Apple shares new ‘Vertical Cinema’ Shot on iPhone short film

Yes to music cue and fade to black.

The camera tracked back with them, so they could have set whatever frame size they wanted. They also could have staged less distance for them to cover.

The only reason I remarked on it was because I had a social feeling based on him invading her personal space that I determined was not intended by the director. My assessment is that they wanted a certain size of both characters in the frame, so they crammed them in together.

It happens in narrative film/TV all the time. There are also many interviews where the interviewer is touching knees with the subject, although the awkwardness of the effect is somewhat different from this example.

The larger point I'm making is that different aspect ratios lend themselves more or less naturally to different framings and arrangements.

In the original iPhone vertical video that started this thread, it seemed to me that every 2-shot was shot with a somewhat wide-angle lens with one character in the foreground and one receding slightly into the background behind them. The foreground character sort of alternated between an over the shoulder when turned to the background character, and a profile or 3/4 angle when facing forward. That seemed to be one of the only ways they could pull off a 2-shot
 
I asked because it was common in the 70s-80s-90s to have actors walk towards the camera in a dramatic scene and fill up the framing to look a bit claustrophobic right before a cut to a commercial (with the assistance of music).

Nothing to analyze here, IMO...but films/shows in general are overanalyzed so it doesn't matter.
 
Here's another 4:3 CU with uncomfortably close actor-spacing, this time a 3-shot. Either they wanted a CU framing on everyone or everyone needed to be close enough to stay in focus. This shot does not precede a commercial break and there is no story-driven reason for them to stand this close:

Screen Shot 2020-08-25 at 1.59.33 AM.jpg

My point is that there are many common and natural blockings in life and on screen that are easier to pull off with a wider aspect ratio.
 
It's noteworthy that widescreen only came about because 4:3 moved into the home in the 1950s, stealing viewers from the theaters. Had television never been invented, there would have been no reason to develop widescreen until a battle ensued between venues or studios. Many a great story have been presented in 4:3.
 
There is no point to be made...it's just geometry.

But the decision-makers could have altered that geometrical universe if they had chosen to with wider lenses and bigger sets, but I imagine both were unavailable above.

If there is no story-driven reason then there is quite frankly no reason at all for them to stand that close unless it's a technical limitation with the format (like S16mm, tight lenses, small set).

Like what is the point of just seeing their heads/necks and a little bit of the upper-bodies? The scene above should be some news about a spaceship crashing!

I have seen this time and time again and I have written off this TV history as "user error" when no other options were available.

I can't make guesses without watching the entire episode above to see the style and their overall choices, but in my mind they could have easily pulled out a little to get a natural 3-shot going (Meek's Cutoff, 1:33, 35mm film).

MC.jpg
 
What is this business about not having wider lenses? Or course they had wider lenses.

And this is a regularly used set in the show. I'm sure that every railing, piece of furniture, and wall is wild.

The natural conclusion is that they wanted to shoot close-ups, probably at least in part to magnify the expressions of the actors on smaller, lower-resolution early-'90s TVs.

The DOF is much shallower than that Meek's Cutoff shot, so I imagine that another reason to group them so tightly was to keep them all in focus.

It is a dramatic scene where they discuss who among the crew may be a traitor. But there is no reason for them to stand together so closely. It creates an awkward intimacy that was not intended
 
Nothing to do with keeping them in focus. They could have added light and stopped down if it's such a spectacular set.

This is the director's vision and nothing else.

Per usual IMO you're overanalyzing it and creating something in your brain just to debate it for no good reason.

Like who cares, man? When's the next time you'll be filming in 4:3?
 
Moving from 16:9 to 9:16 gives you even greater issues blocking/framing group shots than what you face in 4:3. If you want to shoot a 9:16 CU 3-shot...well, you can't. Not with 3 actors standing on the same level. Or they'd have to be hugging each other.

You could shoot the same width framing in 9:16, but then most of the frame will be taken up by bodies and/or ceiling. Thus, on a smartphone, their faces will be miniscule and their expressions will be hard to read - which was the point of shooting a CU.

As for adding light to keep them in focus, it would have been very time-consuming to increase the output of all sources on the set by 4-16x.

Out of curiosity, how much experience do you have working on movie and TV sets?
 
Last edited:
Sometimes you provide the most basic information as if it weren't common knowledge that I don't know if you're serious or not.

OF COURSE the 9:16 is going to limit your options. Geometry. This isn't a format that will ever replace 16:9.

It is a supplement for an ever-changing world of creativity and experimentation.

And I have ZERO experience because the only sets I consider to be real sets are Hollywood sets. Millions of dollars.

But one can read and watch and learn the old-fashioned way about how and what the 1% has done in history if he/she did not have the opportunity to have been there (or be there).

___

One thing I will agree with you on is that it definitely could have been very time-consuming to change the lights, and this is the kind of critical thinking and thought-process reasoning you should be applying to other aspects of the production.

Also, you mentioned above it wasn't story-driven. Discussing who is a traitor is a PERFECT reason for them to get close and personal (almost as if they are whispering and trying to decide who is back-stabbing them, maybe even testing each other, who could it be?). The motivation for that CU is extremely prevalent, and the facial expressions/reactions would be perfect (what you mentioned).

So in that case if we can agree on that point (your point), what else are you supposed to do when you stuff three people into a smaller box and want to get their facial features? You have to keep them closer!

But if we also apply the aforementioned critical thinking then maybe they were also running late that day and needed to get this shot done ASAP and shooting wider would have taken too much time changing the set.

We weren't there, right?

___

Again, there is no doubt that the shape of boxes may affect the placement of objects within those frames, but you speak about it as if it's something unknown.
 
Last edited:
9:16 will replace 16:9 in the sense that every genre will be shot in it. People are not flocking to it as a supplement, but to fill the screen of the 9:16 devices that viewers are watching.

Shooting 9:16 will not changes the types of scenarios and blocking that directors wish to employ. They will need to find creative ways to achieve those shots, settle for awkward blocking, or settle for a series of close-ups instead of a group shot. Hence my annoyance.

There is dramatic tension in this specific scene, but not the kind that would cause the characters to stand close enough to make out.

I've heard many, many times on both multimillion dollar sets and low-budget sets, "This will feel awkward right now but look normal on-screen." That's usually true, but in these 2 cases they missed the mark.

If they had wanted to frame the shot differently, it would have taken radically less time to swing a lens, change the blocking, or remove a wall or piece of furniture than it would have taken to raise the lighting level. If they had been running late that day, this would not have been the fastest way to shoot the scene. Furthermore, the shot choice smacks of creative intent. Other than the awkward proximity of the characters, I thought it was very effective. It could have been executed flawlessly in a wider aspect ratio.

But in NorBro's world, everything was probably just coincidence and it's impossible to deduce what transpired during shooting.

At any rate, I'm annoyed by 9:16 because I don't think a shot like this will be practicable. Most likely is that it would be broken into singles. The geometry of the frame may change, but the geometry of human interaction does not.
 
9:16 is the present, bro. I'm editing a comedy webisode right now that I shot 9:16 protect for 16:9
 
Are you making at least $100,000 off of it and are more than 10 million people going to watch it?

If the answer is yes to either of those questions, I will pay you for your consultation.
 
ahalpert said:
Here's another 4:3 CU with uncomfortably close actor-spacing, this time a 3-shot. Either they wanted a CU framing on everyone or everyone needed to be close enough to stay in focus. This shot does not precede a commercial break and there is no story-driven reason for them to stand this close:

View attachment 140275

My point is that there are many common and natural blockings in life and on screen that are easier to pull off with a wider aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

ahalpert said:
What is this business about not having wider lenses? Or course they had wider lenses.

And this is a regularly used set in the show. I'm sure that every railing, piece of furniture, and wall is wild.

The natural conclusion is that they wanted to shoot close-ups, probably at least in part to magnify the expressions of the actors on smaller, lower-resolution early-'90s TVs.

The DOF is much shallower than that Meek's Cutoff shot, so I imagine that another reason to group them so tightly was to keep them all in focus.

It is a dramatic scene where they discuss who among the crew may be a traitor. But there is no reason for them to stand together so closely. It creates an awkward intimacy that was not intended
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with that shot. It's supposed to be close and intimate. It didn't happen by mistake.
 
Run&Gun said:
There's nothing wrong with that shot. It's supposed to be close and intimate. It didn't happen by mistake.
Click to expand...

It's entirely subjective. In all honesty, I was watching along, enjoying my show, when they held this shot for the whole scene. And I grew increasingly uncomfortable. I'm very sensitive to people standing too close to me, and that was the feeling I got. It seemed like the actor in the back felt uncomfortable there, too.

I didn't arrive at the conclusion by analysis but by instinct. The analysis is about trying to determine why it was shot that way.

You might feel differently if you watched the episode in motion. Either way, you can't convince me that I didnt feel what I felt.

Run&Gun said:
I would have taken that information to my grave.
Click to expand...

Why? Because it's an awful way to work? I am far from alone, brother. I just do as I'm told.
 
ahalpert said:
It's entirely subjective. In all honesty, I was watching along, enjoying my show, when they held this shot for the whole scene. And I grew increasingly uncomfortable. I'm very sensitive to people standing too close to me, and that was the feeling I got. It seemed like the actor in the back felt uncomfortable there, too.

I didn't arrive at the conclusion by analysis but by instinct. The analysis is about trying to determine why it was shot that way.

You might feel differently if you watched the episode in motion. Either way, you can't convince me that I didnt feel what I felt.



Why? Because it's an awful way to work? I am far from alone, brother. I just do as I'm told.
Click to expand...

You like what you like and you don't what you don't.

I'm not trying to bust your stones, but I know you're a big boy and can take it... I think you're overanalyzing and over thinking it.

I'm sure I probably saw that episode, first run, so seeing it again probably wouldn't make me feel any different. Especially since I grew up during this era of TV. If it was shot today, would it be shot differently? Possibly, since we have higher resolution cameras and displays and shows are being shot 16:9 and wider, not to mention people are watching on ever larger and larger screens at home. Or maybe they would be blocked EXACTLY the same and with the same focal length lens, but in a 16:9 frame there would more space in the frame around them and it would feel a little less "claustrophobic". How would you have felt if the actors had kept their exact positions in relation to each other, but it was simply just a looser/wider frame around them?

I was gonna make a joke about porn...

Is it an awful way to work? Yeah, no one wants to shoot or edit that crap. But if someone is throwing money, why not pick some of it up...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top