Forum - View topicAnime camera angles.
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
angel_lover
 Posts: 645 Location: UK |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
The whole issue of "camera angles" in animation is one of my pet peeves. Pro-tip: THERE IS NO CAMERA.
In cinematography, the camera (and its counterpart, the projector), stand between the viewer and the subject. The viewer can see nothing other than what the camera has captured, and so it becomes the viewer's surrogate. However, we don't control the camera, so we have become its slave, not its master. In effect, the director and cinematographer have clamped our heads in a vise, and we can see only what they wish us to see, and at a distance and angle that they have determined. Because we're brought up watching TV and movies full of all sorts of elaborate camerwork, we don't realise how contrived this situation actually is. Take the simple example of a close-up shot. Very early movies were usually done in long to medium shot. When close-ups started to be used more regularly just under a century ago, audiences took a while to get used to the sudden changes of perspective. The same thing happened with reverse cut shots. All sorts of shots that we take for granted now had to be introduced gradually - often not because of any technical difficulty as such with the shot, but because audiences simply didn't understand it at first. It all goes back to the loss of control over what we are seeing and how we are seeing it, a concept that is barely recognised as an issue now, but which once even gave rise to public health concerns - it was thought that it could be mentally damaging being subjected to the uncontrollable stream of images. A moot point now, of course, but illustrative of how unnatural the idea is of interposing a camera between the viewer and the subject. The camera is a necessary evil, it's there because we can't be. However, it works very differently from the eye/brain combination that we have, and the camera lens distorts, flares, and has various other issues that we don't have (or at least, our brains tells us we don't - the eye alone is really not all that good a camera). But generations of moviemakers have made a virtue out of a necessity and made the limitations of the camera into an integral part of the artform itself. Lens flare is a classic example. We kind of expect flare now when we see a shot with the sun in it, which is a shame since lens manufacturers have been trying to eliminate flare since the beginnings of photography. It's actually got to the point now where (so I've heard) some cinematographers switch to older, more flarey, lenses to get the desired effect in that type of shot. So, to the point. As I said at the start, there is no camera. Animation completely frees the director from the tyranny of the camera with all its failings. Why then, do people keep laboriously recreating the experience of using one? I suspect one reason is simply lack of imagination. Like I said above, we're all so used to seeing TV and movies now. If only directors would spend more time in art galleries then maybe they would find other ways to express things visually instead of a slavish adherence to simply emulating cameras. Things are so bad now that I wince every time I see an animated "lens flare" or a "focus pull". I know a lens flare looks pretty, and I know a focus pull emphasises the shift of attention from one area of the shot to another, but artists were painting beautiful sunsets for centuries without putting little hexagonal splotches all over their canvas, and they managed the flow of attention within an image by controlling its composition. Thankfully there are directors out there who can think "outside the box with the lens on it". I think that people such as Masaaki Yuasa (Mind Game, Kemonozume) should be applauded for their attempts to break free from the camera mindset. Maybe visionaries (in the truest sense of the word) like him can help steer animation back to where it ought to be, but I'm not holding my breath. PS I'm also sick of incessant vertical pans and seeing people sideways - when, oh when will anime directors learn to cope with 16:9? |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
kakitamike
 Posts: 183 Location: Akron, OH |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Flag, but they do a lot with camera angles (literally). FLCL has a lot of interesting camera work too. Noein has a lot of good panning and wideshots, especially for the battle sequences.
angel_lover: Animation most definitely uses camera angles. I've listened to studios like Disney and Pixar talk at length about the use of camera on their animated films. Just because there isn't a physical camera taking the shots, they still have to create the angle and view at which it is seen. A lot of thought goes into that. And maybe we're watching different shows, but I've seen far more 16:9 anime than 4:3. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Sam-I-Am
Posts: 121 Location: Midwest US |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
In most of the CGI programs used today there is a virtual camera placed in the 3D space, and you select the 'lens' you want to use. You can also program in the direction the camera is aimed, and any movement of the camera, creating, in effect, all the aspects (including limitations) of a real world camera. However, you are freed from the limitations of camera support, allowing any sort of swooping zoom you can dream up.
Regardless of whether you're in the real world or shooting CGI or cel animation, you are still trying to convey visual information via a 2D screen to the fixed point of a human eye. Some things will enter the frame, others will not. Some ideas are able to be conveyed using this method, others are not. The term "camera angle" is the easiest way to describe the composition from a particular point of view. Most of what I see in anime is replications of live action camera angles and editing. For instance, two characters are facing each other, having a conversation. You start with an establishing shot of both people, then show closeups (including the scene partner's shoulder line) of each person as they speak each line of dialogue (or show the other person's reaction to what is being said), and end with another long shot of the two walking away. This is called an 'over/over/two' shot, it's used all the time, and is what Joss Whedon calls "a recipe for boring TV" on a "Buffy" commentary. Another way would be to start above the two people, watching the tops of their heads come close, then drop down and flatten out into a close up, and spin the camera in time with the lines, then follow ahead of one character as they walk away, all as a single shot. More exciting, yes, but half your audience would have trouble following it, and half of the rest would be dizzy and/or nauseous. Part of it comes down to what serves the show - the second shot would look really, really cool in some shows, but for average dramas and sitcoms, the camera work would become a distraction, not an invisible window into the show's world. The other part of it is time and money - if you're behind on schedule, and low on budget, what do you do? The cool shot that will take a long time to dream up, work out, and animate, or the standard shot that's cheap, easy, and doesn't distract? Mostly, it comes down to the director. Are they trying hard to expand the art, or are they churning out product? A lot of the time, it's just product. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Kruszer
 Posts: 8015 Location: Minnesota, USA |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Come to think of it, there was one really cool camera effect I liked in Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex that comes to mind. It was in the episode where Togusa infiltrates the psyche ward for people with tech based disorders. The "camera"pans through this immense hallway full of the patients working on terminals creating defense barrier mazes for the government. I remember being impressed with it and the music that plays durring the scene.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Monsieur Pink
Posts: 141 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Huh, what? You are saying that the utilisation of camera in unique and different ways is hurting cinematography as a whole (not only animation), right? A necessary evil? Forgive me, but I have to respectfully disagree here. I think camerawork is a very important aspect of it, it can completely change the dynamic of a scene, the atmosphere, it can highlight emotions and mood. When used correctly it's really an experience enhancer. But of course sometimes it can actually be unnecessary and might even actually hurt the show/movie/whatever. At least that's what I think. Edit: Typos and stuff. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
angel_lover
Posts: 645 Location: UK |
|
|||||||||||||||
Yes, but that's because they are talking about 3D CGI.
Yes, because 3D CGI is based on the laws of optics and needs definable, computable equations to create its images. The camera paradigm works very well for this. However, animation doesn't have to be 3D CGI (but see below).
Yes, but why do you have to use exact perspective mapping and the camera paradigm? If you use 3D CGI then of course there's no alternative, but animation wasn't always like that, and doesn't have to be like that. And the human eye isn't a fixed point, by the way. It saccades. When you sit in a theatre watching a live-action play, there is no camera or camerawork. You analyse what you see by saccading over the scene. In cinematography, the camera is doing this for you to an extent.
Yes, but does it necessarily have to be that way?
I agree with you on this point. Also, as 3D CGI becomes less expensive then I would expect it to be use more frequently leading to more and more "imitation cinematography". I would say, though, that in my view the art of animation needs re-expanding. It didn't always have this obsession with the exact reproduction of cinematography.
No, I'm saying that thinking of animation purely in terms of cinematography and camerawork is hurting animation. Animation has the capability to be a lot more than just a drawn imitation of cinematography.
The origins of cinematography were in what are termed "actualities", or what we would now call documentaries. They allowed people to see things that they may not otherwise have been able to see. The camera captured these images, and the projector reproduced them - simple as that. So, the camera was necessary because its ability to record things on film was how the images were moved from the original location to the theatre, but also a (figurative) "evil" because ever since then, people have been trying to overcome its limitations. The movie industry (in general) has always wanted its works to become ever more immersive. There have been many stages in this - the introduction of color, wider aspect ratios, digital surround sound, IMAX, 3D and so on. The ultimate aim of all of these is to make you think you are actually there, to make you forget that there's a camera between you and the subject. However, this feeling of "presence" is in part achieved by a mutual vocabulary of camerawork that's understood by both the director and the audience. We're so used to it now that we don't realise it's there most of the time. This is why things like Dogme 95 happened, as a reaction against the artificiality of everything.
Leaving aside the issue of whether the camera should be used like that or not, then within the artform of mainstream cinematography, I agree with you entirely. However, as I keep on having to say, animation doesn't have to be drawn cinematography. It's difficult to "deprogram" yourself because it's so much part of everyday experience now, but I think that's something that animation directors need to do from time to time. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Murasakisuishou
 Posts: 1469 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||||||||
That was extremely cool. GitS: SAC had lots of great camera work, though; the way the frame moved whenever the Laughing Man logo popped up was amazing, and I loved how, during the fight scenes, it looked like the scene was being shot through a handheld camera. It's so subtly realistic that you don't even pick it up the first time. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Xenofan 29A
 Posts: 378 |
|
|||||||||||||||
And there are examples of this. Things have been done in Anime that absolutely cannot be achieved with live action film, because they would be absurdly expensive, or because they would not please a mainstream audience. However, the second consideration is important here, as Anime, like all film, is a commercial product that must make money. Examples of breaking free of traditional deptictions, such as in Evangelion's endings (both of them), or utilizing the animated form as its own method of depicting, rather than adhering to "realism", such as in FLCL and Paprika, are often not received well by a majority. Even if they enjoy the portions of these works that are traditionally created, they dislike the portions that are created in a style completely alien to traditional sensibilities. Something like Cat Soup is entirely alien to these sensibilites, and I'm one of the few I know who actually enjoyed it.
I know I'm an obsessive Anno nut, but I'm glad you agree with me. 
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
angel_lover
Posts: 645 Location: UK |
|
|||||||||||||||
I don't disagree at all with that. My problem is that over the past years, mainstream anime seems to have degenerated into a poor imitation of cinematography. Directors appear to be thinking more and more in terms of "shots" and "camera angles", and the more I think about this the more I come to the conclusion that CGI is to blame for it.
But these "traditional depictions" aren't traditional. The idea that animation should ape cinematography is relatively recent, maybe 20-30 years or so compared to the 170+ year history of animation (don't forget that the zoetrope actually predated cinematography by over 50 years). Although movie animation is largely in thrall to 3D CGI, some American TV animation has gone the other way and is totally unrealistic, like South Park, for example (yes, I know it's made with CGI, but it sets out quite deliberately not to look like it). It's still popular though.
You can add me to the list then 
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Porcupine
 Posts: 1033 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
I completely disagree with the idea that anime do not use inventive or elaborate camera angles.
I would actually argue the opposite of the opening post; I think anime uses more inventive, dynamic, and elaborate camera angles than most movies. Because anime is drawn and utterly fictitious, the creators have more freedom to move the camera in places where a movie could not reasonably go. For example look at the Najica anime, well known for being a constant barrage of panty shots. You couldn't easily film that in real life, you'd be like a pervert crawling around on the ground with a camcorder pointing up, for the entire duration of filming. Other examples are shoujo transformation sequences, where characters typically glow and/or become naked and the camera twirls around them with lots of sparkly lights. There's nothing like this in movies because it is completely ridiculous to have the camera twirl like that, with the exception of CGI. Another camera-related issue that you tend to get often in animes that you hardly ever get in real-life movies are extreme closeups. This is partially due to laziness on the part of animators in widescreen animes, made famous by shows like Madlax or Hack//Sign where the director loves to zoom in on close-ups of people's faces such that you can only see the eyes. But it's still something you don't get in movies. The only shot like this I can recall in a movie that I've seen was in Star Wars Revenge of the Sith where Obi-Wan Kenobi is staring at General Grievous. Another camera trick you can do in an anime that cannot be done with a real camera is a deep, large perspective shot where some important objects are very far away (and perhaps very big such as a mecha) while at the same time there is another important object up close (like a person or the enemy mecha or whatever). With a real-life camera such a shot forces one of the two objecs to be blurry and out-of-focus. With anime or CGI, it's the directors choice whether he wants to purposefully simulate the same blurry out-of-focus effect or defy the laws of physics and allow both objects to be in focus at the same time. This same phenomena also applies to smaller, simple shots like someone (like Haruhi) pointing their finger into the screen. In real-life if you did that the finger would be blurry because you could not focus the camera. But in the animated world the director can choose if he wants the finger or the fist/kick/whatever to become blurry. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Keonyn
 Subscriber Posts: 5567 Location: Coon Rapids, MN |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
No, there is no camera, but there are still angles. Whether it is hand drawn, captured through a lens or artificial lens in CGI; you are still forced to see what the director wishes you to see in the scene. You, as the viewer, have no more control of what you see when you watch animation than when you watch a live-action film. Which is just fine with me as it gives the director the creative control to show the story and visuals through the interpretation of his artistic vision.
I wouldn't want to control the angles and how the director shows me the story anymore than I would want to demand a writer write their scenes a specific way. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Sam-I-Am
Posts: 121 Location: Midwest US |
|
|||||||||||||||
I was using 'fixed point' in the sense that my eye is in my head, which is resting on the back of my easy chair in the living room. The eye does move within the head, but the distance and angle from the TV to the chair remains the same. It is that TV/chair relationship that I wished to refer to. In live theater, there is a similar effect. Each seat may well provide a slightly different perspective on the scene before you, but one usually remains in one's seat for the duration of the performance, and most theaters are proscenium houses, with the audience on only one side of the performers (yes, thrust and in-the-round theaters exist), so the proscenium arch creates a frame around the story just as a screen does. Even though the performers are alive and in front of you, you still are only being shown what the director wishes you to see. Everything else is backstage, or unlit. You are free to look at any given corner of the stage, or at things offstage, and the human eye/brain does sometimes go into a tunnel vision/zoom effect where you become unaware of your surroundings or the distance from seat to stage seems to lessen. However, if you were to continually move about the audience, or try to wander up onto the stage, you probably would be asked to leave.
What do you propose? You've spent a lot of time arguing that producers should do something different, but you haven't offered many options.
I don't think it has an obsession with it now, either. Copying live-action visuals is merely a shortcut for most shows. I think the technical term is "not reinventing the wheel".
The 'mutual vocabulary' is exactly what we've been discussing... a set of conventions followed by live action and animation alike to convey the story to the audience. Camera angles, focus, composition and mise-en-scene are all part of that. Dogme 95 was less a reaction against camera work than it was an attempt to do films 'real for real', with more concentration on a cinema verite, focused on the story and the emotion, and less concentration on the technical tricks of modern Hollywood.
Perhaps, or perhaps with the larger number of licensed shows over the recent years, you're seeing more and more of the 'B' titles, made by the less imaginative directors. Compared to, oh, say, "The Flintstones" or the 1960's "Astroboy", I think animation is a LOT more inventive than it used to be. If CGI allows inventive shots as easily as staid ones, I think it might lead to better shows overall, not weaker ones... IF the director pushes for the more exciting shot.
Huh? Seems to me like Disney's "Snow White" was composed and shot 'aping' live action cinematography of the time... in 1937. Even things like Steamboat Willy used the existing conventions. If one wanted to back up a bit further, cinematography imitates photography, which imitates painting, in terms of composition and framing. At some point, one realizes that certain things work in 2D, and certain things work in 3D, but some of them don't work in the other form. Drawing is drawing, and sculpture is sculpture, but a drawing of a sculpture is still a drawing, and all 2D rules and conventions apply to it. Animation does have the freedom to do things cameras can't, or to do difficult things as easily as simple things, such as Porcupine's examples, although most of the live-action things he mentioned are possible, with the right setup, equipment, and mindset. However, deep focus as pioneered in 'Citizen Kane' required a LOT of light to compensate for the small aperture required, especially with the film speeds of the day, and the shot in 'Pink Floyd: The Wall' where the camera tracks from a cigarette ash up the arm to the pupil of an eye are devilishly hard to set up and focal length/depth of field at such short distances are major issues. The same shots are much more easily accomplished in animation. However, someone still has to decide that they are worth the time and money to create, and that they will add to the story, not distract the audience from the story. Ultimately, it all does come down to budget and the story. Will something non-standard serve the story? Can we afford it if it does? |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
angel_lover
Posts: 645 Location: UK |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
I still have plenty of points to argue here, but I'm feeling kind of bad because I've ended up hijacking the thread, which was not my intention. I don't know if it's possible for a mod to extract my original post and the trail of responses and put them into a new thread, but if one of them could do that it would maybe be a good idea. Then I can wax lyrical in this thread about the "bullet time" shot of the teardrop from Kanon
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group