Cinematography

What does it really mean, and does it apply to animated movies?

yeah it would if Anno didn't just put it in cause it looked cool.

Martyrs of Mankinds Destruction

>does it apply to animated movies?
Of course it does
It's the end effect that matters, not the means

This. Only pseuds try to diss animation in a weak attempt to come off as "sophisticated"

Adults like their made up stories with real peoples in it anons

^ nice bait

Adults also appreciate the endless possibilities of animation. I just wish the west would realize that and stop thinking in terms of "It's either kiddie shit or super edgy family guy tier 'humor'"

Cinematography doesn't have a set definition, but you can put it down to telling a narrative visually through a motion picture, so yes it applies.

Quality cinematography isn't just pretty pictures but actually telling the story using visual narrative through framing and composition and the performances, the visual narrative is the most important aspect.
So the context is important, you can't judge it by a screenshot alone.

There is technically bad cinematography, like too strong obvious night scene lighting or breaking the 180 rule for no reason.
And there is bad cinematography because of the lack of actual substance, empty pretty pictures which only fill the form without actually using framing and composition to propell the visual narrative.
And I think the second one is a bigger problem in today's industry because everyone can learn basic photography and produce balanced well framed pictures, but it takes talent/vision to be able to actually tell the story through the visuals.

End of blog post

>cinematograph
>late 19th century: from French cinématographe, from Greek kinēma, kinēmat- ‘movement’, from kinein ‘to move’.

Is that 24fps animation I'm seeing at times?

Ghibli uses 8,12 or 24 depending on the shot

>lack of actual substance
I think it's pretty silly to make the claim that beauty in itself offers no substance or that it makes for bad cinematography.
It's a visual medium, holding looking appealing against it is juvenile.
Not that it means you can't also use it to express other things.

...

Is this a bot thread?

this is meh

>I think it's pretty silly to make the claim that beauty in itself offers no substance
If the "beautiful" visuals are not supporting and/or propelling the visual narrative of the film and are just "beautiful" to be pretty then yes, it offers no substance.
Mind you I'm not talking about the usual meaningless "all style no substance" buzzword term of substance here, I'm talking the lack of substance in the visuals themselves where they are just pretty or "epic" for the sake of being pretty or epic, even though the narrative doesn't call for it at all.

An unnecessary contrived long take just for the sake of having a long take, filming scenes in the golden hour just so they are pretty and dreamlike even though it makes no sense in terms of the story, just arranging the framing and composition in such a way that it looks balanced and pretty when maybe the narrative calls for an uncomfortable sense of framing and lighting.
I'm not saying you can't film a simple dialogue scene to make it look good, but it all has to support the narrative and tell it visually, not for the visuals to be a completely unrelated thing to everything else that the film is trying to say.

that's thematic disharmony and not a point against movie looking good to be visually appealing

That's substanceless visuals, empty pretty pictures that aren't trying to say anything but how they are "pretty"

>looked cool

that's the point of cinematography you m0ng

and to OP, yes, it applies, even in childrens cartoons

hardly, you described it yourself as
> filming scenes in the golden hour just so they are pretty and dreamlike even though it makes no sense in terms of the story,
>no sense
> not for the visuals to be a completely unrelated thing to everything else that the film is trying to say.
>completely unrelated
which is more about the two clashing, not the visual side just looking good being a bad thing

One could argue Wes Andersons films have 'substansless visuals' and that's his style but lot of times I feel like it works despite not directly supporting the narrative, it just makes some scenes more pleasant to view

yes

>One could argue Wes Andersons films have 'substansless visuals'
I wouldn't because the quirky framing and lighting falls in line with the quirky narrative of most of his films, maybe the symmetric composition get's a bit overused but the majority fits with what he's doing, just like the way Kubrick utilizes symmetric framing and composition in a different way that aids to the slightly uncomfortable "too perfect" feeling of the majority of his films

Except it works much better for Anderson

I know that animated films used to have DPs back then in the cell days, but I'm not sure if it's still the case. Probably not.

This. Who is the best cinematographer working in videogames right now?

Watchmen the graphic novel has cinematography, for lack of a better word. They literally have camera movements throughout the book

Yeah, there are comics with great cinematography.

any movie about bots?

Don't act like the east doesn't use it almost primarily to push done-to-death tropes and degenerate tripe.

Yes

...

...

Are these bot posts ?