Jujube/cinematography

lingo

Types of shots

• extremely wide
• wide
• full
• medium full
• medium
• medium close-up
• close-up

---

• CUT IN (extremely close-up face (eyes move) - CUT IN a letter in hand)
• CUT AWAY (medium body against a diner table - CUT AWAY a car parking outside)
• POV (through the eyes of the subject)

---

• establishing
• master (show where people are in relation to each other
• OTS
• single
• close OTS

DIY tools

slider

hot shoe adapter

field recorder with cheaper parts

https://www.youtube.com/user/thefrugalfilmmaker

thoughts

The difference between photography and cinematography...

In photography you might miss a moment forever. Errors can be beautiful.

In cinematography, you never miss a moment, yet the moment can become mundane, or ill-illustrated.

Photography camera is like a typewriter. You type, then you hand out that sheet of words.

Cinematography is... a cog in a long process. Can one shot be an entirety? (Maybe... like a loop. But unlikely.)

literature

Agnès Varda, response to "3 Questions sur: Photo et Cinéma', in Photogénies, no.5, ed. Raymond Bellour, Sylain Roumette, Catherine Sentis (Paris: Centre National de la Photographic, April 1984) n.p. Translated by Ian Farr, 2006

Photography never ceases to instruct me when making films. And cinema reminds me at every instant that it films motion for nothing, since every image becomes a memory, and all memories congeal and set. In all photography there's the suspension of movement, which in the end is the refusal of movement. There motion is in vain. In all film there's the desire to capture the motion of life, to refuse immobility. But in film the still image is in vain, like the foreboding of a car breakdown, like watching out for death.

Gilles Deleuz, Beyond the Movement-Image//1985. Cinema 2: The Time-Image (london: Athlone Press, 1989) 16-18

The vase in Late Spring is interposed between the daughter's half smile and the beginning of her tears. There is becoming, change, passage. But the form of what changes does not itself change, does not pass on. This is time, time itself, 'a little time in its pure state': a direct time-image, which gives what changes the unchanging form in which the change is produced. The night that changes into day, or the reverse, recalls a still life on which light falls, either fading or getting strong (That Night's Wife, Passing Fancy, 1930). The still life is time, for everything that changes is in time, but time does not itself change, it could itself change only in another time, indefinitely. At the point where the cinematographic image most directly confronts the photo, it also becomes most radically distinct from it. Ozu's still lifes endure, have a duration, over ten seconds of the vase: this duration of the vase is precisely the representation of that which endures, through the succession of changing states... It is in this way that nature or stasis was defined, according to Schrader, as the form that links the everyday in 'something unified and permanent'. There is no need at all to call on a transcendence. In everyday banality, the action-image and even the movement-image tend to disappear in favour of pure optical situations, but these reveal connections of a new type, which are no longer sensory-motor and which bring the emancipated senses into direct ration with time and thought. This is the very special extension of the opsign [pure optical image]: to make time and thought perceptible, to make them visible and of sound... <----- still image here directly contrasts that in Varda's view, but it makes sense, how still life (shots of objects) can convey a passage of time, though not always