Measuring the evolution of camera distance across a century of film
Authors: David Bamman, Allison Cooper, Dan Hickey, Madison Mar
Organizations: School of Information, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA · Cinema Studies Program, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME 04011, USA
The rise of computer vision and artificial intelligence has made possible new forms of large-scale computational measurement. We apply these techniques to a deep collection of 5,205 digitized films viewed in theaters between 1922-2025 (covering popular, prestigious, and independent movies) to trace the development of one of the most fundamental ways through which film communicates: by manipulating the space between the camera and its subject. This work finds abrupt changes with the rise of new technologies in sound and television, and allows us to shed an empirical light on gender disparity (women, despite having substantially less screentime than men, are disproportionately the subject of closer shots), and illustrate how animated films both inherit and break free from the norms of live-action filmmaking.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Examples of distance categories.
Figure 2: Shot distances over time (popular films), along with 95% confidence intervals (resampling complete movies).
Figure 3: Gender rate, popular films; women have 20% (+5pp) more medium closeups than men ( p<0.001 under permutation test).
Figure 4: Distribution of shots in paired popular live-action and animated movies.
Figure S1: Total number of feature films over time. Source: IMDb.
Figure S2: Total number of digitized movies in our popular collection.
Figure S3: Total number of digitized movies in our prestige collection.
Figure S4: Total number of digitized movies in our American independent collection.
Figure S5: Fraction of movies that are sound, AFI.
Figure S6: TV penetration in U.S. households. Plotted from data in Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1980 , table 997 (Households With Television Sets: 1950 to 1980) [ 29 ] and Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 [ 48 ] .
model
accuracy [95% CI]
within-one accuracy [95% CI]
training time (min)
SigLIP 2 (base 224px)
0.6680 [0.6332, 0.7038]
0.9497 [0.9381, 0.9619]
25.3
SigLIP 2 (base 384px)
0.6893 [0.6599, 0.7223]
0.9561 [0.9461, 0.9661]
102.4
SigLIP 2 (So400m 384px)
0.6807 [0.6476, 0.7108]
0.9382 [0.9237, 0.9514]
447.9
ConvNeXt-Large
0.6400 [0.6050, 0.6750]
0.9358 [0.9193, 0.9502]
62.5
Swin-B
0.6516 [0.6161, 0.6857]
0.9420 [0.9269, 0.9548]
68.7
ResNet-50
0.5984 [0.5629, 0.6339]
0.9149 [0.8962, 0.9325]
17.3
Table S1: Model comparison summary
Genre
Medium close-up (%)
Movies
Sci-Fi
25.3 (24.1, 26.5)
292
Thriller
24.9 (23.9, 26.0)
512
Horror
23.4 (22.1, 24.6)
287
Action
22.9 (22.2, 23.6)
1003
Mystery
22.0 (20.8, 23.2)
347
Documentary
21.2 (19.0, 23.6)
121
Table S2: Share of screen time at medium close-up by genre, with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
Figure S8: Top 5 most common aspect ratios used in popular films.
Figure S9: Camera distance over time within each aspect ratio.
Figure S10: Prevalence of distance categories over time, popular movies.
Figure S11: Prevalence of distance categories over time, popular movies (detail).
Figure S12: Prevalence of distance categories over time, prestige movies.
Figure S13: Prevalence of distance categories over time, prestige movies (detail).
Figure S14: Raw vs. PPI corrected (middle categories).
Figure S15: Raw vs. PPI corrected (edge categories).
Figure S16: Prevalence of distance categories over time by collection (popular, prestige, American independent).
Figure S17: Difference in prevalence between shots focused on women vs. men over time, popular collection.
Figure S18: Difference in prevalence between shots focused on women vs. men over time, prestige collection.
Figure S19: Difference in prevalence between shots focused on women vs. men over time, all collections.
Shot distance
M (%)
W (%)
W − M (%)
Extreme close-up
0.2 (0.1, 0.3)
0.1 (0.1, 0.1)
− 0.1 ( − 0.2, 0.0)
Close-up
0.7 (0.5, 0.9)
0.8 (0.7, 1.1)
0.2 ( − 0.1, 0.4)
Medium close-up
18.0 (16.2, 19.9)
17.5 (15.6, 19.5)
− 0.5 ( − 2.3, 1.5)
Medium
48.6 (46.9, 50.2)
49.0 (47.1, 50.9)
0.4 ( − 1.5, 2.6)
Medium long
9.0 (8.1, 9.9)
10.3 (9.3, 11.4)
1.2 (0.2, 2.4)
Long
23.1 (20.9, 25.4)
21.8 (19.9, 23.9)
− 1.3 ( − 3.6, 0.6)
Table S3: Share of a character’s on-screen frames at each shot distance, for men (M) and women (W) among animated human characters in the year-matched animated/live-action sample, with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (resampling at the level of movies).
Shot distance
M (%)
W (%)
W − M (%)
Extreme close-up
0.3 (0.2, 0.5)
0.2 (0.1, 0.3)
− 0.1 ( − 0.3, 0.1)
Close-up
1.2 (0.9, 1.6)
1.3 (0.8, 1.9)
0.1 ( − 0.4, 0.7)
Medium close-up
16.0 (14.0, 17.9)
16.2 (13.6, 18.7)
0.2 ( − 1.9, 2.4)
Medium
32.0 (29.8, 34.3)
32.5 (29.4, 35.9)
0.5 ( − 2.1, 3.7)
Medium long
7.9 (6.7, 9.0)
7.4 (6.3, 8.7)
− 0.4 ( − 1.8, 0.8)
Long
41.5 (38.6, 44.9)
40.8 (36.9, 45.0)
− 0.8 ( − 3.9, 2.5)
Table S4: Share of a character’s on-screen frames at each shot distance, for men (M) and women (W) among animated non-human (animal or other) characters in the year-matched sample, with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (resampling at the level of movies).
Shot distance
M (%)
W (%)
W − M (%)
Extreme close-up
0.0 (0.0, 0.0)
0.0 (0.0, 0.0)
0.0 ( − 0.0, 0.0)
Close-up
0.3 (0.2, 0.3)
0.4 (0.2, 0.6)
0.1 ( − 0.0, 0.3)
Medium close-up
36.7 (34.4, 38.9)
39.7 (37.3, 42.2)
3.0 (1.7, 4.4)
Medium
48.9 (47.1, 50.5)
47.5 (45.6, 49.2)
− 1.4 ( − 2.6, − 0.2)
Medium long
8.4 (7.7, 9.2)
7.9 (7.1, 8.8)
− 0.6 ( − 1.3, 0.2)
Long
5.7 (5.2, 6.2)
4.5 (4.0, 5.2)
− 1.1 ( − 1.7, − 0.5)
Table S5: Share of a character’s on-screen frames at each shot distance, for men (M) and women (W) among characters in the live-action half of the year-matched sample, with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (resampling at the level of movies).
Shot distance
M (%)
W (%)
W − M (%)
Extreme close-up
0.0 (0.0, 0.0)
0.0 (0.0, 0.0)
0.0 ( − 0.0, 0.0)
Close-up
0.2 (0.2, 0.3)
0.3 (0.3, 0.3)
0.0 (0.0, 0.1)
Medium close-up
25.6 (25.0, 26.1)
30.6 (30.0, 31.2)
5.0 (4.7, 5.3)
Medium
51.0 (50.6, 51.3)
49.7 (49.2, 50.1)
− 1.3 ( − 1.6, − 1.0)
Medium long
14.6 (14.3, 14.9)
12.4 (12.0, 12.7)
− 2.2 ( − 2.4, − 1.9)
Long
8.5 (8.3, 8.8)
7.0 (6.7, 7.3)
− 1.5 ( − 1.7, − 1.3)
Table S6: Share of a character’s on-screen frames at each shot distance, for men (M) and women (W) among characters in popular films, across all years, with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (resampling at the level of movies).
Figure S20: Paired test of animated (human, non-human) characters vs. live-action ones.
Between a screenplay and a film sits a planning problem that is spatial first: who stands where, and what a camera sees from where it stands. An image diffusion model asked for a shot in free text settles that plan by its own defaults. We present PACE (Precise AI Cinematic Expression), a typed representation for the plan: the screenplay evidence, the characters, props and locations it needs, where each subject stands, and what the camera does. A value is written once at the level it belongs to (script, scene, shot or panel) and inherited below it. A compiler turns the result into both the prompt sent to the diffusion model and a 3D scene built in metres, and a camera solver places the camera so that the declared framing is the framing built. Where a declared value becomes geometry, PACE measures, field by field, how far the compiled camera and the staged render sit from the declaration, rather than asking a model to judge. On the 11-scene Automatic Drive screenplay, every staged single-subject panel places its subject within 1.2% of frame width of its declared position; with two or three subjects one camera pose cannot satisfy every position, and the residual is reported rather than absorbed. On 204 external director-storyboard shots, delivered head height is 1.906 times the staged target from the director's words, 1.733 from the compiled prompt, and 0.955 with the greybox control; the condition that holds framing best draws the described action least. Declaring the pose on 30 shots raises the action drawn from 58.9% to 74.4% without moving the framing. Transitions, fitted motion and human review of the generated panels remain open. Code: https://github.com/StudioPiLabs/pace-core
Cinematic camera motion is a fundamental storytelling tool, defined not only by where the camera is positioned in the scene, but also by how it moves in terms of direction and speed. Recent work on camera trajectory generation and alignment to text relies on pose-centric representations. While in principle a network could derive direction of movement and speed, we find that in practice this might not happen. In fact, in this paper we discover that decomposing the camera trajectory representation from the traditional per-frame poses to direction and speed has surprising benefits across multiple tasks, including trajectory-to-text alignment as well as text-to-trajectory generation. To accurately evaluate the former, we introduce a simple and reliable protocol that overcomes the limitations of prior evaluation baselines. For the latter, building on this representational insight, we propose a novel generative model for camera trajectories, CineGEN, that achieves superior performance across a variety of metrics. We also propose a novel dataset, CineScript, containing movie clips that are enriched with scene descriptions as well as higher-level metadata. This novel data allows us to test models' ability to capture high-level cinematographic information. We show that, despite its simplicity, representing camera trajectories through direction and speed not only helps numerically to achieve better alignment and generation, but also inherently encodes complex directorial intent.
Ziqi Zhou, Yujian Yuan, Laura Sevilla-Lara
University of Edinburgh · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Animated films--often developed with an audience of children in mind--are an important vector for enculturation, and empirical work that has examined the representation of gender at scale in these films has largely focused on counting the gender composition of the cast rather than deploying a more fine-grained instrument (such as assessing the visibility of those characters in overall screentime). In this work, we develop a computational pipeline for recognizing animated characters in these films, and use it to test several hypotheses about gender representation in a corpus of 224 popular animated movies. We find that while the overall representation of female characters in animated films largely tracks with those of live-action films (over the period 1980-2025), we see stark differences between the representation of human characters (much greater representation among women and girls) and non-humans (largely male). Contrary to past work on Disney, we do not see female characters declining in antagonist roles in animated films, and characters who are women and girls are much more likely to share scenes together than their live action contemporaneous counterparts.
David Bamman, Allison Cooper, Ruby Alvarez Rubio +2