6 ms·

The Cinematography of "The Incredibles" Part 2

79 points by lispython 13y ago

jnazario 13y ago
tl;dr: pixar combines good cinematography with good animations (and writing and characters and voice talent and storyline), really exploiting the freedom from constraints they have as animators.
- visakanv 13y ago
  the devil really is in the details, though, and it's worth seeing what these details are!
Mithrandir 13y ago
Discussion for part 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920151
Volscio 13y ago
Almost as wonderful as the level of appreciation for detail from the team that made the film is the level of work and detail that went into these two posts. I love the amount of evidence and the discussion of core concepts for cinematography -- this is the kind of stuff that I would wish to see if I were being taught in school.
Strilanc 13y ago
For me, the best part of this article is how concrete it makes "this is challenging". I knew intellectually that making a film couldn't be easy, but seeing just this small bit of it broken down really drives the point home and makes it real. That looks really hard to do.
- Aqua_Geek 13y ago
  Not detracting from the feeling that it looks really hard to do, but I think some people are just wired to think about this kind of stuff naturally — for them, it's more of a sense of how things should be framed than a second-by-second analytical breakdown.
  - visakanv 13y ago
    Yup. A football player who dashes into space and makes a cross to another player who will be in open space is making tonnes of calculations in his head about moving bodies, acceleration, etc- but he isn't, either. He's internalized such thinking. Same for musicians, and same for artists of any kind.
  - larve 13y ago
    Having studied drawing and painting in the last few years, composition is one of these things that I just didn't get. Then it suddenly clicked, mostly by switching to photography to experiment quickly with framing (crop it in photoshop), interesting leading lines and such. It now feels totally natural, but the road to it was totally obscure for me until I just started taking tons of pictures. Interestingly, I now usually focus on composition / shape / focal points "consciously", planning it out, doing designs, while the more "technical" side of painting (mixing colors, brushstrokes, dark/light) is totally muscle memory. I have made a lot of music, until it felt "part of myself", then tried out painting/drawing, which is now an integral part of my life and way of seeing the world. But my primary background and ultimately my "self-identity" is software. It is funny how art is pretty much the opposite in terms of process: I will consciously and "technically" work on the part that will affect the viewer/listener the most (composition, buildups/breakdowns in music, tension/relaxation, color/shape/form), and once a good "solution" is found the technical part of it kind of solves itself. In software, I prefer working on system level things, threading designs, database / scaling, embedded systems. The architectural part of the system is very intuitive, I usually have an idea pop up in my head or while showering. They are often wrong, but I take care of that by doing a lot of miniature systems in their own branches and discard them when not good. However, the technical side of implementing that idea of a design is extremely demanding, and needs iterations and thinking and just plain focused work.
myramnath 13y ago
Nice attention to details! interesting post
dclowd9901 13y ago
Interesting note: Wes Anderson seems to get away with pretty much every established rule in the book of cinematography, and yet his films are generally beautiful to watch. Discuss.
mxfh 13y ago
Is there any proof that the «Rule of Third's»* especially it's power/focal points is more than just a self-referential myth? As I understands it prevents beginners from falling for the symmetric layout / static center composition trap, but other than that I think it's just not any good indicator for a good picture. * also applies to golden ratio and fibonacci spirals see: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3118007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3118007
- arrrg 13y ago
  What are you on about? No one made any such claims, neither here nor in the linked article. The rule of thirds is just a certain way of composition and some people like its aesthetics.
  - js2 13y ago
    Ditto leading lines.
  - mxfh 13y ago
    It's down there at the end, that CG Boarding Page 14. Those Focal Points I just don't get them. Can't they just say make your frame look good and less boring by putting your object of interest off center, or did that rule just stick because it's easy to remember and easy to program and overlay.
  - asperous 13y ago
    In contrast to that is like Fantastic Mr. Fox. Wes Anderson composes a lot of shots with the focus dead center. Unconventional, but interesting.
    - egypturnash 13y ago
      As someone who's seen a lot of animated features, Fantastic Mr. Fox was fascinating. It made me realize just how much dogma I'd picked up about what animated features are "supposed" to be, pretty much entirely inherited from the choices Disney made in the 50s, which have been relentlessly copied by pretty much every animated feature ever since. FMF was from a very different place, and I found it incredibly strong because of that.

79 points by lispython 13y ago

tl;dr: pixar combines good cinematography with good animations (and writing and characters and voice talent and storyline), really exploiting the freedom from constraints they have as animators.

visakanv 13y ago
the devil really is in the details, though, and it's worth seeing what these details are!

Mithrandir 13y ago

Discussion for part 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920151

Volscio 13y ago

Almost as wonderful as the level of appreciation for detail from the team that made the film is the level of work and detail that went into these two posts. I love the amount of evidence and the discussion of core concepts for cinematography -- this is the kind of stuff that I would wish to see if I were being taught in school.

Strilanc 13y ago

For me, the best part of this article is how concrete it makes "this is challenging". I knew intellectually that making a film couldn't be easy, but seeing just this small bit of it broken down really drives the point home and makes it real. That looks really hard to do.

Aqua_Geek 13y ago
Not detracting from the feeling that it looks really hard to do, but I think some people are just wired to think about this kind of stuff naturally — for them, it's more of a sense of how things should be framed than a second-by-second analytical breakdown.
- visakanv 13y ago
  Yup. A football player who dashes into space and makes a cross to another player who will be in open space is making tonnes of calculations in his head about moving bodies, acceleration, etc- but he isn't, either. He's internalized such thinking. Same for musicians, and same for artists of any kind.
- larve 13y ago
  Having studied drawing and painting in the last few years, composition is one of these things that I just didn't get. Then it suddenly clicked, mostly by switching to photography to experiment quickly with framing (crop it in photoshop), interesting leading lines and such. It now feels totally natural, but the road to it was totally obscure for me until I just started taking tons of pictures. Interestingly, I now usually focus on composition / shape / focal points "consciously", planning it out, doing designs, while the more "technical" side of painting (mixing colors, brushstrokes, dark/light) is totally muscle memory. I have made a lot of music, until it felt "part of myself", then tried out painting/drawing, which is now an integral part of my life and way of seeing the world. But my primary background and ultimately my "self-identity" is software. It is funny how art is pretty much the opposite in terms of process: I will consciously and "technically" work on the part that will affect the viewer/listener the most (composition, buildups/breakdowns in music, tension/relaxation, color/shape/form), and once a good "solution" is found the technical part of it kind of solves itself. In software, I prefer working on system level things, threading designs, database / scaling, embedded systems. The architectural part of the system is very intuitive, I usually have an idea pop up in my head or while showering. They are often wrong, but I take care of that by doing a lot of miniature systems in their own branches and discard them when not good. However, the technical side of implementing that idea of a design is extremely demanding, and needs iterations and thinking and just plain focused work.

myramnath 13y ago

Nice attention to details! interesting post

dclowd9901 13y ago

Interesting note: Wes Anderson seems to get away with pretty much every established rule in the book of cinematography, and yet his films are generally beautiful to watch. Discuss.

mxfh 13y ago

Is there any proof that the «Rule of Third's»* especially it's power/focal points is more than just a self-referential myth? As I understands it prevents beginners from falling for the symmetric layout / static center composition trap, but other than that I think it's just not any good indicator for a good picture. * also applies to golden ratio and fibonacci spirals see: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3118007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3118007

arrrg 13y ago
What are you on about? No one made any such claims, neither here nor in the linked article. The rule of thirds is just a certain way of composition and some people like its aesthetics.
- js2 13y ago
  Ditto leading lines.
- mxfh 13y ago
  It's down there at the end, that CG Boarding Page 14. Those Focal Points I just don't get them. Can't they just say make your frame look good and less boring by putting your object of interest off center, or did that rule just stick because it's easy to remember and easy to program and overlay.
- asperous 13y ago
  In contrast to that is like Fantastic Mr. Fox. Wes Anderson composes a lot of shots with the focus dead center. Unconventional, but interesting.
  - egypturnash 13y ago
    As someone who's seen a lot of animated features, Fantastic Mr. Fox was fascinating. It made me realize just how much dogma I'd picked up about what animated features are "supposed" to be, pretty much entirely inherited from the choices Disney made in the 50s, which have been relentlessly copied by pretty much every animated feature ever since. FMF was from a very different place, and I found it incredibly strong because of that.