The cut between scenes can take the audience to any place or time. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, a cut from monkeys tossing up a bone to a satellite crosses thousands of years in plot time. However, these are cuts between scenes, where dialogue or action as conveyed by the script creates denouement that elicits a sense of closure. When the cut occurs, the audience can take a breather and move on to another scene.

When cutting between shots, there are certain restrictions. For example, when we see a medium shot of a person reaching for an object, we would expect the shot that would follow to be a closeup of the object and not something else. The timing of this should also be frame-perfect with the action of the medium shot. The shot that follows would also be a small shot size and not bigger. Of course, none of these is hard rules for filmmakers to follow. But not following them would lead to moments of discomfort and disconnect. 

I think that whilst there are elements of cinema that are subjective, there are also aspects that are objective. It could be the audience and filmmakers collective agreement to follow historical precedence and specific rules that help to create what is aesthetically pleasing. This is how an average viewer can tell the difference between something that is amateur and professional. When a video on YouTube claims to be ‘cinematic’, it just means that they are trying to recreate what is generally agreed upon as elements of cinema. For some, this can mean a certain crop factor, shallow depth of field or a certain colour grade. A great short film shot on an iPhone can be more cinematic than a poorly planned short film shot on expensive cameras.

Ultimately, what makes cinema cinematic can change over time. It is not up to the equipment or the slick editing, but a combination of all aspects of cinema up to this point.