
The Cinematography of "The Incredibles" Part 2 - lispython
http://floobynooby.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-cinematography-of-incredibles-part-2.html
======
mxfh
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
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.

~~~
asperous
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
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.

------
Strilanc
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
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.

~~~
larve
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.

------
Volscio
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.

------
Mithrandir
Discussion for part 1:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920151](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920151)

------
myramnath
Nice attention to details! interesting post

------
dclowd9901
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.

------
jnazario
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
the devil really is in the details, though, and it's worth seeing what these
details are!

