I've recently came across a video on youtube about tips and tricks to shoot cinematic footage by any action camera. The YT channel is run by a couple creating mainly travel videos with lots of underwater sequences. The recommendations (use tray, add lights, get closer etc.) are totally appropriate but the underwater video sequences are just not OK and IMHO, and they are far from cinematic, or I just haven't seen that movie. My main problem is that they forced hyperview and the corners are somehow stretched and not sharp. Actually, only the middle segment is usable according to my standard. I left a comment, but in general other comments are positive. So the people are happy with those results. Most of the people will watch YT videos on smartphone, so maybe trying to reach cinematic quality is just overrated or the people's quality expectations are lowered drastically. I'm curious about your opinion. Please, don't leave negative comments on the video on YT, I don't want to bash their channels, so lets rather discuss here, and more as a phenomenon (with this particular example) general.

By the way I think it's possible to achieve cinematic quality with action cameras as many footage in big blue chip productions were taken by action cameras. So here is the video I mentioned:

Twenty years on YouTube and I still don't have a clue what 'cinematic' is supposed to mean. I'd wipe that word from the face of the earth if I could. To your typical underwater YouTuber, "cinematic" is just 50 fps slow-motion that looks like the ocean is on Valium. On land if it isn't true 24 fps with anamorphic flares, it doesn't count. It’s ridiculous.

The rest of the video is just clickbait. Title and thumbnail are clearly designed to feed the algorithm

The other issue is that if you haven't used good equipment you don't really know what is possible and people looking at it on smart phones won't know the difference as suggested. To me the phrase "do this instead" means it promoting some dodgy scheme, supplement or whatever and I resist clicking on the link. In the same class as "xxxxx doesn't want you to know this"

Totally agree to what David wrote. Talking about cinematic videos sounds for me like talking about photographic pictures.

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by Jens H

Oh! I've see that one (video) and after skip browsing it part of me just wanted to puke 🤮🤣 and part LOL🤣. In part by that girl presenting and in part by content what she was presenting 🤣 and in part by the samples she was presenting. I just refrained from commenting as one part I learned about these kind of YTbers channels is that there is no point in arguing about the light with the blinds and stupid 🤣

@Davide DB spot on definition of cinematic meaning 🤣. It reminds me of the days when A7SIII was released and unless you run 10x slomo in a sunset with 1.4 aperture you weren't 'cinematic' 🤣.

I like Vu Nguyen's opinion about cinematographers:

9 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

and I resist clicking on the link. In the same class as "xxxxx doesn't want you to know this

It's straight out of the conspiracy theorist playbook.

When I see those classic titles, or ones like "I've always done it wrong until xxx told me to do this" or "Watch this trick and you'll never live without it again" I skip the video by default. And if I’m not feeling too lazy, I even block the channel, because anyone who uses these kinds of titles doesn't deserve my attention.

I don't have problem with clickbait titles or thumbnails, since sometimes it's necessary to reach broader audience. I'm OK with it, I don't click just because of it. My major problem is that the videos sequences posted are really bad quality (some aspects) and it's sold as cinematic, which suggest higher quality and the audience are OK with it and they don't recognise that nothing is sharp. I also use GoPro in addition to my Sony APS-C mirrorless (A6400) and the quality from the action camera is not bad. Some short sequence I already posted on my channel from my Raja Ampat trip (maybe I should blur the corners):