Pls tell us more...:bigsmile:For non-technical people, animation is always shot at one exposure so the entire movie will
look as good as the first shot. Feature films are shot at a variety of exposures (i.e. f. 22
in sunlight, f. 5.6 indoors) and each exposure setting and lighting condition will generate
a different depth of field and levels of apparent sharpness and grain structure
True, and I am sometimes surprized I am watching all of a sudden the wrong part of the screen. But I only noticed that when I switched from 29" to 106" though.While we're on this subject, I thought I'd mention some visual 'pet peeves' I have. These are
things that some cinematographers and directors do that I hate.
1) Rack focus shots. I can't stand it when the cinematographer changes focus within a shot
from foreground to background. It calls attention to itself and reminds you you're watching
a photographed movie. In other words, someone will be talking in the foreground in focus
and there's a person listening in the background out of focus. Then the camera changes the
focus in the same shot to the person in the background putting the person in the foreground
out of focus. Very distracting.
I guess that is only related to very old movies. It looks funny, but isn't it related to the lack of techniques/budget/capabilities that are now available? I mean could they do otherwise?2) Rear screen projection. Hitchcock used it in his movies as did most of the studios through
the fifties. That's when they photograph the road and project it on a screen and put a
real car in the foreground and the actor pretends he's driving. It always looks phony and
the background is obviously just a screen and is grainy and doesn't match the lighting or
depth of field of the foreground.
Yes, I second that, but I don't see it often with movies. But it gives the impression of being made by computer ad far from real life.3) Dollying past the edge of a set. This really gets me angry. A character starts walking from
one room to the other and the cameraman follows him going past the edge of the wall set
to the next set. It's makes it blatantly obvious that they're filming on a set and takes away
the illusion that the set is a real location. Even Kubrick did it in "Spartacus".
Richard,I have noticed in movies I recently watched that even 2.35:1 ratios do not appear much smaller than 16:9 movies. I am talking relatively here. I noted that zooming in of caracters' faces is aggressively used, propably more than 16:9 movies.
Indeed "underworld" which appears to be wider than 2.35:1 uses many shots with the height of the screen showing only from right above the eyes down to the chin. While the screen itself is smaller than 1.78:1, I didn't feel the picture of this movie is smaller than say "monsters INC". Is this a general technique that is used with wider formats?