Even though freedom of camera movement is now possible, in both animation and cinema, the productions are still following the same cinematic grammar that was set long before the possibilities of a free roaming camera. What we have seen in this research is that the cinematic language is not up for any revolutionary change just merely as a result of new technology or camera invention.
It seems that the cinematic narrative grammar and the cinematographic conventions have set the standard for what is “reality” on film. So when working with digitally constructed space recorded by a virtual camera, the directors are compensating by making the manufactured image look like it was filmed with an analogue camera. By applying all the conventions, limitations, properties and artifacts of the analogue camera to the virtual camera, it records more “believable” images (Desowitz, 2). Whenever the directors take advantage of the limitlessness of virtual camera movements and properties, they do so showing something “magical” or something out of this world, but quickly return to “cinema reality” when they want to show something earthly, like human emotion or conversation between people.
So even though the virtual camera is available to speak with new narrative grammars, it has to adopt its language from the cinema to be understood and read correctly, as the narrative camera of traditional cinema adopted its language from the theater.
Cross Pollination of Narrative Grammars
While studying Roland Emmerich’s “10,000 BC” (Roland Emmerich, 2008), I came across other examples of cross pollination of grammars between the real and the virtual, like in the “evil bird” scene from “Popeye the Sailor meets Sindbad the Sailor”. In two of the scenes that are heavily dependent on its use of computer generated effects, they use slow motion with a low frame rate, as we know from action replays from sports on television. But in the battle scenes where the protagonist is focus, where there is no obvious use of computer generated effects to hide, the use a smooth slow motion to emphasize the emotions of the protagonist.
This shows that there is a constant borrowing of grammars between the real and the virtual, both in current and past productions, and that this has more to do with narrative functions than technological innovations.
This shows that there is a constant borrowing of grammars between the real and the virtual, both in current and past productions, and that this has more to do with narrative functions than technological innovations.
Virtual Camera in Modern Animation
“Tarzan” (Chris Buck and Kevin Lima, 1999) featured a new technology for projection painting for its time that allows dynamic camera movements without compromising on the classic visual style. Especially invented for “Tarzan”, the purpose of “Deep Canvas” is to create a painted image with depth perception which allowed the virtual camera to move into and turn around inside the painted backgrounds. What really distinguish the use of “Deep Canvas” contra the use of plain 3D backgrounds for the 2D animation, like those found in the demo of “Where the Wild Things Are”, is that they try to keep the feel and illusion that it’s all hand-drawn and painted even though it’s all computer generated. In short, they try to blend together a 3D virtual camera with the hand painted style of traditional Disney animations.
The story of “Tarzan” (Conan Doyle, 1912) was first printed in a magazine in 1912 and has since then been a target for many film adaptations. Disney’s version distinguishes itself by using the limitlessness of animation together with a liberated virtual camera moving through 3D space, to show Tarzan as an athlete and a superhuman adapted to life in the jungle as described in the original publication. This shows that the freedom of virtual camera opens up new narrative possibilities in storytelling, and that it can contribute to new cinematic grammars beyond working as a special effect tool.
Like “The Matrix”, “Tarzan” suggests new cinematic grammars for the virtual camera through “Deep Canvas”. But as with “The Matrix” it does not use the free roaming behavior of the virtual camera as a part of the generic narrative in the film, but more for helping to show off the acrobatic moves of the protagonist in the action sequences. Most notably in the scenes where Tarzan swings and slides through the jungle. “Deep Canvas” is also used to give an extra dramatic impact on certain scenes, like in the scene with the elephant stampede when the gorillas comes moving against the camera at the same time as the virtual camera is moving the camera backwards.
Like “Tarzan”, “The Matrix” uses the extraordinary camera behavior to emphasize the superhuman actions of the characters in the movie, but in “The Matrix” they also use it as a part of the narrative to tell the audience that what we see on screen is a virtual reality as well. They want us to know that the virtual camera is a virtual camera, because what we see is a virtual reality. But in “Tarzan” the goal was to not let the movements of the 3D virtual camera stand out from the rest of the movie, but rather to blend in with the rest of the narrative.
What is common with “Tarzan” and “The Matrix” is that they both use computer technology to open up the opportunities of playing with spatial dimensions in their respective traditional mediums. They both use virtual camera to emphasize space and movement. This shows that the unique narrative quality of a digitally constructed space is that it liberates the camera to do movements that that would be impossible to replicate in traditional mediums.
The story of “Tarzan” (Conan Doyle, 1912) was first printed in a magazine in 1912 and has since then been a target for many film adaptations. Disney’s version distinguishes itself by using the limitlessness of animation together with a liberated virtual camera moving through 3D space, to show Tarzan as an athlete and a superhuman adapted to life in the jungle as described in the original publication. This shows that the freedom of virtual camera opens up new narrative possibilities in storytelling, and that it can contribute to new cinematic grammars beyond working as a special effect tool.
Like “The Matrix”, “Tarzan” suggests new cinematic grammars for the virtual camera through “Deep Canvas”. But as with “The Matrix” it does not use the free roaming behavior of the virtual camera as a part of the generic narrative in the film, but more for helping to show off the acrobatic moves of the protagonist in the action sequences. Most notably in the scenes where Tarzan swings and slides through the jungle. “Deep Canvas” is also used to give an extra dramatic impact on certain scenes, like in the scene with the elephant stampede when the gorillas comes moving against the camera at the same time as the virtual camera is moving the camera backwards.
Like “Tarzan”, “The Matrix” uses the extraordinary camera behavior to emphasize the superhuman actions of the characters in the movie, but in “The Matrix” they also use it as a part of the narrative to tell the audience that what we see on screen is a virtual reality as well. They want us to know that the virtual camera is a virtual camera, because what we see is a virtual reality. But in “Tarzan” the goal was to not let the movements of the 3D virtual camera stand out from the rest of the movie, but rather to blend in with the rest of the narrative.
What is common with “Tarzan” and “The Matrix” is that they both use computer technology to open up the opportunities of playing with spatial dimensions in their respective traditional mediums. They both use virtual camera to emphasize space and movement. This shows that the unique narrative quality of a digitally constructed space is that it liberates the camera to do movements that that would be impossible to replicate in traditional mediums.
Old technology that simulates new technology and new technology that simulates old technology
“The Matrix” (Larry and Andy Wachowski, 1999) is a science fiction movie that in its storyline depicts a virtual world and a real world co-existing side by side. Since its storyline allowed for manipulation of the perceived reality inside the virtual world, it made a fabulous
testing ground for the use of new virtual camera techniques, without breaking with the cinematic grammar in the movie as a whole. Purposely breaking with traditional cinematic conventions in terms of camera behavior is done deliberately as an effect. What we see on-screen isn’t suppose to be a depiction of reality, but a virtual reality as in a computer game, where the traditions for camera behavior is different.
The virtual camera shots in “The Matrix” is done by using a set of still cameras placed in a circle around the actors on green screen. Each camera shoots a frame each. They then composite that with a digitally 3D modeled background, and when put together you get the illusion of a free roaming camera liberated in space and time. Since it is able to give the illusion of slowing down time so much that it is able to record (computer generated) gun bullets flying through the air, this virtual camera technique is referred to as “Bullet Time”.
While the virtual camera of “WALL-E” simulates old technology, the old technology of “The Matrix” simulates the possibilities of a free roaming virtual camera like the one they try to camouflage in “WALL-E”. It is interesting how cinema bends towards the freedoms of animation to become more interesting among the audience, while animation bends towards the restrictions of cinema to become more believable among the audience. The similarities are that they both use the camera narrative give the audience more information on-screen.
testing ground for the use of new virtual camera techniques, without breaking with the cinematic grammar in the movie as a whole. Purposely breaking with traditional cinematic conventions in terms of camera behavior is done deliberately as an effect. What we see on-screen isn’t suppose to be a depiction of reality, but a virtual reality as in a computer game, where the traditions for camera behavior is different.
The virtual camera shots in “The Matrix” is done by using a set of still cameras placed in a circle around the actors on green screen. Each camera shoots a frame each. They then composite that with a digitally 3D modeled background, and when put together you get the illusion of a free roaming camera liberated in space and time. Since it is able to give the illusion of slowing down time so much that it is able to record (computer generated) gun bullets flying through the air, this virtual camera technique is referred to as “Bullet Time”.
While the virtual camera of “WALL-E” simulates old technology, the old technology of “The Matrix” simulates the possibilities of a free roaming virtual camera like the one they try to camouflage in “WALL-E”. It is interesting how cinema bends towards the freedoms of animation to become more interesting among the audience, while animation bends towards the restrictions of cinema to become more believable among the audience. The similarities are that they both use the camera narrative give the audience more information on-screen.
Virtual Cinematography in 3D animation
Since ILM made technological inventions to liberate the analogue camera in terms of spatial movements in the 1970s, one would expect that Pixar would take advantage of the limitless freedom of the digital 3D virtual camera in the 1990s. But what I discover when studying the first fully digital 3D animated feature film, “Toy Story” (John Lasseter, 1995), is that it does little to explore the narrative possibilities of a truly virtual camera with its full spatial freedom.
With its cinematic cutting and marginal camera movements, it does nothing to expand upon the current cinematic grammar, as the classic cartoons did. Even though they had possibilities of full freedom of camera movement with no technical limitations holding them back, they still kept to the codes of the traditional cinema.
As a contrast, Disney’s animated test from the early 1980s by the same director, “Where the Wild Things Are” (John Lasseter, 1983), explores the possibilities of a virtual 3D space and the freedom of a virtual camera. “Where the Wild Things Are” is using digital 3D modeled backgrounds with digital 2D characters drawn on top of the final render. They utilize this to show off camera movements that would be practically impossible to do in traditional animation and cinema, using swooping camera movements like dolly and crane moves, pans and two 180 degree tilts in the opening shot. By doing these movements seamlessly in a long take, it introduces new grammars for a new medium. It show that what 3D graphics brings to the movies is the ability of freedom of movement and positioning in space (“Vanishing Point: Spatial Composition and the Virtual Camera”, Mike Jones, 2007).
Another animated short that is playing with the freedom of a virtual camera, is “Jumping” (Tezuka Osamu, 1983). Even though “Jumping” does not apply computer technology like “Toy Story”, it does demonstrate the possibilities of a camera free from the physical limits. The story is told through the eyes of the protagonist (first-person point of view) and it is all one seamless shot, where the protagonist starts by walking, and by each step he elevates a bit higher from the ground till the extremes where he starts from jumping over trees to jumping to different continents. The camera also does an 810 degree turn midair over a cityscape.
Although these two examples show an unbridled use of the possibilities of the animated or the virtual camera, these examples are few and far between. Cinematic grammars dominate and proscribe the actions of the virtual camera, even as it is free to explore any combination of motions. While animation is often the first to experiment with novel camerawork and spaces, it is nevertheless mostly constructed using traditional grammars.
By examine the production process of “WALL-E” (Andrew Stanton, 2008), I discover that Pixar took its conservative approach on the virtual camera even further. By hiring experienced cinematographers, they did an effort in simulating the trademarks, and weaknesses, of an analogue camera being operated by a camera man. They wanted to do this in order to make what is happening in the virtual world on-screen more convincing, or more authentic, for the audience. “I want to make you feel that you really was there!” comments the director Andrew Stanton (“WALL-E: Pixar Goes Space Age”, Pixar, 2008). What he suggests is that if you want to make the audience feel like they are present in the virtual cinematic space, just must communicate with them in with a traditional cinematic language, and through the lens of a 35 mm camera.
A good example of this approach is the scene where EVE is in the foreground searching for a plant, and WALL-E comes in to the picture, crashing with a lot of shopping carts in the background. The camera is initially focused on EVE, but when trying to get WALL-E into focus the virtual cameraman adjusts the lens too much making the picture blurry, and has to re-adjust. Another example is in the scene when EVE and WALL-E floats around in space, the camera acts like it is being controlled by a cameraman floating around with them. This approach pushes the use of the virtual camera forward in terms of “cinematic realism”, which is based on old cinematic grammars made for a different medium. Rather than creating a new language for a new medium, they are using the technical properties of a real camera as a part of the virtual camera narrative.
With its cinematic cutting and marginal camera movements, it does nothing to expand upon the current cinematic grammar, as the classic cartoons did. Even though they had possibilities of full freedom of camera movement with no technical limitations holding them back, they still kept to the codes of the traditional cinema.
As a contrast, Disney’s animated test from the early 1980s by the same director, “Where the Wild Things Are” (John Lasseter, 1983), explores the possibilities of a virtual 3D space and the freedom of a virtual camera. “Where the Wild Things Are” is using digital 3D modeled backgrounds with digital 2D characters drawn on top of the final render. They utilize this to show off camera movements that would be practically impossible to do in traditional animation and cinema, using swooping camera movements like dolly and crane moves, pans and two 180 degree tilts in the opening shot. By doing these movements seamlessly in a long take, it introduces new grammars for a new medium. It show that what 3D graphics brings to the movies is the ability of freedom of movement and positioning in space (“Vanishing Point: Spatial Composition and the Virtual Camera”, Mike Jones, 2007).
Another animated short that is playing with the freedom of a virtual camera, is “Jumping” (Tezuka Osamu, 1983). Even though “Jumping” does not apply computer technology like “Toy Story”, it does demonstrate the possibilities of a camera free from the physical limits. The story is told through the eyes of the protagonist (first-person point of view) and it is all one seamless shot, where the protagonist starts by walking, and by each step he elevates a bit higher from the ground till the extremes where he starts from jumping over trees to jumping to different continents. The camera also does an 810 degree turn midair over a cityscape.
Although these two examples show an unbridled use of the possibilities of the animated or the virtual camera, these examples are few and far between. Cinematic grammars dominate and proscribe the actions of the virtual camera, even as it is free to explore any combination of motions. While animation is often the first to experiment with novel camerawork and spaces, it is nevertheless mostly constructed using traditional grammars.
By examine the production process of “WALL-E” (Andrew Stanton, 2008), I discover that Pixar took its conservative approach on the virtual camera even further. By hiring experienced cinematographers, they did an effort in simulating the trademarks, and weaknesses, of an analogue camera being operated by a camera man. They wanted to do this in order to make what is happening in the virtual world on-screen more convincing, or more authentic, for the audience. “I want to make you feel that you really was there!” comments the director Andrew Stanton (“WALL-E: Pixar Goes Space Age”, Pixar, 2008). What he suggests is that if you want to make the audience feel like they are present in the virtual cinematic space, just must communicate with them in with a traditional cinematic language, and through the lens of a 35 mm camera.
A good example of this approach is the scene where EVE is in the foreground searching for a plant, and WALL-E comes in to the picture, crashing with a lot of shopping carts in the background. The camera is initially focused on EVE, but when trying to get WALL-E into focus the virtual cameraman adjusts the lens too much making the picture blurry, and has to re-adjust. Another example is in the scene when EVE and WALL-E floats around in space, the camera acts like it is being controlled by a cameraman floating around with them. This approach pushes the use of the virtual camera forward in terms of “cinematic realism”, which is based on old cinematic grammars made for a different medium. Rather than creating a new language for a new medium, they are using the technical properties of a real camera as a part of the virtual camera narrative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)