I would argue that you forgot about time. A shot doesn't exist frozen in time, but flows with it. Subject, composition, light, contrast, etc... are dynamic. A cinematic shot tells a story. Cinematic shots have purpose. Lastly, I would also argue that you can't know the magnitude of your work's transcendence in advance. You can work with the best minds and highest budgets only to achieve mediocrity. By the same token, a seemingly stupid gig can end up redefining popular culture in unexpected ways. Always try your very best. :)
Loved the cargo cult riff at the end. Important to remember that even top tier directors fail to make great cinema sometimes, even with all the resources, and artists like Godard made a great film running around Paris with a two actors and a handheld camera. Moving art is takes effort, vulnerability, good taste and luck.
Lost me at not being able to achieve anything without working with the best talent in the world, being someone who works in the film industry everyone starts on the same leg of the race at some point in their career, Martin Scorsese wasn't born into being one of the best directors of all time, he started out as a "nobody" at some point doing exactly what everyone else does, making short films in the 60s and not making a big break until the late 70s. A better comment on this would've been practice and dedication to this craft is ultimately what differs people in the end. Not basically saying you suck because you're not an A list Hollywood star in any regard. Awful commentary in that whole section.
I recommend anyone to look at the career of David F. Sandberg and read up on how he got his career started, shocking to find out it was by making short films with his wife which ultimately led him to getting a Hollywood career directing some of the biggest movies including the Shazam movies
I agree with you here. Great art has nothing to do Hollywood. They do have an edge in the sense that they have access to more resources but saying that great art can't be done without resources didn't sit right with me either.
One day I was in the streets with my Fuji xpro3 and I had on my lens a square hood that resembles old cinema cameras' hoods. Three young men most certainly brainwashed by RU-vid bulldh*it stopped me and asked me about the camera: - this part (hood) makes the image cinematic right? - it's jus a plastic hood. - but the image is more cinematic! - it's just a plastic hood that stops light hitting at certain angles. - because it looks like cinematic gear. - what's cinematic??? - ... The "cinematic" have absolutely no meaning at all when 99,99% of RU-vidrs using it are just filming themselves dumping a s**t in shallow depth of field and green tint and use this word to give that p**p they dumped a meaning. It's like the word "revolution" and "noble" or "disruptive" that Apple managed to empty of their meaning. Just type cinematic in RU-vid search and you'll drown in an ocean of cr*p made by people who aren't able to differentiate between a visually good movie and a RU-vid vlog.
Wow! I like that you can apply contrast in so many different ways and that you can use it to emphasize something or someone. Amazing content. Maybe it's time to unsubscribe :) LoL
Great thesis, Thomas, and well presented! I hope you produce more of these 'nuts & bolts' type of content. In what now seems to be a previous life, I used to teach screen colour theory - some basic observations I used to make: * Complimentary colour for close-ups (i.e., blue and orange) * Triads of colour for depth/long shots (i.e., orange, green and violet) * Orange and blue = 'film' * Red and green = 'video' Thanks for the video and the time that you took to put it together :)
Really had a trip watching this and with your score in the underbelly of the presentation. I totally agree with this and without everything coming together to form the One, it's pointless B-Rolls. Secondly, in my view, it doesn't have to be a BIG person to do any element of the movie, it has to be whoever is perfect for the job. It could be a small actor with zero acting experience, as long as they play the character perfectly well. So that's when things come together as One. Not with Film or Digital camera, unless intentional for the story and not famous celebrities, not a small budget or big budget, just the elements that fit correctly based on your idea, as David Lynch would say.
This wide ratio filled my phone screen. Now that's CINEMATIC! wait. Did I miss the whole point of the video? Thank you for not exporting with black bars.
this is the type of content I want to see, not a dude in travel with his family, just talking about real art, very clear explanation here, and it seems that I'm a total noob, happy with my wood sticks, thanks for the video bro, so inspiring, need to learn more!😎
Great video! Just had a conversation about this same thing a week or two ago on a production. Definitely didn't bring up "implicit" or "contextual," but loved your thoughts on this. We are attempting high-grade, high-artistry images with purpose and story, but will we ever through repetition, admiration, or experience become that which we aspire to? A discussion for another day.
Bro. You are a filming nerds dream. This is a Dope video filled with Platinum nuggets...yeah- the hell with gold..bron you went straight Platinum!👊🏾🔥🔥🔥 Btw I subbed
I very much enjoyed the video … and it is a great analysis of film … When you speak about contrast, I would add also mention the contrast of film editing… so editing an ultra wide shot after a close up shot or vice verca adds also a lot of tension and contrast to your movie… 🎥
This is a fantastic video and one that I feel a lot of aspiring DOPs and filmmakers need to watch. I have always hated the term "cinematic". To me, it's never meant anything but it gets thrown around. If you want to tell a story, your shots have to have intent and a reason behind it. Production design, actor performance, direction, blocking, lighting, audio; if all these are done well then it will make a locked off well-framed shot on your cheap camera and lens combo look interesting. Making something feel like our favourite film is a combination of all of those. If you skimp on one, then naturally you try to overcompsate with a complicated lighting setup or resorting to opening up the lens all the way to make it feel like it has depth. Good set design, framing and lighting will add depth more than a fast lens will.
Trying to decide which of your selfie set-ups is the best lit.. I think it may be that one where you're centered and so is the bounce light.. very clean, stand out against the background, yet without any harsh contrast.. do you concur?
For me cinematic means cinema and cinema is a dream not real life. Movies looking to much real, with natural lighting, natural color, natural (handheld) camera movement is NOT CINEMATIC. Cameras must flow as smooth as possible, every frame should be in perfect composition, in dialogs you can hear every word clearly and you don't need those subtitles.
To answer your prompt towards the end of the video: I see the difference between videographic and cinematic images the same way I differentiate a picture and a photograph. A picture relays information whereas a photograph tells a story. Videography records events as they happen, the images in cinematography (and by extension things which are 'cinematic') are crafted to aid in telling the story. I agree that something being beautiful (Que bokeh bros) does not necessarily make it cinematic unless the image has its hands on one of the many oars which propel a story to its conclusion. I loved every second of this video thank you so much for making it and sharing it with us.
Yes Thomas, you're right. We are inspired by the best and we try to imitate them. We try to find and understand how they did it and how we can do it. This makes us both admiring, humble, and better at the same time. Thank you for the time you took to make this video.
This video was excellent, one of the better breakdowns on this concept I've seen, with a really cool way of thinking about things. I will say though, at 17:24... feels like I'm hearing whatever harsh voice you must hear in your own head. I wholly agree that that unmistakable "movie quality" comes from an incredibly complex web of things being done at a very high level, but I'm gonna be honest, be very careful about viewing your art as "not true art", or whatever it is you're trying to define. I don't have some bullcrap rationale that all art is created equal, but I detect something in the way you're viewing your own art that isn't quiiiite fair to it. Don't "chase something you can never achieve" that other people supposedly do. Just create YOUR art, with the tools you have. You can do it proudly, not under a sign where you've written "Definitely not the BEST artist" that weighs heavier on your head than anyone else's.
It's so great to see you looking so healthy, as for cinematic, I think for me it's all boiled down to emotion, how well can I attempt to craft an image, a composition/frame using pace and score etc to evoke the emotion and hence my vision for the film. Even when making videos of my kids to only be viewed by my family, I try to make it meaningful and emotionally charged. I think the effect of that is what something being cinematic culminates to, the emotion evoked by the film to a viewer. Your breakdown was a refreshing take on it. I've been following you from perhaps 10k subs? I can't understand why your numbers are exploding despite your explicit and repeated requests to NOT subscribe...
Hey buddy, I don't know what to write to express my gratitude for this video. Your work is not only helpful, but there are no words to describe its educational value. I'm really happy that you're doing what you do, and I wish you all the best. Keep up the good work!
This is a great video. I read this book once called "Man With A Camera" by Nestor Almendros A.S.C. I did not read this in film school. He says that to be a great cinematographer, you need to have or cultivate cultural awareness on whatever you are shooting. Then you create an image that gives important subtext to that culture and the story. This is the best cinematography advice that has helped me on my quest to collaborate and tell great stories. We can shoot people raising their hands in front of exotic waterfalls, sweigh our hips side to side with the camera, or adjust the contrast bar in color grading, but if the image doesn’t add any new value culturally, your right in the sense that we are just constructing our own disfuncional bamboo planes
I think we need to tell visual stories that don't exist within a single shot, but as a whole of many. So, you tell that story from the perspective of either a character, an omniscient being, a second character, or a mix of all three. I don't believe that you always need to have a conflict and resolution. If that were the case, every film would end happily. What you do need, is a context and a reason for everything that goes before the camera. You don't need to need film grain to till your story. A little vignetting around the edges, some flicker or slight drift, maybe even some random scratches that are almost subliminal. I used to wonder what the difference between film and video was, and now I know: spatial resolution, temporal resolution, and soft edges that play no faster than a dream. With just a phone camera, film emulation app and notepad, I have made film after film. If you are just getting started in storytelling, I recommend editing the timing of representative shots to a piece of music. The transitions give you your visual rhythm. The different sections of the song allow you to explore different parts of the same concept. Just, whatever you have, make films with it! Don't wait until you have the latest gear. If you have a good idea, you can even express it in shadow puppets.
For someone who dropped out of school, this sure was a well planned and juicy lesson. Can definitely see some film professor stumbling upon this video and making the class watch it 😂
This was amazingly enlightening. So well thought out, researched, presented and edited. It's so good I'm going to unsub immediately!! Thank you for this and good bye. 😉
This was an excellent video. You could’ve gone on for another 35 minutes and I would have watched every single one of them. Curious to know what your thoughts are on the Netflix TV show: Ridley.😬 keep up the great work👍
This was an excellent video. You could’ve gone on for another 35 minutes and I would have watched every single one of them. Curious to know what your thoughts are on the Netflix TV show: Ridley.😬 keep up the great work👍
“What is cinematic?” Great question. Reminds me of the little story of when somebody was asked how to define pornography? They said: “I don’t think can define it, but I know it when I see it.” I feel the same way about cinematic. I know it when I see it. At least I think I do? 😬
You killed me with this cargo cult thing. But... This film made me want to dig way deeper than I thought it was possibile. I'm a beginner at a below zero level. The cinematic term ment to me - to this day - just leveling up the visual appeal of the movie I want to make. But you have opened to me a while new world of possibilities and and urge to try harder each and every time. Thank You 👍
-sigh- It's nice to here from amateurs of the art form. Here's a HUGE tip. Cinematography is both technical and creative, one cannot exist with out the other. And that HAS nothing to do with a relationship between thesis and antithesis. It's simply a duality of life. You need to STOP watching movies, it will help YOU cinematography DRAMATICALLY. You're a like an ape trying to emulate the gestures of a zoo keeper- yet the zoo keeper is only mimicking you to learn your mode of communication. In this idiom, your skill-set (cinematography) is the ape. The artwork you perceive is the zoo-keeper. in order to communicate you must stop copying the artwork, and learn the language of the skill-set. Martin Scorsese speaks on film language extensively.
you've lost weight! looking younger....definitely the wrong kind of lifestyle people shouldn't subscribe to :P nice content too btw but definitely NOT recommending to anyone XD
Very well done and thorough video. I would argue that you don't need a $100 million dollar budget and huge crew to make something cinematic...as the term "cinematic" is subjective. Great video tho!
Im so glad this video was made because there a good amount of people who over use the word cinematic. It just down plays the meaning. Cinema is an art and if you think it only takes better gear and nothing else to make art, your wrong. The artist makes cinema, not just his tools.
I love a channel that sucks as good as this. Of course I am subscribed. Why? Because I don’t want to miss any content that sucks as good as this. After all I aspire to your level of greatness and beyond in the context of sucking. On that note, thank you. On to the next, right?
That’s the first time I heard something as real as it’s not cinematic because you’re faking it. I agree. But I lift up the people who are out there creating their own content that is more “cinematic” than 90% of streaming original movies.
Issue I have with this type of thinking is that’s it’s trying to understand art through analysis. Most great art is created through some level of inspiration - not analysis. I find those who make work through copious analysis create mimicry - make no mistake - you see it in advertising every day, it can be good but it lacks the creative courage of inspiration - which I think can take you to some wild places - certainly more interesting than scientific quantitative analysis. Van Gogh thought of painting his boots with the same care and intimacy as the portrait of a person - even a film like EEAAO by The Daniels is a great example of just letting rip with your creativity - the point I'm trying to make is that great works of art literally have a soul. They sing to people. Roger Deakins whose work is featured in this video is an inspired artist - just listen to his interviews - he's not a deconstructionist. Art isn't something to figure out or decode with Hegelian principles. I would urge anyone to view art without giving it a second of analysis - just embrace its beauty without asking why or how and feel awe-inspired.
Loved this explanation, and deep dive into how your brain thinks about Filmmaking and "cinematography" Like you I didnt finish film school, but am now getting back into the medium (after a 25 year hiatus) I am working within the digital realm, and discovering cinematic animated short films... this has been a great re introduction.
Why does “cinematic” at the same time feel so natural to us and yet also not look anything like real life? It’s like it’s unrealistic and yet somehow it feels realistic in an emotional way. Very odd.
Genius. Your work is genius. Unlike RU-vid which overflows with light, flimsy, floppy chest beating you are an oasis of insight. Sincerely, thank you. For first time I have found a master whose feet I am happy to sit at
I think when it comes to the idea of cinematic, many budget filmmakers are still striving to have their movies look like 80s blockbusters... if you grew up thinking that the widescreen aspect ratio and film grain of 1988's "Die Hard" is the epitome of all that is Cinematic..? You will keep trying to create movies that look like Die Hard, even on a microbudget... I think what's tricky for us zero budget filmmakers is trying to take the IDEAS that inspired us about these movies were filmed and directed, but play them out on a much smaller palette... without beating one's self up thinking "their film sucks, because it's not die hard"...make YOUR film- there's already a Die Hard. (Note- this speech was made to myself, in the mirror 😎)
Thanks for the video, it made me think. The word cinematic has become a symbol that harkens to the sublime qualities in cinema that enables a person to view out into the limits of the perceptual landscape(consciously or unconsciously); There for, rendering only partial truth in the subjective connotations. However, It is only with the aggregation of stories created by a divergent group of individuals that we come to grips with the experience that cinema attempts to imitate: life(our reality). As long as your film(story) imitates life, it is cinematic(if you think beyond the physical constructs). There’s a reason why the movie “Everything Everywhere All At Once” has its name. It’s a profound step away from postmodernism and the struggle with meaning. I think if we don’t blow ourselves up: we’ll each be able to explore the multifaceted nature of our humanity. *That’s me being hopeful.
And more about beauty. There are beautiful people on the covers of fashion magazines. They have the most beautiful hairstyles, fashionably dressed, made up, lit and photographed by the best masters of the industry. But magazine covers are not cinematic. Because of lack of composition, lack of background.
Would disagree with the "Is Scorsese Directing" part. You are the cinematographer, not the producer. You can do great cinematography within the confines of the story and work out the themes visually just by yourself. The movie can still be shit - have seen beautiful, cinematic movies where it was it's best quality.
The youtubers from america are same as UPSC coaching institutes in India... Takes a long time to actually explain what Thumbnail saya .... If its regarding a mango the introduction will be starting from How the world formed for trees to produce mango....so irritating
At last, someone addresses the elephant in the room in a very profound and educational way, and the example you used to show the differences, was just..."Cinematic". Keep up the good work, and I'll unsubscribe - I promise :)
So excited to hear how Marx's labor theory of value relates to writing in the next video. 😅 This was great, I'm sure it was a lot of work! Thank you comrade! Edit: Typo
Oh college dropout. That explains a lot. Like why you dont understand art 101. Maybe if you stayed in school you wouldnt have to make a video about why you dont understand such things.
I must have misunderstood. I think the view that the plebeians witness, worship, and mimic greatness from afar is reductive. Any comic book artist should know how to make something cinematic. Any artist should be able to. A child can produce the cinematic. The cargo cult’s efforts failed to replicate the utility of their products, the cinemaphile only needs to evoke a feeling.
Yeah...this channel sucks...and i love it...and in this video you just put my feet on the ground...and make ME realize I have a lot of job to do. And that´s great !
School / college drop outs are mostly briljant and very intelligent people.There are simply no educations that are qualifiied enough to meet the needs of such people. So they find their own way in life and live their talents and gifts. Society would be a lot worse without these briljant minds. ADHD is mostly the case that you haven't found a way yet to lead all the energies in your (body, mind, soul) energy system through the right channels 🙂
the word cinematic is a scam to clickbait people in youtube. The variety of ways of visually tells a history makes the world cinematic empty. Nonetheless it's possible to define the word youtubematic: the style of publish videos with high contrast, high saturation, shallow depth of field and weird transitions. Thanks for the beautiful educative content.
cinematic has become a really overused thing on instagram for photos. New York city at night. Making a photo unsaturated. Giving it a blue tint. Or making it look like old expired film or the white balance is off. They all fall under cinematic. And it doesn't matter if elements in the photo are playing off each other or if the photo (or series of photos) infers part of scene that was going on like in a movie. Like the picture of the Joker. Yes the facial expressions are there because he's acting. But that's what makes that image as a photo cinematic. There's something there that infers something before that moment and something after that moment. Whereas what I see a lot on instagram is just a person looking out of a window blankly, subway or restaurant, give it a pale treatment or blue tint and it's called cinematic. But he just went off in left field with his requirements for what makes a film cinematic.
I disagree with some of this. I think there are many great works of art done by amateurs which includes cinema. I would also say supposedly great artists (I include all artistic pursuits here) do total stinkers on ocassion even with amazing resources. Just look at Hollywoods track record with the cram of the crop at their disposal and end up with some greats and some terrible works. I do think cinematic is a thrashed term. I personally dislike the word but its a useful stereotype to pull out and quickly describe something to get someone on a same page when explaining something. However it can also mean something very different to so many...Its a bit like the word art, or a phrase like 'that tastes great' or 'that sound so good'. All are so subjective to the individual.
I love your breakdown of the modern cinematic image but i wonder if you're not throwing out the artistic merit of stick planes to fast. Sure you might not have to time, talent and resources to reproduce a AAA Hollywood blockbuster but you don't need to to tell a compelling story. Just as technically perfectly lit, staged and acted scenes is the Antitheses and the way all modern Hollywood Productions are done, including the millions of shitty ones. The ultra low budget, amateur improv short film can be the antithesis and produce some truly moving stories. Certainly with a similar ratio of shit to masterpiece. It seems to me like you have spent so much time making commercials look expensive, that you forgot, that this is not the only way to tell a story. It's just the current way Hollywood likes to do it. Don't you think, that at the end of the day, the goal of the medium is not to look like the big boys but to move our audiences the way the most iconic movies of our generation have?
Hey, I always subscribe in the beginning and then unsubscribe at the end, i do it because i want to and undo it because the channels owner tells me to not 😅
I dont think you can really explain "Cinematic" without explaining "Cinema" since the first is a word to describe things that are in the manorism of the second. For example is a Video Game Cinematic the same as Cinema or something else?
I don't agree with your labels for the categories but the categories themselves are great. As someone who went to film school and is tired of people trying to obtain the "cinematic" look for no reason, I really appreciate this video existing. Great video!
