Child upset because grandmother said "poop"

Disgust Sensitivity and the Neurophysiology of Left-Right Political Orientations. PLoS One. 6(10): e25552.

3 Likes

I’m so glad that video is available in Ultra High Definition.

1 Like

“I am not talking to you anymore! I am not talking to you, until you learn how to hold a camera when shooting video. Because when you hold it the wrong way. it looks like poop!”

2 Likes

Or Gender Studies majors.

Not shocked to find this comment here. At least it would be a substantial complaint compared to the use of the word ‘poop’. Now I need a nap.

So… kids are like little drunks, and they’re also gross because they need snot sucked out of their noses. Duly noted! I will avoid them at all costs.

1 Like

Drunk baby:

9 Likes

Damn. That is genius.

I imagine this is how all U.S. tourists are regarded. And probably with good reason.

1 Like

That’s NOT funny!

(I love that joke)

1 Like

Well moralizing hypocrites anyway. The toddlers sense of morality is still an external set of rules that they parrot without internalizing the values yet. This is the early stages of the development of the superego And a child enjoys it because it helps them differentiate themselves as an individual. Notice that the morality is still punitive. If the moral sense is not internalized as an ethical code towards adulthood, the superego becomes more aggressive, sadistic, masochistic, and creates excessive shame and guilt.

Also, the child who is at this age is also likely to tell lies. And we might see them telling lies to get others in trouble. There we see the roots of moral hypocrisy.

1 Like

Nothing wrong with vertical format moving pictures, any more than static photos need to be always landscape. The fault, if any, lies in YouTube not getting a designer in fix their always-landscape format, so that portrait format videos have those hideous black bars either side. People are just not going to always shoot in landscape, however much YouTube resists acknowledging it or some commentors cannot ignore the black bars.

2 Likes

Look, I don’t see how it should be blasphemy just saying “poop”.

Yes, but in the morning I shall be sober and they will…um…wait a minute. I think I need a nap. And maybe a cookie and some milk.

1 Like

The moving image has always striven to be an immersive art form, and as such, has tried to make you feel you’re actually in the action. Humans have a horizontally oriented field of view, so the moving picture experience emulates that with a horizontally oriented aspect ratio. So, while you can crop a still image to fit the particular subject, the same doesn’t apply to the moving image.

For Youtube to “fix” what the photographer failed to do, would require chopping of the top and bottom of the image, which is probably a worse choice than the black side bars.

Pshaw! I think you need to pay closer attention to modern cinematography, and notice how often an expert cinematographer will frame the important bit of the shot in a doorway, between a wall and a truck, through a keyhole, etc. Not to mention the sadly lost art of split-screening, where the director will often just ignore the artifice of setting up the scenary and props to frame the subject and just accept the “black space” — which, let’s face it, works a heck of a lot better in the cinema than on a web page.

It would be nice if YouTube used something other than black to frame their portrait format videos, true, and I don’t know how you can regard cropping the video as any kind of solution, but what I’m proposing is simply to allow non-standard frames. YouTube is not a television, there’s no physical requirement to fit all video into a fixed format. Heck, even cinemas have been able to adjust their landscape screens to more than one landscape ratio for decades, and they have to physically move atoms around. All YouTube have to do is change a bit of code. An involved bit of code, to be sure, but in the end no more difficult to accommodate than non-standard frames for static pictures.

These folk who turn their camera or phone sideways to take a shot that suits a portrait format are applying instinctively the same visual reasoning to moving images that any photographer would. If your object of interest is a person instead of a landscape, then you use portrait format. Simples.

2 Likes

Sorry, but no, You’re just finding excuses for poor camerawork.

Videos, unlike photos, are almost universally presented horizontally. There’s a reason for this: It’s how we’re built to view the world. Our vision allows us to see more to the left and right than top and bottom. So when you shoot a video on your smartphone in portrait mode, you’re violating not only the set video standard, but also the laws of nature as they pertain to human sight.

- Wired Magazine 8/3/2013

Sidney Furie and Otto Heller beg to differ:

THE IPCRESS FILE - 100 Cinematic Shots from Vashi Nedomansky on Vimeo.

Landscape may well be the most convenient format for a wide variety of shots, but it is in no way The Law. And it is a low blow to claim that because these YouTube contributors are amateurs they must therefore be Doing It Wrong. They are making a creative decision every bit as valid as any photographer would. The fact that it’s a moving image instead of a static one is almost entirely irrelevent for most of these shots.

(Shoot. How do I get Vimeo vids to embed properly?)

Edit to add:

Thanks, OtherMichael!

2 Likes

I’m pretty sure, which is to say, I’m absolutely positive, that The Ipcress File was filmed in glorious, widescreen CinemaScope, with a whopping 2.35 :1 aspect ratio. So… what was your point again? Oh, yeah. You were attempting to conflate individual scene composition with an entire video’s screen orientation.

Humans have horizontally oriented vision, and that’s why we prefer moving pictures which fill our horizontal field of view. Period.

Did you watch the video? That’s a rhetorical question, I see by the counter on the link that you didn’t.

If you had, you might realise that your rationalisation is self-contradictory bollocks. The frame of the camera is a compositional device. I was explicitly taught that in art college, but you don’t have to have an arts education to realise it, not when you can see it with your own eyes whenever you open a newspaper or a web page.

Film-makers shoot in landscape 16:9 or 2.35:1 because that’s how cinemas display their moving pictures. Many cinematographers, limited by the design of their cameras and the architecture of theatres, unable to literally break out of that frame, will compose shots so that the subject is framed by elements within the widescreen frame. The webpage has no such constriction.

If you had looked at the link — you know, just clicked it out of curiousity, a desire to learn something new today, a readiness to have your ideas challenged, perhaps — you would have seen that the preview image for the video was this:

Here, Heller has used a lampshade to frame the subject within the 1:2.35 camera frame, “wasting” two-thirds of the shot with an ugly, garish expanse of nothing but red. What an amateur! Doesn’t he know “the laws of nature as they pertain to human sight”, to quote that well-known source of all arts knowledge, Wired.†

Please don’t repeat your assertion that the moving picture requires more constrictive layout rules than static images, just because before all these ignorant amateurs started uploading vertical format videos to YouTube that’s all you’d ever seen. Because that would just embarrass both of us. I’d like to think you’re more intelligent than a kitten in a visual development experiment.

To repeat my basic point: there is no such rule —and no reason — that video must be displayed on a webpage in landscape format. Just rationalisation.

† Honestly, do you remember the early issues of Wired? How they looked? Whoever wrote that drivel clearly doesn’t.

3 Likes