The New film language - what looks mean

[Guest]

Ok, a bit ambitious for a forum title. I admit that.

Film language is complex as any language we use as humans. The part I am focusing on here is how a look of a camera, medium, or lens effects our knowledge of the content.

Up until the internet there was cinema and broadcast. Since cinema largely used s35 and Broadcast largely used small electronic sensors and even s16, simply using s35 made something look 'cinematic' without any virtue to the person making the image. Hence, the DSLR craze.


Now that DSLR and s35 and m43 is every where and accesible to the masses, I am noticing that s35 is starting to have a "UPLOADER" look to it. Shallow DoF is a favorite look of many vloggers, hobbyists, and even many online publications and news venues(for example: business insider).

So, we have expanded our perceptions of what a look instantly tells us about an image. Good to implement these 'new' perceptions to generate audience reactions, depending on the needs of the story or production.

 

[Gary Huff]

Now that DSLR and s35 and m43 is every where and accesible to the masses, I am noticing that s35 is starting to have a "UPLOADER" look to it. Shallow DoF is a favorite look of many vloggers, hobbyists, and even many online publications and news venues(for example: business insider).

Could you explain what you mean by "UPLOADER look"? I think I get it, but I want to make sure, it's kind of ambiguous.

 

[Drew Ott]

My theory is that there are two separate spectrums--commerce and art.

The commerce spectrum is entirely about social status, so how much "better" something looks is a comparative assessment of how much it seems to cost. Big budget car or beer advertisements do a good job displaying this, or maybe a summer blockbuster.

The art spectrum is about cultural capital, so how much "better" something looks is a comparative assessment of how must taste the filmmakers seem to have. This so-called "good taste" can and often is made as a rejection of the commerce spectrum.

I don't have much personal historic perspective because I'm a 90s child, but what seems to be the case is that those two spectrums have now been combined. The resulting persona is what David Brooks called the "Bourgeois Bohemian," and it's my opinion that these are the people deciding what's cool. They want to spend lots of money to display their good taste in authenticity and originality. This just came to mind, but a great example of this is CineGrain--very expensive grain overlays to take off the commercial edge with a little bit of faux authenticity.

That said, I've been adding a touch of grain to just about everything I shoot for the past few years. There's no shame in recognizing a trend and riding it along.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Old way:
idea > script > get $$ > get crew & cast > shoot > edit > post > distribute

New way:
idea > shoot > edit (maybe) > distribute

In the old times the quality came almost as the given as the time it takes (and money) to take it all from beginning to end was so vast that the quality simple came by hiring craftsmen in their field.
The quality was misunderstood for "content." When the internet came it became apparent that content is EVERYTHING that people will watch. In other words the quality was not essential as people will spend as much time watching a dancing cat as they would watching Tarkowsky. As a matter of fact people will spend MORE time watching the dancing cat than anything by great filmmakers because the dancing cat is appropriate for the medium and Tarkowsky is not. The readily available content IS NOT the same as the content that one needs to "invest" into - either time it takes to drive to the theater or wait for it come come to DVD. And thus almost by its definition the dancing cat not needing any investment in form of time, education, understanding will get more views that Tarkowsky that requires the viewer's complete attention.

Most people mistakenly assume that quality = content and thus with DSLRs they started shooting with understanding that "if i can make it look like film then it will be good." Of course nothing can be further from the truth. The quality of image NEVER equals quality of content and thus it's obvious that something else of value matters here. I would like to believe that it's the ideas within the image that matter but i suspect it's only wishful thinking on my part. In 1966 Lelouch did something extraordinary - he shots a film ("A Man and a Woman") where he chose to shoot many meaningless shots with an assumption that all those meaningless shots will add up to meaningful whole... And he was right. In the 90s and 00s when reality shows started to take over people tried to take meaningless shots and make meaningless whole - and they again were "right." People did pay attention because they - the viewers - created their own meaning. That of course has an interesting impact on us as a whole - if the meaning ultimately doesn't come from anywhere else but within the viewer where do we stand as people trying to have an impact?

 

[nycineaste]

"Bourgeois Bohemian," and it's my opinion that these are the people deciding what's cool. They want to spend lots of money to display their good taste in authenticity and originality. This just came to mind, but a great example of this is CineGrain--very expensive grain overlays to take off the commercial edge with a little bit of faux authenticity.

theyre called hipsters

we need more authentic authenticity

"the artist is the leader in changing taste"
- harry sternberg

 

[Drew Ott]

if the meaning ultimately doesn't come from anywhere else but within the viewer where do we stand as people trying to have an impact?

This is a good question, worth thinking about. Right now the world is so full of content that perhaps the often positive label of "open to interpretation" might be a disservice to a society craving solid messages.

 

[Drew Ott]

theyre called hipsters

we need more authentic authenticity

"the artist is the leader in changing taste"
- harry sternberg

Hipster is related but not the same. I won't go into my thoughts here because they're irrelevant. I do like your sentiment and your quote. Completely agree.

 

[David G. Smith]

Ok, a bit ambitious for a forum title. I admit that.

Film language is complex as any language we use as humans. The part I am focusing on here is how a look of a camera, medium, or lens effects our knowledge of the content.

Up until the internet there was cinema and broadcast. Since cinema largely used s35 and Broadcast largely used small electronic sensors and even s16, simply using s35 made something look 'cinematic' without any virtue to the person making the image. Hence, the DSLR craze.


Now that DSLR and s35 and m43 is every where and accesible to the masses, I am noticing that s35 is starting to have a "UPLOADER" look to it. Shallow DoF is a favorite look of many vloggers, hobbyists, and even many online publications and news venues(for example: business insider).

So, we have expanded our perceptions of what a look instantly tells us about an image. Good to implement these 'new' perceptions to generate audience reactions, depending on the needs of the story or production.

I don't know... I am of the opinion that we have already crossed the low cost/high quality Rubicon. You are correct, before there was just TV (Video) and MOVIES. The HD-DSLR bombshell shook that up and took video and added the large sensors and DSLR like image control. The current crop of available cameras are, IMHO, so versatile that varied looks, from TV staples like interviews and stand up presentations to highly effective fictional narrative images, can be crafted from them. If there is going to be any differentiation by the exploited aesthetics of modern camera users I think it will separate out by filmmaker intention and, probably more common, filmmaker skill and resource level. Now that would give you exploitable aesthetics to use, but I don't think that camera specific "Looks" would be part of the recipe that you would use to get there.

 

[Gary Huff]

The quality was misunderstood for "content."

Are you referring to simply the image being put out, or the production as a whole? Because raising money also means you can hire a script writer who will help you get good to that place of good content at the very foundation. I agree that you can have a well-shot movie that's vapid as hell (Sucker Punch), but part of the process of actually having a budget is to cover the entire process, not just the image, and to argue that having a budget gets in the way of good content would seem to completely miss the mark.

When the internet came it became apparent that content is EVERYTHING that people will watch.

No, what the Internet showed is that people will waste their time watching asinine content when it's free.

In 1966 Lelouch did something extraordinary - he shots a film ("A Man and a Woman") where he chose to shoot many meaningless shots with an assumption that all those meaningless shots will add up to meaningful whole... And he was right. In the 90s and 00s when reality shows started to take over people tried to take meaningless shots and make meaningless whole - and they again were "right." People did pay attention because they - the viewers - created their own meaning. That of course has an interesting impact on us as a whole - if the meaning ultimately doesn't come from anywhere else but within the viewer where do we stand as people trying to have an impact?

I find that kind of thing pompous, and solely reliant on the ability for the viewer to express appreciation because of the need for conformity. So if the film is covered in the aura of "This is a work of art, and you must take meaning from it yourself" then people will take meaning from it, even if they didn't, because to do otherwise is to announce that you think the Emperor is naked, and that's an incredibly hard thing to do.

 

[Gary Huff]

Now that would give you exploitable aesthetics to use, but I don't think that camera specific "Looks" would be part of the recipe that you would use to get there.

Agreed. There are a lot of people out there who mistakenly think (just like people did back when the DVX100 had 24p) that shallow DOF equals "Looks like cinema". No, "cinema" doesn't look like a bare white wall in an apartment with natural lighting and someone's nose being the only thing in focus. Cinema looks like lighting, art direction, sets, props, colors, movement, composition, and acting all working together to form the suspension of disbelief.

 

[Guest]

Agreed. There are a lot of people out there who mistakenly think (just like people did back when the DVX100 had 24p) that shallow DOF equals "Looks like cinema". No, "cinema" doesn't look like a bare white wall in an apartment with natural lighting and someone's nose being the only thing in focus. Cinema looks like lighting, art direction, sets, props, colors, movement, composition, and acting all working together to form the suspension of disbelief.

Yes. And with the proliferation of cheaper HDSLR's the shallow DoF look is no longer entirely related to larger cinematic productions. In fact, a poor application of DoF used to be forgivable, but now I see it and cringe "CHEAP!". I think this is also becoming a psychological reaction with the broader body of viewers as well. Similar to the psychological response that small sensor cameras and 60p shouts "this is reality" to most viewers.

"UPLOADERS" sadly, I had to make up a term to encompass all the different groups. I was referring mainly to budget conscious internet based content, which could include vloggers, vimeo hobbyist, youtube channels, all the way to smaller publications venturing into multimedia content.

 

[Guest]

That said, I've been adding a touch of grain to just about everything I shoot for the past few years. There's no shame in recognizing a trend and riding it along.

No shame at all.

Though, it is best to understand what that trend is communicating. Which I assume you do.


Grain is another part of film language. It tells the viewer something about the content. But also, it adds another 'layer' to the image, making it more complex and perhaps more interesting. That is were the science of human vision perception, and associative meaning through experience combine. So, grain has more than one function. Personally, I don't care for grain, in the trend sense, but it does add a tactile feel to the image at times, and just looks like shoop at others.

 

[Guest]

theyre called hipsters

we need more authentic authenticity

"the artist is the leader in changing taste"
- harry sternberg

I agree withe the need for more authentic authenticity. Very rare to see people operating in the current.

 

[nycineaste]

suspension of disbelief[/I].

totally-

the film look" question always boiled down to cinematic technique, ie learning to shoot a movie

Also, join the INDIE tradition.

At our best we make up (in spades) for lack of money/polish by making movies hollywood doesnt dare to. Alot of us forget that. Think of Pi, Following, Memento, Eraserhead, Primer, Clerks, Reservoir Dogs, anything by Harmony Korine- these are all bold, daring, challenging movies that used non-hollywood structures and techniques . Hidden here is the answer to the "question of quality" alot of us are still asking.

 

[Guest]

New way:
idea > shoot > edit (maybe) > distribute

That's very true. Also, sound is an after thought. haha

In the old times the quality came almost as the given as the time it takes (and money) to take it all from beginning to end was so vast that the quality simple came by hiring craftsmen in their field.
The quality was misunderstood for "content." When the internet came it became apparent that content is EVERYTHING that people will watch. In other words the quality was not essential as people will spend as much time watching a dancing cat as they would watching Tarkowsky. As a matter of fact people will spend MORE time watching the dancing cat than anything by great filmmakers because the dancing cat is appropriate for the medium and Tarkowsky is not. The readily available content IS NOT the same as the content that one needs to "invest" into - either time it takes to drive to the theater or wait for it come come to DVD. And thus almost by its definition the dancing cat not needing any investment in form of time, education, understanding will get more views that Tarkowsky that requires the viewer's complete attention.

There is an interview with Tarkovsky, where he describes the film industry vs what he aspires towards, and he equates the entire industry to "selling cigarettes", similar to how you talk about people watching cat videos. Funny that before the internet, people were still bemoaning the insipidness of mass appeal.

Anyway, the idea as an artist, is not to fixate on how people are stupid, but to understand how content is perceived. And if you want to do film "the old way" then you are going to be making the equivalent of expensive dancing cat films with a 3 part story arc, with a mixture of a few overpaid people, many under paid people, and a whole lot of unpaid people.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Are you referring to simply the image being put out, or the production as a whole? Because raising money also means you can hire a script writer who will help you get good to that place of good content at the very foundation. I agree that you can have a well-shot movie that's vapid as hell (Sucker Punch), but part of the process of actually having a budget is to cover the entire process, not just the image, and to argue that having a budget gets in the way of good content would seem to completely miss the mark.

I'm speaking about all the "primitive" elements of a a process often mistaken by public at large as vital elements. So shallow DOF becomes vital, so a dolly move becomes vital in camera work. So flashy cutting becomes vital in editing. So bombastic sound effects become vital in sound... All those are mistaken for the "content" of that specific medium - DOF to cinematography, fast cutting to editing etc. Meanwhile anyone actually working in each of those fields will tell you that those are only "tools." Why would the public at large make such over simplified conclusions? Incidentally it's the availability of content that leads to that - you watch enough films and on superficial level you see that most of those films utilize shallow DOF, or whatever other banal conclusion you want to make about filmmaking process that you "study" at the moment. They never ask themselves "why" but only pay attention to the final results. This in turn influences how we perceive those "tools" on the screen. As OP pointed out there is a "fall out" from the DOF overuse - it stopped having the "expensive film" look and started to look "uploaded."

I find that kind of thing pompous, and solely reliant on the ability for the viewer to express appreciation because of the need for conformity. So if the film is covered in the aura of "This is a work of art, and you must take meaning from it yourself" then people will take meaning from it, even if they didn't, because to do otherwise is to announce that you think the Emperor is naked, and that's an incredibly hard thing to do.

You are misunderstanding what i'm trying to say. I WISH the meaning came from the creator but i notice that the real meaning comes from the viewer. You can have the deepest work of art ever made and if the viewer didn't get it then you are communicating only with yourself (which in essence is the ultimate point of communication - to communicate with noone but ourselves). Moreover the times we are living in show that the maker's intentions are absolutely irrelevant. In the past the intention was part of the conversation but it's not so anymore. Today the only thing that matters is what the viewer takes from the work - no matter how deep or shallow the work is. In other words it really doesn't matter if the emperor wears any clothes.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

There is an interview with Tarkovsky, where he describes the film industry vs what he aspires towards, and he equates the entire industry to "selling cigarettes", similar to how you talk about people watching cat videos. Funny that before the internet, people were still bemoaning the insipidness of mass appeal.

Anyway, the idea as an artist, is not to fixate on how people are stupid, but to understand how content is perceived. And if you want to do film "the old way" then you are going to be making the equivalent of expensive dancing cat films with a 3 part story arc, with a mixture of a few overpaid people, many under paid people, and a whole lot of unpaid people.

But this is exactly what i'm talking about. If the dancing cat videos are equivalent to Tarkovsky - and i would dare to say in context of the internet they are "better." Then we need to rethink what ideas are overall.

 

[Gary Huff]

But this is exactly what i'm talking about. If the dancing cat videos are equivalent to Tarkovsky - and i would dare to say in context of the internet they are "better." Then we need to rethink what ideas are overall.

I don't think they are better. I think, by and large, people just want to be entertained, and they will get it however they will. The public at large isn't looking for intellectual stimulation.

I, for one, hate cat videos. I also hate YouTube videos that waste my time. Here's an example of the kind of YouTube video I like to consume.

 

[Guest]

But this is exactly what i'm talking about. If the dancing cat videos are equivalent to Tarkovsky - and i would dare to say in context of the internet they are "better." Then we need to rethink what ideas are overall.

After reading your response to Gary, I am starting to see what you are saying. You are going down a pretty deep path there. Seems necessary though.

I find film specific language to not really be about dancing cats. We like dancing cats in real life. There is psychological and many other aspects out side of film that warrant the attraction. What relates more to the specifics of film language is the look of the 2d image, the quality of sound, but also the medium itself: we know this is a bite of 30 secs of focused attention on one thing.

There is also a byproduct of the youtube look, and that is associative meaning as to the frame rates, compression, cameras technology used (dslr/webcam) which define a period in time. So in the way black and white can suggest something in the past, or film grain represent the 'feel', what we are conveniently using today will define our current time, and subsequently influence film style in the future. After all, how much of art is based on nostalgia?

Choppy editing is a new thing that I am seeing more of, but also using in some of my own projects. I believe this is a reflection of countless home videos wwe view on facebook and youtube.

On the flip side, things like shallow dof and lens flare, while still beautiful are beginning to betray an adolescent shallowness and hipster content.

 

[Guest]

I don't think they are better. I think, by and large, people just want to be entertained, and they will get it however they will. The public at large isn't looking for intellectual stimulation.

I, for one, hate cat videos. I also hate YouTube videos that waste my time. Here's an example of the kind of YouTube video I like to consume.

Love this. When these hoaxsters first started claiming things, I am sure most every photographer videographer spotted the flaws in the photographic analysis. (also, kudos to the style. love the BW subject against a color background.)