Description image

Have Computer Generated Images Changed the Definition of Cinematography?


In the past four years, the Academy Award for best achievement in cinematography has gone to a film with heavy amounts of computer-generated-imagery three times. In 2009, Avatar took the top prize in cinematography, followed by Hugo and Life of Pi in 2011 and 2012 respectively. These films, while visually stunning in every sense of the phrase, don’t necessarily conform to the traditional definition of cinematography because much of the time the lighting, composition, and camera movement are created digitally by a group of compositors. This begs the question, should there be a distinction between traditionally-shot films and digitally crafted ones? Or has the definition of cinematography changed as digital technology has become more prevalent?

There are certainly a couple of different sides to this question. In one sense, it’s an entirely technical matter. Films like Gravity and Ain’t Them Bodies Saints were created in two vastly different ways, and therefore it would be silly to judge their images by the same standards. On the other hand, however, it can be argued that the method and technology don’t particularly matter as long as the images have the same effect on an audience. Let’s take a more in-depth look at these two sides of the cinematographic debate of the decade.

It’s Purely Technical

In modern filmmaking, there are two basic methodologies which  pervade the cinematographic landscape. The first, and more common (especially in independent film), is one in which the images are created in a physical environment such as a set or on location. This method is one that we talk about frequently here at No Film School, as it’s all about composition, physical camera movement, and lighting with physical fixtures. Being able to competently create meaningful images in this way is not only the traditional definition and method of cinematography, but it’s a unique technical (and artistic) skill that requires of the DP an in-depth knowledge of many different technological facets and processes.

As an example of this first type of cinematography, here’s the trailer for Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, which was shot practically (and quite beautifully) by Bradford Young on celluloid:

The other methodology of modern cinematography is one in which the images are created digitally through compositing various elements and pieces of footage together in order to create the final image. This method often uses green and blue screen keying (which is a tremendous technical skill of its own) as the basis of the image. While the characters are lit and framed by the cinematographer on the set, these decisions are often unrecognizable after the digital effects team has finished with the footage. In these cases, much of the lighting and composition actually happens in a computer.

As a prime example of this type of filmmaking, here’s the trailer for Gravity (just in case we haven’t shown it enough times already).

Both Gravity and Ain’t Them Bodies Saints are stunningly gorgeous films, but their respective methods of image capture and manipulation are so vastly different that it seems borderline ludicrous to judge them by the same standards. In these cases, the vast differences in the cinematographic method absolutely demand that the Academy (as well as other motion picture institutions) create two separate distinctions in the craft. For the sake of this article we’ll call those distinctions “Traditional Cinematography” and “Virtual Cinematography.”

Of course, in modern filmmaking, most cinematography exists somewhere in the middle of these two sides. Even films that are shot practically are rife with extremely subtle digital effects. Conversely, films that are heavily reliant on compositing often have scenes that are shot practically with a minimum of digital effects. In order for traditional and virtual cinematography to exist independently of each other, there needs to be a line drawn between the two. Where that line exists, however, is a question for another day.

Does Method Matter?

Around the time that Gravity was released, we talked extensively about the role that famed cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki played in creating the stunning images in that film. Not surprisingly, he was present in every stage of the process, and was largely responsible for all of the digital lighting and composition. Even though he had captured the characters and created stunning camera moves on the set, he remained present in the entirely effects/compositing-driven post production process in order to ensure that the images maintained his unique cinematic touch.

This begs another question. Does the method of cinematography actually matter if the end results are used to affect audiences in the same way that traditional cinematography would? Whether or not the image is created on location, on a set, or with a computer, cinematography is used for the same purpose, to drive the story and to convey/strengthen the emotionality of the characters in the film. Even in a computer, the core concepts remain the same. You have camera and light, and it’s the manipulation of these elements which creates the cinematography, not the method of manipulation.

Here are two examples of westerns that were shot with these different methodologies. The first, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, was shot practically by none other than Roger Deakins. The second is The Lone Ranger, and it was shot by Bojan Bazelli.

This is a bit like comparing apples to french fries, as these two films couldn’t possibly be more different. One is a subtle character drama and the other is a big-budget action flick. However, in terms of cinematography, it can be argued that the aesthetics of these films, though created in two vastly different ways, accomplish the explicit purpose of the craft in that they drive the story and tell us about the characters.

Personally, I think method does matter and that we need to create a distinction between traditional and virtual cinematography. However, a strong case can be made that technology is simply changing the definition of cinematography and that the core principles remain intact. For a little bit of extra reading on this debate, as well as a solid read about digital distribution, head on over to Indiewire and check out this fantastic article by Jamie Stuart.

What do you guys think? Should we separate traditionally created images from digitally created ones? Or is that a pedantic distinction given that the end result is the same? Let us know down in the comments!

Link: Hey, Academy: Here’s Why the Best Cinematography Oscar Should Be Divided Into Two Awards — Indiewire

Related Posts

  1. Emmanuel Lubezki, DP of 'Gravity', Expounds on Cinematography in the Virtual Age
  2. Shane Hurlbut Talks the Art & Technology of Cinematography, Shooting 'Need for Speed' on Canon C500
  3. Now That Zacuto's 2012 Shootout Has Ended, Have Your Favorite Scenes or Cameras Changed?


We’re all here for the same reason: to better ourselves as writers, directors, cinematographers, producers, photographers... whatever our creative pursuit. Criticism is valuable as long as it is constructive, but personal attacks are grounds for deletion; you don't have to agree with us to learn something. We’re all here to help each other, so thank you for adding to the conversation!

Description image 91 COMMENTS

  • “Gravity” is not about stunning Cinematography – in fact, there’s very little in the film. It’s about stunning VFX, and it should win an award for it. But Cinematography it’s not. Cinematography is the art of capturing an image from “real life” – at least part of the image has to come from something that was in front of a camera – in “Gravity” it’s little more than Sandra Bullock’s face – other than that, it’s all VFX – no camera there at all. Or as one commentator (Ryan) suggests – it’s “graphic art”.

    • Isn’t cinematography at least slightly concerned with lighting, composition, character, storytelling? I’m pretty sure Gravity tries to utilize all these facets in it’s vfx. Luzbeki’s fingerprints are all over the vfx, very obviously- he lit it, and composed it, and operated it… he just did so using vfx solutions. So while I see and agree with your point- it’s not “real” cinematography- I’m not sure it’s “not cinematography” either. Bit of a tricky one.

      • If we can’t discriminate one method from the other, then all academies around world, and all film festivals, should include animation and CG films into the “Best Cinematography” category. Don’t you think? As they can make also great atmospheres using contrast, color, saturation, shadow ratios, and all the cinematography concepts we try to achieve with camera and lights in traditional filmmaking… and there are plenty of examples out there.

        I actually can’t say if a distinction must be made from the bosses up there, but there’s a huge value in getting beautiful images with your own hands, knowing the reflectance of the objects, the behavior of light depending on the set conditions, etc. I’m not saying there’s no value on VFX cinematography but… come on… we don’t really want to walk towards the fully digitalized filmmaking, do we?… And to set the paradox, we don’t really want Wall-E’s (amazing CG film with a great “cinematography”) depressive reality on our world, I dare to guess :P

  • emilio murillo on 01.5.14 @ 11:57AM

    once tech chased art now art chases tech, resulting in a change in the imagination as the vision become what can you do with surfaces rather interior drama. fiction moves on

  • Maybe the role should be called Digital Cinematographer.

  • The Art and Science of Motion Picture Photography.

    This is the (current) definition of Cinematography. If the story is created digitally, then it is not, by definition, cinematography. This is “romantic protectionism” of the Art of Storytelling; the ultimate goal of the effort.

    Can we not “just tell the story?” Story, character and plot are set aside for the effects. (?).

    Just because you know all the words doesn’t mean you should use them to tell the story.


  • Are you saying that every movie with color correction isn’t a real movie? How do you draw the distinction? Is it only movies on celluloid cut with razors that count as cinematographed? What’s the purpose of this distinction?

  • Borrowing words from the digital lingo here: Different interface, same art.

    Composition, tone, contrast, colour, movement: These are the real tools. The rest, lights, lenses or computers, are just that, tools.

    Is a visual artist less of an artist because instead of painting, he or she uses, for example, Photoshop?

    Methinks not.

    • I think the question isn’t “is she an artist?” The more proper question is is the photoshop artist a painter? There is a paintbrush tool and you can select different brushes and create very stunning work, but there is nuance between painting with oils, watercolor, etc. on canvas and using a program like photoshop. I remember in the early years of photoshop you would be disqualified from photo contests for using anything but a chemical process on your photo. Now the vast majority of photography is created digitally and at least some photoshop or Lightroom is assumed. I think the difference is when you manipulate the image to the extent that there is nothing from the original image that is similar to the final image. Yes Sandra Bullocks face is impressively lit in very ingenious ways (the LED box blows my mind!) but when you compare what they shot on set to what is revealed in the final image, there is nothing but her face remaining. I wouldn’t say it’s not art. And beautiful art at that. But I do question whether it is cinematography.

  • I was thinking about this yesterday when watching reading about martin Scorsese. I feel like now most “big films” are focused more on digital effects instead of the story. Id say it still cinematography but digital or not, its pointless without a good story

  • I think there should be a separation, am not a fan of computer generated

    Images anyway, I feel it a cheat.

  • Wouldn’t a more effective comparison be The Assassination of Jesse James… and Skyfall? Both created by the same cinematographer, one using practical shots and the other using digital cinematography.

  • There’s a wonderful distinction here but I think it all comes down to telling a story with images and who’s responsible for that. If there is a VFX director who occasionally employs creative control for certain segments, then it would appear it’s not the Academy Awards problem but the way in which these responsibilities had to be delegated in order to come away with a proper manifestation. Awards don’t delineate interior lighting sequences with VFX choreography as sub-cinematography categories because we on the outside still believe there’s an approval system within the chain of command. At some point it’ll be moot because the 70 yr old cinematographers of tomorrow will barely remember a time when computers weren’t involved or responsible for a bulk of their personal decisions. The science will have been integrated. Right now there is a division in cinematic culture but that’s quickly going away (unfortunately with the passing of “analog” masters).

Comments pages: 1 [2]