Jesus, he does sound fat.
he sounds like Brian Butterfield
Mr. Purple Cat Esq.
This guy may or may not be fat. He may well be skinny! He just has a posh nerd English accent.
Some cursory Googling confirmed my suspicion that even using the term "cinematography" in traditional, cel style animation isn't really much of a thing since, you know, there is no cinematography in traditional animation.
cinematography is composing images with lenses, apertures, irises and lights.
animation are drawings.
shots are framed by the board artist and approved by the director.
the look ( lighting? ) is developed by the art director and approved by the director
final look is devved by the comp artist and approved by the director
there is no cinematography in anime.
Honest question: what do you call the "camera work" in an animated show, then?
But by that litmus test, doesn't a lot of modern film also not count as cinematography? Since there's a lot of post production digital editing and the copious addition of lens flares
Yeah, it seems like unless you're making schlock, which is valid, you would have composed your movie all on a storyboard first. The process of using lenses, apertures, irises, and lights, just records an a priori composition, the same with recording a drawn frame of anime. What is called cinematography is just a medium by which the drawn storyboard of an iteration reaches the audience.
I really do like the idea of only unstoryboarded schlock being valid cinematography, so I am going to adopt that as part of my super annoying dadaist anti-artsiness.
some background: I was an editor at a major animation studio for a year, I've done post vis (designing major VFX sequences in photographed feature films) on major feature films, I work regularly as a VFX artist on major feature films and I have my own directing reel of practical photography
Cinematography is using a camera, lights and machinery ( cranes, track, motion control, dollies ) to expose and move an image. This is very fucking hard and expensive and is NOTHING like animating a render camera to do whatever the fuck you want. The degree of technical skill to get an image that correct to pop up on a monitor during practical photography is absolutely mind blowing. There is a reason cinematographers are called DIRECTORS of photography: they are directing an entire crew of equally technical specialized people to coordinate shots that have to come together on a tight schedule.
CGI is just a completely different story. You don't have to deal with any of that: you can create whatever you want quite easily.
Where a memorable, dynamic shot needs a lot of leadership and coordination and even luck to shoot practically, a similar shot is much more straight forward in CGI.
The pipeline for a CGI sequence would start with a storyboard artist then move to an editoral animatic that then goes into the edit. Once that is approved by the director the shot gets fleshed out through progressively more developed animatics. Basic things like cut length, framing and timing are hammered out ( in most cases, peter jackson is an exception) from the very beginning of a shot, before anything has even been modeled.
So there isn't really anyone 'working the camera'. A board artist puts down a frame. An animatic editor makes it move. A post viz artist follows that lead and makes something that the editor can put into the cut and show the director.
Once that gets approved the sequence gets bid on by huge VFX firms, but by that point every essential, story based creative 'cinematographic' choice has already been made. By who? Who knows. The director of course approves everything, but every artist who works on the sequence contributes something.
The idea of that being 'cinematography' just isn't the case.
Cinematography is the art of creating beauty for a brief moment from nothing. CGI is a bureaucracy of approval. No comparison. None. The director is making look and style calls on everything, but does that make him a cinematographer? Of course not. He is just art directing.
oh also: I should add that cinematographers ( on big films at least) have a lot of say on VFX sequences in practical films. After all, they are the ones hammering out the look and feel of the film and they have final say on the look of VFX sequences because the rendered elements need to live in the same world as the material they are photographing.
Sounds subjective with nothing to quantify it.
What about movies that suck? Is it still valid because it's hard?
A lot of great work goes into terrible movies.
Misterbuns could you address the 'is it really cinematography' question in relation to the copious post production that happens today?
Things like perfect lighting and setting seem to be happy coincidences with how much editing is done to fix bad lighting, add light sources, effects and scenery, etc these days, which I think is different from what you're talking about (ie, a purely CGI scene)
Completely relighting practical photography in post, which is what I think you're referring to happens very rarely and in pretty much two cases: the first is to achieve a particular style, like Skycaptain and the World of Tomorrow or Sin City. This is pretty rare, but even in those instances the DP (director of photograpy, cinematographer, these are synonymous ) has developed that end look with the director, is accounting for it on set and creatively supervising the final look in post, so the DP is seeing that through to the very end, so yes, even in that instance it is cinematography because it has to be shot properly to allow that degree of flexibility in post.
the other instance which is super super rare is something is just shot wrong: the DP fucked up and for some reason they can't reshoot. This never happens on big movies, because money can always be found for an error that big. It does happen on indie things and TV occasionally because of schedule and budget, but I don't think that is what you are referring to.
I think what you may be thinking of is the color correction that happens in DI ( digital intermediate) or sequences where only the actors are photographed against a greenscreen and the environment is generated digitally.
In both of those cases, the DP is the one calling the shots on what the look is. Even those films these days go through pretty incredible color correction in DI all of that is still the cinematographer's job. It's his job to anticipate where they are going to go with the color and shoot it properly to allow the material to go there. Moreover he is the one supervising the DI color correct.
As far as sequences that are mostly CGI integrated with an actor in the FG ( foreground). The cinematographer is responsible for knowing what the tone and feel of the sequence will be and allowing his material to live within that while exposing the greenscreens sufficiently to pull keys while lighting the FG elements properly for the story and feel. ( that is a huge science in and of itself ) . And again the DP before the director is the final arbiter of look, color, feel throughout the whole pipeline of production: from script to final DI color correction.
Cinematographers are just as important as directors is there are human beings being filmed.
to conclude: it is cinematography, but it probably isnt _fun_ cinematography for some DPs.
|Maggot Brain |
"Bhefore we bhegin lets go over the bhasics."
Let's discuss the best lighting schemes with which to jack it to upskirt shots of underage girls.
five for audibly fat
He just sounds British to me. Is this what fat Brits sound like?
Also I think he meant to title this "The Use of Lens Flare In Anime".
Anime Lighting Theory: MAKE EVERYTHING REALLY FUCKING BRIGHT
Unless it's night. Then just add a photoshop layer-esque backglow coming from one inform direction.
uniform direction* wow that really got away from me
| Register or login To Post a Comment|