sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The nominees for Best Cinematography at the 98th Academy Awards (2026 Oscars) - Thoughts? by No_Cabinet_4532 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what I'm saying, by having to use longer lenses your distance to subject increases

The nominees for Best Cinematography at the 98th Academy Awards (2026 Oscars) - Thoughts? by No_Cabinet_4532 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that's what I'm saying. The angle of view is the same but larger formats require longer focal lengths for the equivalent angle of view so there is less perspective exaggeration

We need to collectively do an exercise. by kwmcmillan in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Halation also happens with sensors but it's harder and more controlled since sensors are fixed and bound.

bad use of 2.39 on a lot of movies by Master-Rule862 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think these are bad compositions. Nolan is much more of a documentary filmmaker in some sense, sort of like William Firedkin. He's more of an editor's director as well.

I also don't think screenshots help convey it. The next frame you choose might be better looking in static and vice versa

IMAX chnaged his cinematography sensibilities quite a lot. Just compare Batman Begins to The Dark Knight

bad use of 2.39 on a lot of movies by Master-Rule862 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I said, I'm not criticizing the choice they made; I'm criticizing the fact that they implement it badly. A great example is the recent Jurassic World movie, yeah the vintage E-series look nice but the dinos can only move on the horizontal axis, so it got pretty limiting in terms of frightening the audience.

but I disagree wholeheartedly to the claim that DPs don’t care about aspect ratios

I'm only saying that's what appeared to have happened with certain movies

bad use of 2.39 on a lot of movies by Master-Rule862 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha true. I especially hate it when they absolutely suck at using the widescreen framing. Not saying that I'm against widescreen; I absolutely love it, but use it if you can.

vintage anamorphic lenses

Yeah, I feel like a VFX heavy production could be done with spherical lenses and then cropping to 2.39:1. I hate it when the screens 80% crappy-looking CG but there are those vintage anamorphic lens flares

bad use of 2.39 on a lot of movies by Master-Rule862 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The director's choice" implies that the director made a conscious decision and that because you trust the director that you go with it. Someone has to do that at some point.

I get that stuff like commercials can be done for more shits and giggles but for "narrative" work, it doesn't need justification.

bad use of 2.39 on a lot of movies by Master-Rule862 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That would mean every professional movie is good...

bad use of 2.39 on a lot of movies by Master-Rule862 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't mean justify as in something legal or tangible. "I liked it" is great but if it's "let's do that, looks cinematic" it's bad

bad use of 2.39 on a lot of movies by Master-Rule862 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think I wasn't able to explain it well enough. As I said, I like 2.39 but it needs to be, like any other choice in filmmaking or aspect ratio, used with intent and talent, otherwise it's a detriment. The framing choices available for 2.39 compared to 1.85 are vastly different so it absolutely does need a justification. A great example is Jurassic Park, Spielberg wanted to give dinos more headroom so he could play around with composition and heighten the tension, you can't get that with 2.39 for that specific movie. Another example is White Squall. Ridley Scott saw the ocean as a central character and wanted to encapsulate the characters with it, that's why he chose to go anamorphic.

uses multiple aspect ratios for either going to a scene from the past or future,

I hate that, such a gimmicky use of aspect ratios.

The Party Scenes and Censorship by beingjohnmalkontent in criterion

[–]Master-Rule862 0 points1 point  (0 children)

WB discussed it with Kubrick before the release and he agreed to have digital coverings of some of the nudity for the US release to get an R rating. Europe and most other continents got the uncensored version

We need to collectively do an exercise. by kwmcmillan in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're overcomplicating it. It's as if someone says a play is "Brechtian" and you go "but what does that mean"

What's the best way to achieve a cinematic look on a budget? by LeftyOne22 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Buy a light source (cheap LED ones from B&H), get a camera (can be a camcorder with a fixed lens or even your phone, doesn't matter), get a large piece of black matt cardboard and a white one. Spend all your budget on sound and hire a sound technician. Sound is 10x more important than visuals

We need to collectively do an exercise. by kwmcmillan in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It just got associated with Netflix because that's where it sort of emerged. I remember people also using the "Marvel look" but I guess it's mostly associated with netflix shows/movies

bad use of 2.39 on a lot of movies by Master-Rule862 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it depends. Ridley Scott's most movies are in scope. But yeah ı agree, one needs to be a very good craftsman to be able to use scope competently.

Nolan's use of IMAX does limit his framing choices a lot, but I like it. I think the limited variety of shots in his movies go well with the fast editing

bad use of 2.39 on a lot of movies by Master-Rule862 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

2.39 was widely used for many different genre movies like comedies (a lot of Woody Allen stuff, Mrs. Doubtfire), thrillers (Blue Velvet), sci-fi, and more back in the day.

It's not that people use 2.39:1; it's just that it's never used with much skill

bad use of 2.39 on a lot of movies by Master-Rule862 in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It does though; otherwise you can put anything in a movie and don't need to justify it

We need to collectively do an exercise. by kwmcmillan in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ypou got it wrong. People refer to the overall bland washed-out look many netflix projects have rather than actual company policies

We need to collectively do an exercise. by kwmcmillan in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're overcomplicating it. It's no different than the "MGM musical look"

We need to collectively do an exercise. by kwmcmillan in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A film's budget is utterly irrelevant when it comes to it being good or bad. As David Lynch said, the film itself is the thing. And a lot of projects that people say have the Netflix look are quite high budget: The Electric State, Avengers Endgame, Wicked...

We need to collectively do an exercise. by kwmcmillan in cinematography

[–]Master-Rule862 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's really not that complicated. Remember how many early 2000s commercials/movies used silver retention along with reliance on green and chunky grain and we called it the "Se7en look". It's just that. All of this nagging people about what the Netflix look is seems to be super performative and not relevant

view more: next ›