Living the ‘Cinematic’ Life
For those of us born in the 80’s (or earlier), the first and main experience we had of something ‘cinematic’ was, unsurprisingly, at the cinemas. Televisions up until the mid to late 90s/early 2000s were 4:3 format, so when cinema movies were released on VHS, they were chopped into 4:3 from a 16:9 or 2.35:1 format. Yep, the editors were forced to chop off up to 50% of the image to accomodate for the TVs of the day. So, if the first time you watched something was on VHS, you potentially never got to see the original vision of the director.
What you were watching on VHS vs what the Director actually envisioned.
The first time I consciously went the route of widescreen, in this case 2.35:1, was when the Star Wars Special Edition Box Set VHS came out in 1997. At the time, my brother and I were doing a paper run around our local area, and we saved up for weeks for the box set.
(For those that have no idea what a paper run is, local suburbs would produce a weekly local paper that was delivered free to all residents of that suburb. The paper was full of local news and fluff articles, and paid for by a mountain of adverts throughout.)
A stack of papers arrive on our doorstep in the morning, and we would add in the extra pamphlets and advertisements, fold up the paper, put a rubber band around it, and fill our dad's ute to the brim. Then one of us would drive a predetermined route, and the other one would fling newspapers into every front yard.
If there was an apartment block I had to get out and drop ten newspapers to the mailbox area. My brother meanwhile would just keep driving with the back door open, and i would have to sprint down the street and leap back in, Indiana Jones style.
Me racing after the car…
…me trying to get into the car on the fly….
(Extra points were earned if you could a) hit a mailbox with a newspaper or b) land a newspaper in a front pond or pool.)
When the big day arrived, we fronted up to the local Target to purchase said box set, but were faced with a dilemma: 4:3 or widescreen? I was too young to have ever seen the original trilogy at the movies, and my brother was 7 when he saw Return of the Jedi at the movies.
We were unanimous in wanting to view the full cinematic vision of Star Wars for the first time. And what a treat it was! (I have only much later discovered that we traded off less horizontal lines of resolution so as to gain the original filmed aspect ratio, but our tv quality was poor enough that I don’t think we ever noticed.)
The VHS widescreen edition never looked this good.
To the point of this article, what really is ‘cinematic’? I hear it and see it everyday, on instagram, youtube, even in my office. Well, I went to Reddit, where someone has always already asked the question. The best answers I saw encapsulated the following: "The origins of "widescreen" were in cinema, making big, sweeping wide shots a staple. It was both a marketing tool to get butts in seats as well as an artistic difference that separated cinema from the ever growing popularity of television. It was a gamble of the industry, but it worked and now is a visual hallmark of modern cinema. Even today, aspect ratios in films are (generally) still wider than 16:9."
Gen Z expression when being forced to watch 4:3 aspect ratio
This ties in with the first opinion you get from most people. Cinematic is widescreen. Widescreen is cinematic.
Is that more of a historical perspective now though? Does that history still apply today?
Most TV shows worth a damn are now filmed in a widescreen format, and if they really care about their ‘vision’, they employ many of the same techniques used in cinema. Think wide shots that make use of the entire frame, or unusual or unconventional shots that drive the story and wouldn’t traditionally be seen in television shows.
Not quite 2.35:1, but it is widescreen, and it is the biggest show of the year.
So is it just the widescreen format that makes something cinematic? Or something about the storytelling as well?
Very much 2.35:1
“it visualises everyday / common circumstances in a way that's a lot different from how you see things with your own eyes. Or it uses visual storytelling that's more articulate and interesting than what we're used to.”
Which makes sense. If you compare an epic movie like Titanic (Don't @ me), versus something like the TV show Neighbours, the visual storytelling, the camera work, angles, depth of field, lighting, colour, are all massively different, and much more interesting and engaging in the feature film.
The further down the rabbit hole you go though, the more confused the idea of cinematic becomes. By the time you have read a million different opinions in reddit, and then a couple of longer length op-ed pieces, you realise the following:
It’s purely subjective
It involves visuals
It involves audio
It doesn’t involve audio
It requires motion and editing
Its the composition
It’s serves the plot
Its how it makes you feel
And the one I found funniest
It’s like pornography - you’ll know it when you see it.
Finally, the one that makes the most sense.
Cinematic photos look like a still from a movie.
So.
What about photography? Can we capture some of that cinematic feel in a still shot? Or do we need the full spectrum of moving pictures, dialogue, sound, to fully express a cinematic vision?
If we buy into the idea that cinematic is an amalgamation of stunning visuals, using dialogue and sound to push the story and mood, and thoughtful editing that draws a viewer into the world, then no, photos probably can’t really be cinematic. They can do an approximation of cinematic, but they cant actually be cinematic.
But. Photography is still storytelling, even if the story isn’t as long or involved as a movie or tv series. It can also invoke emotion, the same as a movie or TV. So if we take cinematic to meaning a visual style of storytelling that incorporates techniques found in feature films, and nowadays prestige television, then we can start to create what one could consider cinematic photography.
I guess.
(But, you better be shooting in some sort of widescreen.)
I have spent far too long digressing. This post was meant to be about X-Pan/Widescreen format, and has descended into a 'what is cinematic?' post.
When did i come across the 65:24 format? I can't exactly remember (im sure if i deep dived into my browser history, i could find the earliest reference to it). What i do know, is that when i was a teenager in the 90's, the first camera my family bought me for my birthday was a simple point and shoot. But it had one killer function. Click a little latch, and two little black slides came down on the top and bottom of the mechanical viewfinder, and the camera took photos in panoramic. When those photos were developed, they were printed on a loooonng piece of photo paper, with no bands on the top or bottom.
I had no idea at the time, but my first camera must have been a poor man's XPAN camera. I also have no idea what brand of camera it was, nor do my parents, and a search online is so generic that it comes up with nothing. Truth be known, i have probably found it ten times, but i cant remember what it looked like at all.
So maybe i was indoctrinated into the widescreen/XPAN style early on. Combined with my love of cinema, maybe it makes sense that i seem to enjoy taking photos mostly in a widescreen format.
Why 65:24 and not 16:9? Most cameras will give you a 16:9 crop in camera. Maybe that ubiquity is part of the problem. Also, most modern cinema movies aren’t actually filmed in 16:9 - they use 2.35:1, which is much closer in format to 65:24. When you compare the two, 16:9 seems just kinda fat, height wise. It’s like you wanted to shoot widescreen, but erggghhh I i’m not game, i’m not sure, I couldn’t quite commit. It ends up looking like a halfway house to a cinematic shot. (Harsh I know, and sometimes a photo just works better as 16:9).
16:9 Image
2.35:1 Cinemascope
So it comes as no suprise that when i decided to get back into photography with an actual camera, i researched what cameras would actually shoot in 65:24 format. Fujifilm GFX and Hasselblads were out of the question, especially for a total noob, and my recent trip to Kosiuscko told me i didnt know nearly as much as i needed to to justify spending too much money. What i needed was a relatively inexpensive camera that would allow to me learn and get better without being limited by the hardware.
Me trying to learn how to use a camera.
Enter the Panasonic Lumix S1.
It's a full frame 24MP camera, interchangeable lenses (L-Mount), and probably the heaviest body you have ever punished your wrists with. Seriously, if we ever have a house invasion, i'm reaching for the S1 body to attack them with. It also has the ability to shoot in 65:24, and blacks out the top and bottom of the viewfinder when you are shooting. Depending on how you are saving your photos, you can get an output of JPEG in a cropped aspect ratio, and an uncropped RAW photo you could crop later.
I realised once i started searching that i had actually really liked this camera when it first came out in 2018, but more of an idle appreciation (thats a good looking camera!). Now i was discovering that i could actually afford one on the second hand market. It helps that the autofocus Panasonic used in this camera was largely derided by the camera review world. (I havent had a problem with it.)
In largely typical fashion, i had also selected the camera with the most limited range of lenses, and most expensive ones to boot, as the L-Mount it utilises is part of the Leica family. As we know, Leica is a bargain basement brand.
What i have discovered though: I am enjoying nature and landscape photography (cinematic landscape photography, mind you), and for that, the 20-60mm kit lense has been more than adequate for a beginner.
So 65:24. Want to feel like you are on an adventure? Like your life is not just a movie, but a cinematic movie? Shoot everything in 65:24.
Now all i have to do is try and get better at it.
So there we have it. Shoot cinematic. Shoot widescreen. Buy a second hand Panasonic Lumix.
Thanks for reading.