Sample of the article:

​

Shot scales are a powerful tool to direct the audience's gaze on particular elements. Sergio Benini et al. define shot scale as, “The perceived distance of the camera from the subject of a filmed scene, namely shot scale, is a prominent formal feature of any film product, endowed with both stylistic and narrative functions” (Benini et al., 2019). It is one of the vital cinematographic features that regulate the relative size of characters’ faces, the relative proportion of the human figure to the background (Salt, 1992; Bowen and Thompson, 2013), arranging film content to emphasize an element (Carroll and Seeley, 2013)” (Rooney & Bálint, 2018) and directing the audience’s gaze (Cutting). While scholars agree about the importance of the shot scales as a fundamental expressive tool of the film language, they pass over the technical aspect of a shot scale. Annette Kuhn discusses the proportion of shot scale, “An informally agreed and widely accepted set of conventions which describe and define different framings of a film image, or apparent distances between camera and subject” (Kuhn, 2012 1321). Though there is a conventional usage of shot scales, “the terminology is quite elastic, and deals mainly with concepts” (Arijon, 2015).

It is agreed that shot scales are commonly divided into seven categories (or sometimes nine) depending on the model. (Benini, 2019, 1). Shot scales typically range from Very Long Shot (VLS), Long Shot (LS), Medium Long Shot (MLS), Medium Close-up (MCU), Close-up (CU), and Big Close-up (BCU). However, the terminology is not always consistent because BCU is also referred to as Extreme Close-up. Likewise, MLS is also called knee shot or American Shot. In addition, the convention often diverges, and the contrast between shot scale models can be pretty significant. Figure 1 highlights the difference between Barry Salt's scale in terms of proportion as well as in the terminology (e.g., MLS and Knee shot) and that of Daniel Arijon.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The categories and labels vary depending on the exact proportion of a close-up or a long shot. This discrepancy can be explained by the loosening overtime of the early Hollywood industry's strict conventions (e.g., standardized production methods and framing guides) (Kuhn). This imprecision grew over time and has led to confusion between cinematographers, directors, and camera operators. As Monaco describes, "One person's close-up is another's "detail shot," and no Academy of film has (so far) sat in deep deliberation deciding the precise point at which a medium shot becomes a long shot or a long shot metamorphoses into an extreme long shot. Nevertheless, within limits, the concepts are valid" (Monaco & Lindroth, 2000, p197). The lack of convention of terms and concepts translates leads to confusion, as noted by Annette Kuhn, "For the contemporary cinematographer, director, and camera operator working together on a production, the solution to this imprecision is to agree before filming precisely how they wish to define each type of shot size, bearing in mind that *framing can be an important expressive tool." "A Dictionary of Film Studies." Apple Books. 1322. The ambiguity of the terms and conventions does not only impact the film industry but may also affect researchers. Not having the same language and sharing the same references makes the dialog among film scholars difficult and may lead to potential misunderstanding, inaccurate findings, and inexact interpretations. Such a hiatus highlights the need for a common reference. This need is further emphasized by the advent of new media, and the large-scale computational approach to film analysis calls for a defined shot scale framework and strict conventions. In this paper, we introduce an AI-based shot scale framework.