Talk:Point-of-view shot
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the POV Videography and VholdR page were merged into Point-of-view shot on August 31, 2011. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
In porn
editShould we make mention of the pornographic film genre of POV? -- Librarianofages NO!!!!!!!Pikazilla 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes−there's quite an extensive usage and it being distasteful to some should not mandate censorship--208.127.20.54 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
A number of inaccuracies, misused terms
editThere are a number of items on this page that need to be corrected or removed. I'm not going to make the edits myself (at least not right now) because I don't have source materials handy. I'm speaking from 20 years experience as a film editor, which I know doesn't count as a "source". If someone wants to do the research (I recommend books by Norman Hollyn and Walter Murch, to start) here are some bits that need revision:
• "A point of view shot (also known as POV shot or a subjective camera) is a short film scene". "Scene" is used incorrectly. A shot is not a scene. Even according to the Wikipedia page for "film scene," it is "the action in a single location and continuous time." This is pretty accurate, give or take. Most importantly, a scene is almost always made up multiple shots (except when applying the technique of "long takes" or "mise en scene"), and a POV shot would almost never constitute a scene. The one exception I can think of would be the film Russian Ark, which is extremely unusual in that the entire film is one long shot, which happens to be a POV.
• "There is also the 'nobody POV', where a shot is taken from the POV of a non-existent character." I have never, ever heard this term, nor can I fathom how any shot can represent the POV of a "non-existent character". It's a contradiction in terms. Even in the rare case where a POV shot may show the perspective of a character who is never shown (for instance, in the given example of "God"), use of a POV shot then establishes the character as existent within the context of the film.
• "A POV shot need not be established by strictly visual means. The manipulation of diegetic sounds can be used to emphasize a particular character's POV." Again, misuse of terms. The term POV refers strictly to what a character sees, and the word "shot" refers to picture, made with a camera. Of course, one can establish aspects of a character's subjective perception using sound, but a sound effect or bit of music or dialogue is never referred to as a "shot." So the first sentence here is exactly wrong: a POV shot, by definition, is strictly a visual device. Hypersquared (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Add Strange Days as notable example?
editShould film Strange Days be added as notable example? A specialized camera was developed for shooting POV shots. They are also be significant part of movie. --Adam Hauner (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)