by Niklas Dostal -

ANALOG VS DIGITAL UND WIESO DIESE DEBATTE UNSINNIG IS

Filmkameras waren für die längste Zeit das bevorzugte Werkzeug der Blockbuster-Industrie. Der hervorragende Dynamikumfang sowie das scharfe Bild waren filmische Eigenschaften, die man nicht aufgeben wollte. Zudem waren Filmkameras perfekt gebaut für den Einsatz auf großen Sets mit langen Drehtagen. Das änderte sich, als ARRI die Filmlandschaft auf den Kopf stellte und 2009 mit der ARRI Alexa einen Durchbruch im Digitalbereich gelang. Roger Deakins (Kameramann von Filmen wie “Die Verurteilten”, “Blade Runner 2049” oder “James Bond 007: Skyfall”) sagte später in einem Interview: “This Camera has brought us to a point where digital is simply better.” 

Dass sich seither die Filmlandschaft stark gewandelt hat, steht außer Frage. Filme, die auf Celluloid-Film gedreht werden gestalten heutzutage die Ausnahme. Filmrollen sind teuer und kosten viel Geld in der Entwicklung und Lagerung, zudem ist eine Filmkamera wesentlich schwerer bedienbar. Damit am Ende ein scharfes und korrekt belichtetes Bild entsteht, verlangt es ebenfalls nach einem guten Fokuszieher sowie jemand Erfahrenem hinter der Kamera. Digitaler Film ist hingegen wesentlich einfacher in der Bedienung, denn was man sieht ist in der Regel auch das, was man filmt. Vor allem kleinere Produktionen profitieren immens von dieser Entwicklung und den geringeren Kosten, ohne dabei wirklich an Qualität einbüßen zu müssen. Wenn man nun die Vorteile mit den Nachteilen vergleicht liegt die Antwort auf der Hand – Digitalbild ist dem Analogfilm überlegen, oder?

Drehbuchautor und Regisseur Quentin Tarantino sagte in einem Interview folgendes: “I have always believed in the magic of movies and to me the magic of movies is connected to 35mm.” Obwohl die Bildqualität von Digitalkameras mittlerweile nahezu perfekt ist, von gestochen scharfer Auflösung bis hin zur akkuraten Farbwiedergabe, sind es gerade die Makel des analogen Films, die Enthusiasten als “Magie” betiteln. Zu diesen Charakteristiken gehören die Körnung, rote Lichthöfe, kleine Verschiebungen von Bild zu Bild und natürlich auch die Farben des jeweiligen Filmstocks sowie Charakteristiken die in der je nach Art der Entwicklung des Films entstehen. Schließlich beeinflusst auch die Wiedergabe des finalen Films auf einem Laufbildprojektor (statt dem digitalen Pendant) die Erfahrung des Zuschauers. Viele dieser Faktoren spielen eine große Rolle für den Look des finalen Bilds und können bei der kleinsten Abweichung bereits einen wahrnehmbaren Einfluss auf das Werk ausüben. “It certainly got a lot of advantages that film never had, consistency being a really big one”, sagte Roger Deakins über digitale Kameras und Projektoren. Wenn von der Magie des Analogfilms gesprochen wird, wird oftmals auf jene Abweichungen und Ungenauigkeiten verwiesen. Die Tatsache nicht genau zu wissen, was sich am Ende des Tages in dieser schwarzen Box versteckt, lässt viele Liebhaber romantisierend über Film sprechen. 

Steve Yedlin, Kameramann von Filmen wie “Knives Out” oder “Star Wars: The last Jedi” vertritt einen klaren Standpunkt: “As artists, to put all of our faith in the illusory simplicity of bundled systems instead of understanding the analytic components that are the undeniable building blocks of the process is to give up our control and authorship.” Dabei redet Yedlin nicht nur von Filmkameras, sondern auch von digitalen Kameras. Ihm zufolge sei die in der Filmbranche dominante Narrative, nämlich dass die Wahl einer bestimmten Kamera oder Filmstock maßgeblich für den finalen Look und somit auch für die Wahrnehmung und Erfahrung des Zuschauers zuständig sei, schlichtweg falsch. Yedlin plädiert eine Kamera nicht als ein Stilmittel zu sehen, sondern als ein System zu betrachten, das rohe Informationen über das Licht, das durch die Optik eindringt, speichert. Die Ästhetik entsteht laut Yedlin erst später in der Nachbearbeitung, wenn mit den Daten gearbeitet wird und nicht mit dem Gerät, das die Daten aufzeichnet. Als Beweis dafür führt er in seiner “Display Prep Demo” einen Vergleich zwischen 35mm Film und digitalen Bildmaterial auf. Beide sehen zum verwechseln ähnlich aus und unterstützen seine These, trotzdem verweist Yedlin darauf, dass man noch mehr testen, evaluieren und programmieren müsste, um perfekte Ergebnisse in der Gestaltung eines korrekten Filmlooks erzielen zu können. 

Ob man die Ästhetik des Celluloid Films nun mag oder nicht, sei dahingestellt, was Yedlin beschreibt ist ein grundlegendes Missverständnis in der Debatte. Dass Hersteller ihre Produkte verkaufen wollen und mit halb wahren oder irreführenden Aussagen locken, gießt hierbei leider nur Öl ins Feuer. Fakt ist jedoch, dass moderne digitale Filmkameras mit ihrer Qualität an einem Punkt angekommen sind, an dem man mit einer Daten schonenden Postproduktion-Pipeline vollste kreative Freiheit genießt, und Freiheit ist zumindest in meinen Augen das wichtigste Gut eines jeden Künstlers.

Filmkameras waren für die längste Zeit das bevorzugte Werkzeug der Blockbuster-Industrie. Der hervorragende Dynamikumfang sowie das scharfe Bild waren filmische Eigenschaften, die man nicht aufgeben wollte. Zudem waren Filmkameras perfekt gebaut für den Einsatz auf großen Sets mit langen Drehtagen. Das änderte sich, als ARRI die Filmlandschaft auf den Kopf stellte und 2009 mit der ARRI Alexa einen Durchbruch im Digitalbereich gelang. Roger Deakins (Kameramann von Filmen wie “Die Verurteilten”, “Blade Runner 2049” oder “James Bond 007: Skyfall”) sagte später in einem Interview: “This Camera has brought us to a point where digital is simply better.” 

Dass sich seither die Filmlandschaft stark gewandelt hat, steht außer Frage. Filme, die auf Celluloid-Film gedreht werden gestalten heutzutage die Ausnahme. Filmrollen sind teuer und kosten viel Geld in der Entwicklung und Lagerung, zudem ist eine Filmkamera wesentlich schwerer bedienbar. Damit am Ende ein scharfes und korrekt belichtetes Bild entsteht, verlangt es ebenfalls nach einem guten Fokuszieher sowie jemand Erfahrenem hinter der Kamera. Digitaler Film ist hingegen wesentlich einfacher in der Bedienung, denn was man sieht ist in der Regel auch das, was man filmt. Vor allem kleinere Produktionen profitieren immens von dieser Entwicklung und den geringeren Kosten, ohne dabei wirklich an Qualität einbüßen zu müssen. Wenn man nun die Vorteile mit den Nachteilen vergleicht liegt die Antwort auf der Hand – Digitalbild ist dem Analogfilm überlegen, oder?

Drehbuchautor und Regisseur Quentin Tarantino sagte in einem Interview folgendes: “I have always believed in the magic of movies and to me the magic of movies is connected to 35mm.” Obwohl die Bildqualität von Digitalkameras mittlerweile nahezu perfekt ist, von gestochen scharfer Auflösung bis hin zur akkuraten Farbwiedergabe, sind es gerade die Makel des analogen Films, die Enthusiasten als “Magie” betiteln. Zu diesen Charakteristiken gehören die Körnung, rote Lichthöfe, kleine Verschiebungen von Bild zu Bild und natürlich auch die Farben des jeweiligen Filmstocks sowie Charakteristiken die in der je nach Art der Entwicklung des Films entstehen. Schließlich beeinflusst auch die Wiedergabe des finalen Films auf einem Laufbildprojektor (statt dem digitalen Pendant) die Erfahrung des Zuschauers. Viele dieser Faktoren spielen eine große Rolle für den Look des finalen Bilds und können bei der kleinsten Abweichung bereits einen wahrnehmbaren Einfluss auf das Werk ausüben. “It certainly got a lot of advantages that film never had, consistency being a really big one”, sagte Roger Deakins über digitale Kameras und Projektoren. Wenn von der Magie des Analogfilms gesprochen wird, wird oftmals auf jene Abweichungen und Ungenauigkeiten verwiesen. Die Tatsache nicht genau zu wissen, was sich am Ende des Tages in dieser schwarzen Box versteckt, lässt viele Liebhaber romantisierend über Film sprechen. 

Steve Yedlin, Kameramann von Filmen wie “Knives Out” oder “Star Wars: The last Jedi” vertritt einen klaren Standpunkt: “As artists, to put all of our faith in the illusory simplicity of bundled systems instead of understanding the analytic components that are the undeniable building blocks of the process is to give up our control and authorship.” Dabei redet Yedlin nicht nur von Filmkameras, sondern auch von digitalen Kameras. Ihm zufolge sei die in der Filmbranche dominante Narrative, nämlich dass die Wahl einer bestimmten Kamera oder Filmstock maßgeblich für den finalen Look und somit auch für die Wahrnehmung und Erfahrung des Zuschauers zuständig sei, schlichtweg falsch. Yedlin plädiert eine Kamera nicht als ein Stilmittel zu sehen, sondern als ein System zu betrachten, das rohe Informationen über das Licht, das durch die Optik eindringt, speichert. Die Ästhetik entsteht laut Yedlin erst später in der Nachbearbeitung, wenn mit den Daten gearbeitet wird und nicht mit dem Gerät, das die Daten aufzeichnet. Als Beweis dafür führt er in seiner “Display Prep Demo” einen Vergleich zwischen 35mm Film und digitalen Bildmaterial auf. Beide sehen zum verwechseln ähnlich aus und unterstützen seine These, trotzdem verweist Yedlin darauf, dass man noch mehr testen, evaluieren und programmieren müsste, um perfekte Ergebnisse in der Gestaltung eines korrekten Filmlooks erzielen zu können. 

Ob man die Ästhetik des Celluloid Films nun mag oder nicht, sei dahingestellt, was Yedlin beschreibt ist ein grundlegendes Missverständnis in der Debatte. Dass Hersteller ihre Produkte verkaufen wollen und mit halb wahren oder irreführenden Aussagen locken, gießt hierbei leider nur Öl ins Feuer. Fakt ist jedoch, dass moderne digitale Filmkameras mit ihrer Qualität an einem Punkt angekommen sind, an dem man mit einer Daten schonenden Postproduktion-Pipeline vollste kreative Freiheit genießt, und Freiheit ist zumindest in meinen Augen das wichtigste Gut eines jeden Künstlers.

Links:
https://www.arri.com/en/company/about-arri/history/history
https://youtu.be/BON9Ksn1PqI
https://youtu.be/p2Z4UvAdE7E
https://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/index.html

by Niklas Dostal -

A Deep Dive Into Film Emulation: Steve Yedlin

American cinematographer Steve Yedlin, who is mostly famous for his camera work on films like “Looper”, “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” and “Knives Out” also has quiet astonishing results on film emulation on his website.

In his so called Display Preparation Demo he compares 35mm film to the Arri Alexa (film emulated) while also explaining his thoughts on the, according to him “false”, yet dominant narrative that the selection of the camera type or film stock type has a major leverage point on defining the photographic look and that the audiences perceptual experience of the final image is significantly defined by the camera format itself in ways that can’t be controlled otherwise. Yedlin sees this assumption as problematic and not supported by the evidence and later on continues to say to not think of a camera as a lookmaker but merely as a data collection device that records uninterpreted data about the light coming into the lens and that the aesthetics of the photographic look are created later on downstream in the processing pipeline. By comparing the 35mm film with the (matched) Arri Alexa footage he tries to further prove his point:

35mm film and digital side by side (mirrored), which one is which?

Steve Yedlin doesn’t argue that there are still small differences between both images that purely derive from the very different post process pipeline those clips come from. His argument is that those differences are too minor to change the perceptual experience of the viewer and don’t actually add to the tone and feel of what’s seen. Yedlin is contrasting the opinions of many cinematographers just as Hoyte Van Hoytema, who openly declared his love for the large IMAX format time and time again.

In a follow up document to the Display Preparation Demo, Yedlin writes, “As artists, to put all of our faith in the illusory simplicity of bundled systems instead of understanding the analytic components that are the undeniable building blocks of the process is to give up our control and authorship.” He believes that in order to correctly transform digital data to look like like real film more research and development has to be done. Yedlin is talking about the idea of a mathematical complex and precise transformation of a cameras data that takes all the different attributes and how they interfere with each other into consideration for a correct emulation in any circumstance. Unfortunately the industry is not quite there yet but Steve Yedlin is convinced that this is possible today and hopes to inspire other filmmakers to join in on the journey of film emulation as he believes anybody can become an author, not only be a shopper.

What Makes A Look?

In Yedlins Document he divides all attributes that form or effect a picture into either spatial & temporal attributes or Intrapixel. Some attributes also live in between those, like film’s gate weave or film grain. Spatial attributes have to do with how areas within the frame do relate to one another, like for example resolution, sharpness or some more idiosyncratic aspects like film halation. Yedlin explains it as a “characteristic phenomenon in film acquisition responsible for several visual attributes, most recognizably a reddish wrapping of light at high contrast edges.”

Halation affecting the trees in “Paris Texas – HEAVY METAL“

Temporal attributes are always dependent of motion and time, such as motion blur, exposure time, frame rate and sweep speed of a rolling shutter. Intrapixel are the most complex and according to Yedlin also the perceptually most important one’s. It includes information about the contrast, density, color idiosyncrasies and so forth. He explains it as attributes that don’t arise from areas of the frame affecting one another. “Each area responds to external stimuli (or to a transformation) in the same way as each other area in the frame”.

This categorization of attributes is key for Yedlin’s approach to film emulation but not detailed enough to actually give information on all the attributes, let alone their importance they have in a scene. This is still something, that Yedlin himself points out, “We must push for more rigorous and meaningful evaluation of camera systems.”

Conclusion

Watching and reading through Steve Yedlin’s research and opinions on the topic left me both inspired and a bit frustrated. According to him, film emulation is not living up to it’s true potential in the current state, yet seeing the digital footage he emulated next to the 35mm footage showed me that when knowing the various attributes and how to manipulate them, it is at least possible to get indistinguishable results.

by Niklas Dostal -

Fake It Till You Make It: Exploring Film Emulation

Recently I have been writing about the conventions of TV Commercials. As pointed out in this blog post, most commercials get shot digitally nowadays and this is due to a good reason: Shooting on film can be quite a pain, pretty expensive and far from practical!

In this blog post I want to clarify the main differences between an analog and a digital image and further on try to simulate the celluloid film look myself.

Digital VS Analog

Shooting analog was the best option in terms of overall picture quality for quite some time until ARRI turned the professional filmmaking world on it’s head by introducing the ARRI Alexa back in 2009. Later on famous DP Roger Deakins said, “This camera has brought us to a point where digital is simply better.” In terms of practicality and workflow this was obviously no surprise but now ARRI managed to put out a digital camera that has the dynamic range and robustness of a film camera, whilst still having all the benefits of a digital camera.

As discussed in a previous blog post, some DPs like Hoyte van Hoytema still prefer shooting on film as they like certain characteristics that come with the process of shooting, developing and post processing film. I personally think this is quite a fair point to be made. I myself love the film look with all it’s technical imperfections. Watching Jonah Hill’s feature directorial debut Mid90s (2018), which was filmed on 16mm, quickly catched my attention with its reminiscent look and tone.

Mid 90s 032
Screenshot from Mid90s (2018)

Grain is Trending

Quite a few consumer cameras can already record in a whopping 8K-Resolution and even lenses get sharper and sharper. Although this is a great development, filmmakers tend to go the other way more often nowadays. Opting for a more stylized vintage image rather than a clean and pristine one. Not only films but also music videos and even commercials (e.g. Volvos “The Parents”) show this trend, with more and more works like these coming up every week.

reggie – I Don’t Wanna Feel No More

As I only found out a few weeks ago, this analog trend even found it’s way into the consumer photography market. When a friend of mine suddenly pulled out his Fujifilm camera I’ve mistaken it for an analog camera even though it was brand new. He later on told me he bought it for the internal film simulations and showed me pictures, which were actually looking very on point. This product made me feel lied to in a way, like a wolf in sheeps clothing. A digital camera but with (nearly) all the benefits of an analog one.

Using Vintage lenses on the Fuji X-T3 | Fstoppers
Source: fstoppers

The way this camera embraces it’s film simulations got me very curious. I have always loved the look and characteristics of film but due to ease of use, workflow advantages and financial reasons, shooting digital always seemed the way to go for me and many other filmmakers. Faking the film look seemed like a cheap trick that gets easily exposed which led me to stay away from doing it but after watching emulated videoclips and also reading into the topic I think I might change my mind. In the next blog post I want to break down the characteristics of the celluloid film look by reviewing examples and sharing my research.

Sources:
https://www.arri.com/en/company/about-arri/history/history

by Niklas Dostal -

The Conventions of TV Commercials

In my recent blogposts I have covered a lot of rules and techniques that established themselves over the time in the filmmaking landscape but as you could probably already guess, we only touched the tip of the iceberg. I briefly wrote about story structure, light, composition, look and even took a deep dive into the work of an award winning cinematographer in order to get a glimpse on how to create something that is not only cinematic but also valuable, emotional and simply works.

Over the years we learned and perfected the art of manipulating the audiences emotions, opinions and views through film. As this can be a quite a powerful tool, you would be right to assume that it’s not only used by artists that strive to tell compelling stories but also by states, religions, idealogies and also companies that want to sell their product. Commercial films are especially in todays world a very viable branch for filmmakers. The market is quite large and bigger commercials can actually come close to the production size and quality of triple A films, yet when watching a lot of commercials you might stumble upon a few recurring elements. In this blogpost I want to throw light on these elements and get an understanding for what conventional commercials are and how they look like.

The Story: 12 Types of Advertising

Every piece of film needs some sort of story, script or idea. Back in 1978 former creative director Donald Gunn identified 12 seperate categories of advertisments, convinced that every commercial applies to one of these types. To keep it short, here is a brief overview of the types:1

  1. Demo
  2. Show the problem
  3. Symbolise the problem
  4. Contrast with competition
  5. Exemplary story “show the actual benefit”
  6. Benefit causes story
  7. Presenter testimonial “tell it”
  8. Ongoing character & celebrities
  9. Show benefit through a symbol, analogy or exaggerated graphic
  10. Associated user imagery
  11. Unique personality property
  12. Parody or borrowed format

In the earlier days of TV Commercials we have seen a lot of demonstrations, problem showings, contrast with competition and exemplary stories. This changed when Marlboro introduced their ad campaign with the Marlboro man, as they were the first company to associate a lifestyle with a product.

How Marlboro Changed Advertising Forever by Coffee Break

Marlboro’s successful campaign quickly influenced other companies to put a message first, rather than the product they are trying to sell. Connecting the audience with a positive emotion to a brand instead of just information. This type of advertising allowed for more creative approaches and broke the seal for unconventional types of TV-Commercials.

Apple AirPods “Bounce” Ad

The Look: Equipment, Light, Color…

Television commercials usually look different than your classic Hollywood movie. This is due to many factors, for example nearly every advertisement is shot digitally and with sharp modern lenses whilst movies sometimes still get shot on film and/or with more stylized vintage lenses, as we learned in the previous blog entry about cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema. Mostly because it’s cheaper and more versatile in production and post-production.

Advertisements tend to stay on the brighter spectrum. High-key lighting, vibrant colors and strong contrast seems to be the dominant commercial look.

Walk-On’s Bistreaux & Bar Commercial

This makes sense since companies like to appear modern, open and overall friendly whilst movies usually want to further enhance the emotion and mood with lighting and color. This is the reason why most TV-Commercials look very similiar, there a simply not a lot of options to choose from in order to make something that appears friendly and modern. Yet there are also some other more subtle reasons, for example eye sight gets instinctly drawn to points that are brighter and have more contrast. This is important to stick out in an 15 minutes ad block.

To show you what exactly I’m talking about I went ahead and compared two similar office scenes using the parade color scopes:

Movie: “Her” by Spike Jonze
Commercial: “Bruffen Office TVC” by Karol Kołodziński

When looking at the image itself we can see that the movie look is more washed out and stylized with its warm and soft approach whilst the commercial keeps it more neutral, bright and with more contrast. This gets further proven by the color scopes – the movie screenshot is keeping its values rather low with less colors in the heights aswell as in the shadows. The commercial on the other side is clipping on both fronts and doesn’t has a color that is more dominant, like the reds in the movie scene. It’s using the whole color range of Rec709 which is the color space most of our TVs and phone monitors have.

Ever since Marlboro proved that a emotion can be advertised and tied to a product, companies tend to further dive into the world “cinematic advertising”. Allowing for more creative freedom, telling interesting stories that actually have meaning and putting the product or company second. This is usually the point where the line between the look of advertisements and movies gets blurred, something we tend to see more and more in todays marketing world . Commercials like these have proven to be cabable of going viral, in fact even more than informational ads.

Edeka’s Christmas Commercial from 2015 which is now sitting at around 68 million views

Breaking the Conventions

Speaking about ads that did it different – there are quite a few of those that cleverly broke those conventions I mentioned earlier and went viral or atleast created a little fanbase around them.

One commercial that sticks out as an unconventional ad is Volvo’s “The Parents”. It tells a relatable story of young parents that face the hard times in the upbringing of their kids with the car beeing the solution in the end.

Volvo’s “The Parents” Commercial

It’s well written and the cast also provides a great perfomance, yet what makes this piece so unconventional is that it’s shot on 35mm film in a 4:3 format. They also used Japanese vintage lenses to further enhance this quite unconventional retro look. On Vimeo director Niclas Larsson pointed out that he liked the 4:3 format as he and DoP Linus Sandgren thought it fitted well to the way it framed the humor and characters in the commercial. Although in this case Volvo did decide to only release a 16:9 version of the film on their media channels, despite the vision of the director.

Sources:
1) https://chloewalkermedia.wordpress.com/simons-project-2/unit-19-advertising-production/12-types-of-advertising/


by Niklas Dostal -

The “Rules” in Film

Over the last 70 years people in the industry learned what usually works and what not, doesn’t matter if its in the field of storytelling, cinematography or in the post productions sector. Most mainstream films in cinema, especially those from Hollywood, seem to have a lot in common with each other and we don’t seem to get a lot of new ideas from there. To answer why that is, is very simple – production companies love a guaranteed success! This why most of what we see in the cinema nowadays is always pretty familiar. From story structure, character developments to the way it’s filmed and edited. In this blog post I’d like to focus on the most common practices, or as some people like to call them rules, that are used in film.

Storytelling

It’s not necessary to to reinvent the wheel in order to write the story for a box-office hit. In fact it’s probably even better to stick to the rules of a three act story structure or also called a seven point story structure according to american screenwriter and author Blake Snyder. In “Save the Cat” Snyder gives clear instructions on how to write a entertaining story and even provides a so called beat-sheet. It determines what should vaguely happen at what page of the script and is pretty strict about it. All though he is also criticized for his harsh approach, it’s clear that most films follow these guidelines. He also points out that he didn’t invent those rules, they come from his observation and colleagues that he met over the years. Basically saying that those rules and guidelines for a good story where always there, he just wrote them down.

Blake Snyders Beatsheet:1
Opening Image (p.1), Theme (p.5), Set-Up (p.1-10), Catalyst (p.12), Debate (p.12-25), Act II (p.25-30), B Story (p.30), Fun & Game (p.30-55), Midpoint (p.55), Bad Guys Close In (p.55-75), All is Lost (p.75), Dark Night of the Soul (p.75-85), Act III (p.85), Finale (p.85-110), Final Image (p.110)

How to Write a Novel Using The Three-Act Structure
Three Act Story Structure2

Without context the beat-sheet is probably a bit meaningless to most people but in the right hands a very strong tool for making an exciting and entertaining story. Blake Snyder also states that there are only ten types of movies. Every movie that exists can be assigned to one of those types. A few of his types are for example “Dude with a problem”, “Superhero” or “Buddylove”.

Composition

There are many ways to composite an image, yet some compositions just work and are a great basis to begin with. There’s no official rule book on this topic but the following “rules” or suggestions are probably the most common and used ones in film and television.

  1. Rule of Thirds
    Divides the picture into a 3×3 raster that serve as a guideline on how to frame objects, people or points of interests in your frame.
  2. The 180 Degree Rule
    Depicts the radius in which you should place the camera when shooting dialogue between people.
  3. Shot Types
    There are 3 type of shots with several variations of it, the wide, medium and the close-up. They define how much of the person or object is visible in the frame.
  4. Size Equals Power
    This rule gives important information about the perception of size in the frame. If it’s important or mighty, it should be filmed in a close-up.
  5. Leading Lines
    Any objects, structures or textures can shape lines in the frame. This rule says to frame for having those lines run into our point of interest, e.g. into the actor. 3
Rule of thirds in filmmaking explained - Media Maker Academy
Rule of Thirds in Harry Potter4

Editing

Walter Murch, who is famous for his editing work with names like Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas describes in his book “In the Blink of an Eye” a good edit as one that respects “The Rule of Six”. But what exactly does he mean when he talks about “The Rule of Six”?

The “Six” he is referring to are Emotion, Story, Rythm, Eye-trace, Two-dimensional plane of screen and Three-dimensional space of action. Those are the six elements that, if respected, make an ideal cut to him. He explains that in traditional cinema, especially back in the beginnings of sound film, the common practice was to always stay true to the position of the actors in between cuts. Back then jump cuts were seen as a mistake which, as we can see in films and shows nowadays is no longer the case. For Murch the most important thing in an edit is the emotion, as the only thing the audience will remember in the end is not the editing, camerawork or the performances but what they felt when watching it. He continues with providing a percentage of importance for his six criteria that make a good edit.

  • Emotion = 51%
  • Story = 23%
  • Rythm = 10%
  • Eye-trace = 7%
  • Two-dimensional plane of screen = 5%
  • Three-dimensional space of action = 4% 5

Murch’s “Rule of Six” should help editors on what to look out for when putting a scene together and also gives a sense for prioritization. But apart from the “Rule of Six” there are also some other common techniques that go more into the detail, for example:

  • The “J-Cut / L-Cut”
    Other than the “Hard-Cut”, which cuts the audio and visuals at the same time from one clip to the next, the L or J-Cut interpolates the audio in between two clips. Often used for dialogue scenes or to make a cut more seamless.
L-Cut and J-Cut shown in a Timeline6
  • The “Third Person at the Table Technique”
    This technique is a powerful tool to get a sense for when to cut between people having a dialogue. I learned this trick in school while working on a documentary but haven’t found a name for it on the internet so I came up with this one. The “Third Person at the Table” is referring to the audience that is in the position of the camera – when would the audience look where in the scene? Naturally people don’t always look at the person speaking, sometimes they get a reaction or other times they stay on someone a bit longer before switching to the one speaking. Nothing happens immediately! To follow this technique the editor has to imagine to actually be in the room and cut between shots like if he was looking around. I recently also found this video from CineD going into futher detail on this technique.
  • The “One Frame Trick”
    Another useful technique I learned in my bachelor years is the “One Frame Trick”. It states, that when cutting to a beat, music or SFX, the visuals should always come (at least) one frame earlier than the audio. It seems to most people that it just matches better than cutting on beat.7
  • Cutting Patterns
    Some patterns of switching between shot types (wide, medium, close-up) established to work better than others. The website “cuvideoedit” gives a breakdown on the most common cutting patterns:

    Conventional
    wide > medium > close-up (working closer towards the action)

    Reveal
    close up > medium or wide (slowly revealing more information)

    Matching Action
    cutting on movement for dynamic and seamless edits.8


Conclusion

I strongly believe that everything in this blog post is very fundamental and important knowledge for everyone working in the field of film creation. Although it’s a discussion worthy topic whether you you want to call them rules or not- I’d rather call them differently but calling them “techniques that have already proven to work reliable” is quite a long way to phrase it. The more interesting question is, if you rather want to stick to those conventions or not and even the professionals in the field don’t have an agreement on this.

For example, let’s go back to the Snyder and Murch. Blake Snyder is convinced about his strict approach in order to get a working story. He is sticking to what has already been done before him and deviations from his instructions are conceived as mistakes to him (which he clearly points out in his book). Walter Murch on the other side is a lot more vague when giving instructions. He is strongly referring to the emotional aspect of editing a film which is very hard to define and break down. He is also very much deviating from the traditional way of editing a film, which (if you remember) was very strict about the position of the characters in space and traditional cutting patterns. Before the french new wave happened, most of the rules in this blog-post were established and back then they were without a doubt rules, no quotation marks needed.

Sources:

1) Snyder, Blake: Rette die Katze! Das ultimative Buch übers Drehbuchschreiben, 2. Auflage, Autorenhaus Verlag, Berlin 2015

2) https://blog.reedsy.com/three-act-structure

3) https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/rules-of-shot-composition-in-film/
https://www.diyphotography.net/five-composition-rules-filmmaking-break/
https://motionarray.com/learn/filmmaking/shot-composition-framing-rules/

4) https://mediamakeracademy.com/rule-of-thirds-in-film/

5) Murch, Walter: In the Blink of an Eye – A perspective on film editing, 2nd Edition, Page 17 – 18

6) https://www.techsmith.com/blog/how-to-edit-videos-l-cuts-and-j-cuts/

7) https://youtu.be/7E_mi_xNYOk

8) http://www.cuvideoedit.com/rules-of-editing.php

by Niklas Dostal -

The Cinematography of Hoyte van Hoytema

A name that is really popping up in Hollywoods film landscape in the last few years is Hoyte van Hoytema. Hoyte is a dutch-swedish cinematographer who started his career in Hollywood with “The Fighter” (2010) after already having success in Europe, especially in Sweden.

With his following work for acclaimed directors like on Spike Jonze’s “Her” (2013) or Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar” (2014), Hoyte managed to make himself a name in the filmmaking world. That lead him to further work on blockbusters like “James Bond: Spectre” (2015), “Interstellar” (2017), “Ad Astra” (2019) and “Tenet” (2020). A portfolio that can easily speak for itself but what exactly makes Hoyte’s style and approach so appealing to the audience and also to the directors and producers that hire him for those large cinematic movies?

To me it really proofs the saying, you know – the best prep is a good knowledge of each other.

Hoyte on working with Christopher Nolan 1
Behind The Scenes of “Dunkirk”

In Depth Cine describes his style as “enhanced naturalism”2 which seems very fitting in my opinion. After watching most of his recent films, doesn’t matter if it’s his indies oder blockbusters, it stands out the Hoyte likes shooting handheld, up close and also on film – giving most of his shots more texture and life. Therefore not all of his shots are as polished, clean and precise as other blockbusters solve their cinematography, instead his work is a bit more characteristic and vivid.

When it comes to intimacy, he works with traditional camera movements that are familiar to the audience and draw them closer. The goal here is immersion; drawing the eye and viewer into the story.

Jason Hellerman speaking about Hoyte on “No Films School”3

Even though Hoyte worked on a wide variety of cameras and lenses on various films he declares his love for the large format IMAX camera as well as the Zeiss Super Speed 35mm F1.3 on the Team Deakins Podcast. The image quality of the IMAX camera is truly amazing and unique, he says and the Zeiss lenses let him get very shallow and up close. Yet they still have to do a lot of engineering, especially with the IMAX. He even states that most of his job is old school hands on filmmaking.

Especially with the IMAX camera they had to find new ways of rigging and mounting this camera, especially for his handheld shots or for the plane scenes on Dunkirk, where they actually mounted a IMAX camera to a supermarine spitfire aircraft. Even though preparing those shots is a lot of work and require much preparation it’s worth it to him. He admits that working like that is very restrictive but continues to say that they often came up with new ideas they wouldn’t have had otherwise. Hoyte states that everybody can mount a GoPro to an airplane nowadays but doing that with the huge IMAX camera is something that has not been done before and is a little bit more that what everybody is used to see1.

Screenshot from “Dunkirk”

I personally think that this approach is quite unique and interesting and makes Hoyte to at least somewhat of a pioneer in his field. Pushing experiences that are truly meant for the big screen show his love and ambition for filmmaking which surely contributes to his success.

Something else Hoyte is very keen of is doing things in camera as opposed to doing it in post. For most of his films, especially those in space, they used special camera setups and contraptions to get most of it in camera. When asked what his favorite tool for filming zero gravity is, he said the applebox. He continues saying that as long as you have a wide of the scene first, the applebox perfectly sells the trick. 1

Spike Jonze’s “Her” is beloved for its warm colors, nice set design and beautiful intimate cinematography. On quite a few shots Hoyte plays around with sunflares, really adding to the mood of the film. Usually only using a tiny mirror on a stick to bounce sunlight into the lens. Simplicity at its finest and when possible the go to option for Hoyte.

Behind The Scenes of “Her”

There’s definitely a lot to learn from Hoyte’s work and his approach. He might not be reinventing the wheel but rather adding to it, not shying away from unconventional solutions to get the wanted look and always ready to try out something new. That said I want to end this blogpost with a quote from him while shooting “Her” back in 2012:

You can make a film 150 ways. You can make it with your heart, you can make it with your brain, you can make it with your penis and you can make it with your belly.

Hoyte van Hoytema (7. April 2012)4

Sources:

1: Yossy Mendelovich (13. September 2020)
https://ymcinema.com/2020/09/13/team-deakins-interviews-cinematographer-hoyte-van-hoytema/

2: In Depth Cine “Cinematography Style: Hoyte Van Hoytema” (28. Mai 2020)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxHtZG8okPo&ab_channel=InDepthCine

3: Jason Hellerman (22. Juni 2020)
https://nofilmschool.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_wide/public/lr-hoyte.jpg?itok=hGSwLltS

4: Annapurna Pictures “HER | The Untitled Rick Howard Project”
shttps://youtu.be/PgHtX5_CRPY

by Niklas Dostal -

Bildgestaltung: Welche Möglichkeiten gibt es?

Wie ein Bild in der Welt des Films oder der Fotografie letztendlich aussieht wird von einigen Faktoren beeinflusst. In erster Linie zähle ich Licht, Komposition, Wahl des Objektivs & Filter sowie der Kamera dazu. Wobei ich auch deren Priorität in der gleichen Reihenfolge nennen würde und mir zudem durchaus bewusst bin, dass Kamera & Equipment nicht zwingend der Bildgestaltung zuzuordnen sind. Meiner persönlichen Interpretation nach ordne ich aber mal alle Elemente die ein Bild letztlich gestalten dazu (und dazu gehören nicht nur die klassischen Gestaltungsregeln sondern auch das Werkzeug mit dem aufgenommen wird).

Licht

Dass Licht bzw. die Abwesenheit davon eine ungeheuer wichtige Rolle in der Gestaltung eines Bildes spielt würde wohl niemand verneinen, schließlich gäbe es ohne Licht kein Bild. Licht lenkt unsere Augen, zeigt oder versteckt Informationen, beeinflusst die Stimmung bzw. setzt den Ton und ist mit ausschlaggebend darüber ob wir etwas als schön oder nicht schön empfinden. Nicht nur trägt die Manipulation von Licht seit den Anfängen der Fotografie und des Films zu einem der bedeutendsten Bestandteile schöner Kompositionen bei, sondern ist zudem eine Sache, die in ihren Grundsätzen zwar schnell gelernt aber ungeheuer schwer zu meistern ist. In der Regel wird von hartem Licht, weichem Licht, direktem und reflektiertem Licht gesprochen. Zudem gibt es kaltes, warmes und eingefärbtes Licht sowie es natürlich auch Schatten gibt. All diese Varianten von Belichtung sind essentielle Werkzeuge um ein Bild zu gestalten. Instinktiv sieht der Mensch helle Stellen auch als erstes an – dieses Wissen ist besonders wichtig um Blicke gezielt lenken zu können.

Komposition

Wenn von der Bildkomposition gesprochen wird, wird meistens von der Zusammensetzung beziehungsweise der Position der Elemente im Bild sowie von der Position und dem Winkel der Kamera gesprochen. Auch die Komposition hat Einfluss auf die Stimmung, Blickführung und Ästhetik des Bildes. Die Gestaltgesetze der Wahrnehmung, Farbenlehre sowie Linien und Flächen spielen hierbei ein große Rolle. Als Hilfen für ein balanciertes Bild wird oft von der Drittel-Regel oder dem goldenen Schnitt geredet. Auch Linien (wie beispielsweise eine Zaun) können genutzt werden um Blicke zu führen und spannende Kompositionen zu entwickeln.

Objektive

Obwohl in der Bildgestaltung, zumindest in meinen kurzen Recherchen, selten von Kamera & Equipment die Rede ist, so finde ich tragen sie einen großen Teil zum finalen Look des Bildes bei. Vor allem das Objektiv beeinflusst nicht nur den Bildausschnitt sondern auch wie wir ein Bild wahrnehmen. Während ein sehr weitwinkliges Bild beispielsweise wirkt als wäre es aus der Sicht einer Fliege, kann ein sehr schmallwinkliges Bild das Gefühl des Beobachtetwerdens auslösen. Obwohl die Brennweite sicherlich das stärkste Unterscheidungsmerkmal zwischen Objektiven ist, so ist auch die gewählte Blendenstufe sowie die exakte Art des Objektivs entscheidend darüber, wie ein Bild verstanden wird. Stark vereinfacht ausgedrückt gilt zwischen alten Objektiven, neuen Objektiven und stilisierten Objektiven zu unterscheiden. Alle weisen unterschiedliche Eigenschaften auf und wirken sich letztendlich auf das finale Bild aus. Zudem gibt es verschiedenste Filter für unterschiedlichste Effekte und Anwendungsbereiche die das Licht, das letztlich auf dem Sensor eintrifft, stark manipulieren kann. In den Objektiven entsteht auch ebenfalls die Schärfe beziehungsweise Unschärfe eines Bildes. Die Blendenstufe beeinflusst zudem den Schärfenbereich einer Linse. Ein kleiner Schärfebereich führt zu einer starken Trennung zwischen Vordergrund und Hintergrund und wird gerne zur Bildgestaltung eingesetzt.

Kamera

Hier gilt in erster Linie zu unterscheiden zwischen Analog und Digital. Beide Arten der Aufnahme haben ihre Charakteristika (in der Analogwelt besonders auch der gewählte Film natürlich) und beide sind auch anfällig für Manipulation. So kann man eine Rolle Film auch absichtlich falsch behandeln oder spezielle chemische Prozesse unterziehen um einen stilisiertes ungewöhnliches Bild zu erhalten. Ein anderes beliebtes Mittel zur Stilisierung ist das Fotografieren oder Filmen im Infrarotlicht Bereich. Hierbei wird das sichtbar gemacht, das ansonsten für das menschliche Auge unsichtbar bleibt. Auch wenn die Wahl der Kamera letztendlich am letzten Platz meiner Prioritätenliste steht, so würde ich trotzdem versuchen diese Wahl mit Bedacht zu treffen da sie immer noch einen beachtlichen Einfluss auf die Gestalt des finalen Bildes nehmen kann.

Manipulation in der Postproduktion

Fast hätte ich diesen Punkt nicht in meine Liste mit aufgenommen aber wenn man mich fragt welche Möglichkeiten ich zur Bildgestaltung kenne, wäre es etwas verlogen die digitale Manipulation in der Nachbearbeitung zu verschweigen- sie bietet nunmal exakt das, nämlich die Möglichkeit zur Bildgestaltung, nur eben im nachhinein. Dazugehörige Software im Film- sowie im Fotobereich wird zudem immer einfacher, klüger und besser. Störelemente lassen sich in wenigen Mausklicks entfernen, Hintergründe innerhalb von Minuten austauschen und “Fehler” jeder Art, sei es kompositions bedingt oder technischer Natur, in kürzester Zeit beheben oder zumindest minimieren.

Der Emotion in der Geschichte dienen

Ja, jetzt werde ich gerade völlig verrückt in meinem Verständnis über Bildgestaltung aber was solls. Zu den “Möglichkeiten der Bildgestaltung” würde ich sogar die Möglichkeit zählen, alle vorher genannten Elemente nur so  zu benutzen, dass sie einzig und allein der Geschichte und den damit verbundenen Emotionen dienen. Nichts anderes tun die Profis und trotzdem ist es nicht selbstverständlich heutzutage. Oft ist man geblendet von irgendwelchen tollen kreativen Ideen oder Effekte die man woanders gesehen hat, ich spreche aus Erfahrung aber bin mir sicher, dass es euch in professionelleren Bereichen solche Fälle gibt (“Regisseure und ihre Vision” usw.). Bis jetzt hat es sich allerdings immer für mich gelohnt wenn ich noch einmal einen Schritt zurückging und erneut überlegte, wie eine Geschichte, Aussage oder Emotion im Kontext des Konzepts am besten dargestellt werden könnte. Walter Murch, welcher bekannt für seine Schnittarbeit mit Francis Ford Coppola und George Lucas wurde, beschreibt eine Sache in seinem Buch “In the Blink of an Eye” nämlich besonders gut und diese wäre:

What they finally remember is not the editing, not the camerawork, not the performances, not even the Story – it’s how they felt.