Talk:Cinematic techniques

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HVD1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I think the original contents of this article were really just a subsection to the core topic of the article. Interative Film techniques are really just a subsection to the greater notion of cinematic technique. From what I could find there is no current article which synthesises all the film techniques which are used to create meaning and emotion in (something which would certainly be useful for secondary school english students!). This article may be badly titled (for original content and new content alike) - opinions?. There is much room for extension. Mrcurly 09:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Many people refer to these techniques as 'film techniques' and I don't think the title should be changed. I'm sure if someone searches for cinematic techniques there could be a link that says 'see Film Techniques' or another kind of link between the two articles. PLooB 06:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, please dont change (user:81.76.121.117)

I think we could have a fantastic article here, but it still needs a lot of work. Let's see how it progresses, I would be glad to help. Peter S. 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories

The article needs the appropriate categories. Hoverfish 07:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

jump cut

To my thinking, and i've been around longer then i care to say, a jump cut is simply a cut in the scene where the action jumps. I'll try to illustrate. You're eating a sandwich and everything is moving along nicely. Now while you're eating, bang you're done and wiping your mouth. What the hell happened to the sandwhich? That's a jump cut. Somebody {smarter than me} can say this better. Let's try.Longinus876 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Special technique?

There is a technique, shooting a frame with multiple cameras arranged on a crescent-shaped rack -> so in the movie, it looks like moving around the filmed subject without scenery time moving forward. Does this technique have a name ... is it listed in the article? (I remember a (documentary? TV?) film with dolphin(s) in it, dolphin(s) hopped out of the ocean, film subject time halted but the view moving around the subject, the subject suspended -> in the air, time only continuing after the view had circled the dolphin(s)) --Alien4 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Diegetic / non-diegetic... Are you sure???

The description in the article is the exact opposite of that provided by a dictionary definition. The dictionary I've looked at (www.dictionary.com) gives the origin of the word as meaning to narrate or describe, which is polarised with the description in this article.

Could we have a proper source for this info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.77.49 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cinematic techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mic.atr.co.jp/events/siggraph97/course16/imovie/node4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816084117/http://film-terms.com/ to http://film-terms.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

What's This Technique?

I'm writing review about a TV show, looking for a word to describe a film (or video) technique that I think exists, came here to see if it was listed, and could not find it, hence posting this to 1) maybe answer my question and 2) see if this technique couldn't/shouldn't be included. It's when modern video equipment is "tinted" to give it an old feel, like it was done not in black & white (although it may be the same technique), but that yellow-tinged look like it's done either by old-school, early days film, or the film itself is old, or maybe it just looks old because you are looking backwards into the past. The colors are muted, tinged with yellow, and intended to evoke a "looking into the past" effect. The best word I can come up with is the video image looks "antiqued". I'm sure it's a filter, or something. Is this a "thing", meaning is there a technical word to describe this? If so, what is it, and should it be included in this Article?Tym Whittier (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

the word you've somehow managed to avoid using is 'sepia'. is this what you mean? I agree that it should probably be in here somewhere, perhaps amongst the editorial/post-production effects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_print_toning#Sepia_toning

duncanrmi (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

steadicam

it's a good job that the entry on steadicam leads to the thing's own page, because currently it is very brief & misleading. the steadicam is certainly not lightweight, as anyone who's used one will tell you. the operator is bearing the weight of the camera, whatever it is, plus batteries & the steadicam harness itself, with the shock-absorbing arm transferring the weight onto his waist, back & hips, & leaving his arms free to help steady (& direct) the camera. the role of the steadicam in cinematography- the alternate viewpoint it permits- should also be expanded, since there is a significant stylistic difference between steadicam shots & those achieved with either hand-held or traditional dolly/jib shots, in the sense of immersing the viewer in the scene; it can be used to place the viewer into the scene as an impartial observer without the distracting motion of hand-held or the compromised choreography of a dolly shot. that's not going to meet wikipedia's standards (OR) as it is, so some sort of explanatory article will need to be found & cited here.

duncanrmi (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Diegetic heart beats

The sound section lists under diegetic sounds "Sounds made by objects in the story, e.g. heart beats of a person". However, heart beats are more likely to be non-diegetic as a signal to the audience of someone's emotional state. Probably should use a different example (slamming of a door, maybe?). — al-Shimoni (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)