Enlightenment from the super-visual world

In the afternoon, I watched Super World, and the National Geographic Channel lived up to my life for one hour, doing well (only from the conditions and technical level more than ten years ago). Documentary is a bit like a concert, with clear chapters and a beginning. It can be seen that there are many humanistic feelings in the west of Appalachia, starting from people's eyes (the preface is a bit like "The Man with the Camera", of course, only in terms of huge pupils) and ending when people see that the world has entered a changing era.

Under the framework of thick lines, the pace of the film is slow, and as soon as the overture is over, it immediately becomes three photographic visual worlds: miniature, deceleration and acceleration. The transition between these three paragraphs is obviously blunt, just like a teaching film, which seems to just want to tell you something. However, the contents of the three paragraphs still attract me, because from a purely visual point of view, all three satisfy people's visual curiosity from different angles. Take the micro-world as an example, the climax should appear in several montages of the same type. Repeatedly using the lens of the world under the microscope → the photos captured under the microscope → restoring the lens of the real scene will give the vision a shock, even a small shock (to be honest, this film is not suitable for eating or drinking, otherwise you will feel that you are watching. In the world of deceleration and acceleration, this technique has a similar application. At the moment when the milk drips, the moment when the apple is pierced by a bullet, the whole process when the vole's body is slowly eaten by maggots, and the whole process from rooting and sprouting to flowering and fruiting of plants, each chapter has its own system, and the novelty always exists, thus killing the edges and corners of the transition and calming the impatience brought to the audience by the slow pace (even the explanation is too cold to pretend).

However, I feel that even if the content wins, the transition of documentary can not be achieved by editing. For example, the description of different migratory birds in Migratory Birds adopts parallel concepts. If the opening remarks don't focus on the content in the film, but hire a humorous commentator to start (as BBC often does), then the last three paragraphs can't be narrated and parallel. The transition can also come naturally-in fact, combined with the following contents, we will find that the zoom and speed of photography is only a small case here, which is entirely to lay a foundation for the audience and enhance some interest. In essence, their "teaching content" is the same, and they really just tell you something. (= =|||)

From the point of view of film eye theory, I am afraid that the content recorded behind is really to explore people themselves with photography itself. It can also be said that with the progress of science and technology, we constantly improve human photography, and even derive a variety of technologies (ray imaging, sonar photography, human brain electronic imaging, Kerian photography, atomic impact photography and so on. ), it can be said that it is both technology and "photography means". Isn't there a photographer watching the film in the second position in The Man with the Camera? Therefore, I think the documentary National Geographic is ultimately about our human exploration in the visual world, which reflects a fanatical spirit of free development and strives to pursue the truth of the world we see-that is, the humanistic feelings west of Appalachia as I mentioned earlier. This is the origin of the true American spirit, which is to explore by all means and try to discover everything around. Based on this, I think this film should also carry this spirit.

If the preface and three basic chapters are just appetizers, then it is a feast to introduce and detail the photographic progress brought about by the development of science and technology in recent decades. It's not that I exaggerate, but that the film shows more strange and exaggerated contents in the progressive introduction (note that it's not progressive, I think it's still parallel). It takes X-ray as a kind of radiation photography, which shows the photographic effect of sonar on pregnant women (taking pictures of the baby still in the womb, this paragraph suggests young women to have a look, and don't forget to ask the doctor to take a "photo" of the child in the future). It looks for the truth (slightly evil) in the dialysis photos of Pharaoh's bones. It reveals the mysterious Kerian photography to everyone (although some scholars have proved that this is only a normal physical phenomenon, I think it is still open to question). The content is so rich and full that it seems quite fresh today, not to mention more than ten years ago. ! Unfortunately, the cut continues the rigidity of the opening topic and still has a teaching style. Compared with the BBC's "Creatures in the Jungle" (although it is the product of 2 1 century, the method of editing directors is not limited by the times), it is obviously lacking in interest and even has the characteristics of mysticism in the end. From this point of view, this documentary will definitely face serious injuries in promotion. I think at least in China, it will cause more surprises than fans. Frankly speaking, it is difficult for me to learn the technical advantages of documentary production.

Remember one thing, about two shots. One is the filter technology, in which multiple contrast photos are linked together, and while the contrast photos flash frame by frame, a sense of beauty arises spontaneously. It seems that natural beauty has escaped the physical shackles of our eyes and can finally show its true colors. It's a little confusing, but that's it. The second is all kinds of "perspective" shots, which may require good editing and directing skills. According to the means at that time, it was still quite difficult to shoot a "perspective" lens, but the National Geographic Channel was quite powerful and did a good job. One is a human eating lens under X-ray irradiation, and the other is a thermal perspective lens in life. One feels real enough, and the other makes me sigh (which makes me realize that so many calories in my life are wasted). It is of great significance to add these lenses with heart, which increases the sense of reality and shows the spirit of human exploration.

In fact, the ending of this concert should be easy to guess. The small dish at the beginning lacks the macro world, so it is naturally placed at the end. The radio photos of the space telescope are enough to give the audience a grand visual impression and psychologically return to a small human being groping in chaos. The structure of this film is basically completed here, with parallel chapters, ascending chapters and descending chapters. In my eyes, this movie is a concert, which is a bit serious and worth seeing. However, the lack of market consideration should be a mistake made by National Geographic. Poor explanation can easily make people's eyes fall into a dream world, which is probably one of the reasons why the film is only 57 minutes. Although a large number of photos and historical materials provide a lot of substantive content, they occupy a large proportion of psychological time, so that there is no more time to explain the theme of the super-visual world.

Write these down casually as your own impressions and immediate views, which can also be criticized in the future.