because half the screen is taken up by the black bars and so the 50" really doesn't feel like a big screen. (Obviously 50 inch is not that big compared to modern 65, 75, 85 inch 4k screens but 50" is all I can afford now.)
Most movies, after their initial theatre run, go from generation to generation through TV. So when movie makers mindlessly shoot/letterbox movies for the Cinemascope feel, I feel like they are ignoring the legacy of their own work.
End of rant.
The reason we have widescreen, is because that is how our vision works, it is wider than it is tall, by quite a lot. We however have more focus on what is in the center. So in theory, framing things in the center of a widescreen format it correct, that does not however mean that the shots are perfect, just because they framed them pretty well. Our limited vertical vision means we have to tilt our heads, when looking at a vertical perspective. So the director should plan for that. Instead of doing wide shots, when not suitable, they should rather tilt the camera to give us the vertical perspective, because that is what we as humans do. Having a vertical gun fight, is thus more realistic, the person seeing from the top, will have a better way of seeing both their environment and the target at the same time, giving the lower shooter an disadvantage, just like in real life.
The issue with the wider screen formats, is when they are seen on small screens, so they don't fill the field of view, giving us the ability to see all of the fram at once. But with things like vision pro and the ever growing "normal" size of TVs and computer screens, we are getting closer to that cinematic experience of the video filling our vision, even at home (some have enjoyed that experience for years with projectors and large screens).
The director should decide when framing a shot, is it a close shot, where you are not seeing everything at once, just like the human experience, when you are close to someone, where you can tilt you head to see other things, but then not look directly at the thing you think should be in focus (this is how many magicians do their thing). Or should you be placed at a distance while still hearing a dialogue like you are close, but have a superhuman experience and thus see more than you would actually do in real life so we get the narrator/all-knowing view.
Some issues with widescreen is that it is squared, while the edges of our vision is rounded, and how the area isn't blurred and distorted at the edges, instead, we either get full focus in the frame, or just the depth of field phenomena that isn't as strong with our vision as it is in cameras, so when watching we are not told clearly that this is meant to mimic our vision, so we can wonder of the middle of the frame, as the format does not tell us clearly where we should watch, thus resulting in us seeing things clearly that we should not, if we followed the intended focus of the framing.
If the focusing and the edges of the frame was better adopted to mimic our vision, it would be more natural to place people and objects that we would not normally focus on, in the same frame, filling the edges while we still maintain focus in the area intended to be in the focus of our vision at that moment, instead of the empty edges that you have a problem with.
Filling the frame with important elements is not accurate framing of a shot. The pan and tilt should do the job of shifting focus, just like we have to turn our heads to see everything in focus, and at times giving us dizziness because how much we have to turn our head, to follow the action. And at times we will actually not be able to turn our heads to the right position, missing things that happen, putting characters out of our field of view.
Portraits are not meant to fill our field of view, and there are many examples of wider than tall paintings. There are many reasons why this historic perspective can't be used to draw any conclusions about what we as humans prefer.
You are correct in that a lot of the time it is about framing issues.
But I don't agree with your conclusion.
Widescreen is better, it is more natural, if the framing is done right, and typically it isn't. And directors need to use pan and tilt more as a way of framing the shot rather than go wide to fill more in to the frame and just leave it for us ourselves to try to figure out what we are meant to see, or how we should experience scale.
I agree with you issue of framing of dialogue. If we were watching a dialogue, and trying to observe it, we would place ourselves in a position where we could mostly see both. Or we would only see one, and stay there, thus not getting the look of the other persons face. Switching from one face to another, is not realistic, and it does pull us out of the situation. This is of course referencing another of your movies. And you father was right. Traditionally, filming from behind was used as a way to be able to use a body double. Also the editing is done in a smilar way, where, there isn't a single natural dialogue, they either filmed specific parts from each perspective at the time, or they have edited together from two different filmed dialogues. Just like when body doubles were used, sometimes the dialogue was performed in it's entirety, sometimes it was performed in such a way that only specific parts were filmed from each perspective. it does give you the feeling that the person you don't see from the front, may just be a body double. And the dialogue as it is filmed separate does not feel natural (often the scripts doesn't help, when it comes to natural dialogue, with way less interruptions compared to a normal conversation, where people often have a hard time knowing when the other person intends for them to speak, or when getting frustrated that the other person has misunderstood and thus the person does not want to listen to the other person trying to make a point based on a misunderstanding). Having both people in the frame at the same time, would increase the demand for making the scene feel more natural. And in such a situation, in a widescreen format, panning should be used to focus, but not taking the other person completely out of frame.
Brilliant stuff
Thank you
Widescreen was driven primarily by screen sizes getting continuously larger. There's only so tall you can go because people don't like looking up and down. So you go wide. I'm okay with this as long as the wide is, as wide screen gaming forum used to put it, "h+" (e.g. Burnout Paradise), as opposed to "v-" (e.g. Elder Scrolls Oblivion).
praise the algorithm for showing me this gem of a channel
This is scratching the surface of what I am trying to make myself. I mean. As a fellow person who have a morbid obsessive fascination with aspect ratios.
Also. Using Titanic as an example of compromised framing is a bit wrong. To my knowledge. Cameron has not used anamorphic in any film. When he shot on film. It was on Super35. That way compositing and postwork was way easier. And he could reframe home video releases by adding back verticality from the 4 perf negative. And when he moved to digital with Avatar, he sticks to 16:9 or 1.85:1. I'm not entirely sure of the Avatar and the scope-releases for cinemas though. I do think he probably used the regular renders and cropped top and bottom with a bit of tilt and scan to keep things in view. But he very much could re-render most scenes with wider aspect ratios by adjusting things shot by shot. . But I think it was more of a quick crop. So... he didn't use to. But now he kind of has become part of the problem. :P
The issue with different ratios is that cinemas will always fight them. As it's just easier for them to have 1 and the same ratio for every film instead of adjusting. This goes for PC/TV screens as well, but to a lesser extent. I could definitely see the academy ratio coming back, that is after the Hollywood gets out of the dark ages we are in now.
I feel the Zack Snyder point is actually the most important one even if he himself does not seem to understand it. Humans by nature are more vertical, therefore the only way a horizontal ratio makes sense is if you have multiple people next to each other or very far away. But then again the start of you video shows perfectly how beautiful shots, that showcase distance can be achieved vertically as well.
I have a feeling your channel will blow up soon keep up the good work.
What is missing is that if you have a really big screen, like you often nowadays have, your eyes cannot focus on the entire part of it anyway. So what you have on the sides is often only there for more immersion. With a small screen, (especially old 4:3 television) you have a sharp focus area from top to bottom and left to right of the entire image.
@@menninkainen8830I'd argue that nowadays a lot more video content is watched on small screens of mobile devices and produced with that in mind. Hence the insistence on tight, fast editing and framing one object / face at a time, in pocket format.
The Widescreen is suitable for flat landscape panorama shots, as you would have with the army movements in Westerns, Sandal epics, or other historical War movies or Fantasy genre battles. You could also show some sort of evolution or unfolding stufd using CGI to spread it out from left to right instead of going for montage. All of that nowadays is rarely done in good movies (extras are expensive and CGI bound to look shite if not immediately then when outdated soon). So the Widesccreen format will rarely be played to strength, unless peoplea interests in subject matter shift back to this stuff.
@@SzalonyKucharzWho in their right mind would want to watch a movie on a pocket format screen?
@@elevenseven-yq4vu It may come as a surprise to you, but according to statistics almost 50% of Netflix viewers under the age of 35 watch their content on mobile devices. 36% of users between 36-54 years of age watch Netflix on their mobile devices. 30% of total number of users watch Netflix on their mobile devices. That's quite a significant number. Then, if you take into consideration video content which is not full length 'cinematic' movies, it turns out that most video content consumed today is via mobile devices. While not all of these are movies, movie makers need to compete with that, just like they had with daytime TV back in the day. The aesthetics of small screen videos could be influencing their choices, the same way that graphical aesthetics of comic books does.
Very interesting video, must pay more attention to your channel