ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

8 years, 1 month ago - John Lubran

Interesting interest! Apart from the odd benefit of portrait ratio I can't see this going anywhere beyond a very niche area.I certainly wouldn't regard it as experimental or artistic. I can understand how mobile phone users with no idea how to film things often use the wrong aspect to film stuff that they come across, to the detriment of just about every other display medium, but why anyone with the least bit of production awareness would do the same is nonsensical to me.

It reminds of those phases that young film makers go through from time to time when seeking "cutting edge" and "new" devices solely on the basis of doing something new. The truth is however there's nothing new in film making other than new stories and new technologies. After over a century of film making everything has been done a million times. I'm glad that television producers have dropped some of the daftest conceits perpetrated by youthful film makers until relatively recently including that absurd idea that one might record factual moments, particularly interviews, with two or more cameras with one filming properly on a tripod and one wobbly hand held in monochrome. How such conceits had any traction at all merely underlined the naivety of the childish producers who were briefly allowed to indulge such silliness.

A golden rule to be learned before one is qualified to break it is that the viewer ought not be reminded that there's a film crew involved at all.

8 years, 1 month ago - Nathaniel Soria

Haha! Youch, John.

I don't claim this be a revolutionary idea, not even "artistic" or "experimental," because the "niche" you speak of is the mass (as you identified) mobile user-- which is too big to be a niche. They might not know a damn about proper video production, but they're viewing the world in similar ways. It's a visual language and worth exploring. I don't think it's worth being a fundamentalist about it.

Just as you said, technology is constantly changing, and film adapts. We are now considering framing stories in a 360 field of view because now we have cameras that can do that. More things like that will change and morph but I couldn't agree more, ultimately it's the story first. But keep a vigilant eye on those who embrace the new medium and canvas. The past has proved to us that the rule breakers have been the catalyst of great change-- especially change that had been copied over and over again.

It's a fun time to be making film, no matter what level of filmmaker you may be. And I think doing a series of vertical videos with special effects would be helluva-lot-o-fun. That's why I'm in this business and not behind a desk crunching numbers.

8 years, 1 month ago - John Lubran

It's just my perspective Nathaniel. Perhaps it might turn out I'm just a luddite and vertical aspect ratio will have traction beyond that of the hand held erroniously filmed. I'd hardly call it a "mixed media" format though. There are no other vertical screens other than mobile phones and I pad type computers, for a reason. Hope you and the vertical screeners have lots of fun being iconoclastic though.

8 years, 1 month ago - Kieron Clark

You may want to check out Xavier Dolan's flawed but interesting 'Mommy' from 2014 which was shot in a 1:1, vertical-video-style aspect ratio. I saw it on a cinema screen and it worked, once you got over the initial discombobulation. More on it here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-xavier-dolans-mommy-was-756857

8 years, 1 month ago - Matt Turner

presumably you've seen vertical cinema?

http://www.verticalcinema.org

i've always wanted to see films exhibited in this format since i read the article below, seems to offer something genuinely new, specifically within experimental / avant garde filmmaking. Also, just the image of something projected like that in a church immediately looks great, and makes you think - why is the idea of cinema as a square or horizontal rectangle so fixed as a given?

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/comment/festivals/reach-heavens-vertical-cinema-rotterdam-2014


Matt
SP

8 years, 1 month ago - John Lubran

Some folk do like a shock; something that disturbs the pervasive norm. The idea of a tall narrow screen in church might tickle the taste for something different, but that's all vertical screening does. The reason for the well concidered evolution of 4x3 to 16x9 and even wider is because that's how the minds eye works, even when looking up down and around. The idea of the 'Golden Mean' and the 'rule of thirds' was born from that understanding of the minds eye. It's our nature. This has long been understood by marketeers in terms of design and presentation. Departing from the Golden Mean might have some narrowly entertaining shock value, but that's all it does. If it were not so we'd be seeing a lot more of it, which we won't. If only because producors who want sell their films know that audiences are not going to buy into vertical screening in any significant numbers.

8 years, 1 month ago - Nathaniel Soria

Kieron- really interesting tid-bit about Dolan's film. Wasn't there also a Japanese ninja film that came out a couple years back with a similar ratio handling? Thanks.

Matt- super interesting article! I'll have to check their website closely later. Would love to see that in NYC. So many churches out here. Thanks.

John- well I tossed 'fundementalist' at you, so fitting I get 'iconoclastic.' I deserved that. Ha! And yes, I actually come from a painter/photographer background, and well versed in the history of golden mean and rule of thirds- and still there are some excellent paintings that worked outside those rules, and photos that blow those rules outta the water. When I mentioned mixed media I was referring to a project already in production- an phone app with game elements, animation and video.

I'm not looking to shock people. I simply want to give them something cool to watch in one hand while holding onto the subway railing with the other.