Cinematic video meaning

What is it exactly? Is it related to fps, shutter angle, composition, slowed-down footage, color grading, editing, etc.? I couldn’t put my finger on a specific definition. Its definition is broad rather specific; also subjective. Each article or video touches this subject reflects what that person thinks it is.

The viewer would prefer cinematic videos or normal ones? If the former, how can I achieve it in real estate videography?

It is completely subjective. There is no objective universally agreed definition. Anyone who claims otherwise is most likely trying to sell you something.

If you have clients requesting results that look "cinematic" you'll need to spend some time looking at some references together to determine what it means to them.

Thank you for your input Jamie.

I’m my own client, luckily I just want to get better at what I do. The word Cinematic sounds fancy and sought-after. However, as you have confirmed, there are no specific methods should be followed to achieve that.

I agree with Jamie.

My guess for real estate, I think they mean big sweeping wide shots to start (think a drone shot approaching the property with some epic music), then some contrasty scenes showing the rooms lit in an interesting way.
I suspect that they just want these types of shots however it might be that they also want a story/vo about the house as you go through the rooms. I’d charge extra for this if it takes you more time.

As per Jamie’s suggestion the best thing to do would be to find some reference shots from films and perhaps storyboard a few of them and show the client and ask if that is the type for thing they are looking for.

Often clients just use the latest buzz words they have heard or want something they can’t afford in their budget. Ie I would have 2 pricing tears - ‘standard’ and ‘cinematic’ - and make sure you cost up the cinematic to be significantly more expensive than the standard as it is likely to require more equipment and time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m open to the idea that there’s such a thing as a cinematic image, and indeed that it may be possible to break such images down into subcategories. The fact that there’s no universally agreed definition certainly doesn’t mean that such categories don’t exist. There’s no universal definition of primitivism or cubism in painting, but suggesting that whether a painting is primitive or cubist is just a matter personal opinion simply isn’t true, and more importantly it isn’t helpful to discussion and analysis.

You might find it interesting to get a free two week trial to a website called ShotDeck: https://shotdeck.com/

I agree also (with Jaimie). I'd guesstimate that approximately 112% of people saying that X is "more cinematic" (more cinematic than what? A squished beer can? Used cat litter?) have not stopped to think about what "cinematic" means.

One (idiot) author claimed that it was "things moving across the frame, i.e. 'eye candy'" (I kid you not).

And around 142% of the things that said pseudopundits say are "more cinematic" ignore the fact that nearly every formula they cite is disproven by the cinematography in a prestigious film like "Blade Runner 2049" or "Dune" or "Arrival" or "The Revenant" (etc).

One of the more popular --

"Anamorphic lenses are more cinematic!" (Than cat litter?)

Yet Roger Deakins doesn't use anamorphic lenses, because he prefers the look of spherical lenses...

Etc. Pick a formula, any formula, and you'll almost invariably be able to find a counterexample from someone at that level.

Cinematic really just means "visual storytelling."

It's as simple as that.

I'd guesstimate that approximately 112% of people saying that X is "more cinematic” ... have not stopped to think about what "cinematic" means.

I agree with the sentiment. The sentiment is irrelevant to the question. It’s just a way to avoid addressing the question.

I'd say it's intentional.

That means the various elements have been chosen not stuff that randomly happens.

You could blow out the highlights. You could mess up the colour. But there needs to be a plan so to speak.

Cinematic really just means "visual storytelling."

It's as simple as that.

Very well said. Bravo.

And to put that excellent description to use to better address than my previous reply Omar’s last question in the initial post

how can I achieve it in real estate videography?

My advice Omar is to find examples of visual storytelling that you like, post them here, and I’d bet you’ll get some useful replies with analysis of what techniques were used and how you can apply them to your real estate videos.

A term that’s fallen out of use and understanding is

“Mise en scene”

It’s a French term that ends up meaning the end feeling or result from everything that’s in front of the camera, all the choices that lead to what is in front of the camera including the actors, performance, wardrobe, lighting, staging.

Basically all the creative choices that result in a singular cinematic end result.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise-en-sc%C3%A8ne

“ Mise-en-scène allows the director to not only convey their message but also to implement their aesthetic, as such, each director has their own unique mise-en-scène. Mise-en-scène refers to everything in front of the camera, including the set design, lighting, and actors, and the ultimate way that this influences how the scene comes together for the audience.”

JB

A term that’s fallen out of use and understanding is

“Mise en scene”

It’s a French term that ends up meaning the end feeling or result from everything that’s in front of the camera, all the choices that lead to what is in front of the camera including the actors, performance, wardrobe, lighting, staging.

Basically all the creative choices that result in a singular cinematic end result.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise-en-sc%C3%A8ne

“ Mise-en-scène allows the director to not only convey their message but also to implement their aesthetic, as such, each director has their own unique mise-en-scène. Mise-en-scène refers to everything in front of the camera, including the set design, lighting, and actors, and the ultimate way that this influences how the scene comes together for the audience.”

JB

I second this description. As opposed to a candid shot documenting an event, an image created akin to a painting that conveys the painters vision of the event. The mind's image as opposed to the natural image. Not the note on the score but the sound your mind's ear hears when prompted by the score.

To me, Cinematic means "film", and that means 24 fps.

You can use all the best Hollywood techniques available, but if you shoot at high FPS, it still looks like "video". The Hobbit in 3D and Will Smith's Gemini Man are excellent examples. They look like cheap BBC stage productions of Dr. Who.

However, even without all the 'professional' trappings of Hollywood, 16 mm news reels shot at 24 fps still look like film.

Cinematic = 24 FPS. Plain and simple. The rest is incidental.

To me, cinema means lighting.

Cinematic = 24 FPS. Plain and simple. The rest is incidental.

"Incidental? That's flat out absurd.

There are countless videos shot at 24fps which look nothing like film (or like "cinema", in the loosest sense), and there are thousands of low-budget 35mm features which look far more like video than film thank to their less than stellar production values.

For that matter, modern low-grain film stocks often look more like video than what's traditionally associated with film, and that's at 24fps.

Things are not that simple Jim. OK, it is true that the Hobbits looked like actors on a stage behind a well cleaned window in HFR. But using 24 fps with a digital sensor has its own issues. Even if you use the right motion blur and are not panning too fast, the edges of motion blur are too defined with electronic sensors. Unfortunately, Red also blocked the solution for others by buying Tessive.
I’d suggest to use a higher frame rate for a lot of camera motion over well defined edges like in real estate presentations. They probably won’t be watched in a cinema anyway. The rest is good lighting and grading.

Tessive wasn’t doing anything that can’t be done by others.

Alexa had a “studio” version of the Alexa with a mechanical shutter.

Nobody really seemed to notice much difference and the model was discontinued.

JB

Informative exploration of shutter speed and motion blur.

JB

Well, in our blind tests at German Filmakademie, audiences in cinema were able to spot the difference, both with the Alexa Studio and Red’s Motion Mount (which is the cheaper solution). But then, the average moviegoer will not care if the story is captivating enough.
My point was that 24 fps with 180 degree shutter does not look the same for optochemical film vs electronic sensors.

Well, in our blind tests at German Filmakademie, audiences in cinema were able to spot the difference, both with the Alexa Studio and Red’s Motion Mount (which is the cheaper solution). But then, the average moviegoer will not care if the story is captivating enough.
My point was that 24 fps with 180 degree shutter does not look the same for optochemical film vs electronic sensors.

It's so much more than that though. Motion cadence is but one of many parameters and the market really doesn't even provide options any more for it other than some GS cameras.

JB

Cinematic really just means "visual storytelling."

It's as simple as that.

Perfectly succinct.

Cinematic really just means "visual storytelling."

It's as simple as that.

Perfectly succinct.

Well, in our blind tests at German Filmakademie, audiences in cinema were able to spot the difference, both with the Alexa Studio and Red’s Motion Mount (which is the cheaper solution). But then, the average moviegoer will not care if the story is captivating enough.
My point was that 24 fps with 180 degree shutter does not look the same for optochemical film vs electronic sensors.

It is interesting how all the flaws of capturing motion on a photo-chemical ribbon have become desirable now that digital is ubiquitous. Film itself is relatively low resolution - with halation, grain, inaccurate color reproduction, etc. It has fog and a toe and shoulder - a non linear response to light. It's popular among amateurs and professionals both to add these flaws to digital images. And the medium necessitated a low frame rate and less than 360 degree shutter, an arbitrary mechanical limitation which we still abide by like a law of nature.

Film today is almost always exhibited digitally which means it's also a sorta delayed digital image via film intermediate. A photochemical print also has limited dynamic range and so punchy contrast and saturation.

The two things digital can do better than film which nobody would want to give up are low light sensitivity and global shutter, though film's shutter was quite fast. Also most people don't like gate weave, but I've added it to a few of my digital projects and it can make a difference in how a scene feels.

edit: even anamorphic is perhaps the silliest idea ever, a way to get a widescreen image on a single 35mm strip of film without blowing up the grain. The conseqeunce is barrel distortion, odd flairs, inconsistent squeeze factor (mumps) and horrible astigmatism that needs correcting. But it looks nice. So even though it makes no sense to use on a digital camera from the perspective of why it was invented, it's actually extremely popular.

Well, there are folks who like scratchy, noisy vinyl over SACD. Nuff said.

While I wouldn't contradict John (how could I dare), I tried to aim at the specific situation of Omar. Regarding motion blur, of course you can go higher than 180 degrees, which is not necessarily a law of nature, as Paul Cameron did for night exteriors in "Collateral". Going lower than 180 degrees is working against the illusion of motion in many situations, though. As Spielberg deliberately decided for aesthetic reasons in "Saving Private Ryan".
But for motion blur specifically, film was superior to digital. While it technically had rolling shutter, IIRC a classical Arri's rotary shutter was about 4ms, the main point is that this shutter was out of focus, so the beginning and end of the motion blur are not sharply defined. They are in digital cameras, even for global shutter.
So, for something like real estate, things are a bit different than in cinema. You normally wouldn't have an actor or actress, or a moving object, guiding the motion of the camera. The camera itself is moving over objects, with usually well defined edges and being in focus. For such a situation, I'd suggest to try 50 or 60 fps (depending a where you work) and using a longer exposure. Of course, you can also do real estate by storytelling, by showing a family during daily activities in the house or apartment, but that is not the norm. I think a smoother experience of motion is more attractive here.

If I can , very modestly , add some words .. There is the Technical Aspect , the choice of the Format , (maybe for great open spaces , westerns , adventures on the Ocean , you can choose the Scope Format ) Anamorphic , or not Anamorphic , the Camera Settings , The Lighting .. the Depth Of Field , In short , the VIsual Aspect ..

And , more Importantly , every single Camera Movement , every Shot , every Choice , has to be Motivated .. You want to tell a Story , or , at least , express something .. everything has to be anticipated ( as a principle ... ) .

One of the most interesting aspect and questioning is how to express something , through a Pan , a Camera Movement , a lens effect , the lighting ..

Nowadays , everyone owns , at least , a smartphone , sometimes a drone , but what we see is very often , meaningless , or , at best , a bit Documentary ..

About Westerns ... I still own that Beautiful Black Stetson ... I was walking in the Streets of San Francisco with it on my head in June Seventy Nine .. people shouting " Hey , Cow-Boy " .. very unusual for a French Guy .. I was young then , and I would not do that today .. The Cow-Boy is tired , and has some low back Pain , sometimes ( L5-S1..).. Time is passing by .. Do not count on me to ride a horse .. I am too Old , and that is too Dangerous ..

" L'humour est la Politesse du Désespoir " ..

Just my Two Euros , with my Regards from France .. / Mike ..

Cinematic video meaning

What is it exactly?

It means that whenever the title of a YouTube video says "cinematic", you can rest assured that it's just a bunch of over-graded, mediocre footage from people who also upload tutorials on cinematic lighting after having bought their first LED light just 3 days ago.

It is interesting how all the flaws of capturing motion on a photo-chemical ribbon have become desirable now that digital is ubiquitous.

Those "flaws", one could argue, serve as stimulants.

This proposition becomes less than ludicrous in film festival settings, where you watch one digitally-originated DCP after another, and then encounter a projected 35mm print. All that under-surface stuff keeps you awake and engaged in a way "projected TV" doesn't.

Is this tantamount to saying, as noted above, that some people idiotically prefer surface noise, wow, flutter, etc. to "flawless" digital? For most classical music lovers, I think the answer is "yes", whether or not the parties have any interest in the debate. Even "phony" vinyl recordings, from digital masters, may have attributes which may make listening more pleasurable.

Do defects and sub-surface anomalies open the doors of perception? It may be less a question of which is "better" or more accurate, than which is more engaging. Noise would seem to have certain attractions, in human perception.

'Mise-en-scène', was a theatrical term borrowed by French intellectuals, such as Truffaut and Goddard, before they ever made a single film themselves, and proposed in the pages of Cahiers Du Cinema. The way we were taught it basically means everything you create in front of the camera through angles, setting and editing implies also a believable world beyond the frame, as in Theatre, each setting has a time and place; if it's a drawing room at night, you believe there is a real night and garden out there too. Since whenever Edwin S. Porter played with the cut, we have a believable world and continuity, through these juxtapositions, if successful.

'Cinematic' used to mean simply theatrical cinematic style and narrative, to be shown in a cinema, as opposed to TV and video. I started as a TV film editor in the late eighties with real film 16/35mm round my neck and I never thought that particularly cinematic, despite it's cadence. Hell the BBC used to call films plays, when to my mind they were clearly films using angles and editing, alien to live theatre. The electronic medium has just tried to ape what we lost with the organic photo-chemical process, what were once seen as sometimes artefacts, in fact. ISO and all the rest for example. It does a pretty good job but I still personally wouldn't call a beautifully shot YT video, with extreme shallow DOF and 24p, necessarily, 'Cinematic'.

I think it's much more complex to define these days and I'm not denigrating YT, some of those kids are doing some wonderful things; but where and how we watch content now, that used to define it's name, no longer always pertains.

What is it exactly? Is it related to fps, shutter angle, composition, slowed-down footage, color grading, editing, etc.? I couldn’t put my finger on a specific definition. Its definition is broad rather specific; also subjective. Each article or video touches this subject reflects what that person thinks it is.

The viewer would prefer cinematic videos or normal ones? If the former, how can I achieve it in real estate videography?

Cinematic means that it looks like a movie.

Viewers prefer relevant content and good stories.

If you have to choose one, choose the second one. Most fail because they choose the first.

If you can capture both, submit it to a festival and count yourself lucky.

Cinematic means that it looks like a movie.

This is wrong. There is no one look for a movie. With the exception of the Marvel films that all look the same due to the incompetent directors they put in charge and Hallmark films that are all graded to look like greeting cards (i.e. flat), movies have wide varieties of looks.

THAT is another place where around 224% of the people who use bogus phrases like "X is more cinematic" get it wrong.

Viewers prefer relevant content and good stories.

That is true. But then I'd also argue that because most modern Hollydork movies rely heavily on exposition nowadays that they are no longer cinematic, since they're not telling VISUAL stories.

If you have to choose one, choose the second one. Most fail because they choose the first.

The second "one." That's the flaw. Interstellar, Arrival, Children of Men, Birdman, Blade Runner 2049 and The Batman all look very different from each other, yet they are all regarded as cinematic because they were stunning. But so was The Road and so was Fury Road. All look different.

So when you say "looked like a movie" you're falling into the trap of forgetting that art is art.

If you can capture both, submit it to a festival and count yourself lucky.

If you submit to any festival that is not a top tier festival that you're not getting into unless they know who you are, you've failed already by dint of following the footsteps of the indie filmmakers who are too ashamed to let actual people see their films, and only show them to the other fools dumb enough to hide their films in long festival runs.

Cinematic means that it looks like a movie.

This is wrong. There is no one look for a movie. With the exception of the Marvel films that all look the same due to the incompetent directors they put in charge and Hallmark films that are all graded to look like greeting cards (i.e. flat), movies have wide varieties of looks.

THAT is another place where around 224% of the people who use bogus phrases like "X is more cinematic" get it wrong.

Viewers prefer relevant content and good stories.

That is true. But then I'd also argue that because most modern Hollydork movies rely heavily on exposition nowadays that they are no longer cinematic, since they're not telling VISUAL stories.

If you have to choose one, choose the second one. Most fail because they choose the first.

The second "one." That's the flaw. Interstellar, Arrival, Children of Men, Birdman, Blade Runner 2049 and The Batman all look very different from each other, yet they are all regarded as cinematic because they were stunning. But so was The Road and so was Fury Road. All look different.

So when you say "looked like a movie" you're falling into the trap of forgetting that art is art.

If you can capture both, submit it to a festival and count yourself lucky.

If you submit to any festival that is not a top tier festival that you're not getting into unless they know who you are, you've failed already by dint of following the footsteps of the indie filmmakers who are too ashamed to let actual people see their films, and only show them to the other fools dumb enough to hide their films in long festival runs.

Everything you said can be implied in what I said. You just over complicated it and made it seem impossible. Is this something that you do often?

Everyone, thank you so much for your invaluable input and enriching this thread.

I agree it's about storytelling, lighting and drone shots. I can't control lighting at this stage nor can I afford a drone.

I usually shoot 180 degree, 60 fps and then slow down the video by 50%. When I get a gimbal, I will try 24fps or maybe open gate speed recording 24/36 fps and compare the results.

I will keep watching real estate videos and try to imitate whatever possible with what I have in hand.

When I get a gimbal, I will try 24fps or maybe open gate speed recording 24/36 fps and compare the results.

Imo it's not a bad idea to shoot slow mo and move at normal speed compared to shoot 24 fps and try to move slow, even with a gimbal. It will usually result in smoother motion.

When I get a gimbal, I will try 24fps or maybe open gate speed recording 24/36 fps and compare the results.

Imo it's not a bad idea to shoot slow mo and move at normal speed compared to shoot 24 fps and try to move slow, even with a gimbal. It will usually result in smoother motion.

I thought so too. off speed at normal movement speed is better than 24fps and move slowly. Open gate will be preferred as it is not windowed, taking advantage of full width, because it will cropped when I work in 4K DCI resolution.

I think the word cinematic these days is typically a 'misused' word to excuse anyone from any form of criticism because film is art, rather than a technically fixed, defined thing.

In some ways you could describe cinematic as having certain traits but nothing is fixed there. You could have a single property related to film or hundreds but ultimately the actual product, what you are trying to communicate in that product and how you do it is what matters in moving the target audience.
In general I think the unaware crowd would relate something to being cinematic when the following criteria are met. Great technical image quality achieved by proper gear. Meticulously crafted shots that feel like they're made with a certain intent. Proper post production treatment that matches that intent.

To translate that to real estate, a lot of properties typically related to the word 'cinematic' can in my opinion immediately be scrapped from the checklist. My guess is no client in that business would ever care about film grain, 2.35:1 aspect ratio, fast action shots, heavy grading, big 'cinematic' music and fx, and the list goes on.

What matters for them is, how does the property look as a whole, is the property clean, what sort of natural and artificial lighting can I expect over a day in and outside, how are all the spaces in size, how are the vistas, do I want to buy this/live here etc.

The general way to achieve this would be mostly slow-moving shots that tell that story through establishing shots, close ups of eye catchers, wide angles to take in the space/view, no unnecessary 'action style' quick cuts, music that fits the potential buyer or identity/style of the property. The final look should mostly be clean in the sense that you can see detail in both highlights and shadows. You don't want to have the feeling that information is hidden from you. Colors can be 'sauced' but shouldn't perceptively deviate from real life too much, i.e. no whacky orange teal looks.

Within those constraints you can think of small creative choices to add personality to the product, but it should never affect the image quality in a way that would abstract it too much from reality. The content should be clear, readable and invoke a desire to live there/own it.

To translate that to real estate, a lot of properties typically related to the word 'cinematic' can in my opinion immediately be scrapped from the checklist. My guess is no client in that business would ever care about film grain, 2.35:1 aspect ratio, fast action shots, heavy grading, big 'cinematic' music and fx, and the list goes on.

What matters for them is, how does the property look as a whole, is the property clean, what sort of natural and artificial lighting can I expect over a day in and outside, how are all the spaces in size, how are the vistas, do I want to buy this/live here etc.

The general way to achieve this would be mostly slow-moving shots that tell that story through establishing shots, close ups of eye catchers, wide angles to take in the space/view, no unnecessary 'action style' quick cuts, music that fits the potential buyer or identity/style of the property. The final look should mostly be clean in the sense that you can see detail in both highlights and shadows. You don't want to have the feeling that information is hidden from you. Colors can be 'sauced' but shouldn't perceptively deviate from real life too much, i.e. no whacky orange teal looks.

Within those constraints you can think of small creative choices to add personality to the product, but it should never affect the image quality in a way that would abstract it too much from reality. The content should be clear, readable and invoke a desire to live there/own it.

Well said shebbe, thank you. I always try to keep colors as close to reality as possible, I don't drama at all. I sometimes tend to overexpose mids a bit with some color boost. I also find a way between sharp and foggy/dreamy image.

cinematic (cin·e·mat·ic /ˌsinəˈmadik/): Per OYED (Official YouTube English Dictionary): Any video that uses one or (strongly suggested) more of the following in (also strongly suggested) every single scene:

- Lots of slow motion (slower the better)
- Extremely shallow depth of field (shallower the better)
- Orange teal green brown ... color palette (stronger the better)
- Heavy grain (heavier the better)
- VHS, Polaroid, glitch and other similar effects (strongly suggested all stacked together)
- Anamorphic lens, black bars, uncommon aspect ratios (strongly suggested all stacked together)
- Cine / ultra wide / super tele and/or vintage lens
- Anything else that is currently trending as “must have for shot to be cinematic” among leading members of Association of YouTube Authorities on All Matters Creative (including, but not limited to, gear, stock footage, music and effects by whichever sponsor is paying them that day)

{joking off}

I apologize for my joking, I know question was very serious and well intended, and replies to it were very deep and educational, but I couldn't help myself but to express how I feel how word "cinematic" is used nowadays. It is supposed to be highest praise. Instead it has been cheapened into oblivion by indiscriminately slapping it onto every single cheap trick without any substance underneath. Just like they did to word "epic" when they started using it for everything and anything, even most mundane stuff.

When working with clients (usually the director in my case), I show then references from ShotDeck and ask them what comes out to them that looks exciting and cinematic, whatever that latter is supposed to be. When they pick a deck, I now have an idea of what they’re thinking and want to have.

@Alex, lol I got caught by your joke at first. You forgot transitions and sounds effects copying others or following a trend is easier than becoming innovative.

@Ellory, I have checked ShotDeck, it's nice to get an idea who professional cinematographer think, it's not for me though, too advanced for what I do.

There are many examples of cinematic real estate videos on YouTube, here's an example.

This channel belongs to an active agency in my area

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdGKYo ... ym6xhfdRMQ