Video

The Batman may have some good visuals, but the film was boring, underwhelming, and dark (tonally & literally). Zoe Kravitz is drop dead gorgeous, but that couldn't carry or save the film.

Nobody can even agree on what "cinematic" means. Its not even about quality. Weave, grain and all other imperfections are actually the opposite of quality. Super 16mm is cinematic as is super 8mm film. There are studies and tests that put the resolution of s35mm film at about 3,600 pixels wide. That's for a good film stock. Some can look worse and by the time we see a reprint copy in a theater its likely even worse. We have had 4k cameras for many years now and many are pushing past that up to 8k. Ironically some Hollywood films are shot on 65mm film to have very fine to no grain and really fine detail. Just like a digital sensor would have... Then there is grading. An art field that 100% ignores the tastes of those that consume the medium. Its one of the most arrogant art fields in history. Colorists just make up what they assume people want to see. They never seek input or feedback. They just grade it and tell everyone to suck it up and accept it. That's fine in fine art but is cinema really fine art? Its not. Its commercial art meant to make money off widespread acceptance. Its an art form that is purely commercial but being treated like its fine art by an elite select few. We have actually reached the point now where digital has way surpassed what film can do. A FF 8k Canon R5 resolves as much detail and acutance as 65mm film does and likely has less noise if shot well. Converting digital to film emulation now involves dumbing down the quality and adding imperfections and flaws. The term is misused because its a sexy term. Cinematic sounds hip and trendy vs saying high production value. Thing is a really well 4k produced talk show with good lighting can also have high production value. It will look the complete opposite to cinematic, whatever the heck that even means, but its still high production value. Video was always supposed to be about reality. I guess because my background was more from a broadcast perspective I always valued realism vs fantasy. I love and appreciate both but I know there is a time and place for both.

Here's a Top TEN to Study in chronological order - eight of them are Criterion Collection titles: - VAMPYR (1932) - THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS (1966) - MARKETA LAZAROVA (1967) - THE DEVILS (1971) - THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH (1976) - BRAZIL (1985) - RAN (1985) - BLUE VELVET (1986) - THE THIN RED LINE (1998) - CLOUD ATLAS (2012)

You should find something else to do with your time. These are definitely not the five movies any filmmaker should have watched. Dear god dude. There are no less than a hundred cinema channels on YT featuring more informed intelligent opinions about cinema than whatever the fuck this is.

Sorry but for me these are all second class movies compared to “Blade Runner” “Citizen Cane” and “Apocalypses Now (Redux)” the cinematography in those three movies is just insane.

You are way better at making video than me :-) Busy business cards for your channel instead of the blank playing cards. Put a QR code to your channel on the card. I hand them out to people I want to interviee. I live in Manila and magnetic clamps and super clamps don't work on metal poles -- the camera overheats so quick. Buying an Sony ZV-E1 white :-) You blink and black overheats

The Batman also shot on broken lenses to mirror the grungy and fractured state of Gotham.

You lost all credibility from the beginning for the fact that you have ZOE KRAVITZ in your picture for anything worthwhile. The second mistake is the fact that you're using "the batman (really?)" as a must-watch??? Listen - the Geekdom and adolescent tastes of the Internet have RUINED, completely ANNIHILATED the last 20 years of movies. It isn't the MCU that devolved storytelling, I blame nerd culture, and the rise of "CONTENT," "CONTENT CREATORS," "INFLUENCERS (and the snake oil they peddle for cash)," and the DIGITAL REVOLUTION that has created the horrors of bad movie making (Anyone can now make something, and the problem is that any has!).

lol

Actual filmmakers you should be learning from: John Ford Orson Welles John Cassavetes Peter Bogdonavich Paul Thomas Anderson if we want to go modern, Sean Baker. - John Ford is the greatest director of the moving image, hands down. The Searchers is my pick there, but a more straightforward of his that's simpler to watch is My Darling Clementine. - Citizen Kane is great but F for Fake if Welles' better film and teaches much more about filmmaking and what art should mean to you. - Cassavetes' nearly undisputed best is Woman Under the Influence. It's a harrowing tale of independent filmmaking that will gut you to the ground. - Bogdonavich's best is his debut, Targets, which teaches (among other things in technical categories) that age is a concept. Bogdonavich makes revelations on age and time here that trade into the meta aspects of the film and how he came about making his first independent feature. It's inspiring stuff. If you REALLY want to be a filmmaker, and you ACTUALLY want to put in the work, watch these films. Watch these directors. Watch everything you can get your hands on, which is every film ever made in this modern age. You are living in the most accessible age for filmmaking ever. Christopher Nolan shot his debut film on weekends for fun for $6000 dollars on 16mm. You can shoot a feature for a quarter of that on your iPhone, something Sean Baker did with his debut solo film Tangerine. It's about hard work. Watch every film you possibly can. Learn from the classics. The old directors and old films will ALWAYS be better. Hoping anyone here can take anything from this and perhaps the future of cinema will be better one day.

Random ass list

Uf!

They aren't sponsoring the video? It sure seems like they are....

Hey man new subscriber here, excellent content pal, you deserved waaaay more subscribers, keep doing your thing 👍🏾

Your list is mediocre at best… Including a Star Wars movie as a movie that needs to be seen Tells people you’re far from being a cinephile!. Here are the five movies real filmmakers need to be watching… There will be blood, the Godfather, A Clockwork Orange, taxi driver and goodfellas.

Wow, The Batman is one of only a very few movies I've ever not finished. I think I got about 15 minutes in and hated it.

These mega production blockbusters like Star Wars and Batman have little to offer the average young filmmaker whose budget is a tiny speck compared to these films. Also, Twelve Angry Men is essentially a TV play brought to the screen. If movies are supposed to be moving pictures, I don't think this film should be a prime example. Fine acting and story line and competent direction, however.

If this guy is the future of movie making I guess we're in for some dark times indeed.

Food for thought: The cinematography in the two Dune Films are very good too imo.

You should watch more classics.

Do you have a link for your film making? Seeing these movies made you a better film maker, what were your bad ones and which are your improved movies?

hmmm

You had me until The Batman...

This is the type of guy who didn't manage to get a cinematic look, then he makes a video about it that it doesn't matter at all and to hide it all he makes his video in 4:3 💀

A man with a movie camera from 1920s you can literally learn 100 camera angle tricks in the first 20 minutes of the movie casablanca for dialogue all about eve for screen writing don't recommend 200 million dollar movie to new filmaker

I can't live without my tripods. They are lifesavers for making the best videos and getting the best shots you want.

Instead of Signs, I recommend budding SF filmmakers to check out the ORIGINAL 50s versions of The Thing and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, plus It Came From Outer Space, The Day the Earth Stood Still, and all three Quatermass films.

Great video, I nodded my head through the whole lot as I have all of those things bar the blank playing cards. I guess the only other thing I would add to the list is batteries, especially for the ZVE1 and the multi-chargers you can get so you have have a good rotation to take with you.

The Batman scene where Riddler attacks the lawyer in the car is shot mostly out of focus and it really stands out in a good way. Totally works

The bit about Ai hit the nail on head

What's one piece of gear that you couldn't do without?

Signs? I was not expecting that one. Dont get me wrong. I love Signs. I love the performances. I love the pace and simplistic way it creates tension. But more people trash the ending of Signs than anything in Vertigo.

Very true comments about this problem! What looks spectacular does not always has substance. It's all about the story, the music, the composition of the images.

You can also learn a lot from “Rear Window”, “Lawrence of Arabia”, “Barry Lyndon” and of course “Citizen Kane”.

None of them would have been the same without Citizen Kane.

I’m glad someone else is saying that modern movies are boring.

why recommend epidemic sound. it’s what all of those people trying to be “cinematic” are using it’s so overused. followed by artlist. you hear the same songs over and over again and you can already tell which plattform they got the song from. better to get your audio from one of the more unknown ones that are more expensive and are not already used by the entirety of youtube

this honestly deserves more views. The Batman is my favorite film of all time and it is the prime factor of my love for cinematography

New subscriber🤗 Good points!

Very interesting video, I really enjoyed it.

To be clear, I like Vertigo a lot - I just think it's flawed in some of the writing 😅

Loved this. I've watched a lot of "cinematic" videos recently and they all seem to want to come off as profound but feel shallow and vacuous instead. They're like the video equivalent of a platitude on instagram. The videos also seem to be lacking in personality as they all seem very uniform with their aesthetic. It's also a very narrow concept of the cinematic. I think of the cinematography and lighting in a lot of Kubrick's films, especially Barry Lyndon, and how they're a completely different way of being cinematic in comparison to how its popularly conceived and practised on CZcams.

Great

True detective 4 - amazing shots qnd coloring. About the essence and the story I betternot comment

I’m fascinated by the algorithm’s lack of love for your channel. You’ve clearly been working hard and I think you’ve made some really valuable content. I had to watch a few of your videos (which I quite enjoyed) to come up with a theory. It’s possible that if you stay the course one of your videos will explode (this is often the case) but I do see a consistent problem that might actually explain the matter better. Your video packagings (thumbnail and title) blend in with the cinematographer how-to niche (for better or worse) too well and then fail to reinforce their individual themes quickly enough (for worse). This video for example didn’t even get to any aspect of walking until a single word on the screen one minute and two seconds in. Had I not already watched a few of your other videos I would have clicked away. My expectations for the video weren’t confirmed by anything within this time and instead, I was shown a montage representing the unpleasant noisiness of modernity. Thematically this makes sense in relation to the rest of the video, but it doesn’t make thematic sense in relation to the packaging of your video. Your intros ought to reinforce the theme of the packaging. They shouldn’t reinforce what you know is the theme of the video because the potential viewer doesn’t always (or usually) know the theme of the video. They only know the theme of the packaging. Packaging is the first aspect of storytelling that must connect to the greater structure of the video in a logical sense that can be reasoned about by the viewer before having understood the greater theme of the video. I suspect that this issue explains your channel’s pre-blow-up status. I could be wrong though. And I’m only leaving this feedback because it really does seem to me that you’re 99% of the way there and have already worked out most of the more difficult aspects of being a CZcamsr. Great job!

Great video but I disagree with your analysis. The second video has a more interesting packaging theme that stands out in relation to the first more typical one. The apparent negative theme is instantly recognized as being sarcastic and therefore not threatening and of course actually a lesson on how not to ruin one’s life. This creates a dual gap in curiosity: am I doing any of these bad things as well as the more literal positive curiosity present in the first type of video (how do I improve my life). This double gap is subtle but very rare in his niche and probably better explains the video’s success at standing out. The video then quickly reinforces the theme with good storytelling as you say, justifying a viewer’s decision to click on the thumbnail.

In my opinion, being cinematic is about carrying the story in the most immersive way possible. Rather than just looking pretty. A good story, one that has an important philosophical message in it, would make or break your film, not solely how pretty it looks