Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
One thing I like about the screen grabs Marco shared is that, in each one, the depth of field is deep enough that you can still decipher some important background elements, and these visual details help viewers contextualize the character in the shot (by showing the environment they’re in).
Just an observation. Seems like a lot of DPs these days really like shallow depths of field shots, but this often makes characters feel disconnected from their environments.
Must have been a real nightmare for the costume & production designers… Even if they liked the challenge, I hope they got paid twice as much!
Here’s a short interview clip where Nolan answers a question about protecting for different aspect ratios.
He says that “it’s more of a 3D idea of camera blocking . . . Rather than thinking in terms of a geometric 2D compositional frame, we tend to think in terms of a 3D relationship between where the camera is and where we want the audience to be in relation to that.”
Now, I’m a big Nolan fan, but I’m not sure how this approach really differs from what everyone else does (it’s not like they’re projecting in 3D, after all). Just confirms what’s already been said here previously, I think, about how ultimately they end up centering everything as much as possible (with camera angle & proximity taking precedence over precise framing).
Personally I’m not sold on the idea of “the image is so immersive that it extends beyond your peripheral vision.”
I’m like, hello? There’s a reason most people don’t like sitting in the front row of the theater! (when watching non-IMAX movies)
Hi David – appreciate your response!
That’s a good point about how the biggest IMAX screens always contain stuff that’s outside any one person’s field of vision. In that sense, the viewers themselves do the cropping just by deciding where to look.
I suppose if you’re in favor of large-format projection of one kind or another, that means you want the image to be immersive and all-encompassing, which sort of makes the whole idea of a precise shot composition — something with clear, intentional boundaries — less relevant or important.
If someone uses a lot of center compositions, that’s not an issue. But I do wonder if it sort of limits the filmmaker’s ability to direct audiences’ attention to certain parts of the screen — in other words, limiting the filmmaker’s ability to have some kind of careful, deliberate framing be part of how the story gets told.
I once heard Spielberg talk about using an extended master shot of Hanks & Streep in The Post. Even though he also shot singles for both of them, he decided not to use any of the singles and to just let the scene play out as a wide oner — thus, as Spielberg described it, inviting the audience into the process of “cutting” the scene just by choosing who to look at at any given moment.
Given the huge range of different formats, venues, and devices on which to watch movies these days, maybe it’s unavoidable (and not necessarily a bad thing) that filmmakers have to relinquish some control over certain things and become okay with viewers having more control over the viewing experience. (Like with the new Spider-Noir TV show, where you can choose to watch in color or B&W.)
It also potentially makes things way harder for filmmakers though, too, because you have to anticipate how what you’re shooting is going to look in all kinds of different formats and aspect ratios — the whole idea of a “definitive” version is no longer possible (if it ever was).
