Cinema+Architecture

[Giulio]

Hello All,

 

I am an architecture student and as a research im my studio I am investigating how the cinematographic techniques can inform an architectural design process. I am analysing a movie (The Matrix) and making some diagrams which describe how the different technical devices are used to structure the movie and provide meaning of space within it.

 

Do you think there can be any relation between the DOF and the light density of the image on screen (expressed in a stepwedge bar 0% to 100%) ? How can I relate these two elements? Furthermore, is there also any relation btw the slow motion fx , the frame rate used to obtain it, and the "optical design" of the image (I mean again the dof and also the focal lenght used portraying different kind of perspective views).

 

Thank you for your help

 

Giulio

 

ps. here attached some still frame I am using to analyse the light density and which I'd like to relate to the dof and focus plane...

1) B&W Light Density Frame 2) relative colour Still Frame

Edited February 27, 2005 by Giulio

[Michael Nash]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but I'll attempt an answer anyway.

 

Depth of field is the area in front of the lens where objects appear in focus. It's not the same thing as the illusion of depth, if that's how you're using the term.

 

In any case, depth of field is controlled by the aperture of the lens, the focal length of the lens, and the distance between the lens and the subject being focused. Light values within the frame really have nothing to do with the appearance of focus.

 

But light values do help create the illusion of depth. In general, lighter values appear to "advance" or appear closer to the viewer than darker values, which appear to recede. A common trick to creating the illusion of depth on a 2D screen is to place values in layers, getting darker as you recede in space. But you can also reverse that order if you like, or alternate layers of light and dark to separate layers or planes in space. These are common tricks used by artists of all kinds for centuries.

 

For one thing, lighter values in the foreground tend to emphasize form, at least the form of the subject that's lit to a brighter value. Lighter values in background tend to emphasize space, in part because your eye is drawn to brighter areas of the frame (in this case the background). I think that may be one of the principles you're trying to get at.

 

Slow motion on its own has no effect on depth of field. Technically speaking when you shoot at higher frame rates you need to open the aperture more to maintain exposure, thereby reducing your depth of field. But in practice it's common to simply raise the light levels when shooting high frame rates, so that you can maintain a desired working aperture.

 

Wide angle lenses give you more depth of field (when aperture and distance remain the same), and they also exaggerate the illusion of depth via linear perspective and scale.

 

But I'm curious, how are you trying to relate these principles to architecture? I'm a big architecture fan, and I love trying to "cross-pollinate" artistic principles between forms, so I'd like to know what you're up to.

[Giulio]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but I'll attempt an answer anyway.

 

Depth of field is the area in front of the lens where objects appear in focus. It's not the same thing as the illusion of depth, if that's how you're using the term.

 

In any case, depth of field is controlled by the aperture of the lens, the focal length of the lens, and the distance between the lens and the subject being focused. Light values within the frame really have nothing to do with the appearance of focus.

 

But light values do help create the illusion of depth. In general, lighter values appear to "advance" or appear closer to the viewer than darker values, which appear to recede. A common trick to creating the illusion of depth on a 2D screen is to place values in layers, getting darker as you recede in space. But you can also reverse that order if you like, or alternate layers of light and dark to separate layers or planes in space. These are common tricks used by artists of all kinds for centuries.

 

For one thing, lighter values in the foreground tend to emphasize form, at least the form of the subject that's lit to a brighter value. Lighter values in background tend to emphasize space, in part because your eye is drawn to brighter areas of the frame (in this case the background). I think that may be one of the principles you're trying to get at.

 

Slow motion on its own has no effect on depth of field. Technically speaking when you shoot at higher frame rates you need to open the aperture more to maintain exposure, thereby reducing your depth of field. But in practice it's common to simply raise the light levels when shooting high frame rates, so that you can maintain a desired working aperture.

 

Wide angle lenses give you more depth of field (when aperture and distance remain the same), and they also exaggerate the illusion of depth via linear perspective and scale.

 

But I'm curious, how are you trying to relate these principles to architecture? I'm a big architecture fan, and I love trying to "cross-pollinate" artistic principles between forms, so I'd like to know what you're up to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for your feedback!

 

Well as I told the programme course which I am attending is "Learning from Hollywood" and it aims to find relation in the way cinematography techniques are used to structure a movie. The assigned movie it is The Matrix and through drawings and diagrams we have to find relation btw the specific cinematographic techniques of the Matrix and finally get from these a kind of instrumental tools useful to inform an architectural deisgn process. These kind of tools should let me to make good analysis on the site according to the diagrams/drawings about film and lead me to define the "composition language" of my architectural project.

 

I know, the course aim is quite ambitious, but unfortunately, the tutors are not well known about the topic and it seems just a random choice rather than a true interest in how to investigate these relations. I mean, the topic is quite specific and special and me and most of my classmates haven't any cinematography knowledges, so if also the tutors are not clear what to do with it as they just found funny to do these stuffs (but they are not really experienced about film+arch), then one gets really confused about!

 

However, have you got any ideas if are there any set of "rules" used among the cinematography techniques provinding specific visual-spatial movie composition?

 

Have got some useful links about diagramming graphically a movie?

 

thanks you anyway

 

Giulio

 

ps. if ur interested I can post to ur private email address some works I did so far.. just give me ur email

[Mike Williamson]

Giulio, your project sounds interesting. One thing that you'll find out quickly is that filmmakers have a unique technical vocabulary and you may have to become familiar with it to explore this topic. For example, as Michael Nash pointed, "depth of field" has a specific meaning which is NOT the same thing as a more general term like "illusion of space". You cannot say that one shot has "more" depth of field than another, as this would be a misuse of the term.

 

That said, I'm personally extremely interested in how films use space to tell stories. In the projects I shoot, I'm always conscious of how each shot is shaping space and how that relates to the story in that particular scene. I think of it in the same way I think of color, as a visual element that can be controlled and used to create motifs or visual themes. I mention space because it seems to me the most obvious meeting point of film and architecture, if that makes sense. Technically speaking, I think that lens choice and camera movement are probably the two biggest formal elements in shaping space, along with set design which I'm guessing will be more immediately apparent to you.

 

For an experiment, you could watch "Citizen Kane" and "Klute" and compare how they use space to tell their respective stories. Also, try and think of the film frame itself as a space. Don't try to see "through" the film frame and imagine what the sets really felt like architecturally in terms of actual physical. Instead, look at how each frame is arranged as a space in itself.

 

In terms of "The Matrix", an interesting topic might be how camera movement shapes space and how slow motion accentuates that movement. Hope that helps, good luck!

[Michael Nash]

Well as I told the programme course which I am attending is "Learning from Hollywood" and it aims to find relation in the way cinematography techniques are used to structure a movie. The assigned movie it is The Matrix and through drawings and diagrams we have to find relation btw the specific cinematographic techniques of the Matrix and finally get from these a kind of instrumental tools useful to inform an architectural deisgn process. These kind of tools should let me to make good analysis on the site according to the diagrams/drawings about film and lead me to define the "composition language" of my architectural project.

 

I know, the course aim is quite ambitious, but unfortunately, the tutors are not well known about the topic and it seems just a random choice rather than a true interest in how to investigate these relations. I mean, the topic is quite specific and special and me and most of my classmates haven't any cinematography knowledges, so if also the tutors  are not clear what to do with it as they just found funny to do these stuffs (but they are not really experienced about film+arch), then one gets really confused about!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So... are they teaching you anything in this course, or do they just pose a question and turn you loose to find out on your own (or on the internet)?

 

In any case, I think you'll find that storytelling in movies is about controlling all the visual elements, so that the audience can get the right intellectual or emotional information at the right time. In other words, there's no single approach for laying out the space visually; instead the information is revealed to the audience according to how it best tells the story. For example, it's common to begin a scene on a wide shot or "master shot" that shows a larger view of the setting and action, and then follow that up with "coverage," or closer angles on details of the action (usually the characters interacting).

 

But sometimes the aim of filmmakers is to deliberately keep the geography a little ambiguous or confused, so that they can focus your attention on something else that helps tell the story. For example, it's common in a closeup of a character speaking, especially at a dramatic or emotional moment, to throw the background out of focus. Often the main reason for this is to draw the viewer's attention to the character and what's going on with them emotionally, and not be distracted by the background.

 

Other times in film we'll deliberately "cheat" the position of actors and objects in the frame relative to camera, just so that the shot looks right to the viewer, or simply so that we can physically fit the equipment into the space. We bend logic and realism all the time in film, for the goal of creating an impression.

 

How that relates to architecture, consider "diminution of rustication." ;)

[Giulio]

So... are they teaching you anything in this course, or do they just pose a question and turn you loose to find out on your own (or on the internet)?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well I like self study...but you know not all can be left to find out alone...without any guidance especially if you've paid al lot for the course ;)

 

Mike: yes I know, actually , I am focusing on such aspects of The Matrix , how we understand the space through the camera and characters moves?

 

Have you got any impressions about how the space is conceived in The Matrix according to those elements? I am focusing on one scene, which is the one when Neo and Trinity go to rescue Morpheus and they start fighting in the lobby building.

 

If you give me ur private emails guys I can send what I did so far. the all images are 1 mb.

my mail is artitecture@gmail.it