A case for the fuller frame?

Now, this is another cheat sort of post thing, and not along with the main premise of the blog, but it hit me, and I got it down here because otherwise I'd forget, because that's what happens to people that don't carry around notebooks with them at all times. I might get a notebook.

The next post will be about what this was actually set up for and not just a random one of these. Promise.

Anyway, this hit me while I was watching Birdman, which I may or may not have raved about ever so slightly last time I put something up here, but it was on screen and it just looked so good for some reason. Then it just dawned on me, it was 16:9.

Now, I'm not going to assume everyone knows what I'm on about when I say 16:9 and 2.35:1, but then I know that a pretty much everyone actually will, so here's literally the briefest explanation I can muster:

It's the aspect ratio of what you're watching. Pixel Width : Pixel Height. It doesn't matter about resolution of the image at all, could be any size at all, but what you're watching will usually appear in one of those two aspect ratios. The differences shown below:

16:9 - Shelter from the Storm Commercial (2014)

2.35:1 - Chalk (2014)

Now both of these stills are from tracking shots which I gripped, both are tracking backwards, and both have the intention of revealing the surroundings. It seems both have the same colour walls, I'd never noticed that before...

So, these two reveals, I remember what was outside the frames, and the massive time pressure associated with getting the chalk shot done, and the relatively easy time we had with Shelter. This is in comparison, both shots were tricky to get to their final form in their own rights.

So looking at those two as examples, I kinda feel like I like the 16:9 frame better? It's just a lot more... Full? Despite the fact that the still is closer to the subjects, and you are physically seeing a lot less of the space, the frame feels a lot fuller content wise. And I don't mean this in the way that the room seems emptier, here's another comparison for you.

16:9 - Under the Skin (2014)

2.35:1 - V for Vendetta (2005)

Now here's pretty much the exact opposite scenario, both of these stills contain just over half of the subject, and the 2.35:1 shot has a lot lot more to look at within the fame. Under the Skin arguably is the less interesting shot in terms of content, but, does anyone else feel a little short changed with V for Vendetta? The height and content of the still from Under the Skin feels a tad more gratifying to me, with a far nicer about of content, and I'll crop it down myself, leave in as much of the content and leave it below to see if you can see what I'm rambling on about.

Here's the exact same shot, but cropped down to the 2.35 aspect ratio

Now are you able to to almost understand what I'm explaining terribly? You may only be missing a little bit off the bottom of the steering wheel and the jacket, along with a touch off the top of the head and part of the van window frame, nothing special. Especially in a space quite this confined, I can really see why they went for the frame size at which they shot, it feels inclusive, intimate, and gives a far nicer representation of the space. I'd love to see more of the arches at the top of frame, and the make up of the table in that V for Vendetta still. I just feel like there's something I'm missing out of in that room, and I'm well aware that it may be because I've seen the film a number of times and my eyes are a-wandering to take a bit more in.

Below I'm going to shove in a still from Transcendence, which, when I watched it I thought it was alright, but could've been a lot grander in terms of scale. Some of the sets were lovely, some of the set pieces were rather impressive in ideas, but personally, I'd have liked to see it 'play out a bit taller'.

2.35:1 - Transcendence (2014)

Now I'd want more sky, more ground, and to feel like that event is immersing me. I know that in a cinema that's exactly what happens, but in a world where people can watch these things either on a screen a few stories tall, or small enough to fit in your pocket, the thinking may have to change slightly.

(It wont, I'm typing this out from an armchair in my room with very little in the way of readership (viewership?) and no platform for this to make an actual argument)

That shot from transcendence, along with other shots from the big white laboratory that's featured fairly heavily in the latter half of the film could do with being shown off a bit more, but without losing the kind of shot intimacy, if you get my meaning. The distance from any character (if they appear in the scene) is deliberated over hugely both in the planning stage, and during the editing process (god is it debated during the editing process sometimes), but you shouldn't have to compromise by moving nearer to them or further away, why not just expand the frame up & down?

16:9 - Pacific Rim (2013)

16:9 - Birdman (2015)

Couple more examples of the fuller frame, one, Pacific Rim; a bit of a blockbuster about huge robots hitting huge aliens, and the other, Birdman; a multi award winning story following an actor coming to terms with life after superstardom. Not entirely sure how they could be linked in any way whatsoever, but aesthetically, pack the screen with colour, and there's very little setting them apart from those specific moments. Pacific Rim relies heavily on CGI yes, but in essence we capture as much of the vibrancy and energy of their depiction of Hong Kong, whilst still being fairly into the action at street level. Technically I could probably praise Birdman forever, and that is not exaggerating. With that fuller frame they decide to give more to the viewer in every scene and every sequence. There are very few cuts, and the camera pulls in and out to not reveal immaculately dressed and lit sets, but spaces. The frame gives you the sense that if the camera were to suddenly tilt up, you'd still be captivated by what you see on the ceiling. You feel in the room with Batman Michael Keaton, and when you leave the room you feel in the building, and when you leave the building you're right by him on the street. Obviously there's no accounting for how I would have felt had they chosen for whatever reason to shoot 2.35:1, but I'm sure glad they didn't.

Now there's one argument that crops up a lot of the time which is something along the lines of:

"But 16:9 looks very TV"

Is there anything wrong with that? And what if films shoot in that format more commonly, will that kind of judgment continue to be made? I mean if both film and TV shoot in the same aspect ratio, what will look like what? Again, with the budgets of shows like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones hanging about these days, what would be wrong with drawing style comparisons from those? As a young film maker I'm sure that kind of comparison would be seen as a huge compliment!

16:9 - The Walking Dead, Season 1 (2010)

16:9 - Game of Thrones, Season 3 (2014)

Now here's an opportunity for everyone who knows me to go "urgh, here we go again..." and shake their heads or whatever they do when I strike up about Batman, but Batman.

16:9 - The Dark Knight (2008)

16:9 - The Dark Knight (2008)

16:9 - The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

16:9 - The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

So call me whatever you want, but I'm a huge fan of the way Christopher Nolan goes about his business, and the end products. Now these stills are BluRay copies of these two films, in which all the 16:9 sequences have been cropped down from their original IMAX film aspect ratios. This is 1.43:1, or in a closer comparison to what I've been blabbering on about so far, roughly 14:10, so closer still to a square frame. For me, the set pieces done like this (as displayed from the Dark Knight) are even more stunning than usual, and coupled with the IMAX cinema screens, completely and utterly engrossing. The interesting part is that after the overall success of this film, Nolan decided to employ the format in closer, dialogue heavy, action set-piece lighter scenes, and I don't think it detracts from them at all. And I see the format jumping from scene to scene as personal preference, personally I didn't really notice it that much and it didn't affect me, but then I was with one or two individuals who found it rather jarring. So each to their own on that front I guess. But either way, I reckon it's quite brave to move from 2.35:1 to full frame.

And just one more thing before I go.

2.35:1 - Batman Begins (2005)

During the screening of The Dark Knight Rises they had flashbacks to this scene from Batman Begins, which didn't employ any IMAX cameras at all, and was shot at the same aspect ratio all the way through. Seeing it on the biggest of the big screens though, I couldn't help but think, what would it be like with that little bit more?

So there you have it, a little bit about my own personal preferences with framings, and a load of rambling on clearly outlining why I'm not a cinematographer...

Oh, and a full post on aspect ratio without once mentioning The Grand Budapest Hotel, not bad eh?

No, wait, there it is.... 4:3, why not?

Edit: I've been informed that Birdman was shot at 1.85:1 instead of 16:9, same principles still apply, just my eyesight that's dodgy.

A Prologue to Birdman.

So here's a very little segment to tide you over until I next bother to enter anything bulky.

Technically it's not in the boundaries of the rules because it's not directly referencing a clip from a film, but then again, the clip that I am about to make reference to is less than a minute long, and to read the other article wouldn't take up the remaining 2 minutes, so I say it counts, it's an info piece. 

Or something.

I'm going to call this 'A Prologue to Birdman', as it's still available for viewing in cinemas (Go. Seriously.), and then I'll come back to it after having a bit of time off to think about what I most enjoy about the film and which section I'll choose.

Ah who am I kidding. It'll be THAT camera move, watch this space.

Anyway, THIS is going to be more of a post to just get you to watch out for the style the film follows, and the amount of admiration I have for the people pulling it off, both in front and behind the camera. It's a properly ballsy, but oh so beautiful way to shoot a film, with the long sweeping takes that remove the needs for multiple cuts as everything is covered in a motion, and you feel like the narrative is being conveyed as well as any other film, but without the need for much in the way of selective editing. If this catches on then part of what my friends and I do for people will be redundant, please don't catch on.

So the reasons for giving it a huge pat on the back, the planning, narrative wise with the blocking of scenes to convey the story, along with technically pulling off such a feat from the point of view of the camera being in the right spot, and everything being lit correctly and balanced for no need to change camera settings (I'd assume anyway, not sure if you could or would auto rig the camera so someone on a monitor could change settings in motion?).

So yeah, go watch Birdman while you still have the chance, and after reading about this you wont end up doing what I did and spend the first 10 minutes of the film wondering how the bloody hell they managed to pull it off so well. 

Here's that article I mentioned. Have a read, have a watch, enjoy it and go provide some much needed capital to people providing quality products to the global film industry!

Yes these posts need more pictures. I'll sort it out.

Dexter. 1 minute 46 Seconds.

Yeah I started with TV. Bloody rebel. 

As someone who watches a lot of TV (it's impossible to clearly communicate how much, but a lot really doesn't do it justice) I often get asked by people the very same question. And I mean that, the wording rarely varies from:

"So I've just finished all of Breaking Bad, what do I go for next???"

In a time where Game of Thrones is probably the biggest thing in people's lives, let alone in their viewing schedule, I usually answer with the same response.

"Have you ever watched Dexter?"

It's often met by a no, and this surprises me, as it is a show which has earned a large following both on it's home Showtime network over in the US, and over here in the UK, wherever it was aired. I think it was a late night slot on ITV a few years back? Anyway, with the rise of readily available box sets and every other person having a Netflix account, I thought it'd be a widely known about and heavily consumed show, but apparently not. I've often had to describe the premise to people too (incredibly easy: Miami forensic analyst who also enjoys a bit of dismemberment in his spare time, often investigates his own crimes).

As someone with a very questionable attention span with new things at times (I had to force myself through series 1 of Breaking Bad for example) the opening title sequence usually need to grab me. And Dexter did that. It did that extremely well, and year on year I continued to enjoy it.

Oh go on then, have a watch.

 

See, this to me is pure, full on, attention to detail, edity, soundy, TV goodness. And in a way epitomises everything I enjoy about the show.

I'm not sure which way to do this now, if I should ask you to watch that video over and over about 5 more times, or explain away about what exactly gets me so worked up and excited. So I reckon I'll explain that conundrum, and allow you to make your own mind up.

With me again? Good. Can you understand why I'm raving about a title sequence yet? Well if not, here come the answers. Hang on, I've already given the answer away. Two paragraphs up, you can't miss it. Attention to detail.

Each and every shot choice and visual cue is geared towards that (rather excellent) theme (thank you Rolfe Kent). Until you notice it once it's easily missed, and once noticed, I reckon it's forever admired.

26 Seconds in - the slow rub up the face, followed by the slow razor down the face, both in time with musical phrases, both the same length of time.

33 Seconds in - the drop of blood followed by the camera punch ins, in time with the music.

37 Seconds in - Notice that symbol crash? Notice that swell of blood? Perfectly in sync with each other.

42 Seconds in - See all that bacony goodness all close up, slices and cuts in time.

47 Seconds in - Don't tell me that bacon in the pan action is on the off beat? Oh stop it.

Now I could bore you like this for ages, going through each and every one of these points individually with proper timecode and a video that showed off numerical values to the frame, but I think I'd rather leave you with the option to go back and watch the entire thing again with a new view of it. And turn the volume up and enjoy it! (Hint: watch out for the spray from the fruit about 1.08 in, very possibly my favourite moment out of everything).

Now for the kind of argument bit I guess, which is essentially this, if that's the thought and care that the creators will put into less than 2 minutes of a title sequence, just imagine what's to come in the next hour. This 1 minute 46 seconds (I subtracted a few seconds from that youtube link) shows off both the skills and the story telling ability of the creators. 

There is blood everywhere. From mosquito slap to shaving to ketchup it outlines the obsession we're dealing with, all in a way that teases the main character, and shows off both sides of the personality we have before us. Obvious insanity wrapped up within a normal life. Oh and it gives you a payoff with seeing the guy at the end, breaking the 4th wall and smiling at you and everything. Top bloke eh?

The sound design for this little intro scene is rather lovely, incredibly clean, fitting the images, and matching the intimacy of the way it's been shot. Everything is accentuated to cut through the music, well, play along with the music, and provide people with a diegetic theme to match. This for me is why the edity, shot choicey achievements are nowhere near as appreciated as that recent, in-your-face, look at me, please god don't let the TV sound be out of sync Marks & Spencers advert. Is that a thing in the US? I mean I highly doubt there's any US viewership, but might as well check either way. 

Well in case they dont have it, or someone reading is without a TV or can't remember, here it is!



Yeah I know, decent effort, but lacks 8 years of serial killer based entertainment drama at the end of it if you ask me. You didn't? Ah well you got an opinion anyway. But it's nice to imagine that the minds behind this particular ad campaign got the idea while watching Dexter take a drill to a drug dealer or something. Family friendly ideas yaaay! 

I've completely lost track of where I was, and may just finish up here, but I hope that the main part of what I set out to achieve has been reached. Watch these things closely, and try and appreciate more of what people are trying to put out for you to enjoy en mass. Put the smartphone down, and properly watch what you're watching. Unless you're on a train or something, watching on a smartphone, in which case invest in a decent set of headphones and replace the earbuds you got with it. You can thank me later.

What do you mean that was never part of the original premise of the blog? Well it's in my head and I'm adding it now. Go now and forever enjoy these things to the max. I like this making up rules thing.

Oh, and watch Dexter. It's all over now, and people complain about certain aspects of the show, but everything is flawed, run with it. I hope that the 1.46 that I presented and based everything on appears as frequently in your life as it has mine.

No idea what's up next, can't teaser. Damn. Have the Blood Theme instead. Often plays as the credits roll. Enjoy!

A Welcome.

So it seems this is happening.

You better get used to the formatting.

I better introduce myself, as this is the world wide web you may be stumbling on this by accident and will not otherwise know me. My name is Jack, I'm a recent graduate of an arts course in London which has brought me into the realms of film making. My own area of 'expertise', if you wish to put it that way, is post production sound design and audio mixing. This is the part of the films that people watch which, when done well, can be incredibly unnoticeable, and when done badly, can stick out like a sore thumb, but I for one am not bitter about this fact in the slightest. Ha....

Another thing that it may be important to know is that I am no writer, never claimed to be, and probably never will. So the majority of these posts (should this little experiment take off) may appear incredibly shoddily written, and that'll be because they are incredibly shoddily written. Sorry about that. It tends to get written (typed?) down (out?) as I think it up, and rarely gets a second pass, and that's just the way it seems to be. Hey, it worked for an extremely average dissertation, who am I to argue with a moderately successful formula?

Right, all apologies over, a bit more explaining needed.

So the reasoning behind this essentially boils down to time, opinions, and a little persuasion. Along with this there is a kind of desire for people to see things in things the way I do because, lets face facts here, film is a wonderful wonderful medium. I wont quote any major film theory here (or probably anywhere else) because I probably can't remember it correctly and can't really be bothered to look it up right now, but film is *says something incredibly profound*, and that is incredibly difficult to argue with. 
It's also a very different experience watching a film when you've worked on creating some, as opposed to just being a viewer, so if I can help spoil them for you too, then all the better.

;)

Seriously though, you start to pick up on various things that you didn't realise before working on films, and I could bore you to high hell about some of the things soundies pick up on. Take my current viewing of Jaws for example, you can pick up on when there's waves, the moments they don't bother and understand why, the differences in vocal quality in the different boat spaces and out on deck. I can hear the ALL sound cuts out in favour of music, what diegetic (in the space) effects they choose to include and what not to include, the sound of the ice cracking in my glass of water on the desk, the poster in the corner of my room slowly detaching itself from the blutac, the cat behind me running his tongue through his fur... Oh you get the bloody picture, it's a curse.

FYI, I've chosen to zone out of everything outside of the window, just because. 

So these sorts of things will hopefully be fully applicable to everything I put on here, but I'll also delve into colours, editing style, shot choice, etc. because of a professional appreciation and amateur enthusiasm. Give me a camera or lighting setup with any real pressure attached and it wont end well, but I enjoy the techniques all the same. And after all, film is a full on collaboration of all these technical aspects, so why the hell not include them? 

Exactly. Alright, enough rambling, especially if you know and appreciate all this stuff already, losing viewers (readers?) without even a proper evaluation of anything, impressive right? I think I may start off with TV too, because I've not mentioned TV once yet, and I bloody love it.

Enjoy your reading.