With the introduction of digital 3D animation in cinema and animation, there are no longer any limits to the freedom of camera movements and behaviors available to the director. Still constraints exist that keep the animated camera, with its possibilities to explore and construct any space and time, grounded to mimic the properties of its mechanical cousin.
This research is an attempt to examine how virtual cinematography is being used in animation and cinema in order to show its potential. I will do so by studying technological innovation and achievements in the use of narrative camera in both animation and cinema.
In “The Language of New Media” (Lev Manovich, 2001), Lev Manovich claims that “we do expect computer narratives to showcase new aesthetic possibilities that did not exist before digital computers” (Manovich, 237). He also claims that the directors refuse to give up the unique “cinema-effect” (Manovich, 310), an effect which according to Manovich depends upon three factors: the narrative form, the “reality” effect and the cinema’s architectural arrangement all working together.
This research will follow Manovich’s lead and discuss what role camera and constructed space plays in classic animation compared to modern animation and digital cinema.
Background
Lev Manovich, a professor at the Visual Arts Department at UCSD, gives us a critical insight into animation, cinema and compositing in his work “What is Digital Cinema?” (Lev Manovich, 1995), “Cinema and Digital Media” (Lev Manovich, 1996), “Assembling Reality: Myth of Computer Graphics” (Lev Manovich, 1999) and “The Language of New Media” (Lev Manovich, 2001).
In this research I am going to examine behavior of virtual camera in its relationship with the cinematic camera and constructed space. The term “virtual camera” is commonly used when describing the viewport of a computer generated 3D virtual space (“What is Digital Cinema?”, Lev Manovich,1995) and is used in related research papers when addressing topics surrounding simulated camera in computer animation (“Vanishing Point: Spatial Composition and the Virtual Camera”, Mike Jones, 2007).
“Virtual” is a term that is a reference to things that mimic their "real" equivalents, in this case a camera. So for the sake of this discussion I will use the term “virtual camera” as a broader definition than in those examples mentioned above, as this research will focus on simulated camera behavior and movement in constructed space in traditional 2D and digital 3D animation, as well as by motion control rigs and photo camera arrays. The similarity between these four different mediums is that they all simulate the functions of a cinematic camera, but in a constructed space.
I do not define the virtual camera as a thing by itself, but rather as the simulation of the properties of a real camera, in its relationship to its constructed environment. This phenomenon arises for examples when mimicking cinematic camera conventions through the viewport of a 3D renderer or when 160 photo cameras simulate one cinematic camera.
With the term “digital cinema” I refer to Lev Manovich’s definition. Manovich defines it as a cinematic production that has been digitally composited, where live-action material is composited with digital image processing, painting and animation.
Design of Work
In this research I will examine the specific grammars of virtual cinematography by studying technological innovation and achievements in the use of camera movements in both animation and cinema.
I will use the articles “What is Digital Cinema?” (Lev Manovich, 1991) and the book “The Language of New Media” (Lev Manovich, 2001) as primary sources for arguments about narrative grammars and cinematic reality. Both discuss the emergence of digital cinema and new media and their relationship with traditional mediums. Specifically I will take up Manovich’s discussion on the part virtual camera plays in this emergent context. I will also use “The Mouse Machine” (J.P. Telotte, 2008) as a secondary source in order to examine the history of animated cinema in order to find instances of the emergence of a virtual camera.
In order to examine the relationship between technical innovation and its relationship to changes in narrative grammar, I will look at the productions that introduced new narrative or technological innovation. I will attempt to use my findings to discuss how and where virtual cinematography is being used and how its properties are being explored, in order to show the differences and similarities between grammar of animated, virtual and cinematic camera.
Specifically I will examine the animated works “Gertie the Dinosaur” (Winsor McCay, 1914), “The Sinking of the Lusitania” (Winsor McCay, 1918), “Popeye the Sailor meets Sinbad the Sailor” (David Fleischer, 1936), “The Old Mill” (Wilfred Jackson, 1937), “Toy Story” (John Lassenter, 1995), “Tarzan” (Kevin Lima and Chris Buck, 1999) and “WALL-E” (Andrew Stanton, 2008). And I will be examine the cinematic productions “Love Me Tonight” (Rouben Mamoulian, 1932), “Star Wars: A New Hope” (George Lucas, 1977), “The Matrix” (Larry and Andy Wachowski, 1999) and “10,000 BC” (Roland Emmerich, 2008).
I will follow Lev Manovich’s lead and ask: What role does camera and constructed space play in classic animation compared to modern animation? How does the virtual camera in digital cinema represent a shift in the narrative grammar? In what ways has cinema introduced virtual spaces into its grammar?
Results
Cinema has always been about creating illusions, but at the same time they have hidden the illusions and special effects behind an accepted “reality” associated with traditional cinematic grammar.
In a way, little has changed since the 1930s. Unorthodox camera behaviors are being reserved for “special effects” shots, constructed virtual space is reserved for the “fantastical” and high-budget animated productions are still working hard to mimic the conventions of live-action cinema. This is because productions today still follow the same cinematic grammar as then.
Virtual camera as a part of cinema, still obeys these conventions. Where camera movements are liberated in space, which is the unique quality virtual camera contributes to cinema, it is used to promote an “out-of-this-world”-feel (“The Matrix) or a depiction of something “fantastical” (“Star Wars: A New Hope”).
Discussion
It is no longer the mechanical constructions available to the cinematographers, but the creativity and visions of the directors that set the boundaries of what is possible to depict in cinema. Pixar-director Andrew Stanton claims that since “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” (Peter Jackson, 2001), it is no longer any technical obstacles when it comes to creating photo realistic virtual worlds. But the cinematic language does not change in pace with the technological inventions. Digital cinema still depends on the “reality effect” the use of the traditional cinematic grammars brings to the screen.
Virtual cinematography as a part of digital cinema is superset to traditional cinematography in that aspect as with digital cinema, the directors have full artistic freedom to compose (and recompose) a scene. And as upcoming movies like “Avatar” (James Cameron, 2009) are using virtual camera to diffuse the borders between animation and live-action, I am certain that the use of the freedom of virtual camera in cinema and animation will broaden beyond the use as a special effect, and with that the grammars for what is accepted as screen reality will change.
Conclusion
With the introduction of digital 3D animation, there are no longer any limits to the freedom of virtual camera in digital cinema. But cinematic grammar keeps the virtual camera grounded to mimic the properties of its mechanical cousin, or to stand out proposing an “out-of-this-world”-feel. If current cinematic grammar is going to change drastically, cinema narrative has to be influenced by the narrative grammar of computer games, and thus introducing the spatial limitlessness of virtual camera as part of the convention for cinematic reality.
It will be interesting to see how virtual camera’s shift from post-production to the real-time recording in upcoming productions like “Avatar”, will contribute to create new narrative grammar specific for virtual camera in cinema and animation. As generations now grow up understanding and accepting new media languages, the virtual and computer generated will be more accepted as “reality”, without the need to hide behind old cinematic conventions to make them believable.
A further way to improve on this research will be to take the inclusion of music videos, anime, comic books and 3D cinema into to the study. It would also be interesting to compare the history camera narrative in computer games to the camera narrative in cinema and animation. A free roaming virtual camera is a natural part of the computer game narrative, so we have to look at current computer games to get a glimpse at the possibilities of future cinematic conventions for the virtual camera.
No comments:
Post a Comment