DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Techniques for Independent Production (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/techniques-independent-production/)
-   -   DPs & Operators: Film look is framing & Composition (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/techniques-independent-production/23959-dps-operators-film-look-framing-composition.html)

Ed Hill April 2nd, 2004 09:17 AM

DPs & Operators: Film look is framing & Composition
 
DPs, Filmmakers, Videographers,

Here's a puzzle for you...

What guides YOU when you are doing framing and composition for film-like shots?

What is your objective when you are framing up a shot on some one's face for close up?

How about in a 2 shot?

I believe that more of the "film look" and better video quality comes from learning and using film type techniques for DV.
I was talking about this in another thread...

1) Like more control of light with lens filters, gels, diffusion, flags.

2) Better control of camera moves with tripods and dollies.

3) More use of shallow depth of field and rolling focus.

4) Composing your shots in depth with people and objects in front of your actor and behind your actor.

5) Framing your shots really tight so that only the most important action and most expressive facial features are in the shot.

I am really looking to learn from this and I am very interested in hearing how other camera operators think about framing.

I have even taken some of my favorite recent films / TV shows and broken up the shot sequences on my Vegas editing software.

I have a shoot all next week and I am really re-thinking the way I frame and shoot. I want to get more film type composition and framing.

Ed Hill

Rob Belics April 2nd, 2004 01:35 PM

Composition and framing are the same thing. I don't think you mean a "film look" as much as you mean a "professional look".

Composition can be learned by looking at art and studying composition books. There are some good composition photography books also.

Most of your points are valid but you shouldn't constrain yourself to them. Composition is an art form. A good photographer or artist would look at tone and abstract form IF he has the time to study the scene. This is why storyboarding is so valuable, especially if it is done by someone artistically inclined.

Such a person would look at a scene and see curves, triangles and lines. Also texture, shades of grey and color values. Not to mention the typical "rule of thirds", golden ratios and so on.

Then there is "good light" and "bad light".

Framing your shots "really tight" is OK for closeups but awful for action sequences or large areas and scenery. It's also not good to see a big nose and eyes across the screen. Much more interesting to include a background, a table with a flower.

And sometimes it just looks good and you can't say why.

So many scenes are shot and considered good only because they include the action. Even a little consideration to composition can turn a simple interview into an enjoyable sight.

Keith Loh April 2nd, 2004 03:08 PM

Just remember. The bad guy always enters from the right.

John Hudson April 2nd, 2004 07:50 PM

I agree with Rod to a point.

It is important to understand the basic rules/guidelines and general photgraphic practices. Once you have a solid foundation of these techniques, it is then that one can bend them, manipulate and sometime even break the rules.

Martin Munthe April 16th, 2004 06:58 AM

Using shallow focus only because it looks more similar to midrange primes on 35mm is wrong. Shallow focus is something you use to tell a story visually. It should never be used just because it looks more like some thing we see on 35mm. We have to know why we use it. IMHO it's a directors job to know what the lens and camera placement can do to tell the story. It's the DP's job to light the emotion within the scene.

The one thing I miss the most with shooting on prosumer gear is the set of lenses. Each lens has a specific task and they are a part of a language that people like Eisenstein and Griffith created. When I shoot prosumer DV I still think (and often say out loud on the set) -"This is a 50 shot". And then I have to figure out how to simulate a 50 on PD150 Sony zoom. I always carry a directors viewfinder to frame it and then I know what a 50 would see and try to get as close as possible to it with the zoom. But it's never the same thing.

There was nothing wrong with the old workflow and video today is a very weird dialect of the language of cinema.

Joe Carney April 16th, 2004 04:09 PM

Martin, what about dv cams with replacable lenses like
the SonyDSR 250 and the JVC dy5000? or even the JVC dy700?

I've always wonderend why so few people talk about them in reference to prosumer gear. Seems you could at least come close to 16mm? Just wondering is all.

Ignacio Rodriguez April 16th, 2004 05:58 PM

> I've always wonderend why so few people talk about them
> in reference to prosumer gear. Seems you could at least
> come close to 16mm? Just wondering is all.

I was thinking the same thing. I guess the main reason is they are not really 'prosumer'... they are expensive equipment and thus don't have much to do with the 'DV revolution' so to speak. There are a lot of people out there using the PD150/170 or PDX10, the Pannys and the Canon XL series and that's what most of use use. The people that afford more expensive camcorders are not usually after a 'film look' but are more from the ENG and TV studio worlds.

Boyd Ostroff April 16th, 2004 06:42 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Carney : Martin, what about dv cams with replacable lenses like the SonyDSR 250 -->>>

Does the 250 have a removeable lens? I don't think so... I believe the lens is the same as the PD-150. But I've never actually seen one so I might be wrong about that...

Ignacio Rodriguez April 16th, 2004 07:31 PM

The 250's lens is not removable. It uses Canon image stabilization, but I am not sure if it is a Canon made lens.

Martin Munthe April 17th, 2004 03:44 AM

The 250 is a 150 with large cassette and a little bit better viewfinder. Same Sony parts all the way.

Joe: When I shoot 16mm I have to go through the same process on the set - so getting close to 16mm doesn't help. How do I recreate the language of the prime set with 16mm optics. A 25 in 16mm is not simply equivalent to a 50 in 35mm in practice. Only in theory. Shooting 16mm is very different from shooting 35mm. Just having interchangeable lenses is not going to do it. Using a mini35 is the best option right now but it's a crude solution and a bit to pricey considering it's still only SD resolution video.

Joe Carney April 17th, 2004 10:29 AM

Martin, I see your point.
>>Using a mini35 is the best option right now but it's a crude solution and a bit to pricey considering it's still only SD resolution video.<<
I guess I was hoping there was somehing similar for the dy5000,dy700,DSR500 and the other cams I mentioned. Wondering why the folks making the mini35 haven't offered it for other than the Canon. Market share?

I've heard that with the 2/3 inch CCD cams using 2/3" mount, at least in theory, you can attach HD prime lenses (though the lenses cost a heck of a lot more than the cams themselves).


Oh well, have to wait for NAB to find out if anything truley great and affordable is coming out.

btw I've seen '28 Days' on DVD which used the setup you are talking about and it was impressive.

Martin Munthe April 19th, 2004 10:38 AM

There is a converter for 2/3" cameras. It's called PRO35digital and it's really expensive (something like $20K). And the regular mini35digital works on XL1, PD150, PD170 and DVX100/A.

http://www.pstechnik.de/datasheets/d_pro35.htm

Market share is a big issue. There's not a lot of DP's that are tempted by the P+S Technik solution simply because it's far from perfect. Most DP's and shooters finds image sharpness to be of higher priority than having a correct set of primes at their disposal.

Nick Hiltgen April 19th, 2004 06:05 PM

Getting back to Ed's question there is a difference between a film look and professionalism, the things that your'e discussing would add to the professionalism of a project though that doesn't necissarily make it the right thing to do. The most important thing you can do is use the shots that you're setting up to tell a story. For example if soemone is telling the story about how the grandfather Jack Daniels died in that horrible wheat thresher accident (always playing with that wheat thresher I told him a hundred times...) it would be beneficial to have a rather tight shot on the story tellers face (perhaps preceded by a dolly in) if someone is pulling out a gun and you want to let the audiance feel the tension of the gun it would benefit you more to have a wider shot with the gun in the frame. If you can truly reinforce the stroy telling with the camera work it won't matter what professional elements you have (or don't) because that will make your story better.

That being said...

I worked on a show once where the director wanted a lot of depth off of a pd150 because he believed that would make it look like film. Of course when I told him we'd have to remove the wide angle screw on attatchment to get better depth he wanted to leave it on because the wider angle looked like film. Then he wanted movement (because that looked like film) but we couldn't take the camera off the tripod, because it had to be on a tripod if it was to look like film. Next he wanted a lot of light because it had to look like daylight in a room with one window (that doesnt' usually get any light at all) but I couldn't close down the iris, or change the shutter speed because it had to be open and it had to be a specific (magic) shutter speed so that it would look like film (he also wouldn't spring for a mattebox so I supplied one but my nd filters hadn't arrived yet) Eventually he just took the camera and did the shooting itself and suprisingly enough when he tried to cut it together and watch it on the screen it didn't look like film, even though he'd done (or made me do) all of the tricks that he had read made video look like film. The entire project (well what was shot) looked like crap and the whole thing got canned (I left the 2nd day because of "creative differences") Anyhow any of the suggestions listed do often come into play when shooting but if you concentrate more on a film look then on storytelling with your shots you'll discover that everything you shoot still ends up looking like bad video. (though I'm not saying all video's bad)

Also there's a couple o fpeople in atlanta who are really good with that stuff especially on digital I know the dailies projects out of push push are reallyt supposed to be turning some good things out (though they're reluctant to let outsiders join in... at least ones located in CA) and the guy who runs item6.com has done some pretty good work as well.

Martin Munthe April 20th, 2004 02:40 AM

Always nice to start of the morning with a good laugh. Great story. Thanks Nick!

Ed Hill April 20th, 2004 09:36 AM

So now I break this down in a fundamental way.
I'm trying to get to the most crucial priority when I set up a shot.

Why do I shoot like I shoot?
What am I trying to accomplish?

So from what you are saying the key elements are:

1) exercising total control over what the viewer sees not because it's something I saw in my favorite film, but because it tells the story.

2) framing, camera moves and focusing are tools to focus the viewer on the most crucial or most expressive elements of the story ( For me each shot should reveal action, character or reaction to story events).

3) Maybe I try to build cool, complex compositions that maybe show the main action
between two foreground characters who are reacting to the action. And I build a sequence of pieces that make up the whole visual story.

4) So what I'm after is to make my composition and framing capture that crucial emotional reaction of an actor. Or some revealing detail in the action.

5) So I want the story telling sequence of my images to clearly tell the viewer the action and REVEAL the personality of story characters to the viewer.

6) Maybe my script and shooting can build a "pay off shot" that reveals something new about the picture sequence that came before. Or reveals some twist or unknown factor that changes everything about the previous shot sequence.

I am sort of thinking out loud here about how shooting effects the story. Some of these ideas are obvious, but I am trying to rethink them so they will make sense to me ( and help me) when I am actually setting up the next shot.

Thanks,

Ed

Nick Hiltgen April 20th, 2004 11:33 AM

Michael glad you liked the story it was far more fun telling it then it was living it.

Ed, just out of curiosity who do you work with in Atlanta? I'm thinking of moving back there and I'm trying to get a feel for whats going on.

As to your out loud thoughts I think that you've got some great points.


1) I believe that it is the DP's job to exercise total control over what the audience ends up seeing (and then the editors job to narrow it down) However you'll come across many directors who feel like it's there job to control what the audience sees, even though they might not know what they're talking about, but if you want to continue working as a DP you'll have to occasionally give up some of that control (but it doesn't mean you'll have to like it) It's not wrong to copy something in your favorite movie (I know I do it all the time) but you want to make sure it contributes to the story and doesn't detract (think of all the horrible matrix things that people did after the first one came out and how it just seemed so cliche, or any blair witch spoof... ceptin' the simpsons)

2) I think you're dead on with that statement, but don't feel limited to jsut using the people in the shot, for example lingering on a gun while two people are arguing out of focus in the background can have a better effect then keeping the subjects in focus.

3) Cool and complex is usually pretty cool, just make sure you're not doing it just to be doing it. The best thing you can have someone say about your work is "that was cool, but I don't remember why"

4) the emotions of the actor is going to be a judgement call, sometimes the actors emotions just won't be there (usually one would blame the director for that) the important thing is that every shot has a purpose.

5) it doesn't have to reveal the personality of the story CHARACTERS (though I'm not saying it can't) but it should reveal the personality of the story.

6) Sure.

I think you're going about this the right way. whether or not you take my or anyone's suggestions the important thing to do is plan out what the feel and look of the movie will be and it really sounds like you're doing that. After you've done that you can add in some film look "tricks" (24p, bpm's, shallow DOF, really hot actresses..)which will add to your film.

I read a good book once called "making movies work" that discussed a lot of the subtleties of putting together a film, then I worked with a really good DP (but not such a great boss) and he really helped me to get inside what the story was telling and try and bring that out with the camera work.

hope some of this helps, if anything it helps get things in my head straight about what I'm doing.

Rob Belics April 20th, 2004 12:41 PM

What the audience sees IS under total control of the director. Most collaborate with the DP about the look of the film but ultimately it is the directors call. Some directors want nothing to do with the camera at all and leave that up to the DP. But on professional shoots, see how long the DP lasts if he doesn't do what the director calls for.

Nick Hiltgen April 20th, 2004 01:24 PM

I agree that the director has the final say and I believe that I mentioned that if you want to continue working as a DP you have to accept the notion of the director is always right or get off of the shoot, however I still believe what the audience see's is under the control of the DP, what's happening on the screen is under the control of the director. SO the audience sees is what the director wants them to see how the DP wants them to see it. (The way-order- that the editor believes it should be seen.)

Martin Munthe April 20th, 2004 02:32 PM

There are many "schools" around the world on the different responsibilities on the set.

The one I prefer is the Murnau/Lang/Hitchcock/Polanski way. Where the director is the one responsible for the visual style. The montage and tempo in acting and editing. The look of the film. The DP's responsibiliy is to bring the directors ideas to the screen through lighting. To paint with light is the job of the DP. A DP has to know everything about emotions told through light scenery. The director has to know everything about acting and everything about lenses so that he knows where to place the camera. In this style the camera is one of the actors and the director directs the camera.

There are other styles. The tradition of the DP inventing camera placement and decision on lenses (and the director focusing on the actors) comes from television and has found it's way into films.

Wayne Orr April 20th, 2004 02:46 PM

I agree with all of you.
I agree with none of you.

Please rent of purchase, "Visions of Light."

Available at Amazon.com, or maybe your local rental store.

Wayne Orr, SOC

Nick Hiltgen April 20th, 2004 04:06 PM

Wayne you should really only agree with Martin and Rob and Ed because I'm just making this stuff up as I go along. Will check out the tape though.

Martin Munthe April 21st, 2004 02:10 AM

There's a very nice segment in VISIONS OF LIGHT where William Fraker talks about how Roman Polanski directed a scene in ROSEMARYS BABY where he didn't want us to see a person sitting on a bed talking on the phone. You only see the doorway and part of the actor and you hear the actors voice. Fraker didn't understand the shot at all - he wanted to do the natural and logical - show the actors face. When that shot came up in the theatre and everyone in the audience leaned to their side to try to see the persons face he understood Polanskis idea. That's visual tensions and it's a great example of the directorial style I like. The camera as an actor. It's also an extremely well shot film. William Frakers lighting tells the story on a sub concious level.

Cinematic storytelling is often more about what we don't see than what we do see. Filmmaking has a lot of things in common with performing magic and illusionists.

Ed Hill April 21st, 2004 12:29 PM

>>Ed, just out of curiosity who do you work with in Atlanta? I'm >>thinking of moving back there and I'm trying to get a feel for >>whats going on.

Nick,

My friend Ben and I started HighlyDef productions this year.
We've had 2 good projects this year and working on selling more.
Currently editing a docudrama.

I started shooting & gripping 16mm film in 1980, then did TV commercials and TV news editing and shooting. Became a grip, assistant tape editor and camera operator for Production Associates in Tampas, FL, switched to freelance shooting and editing for several years, switched to writing and producing PR materials and videos, did 12 years of database and web application development, did sales for 2 years, now I'm back in video production.

Production in Atlanta? My friends at studios here say its getting better compared to 2000-2001.

Try: www.filmgeorgia.org

If my sales skills don't bring us more good projects to do then I'll be finding out how the Atlanta market is by hiring out as a freelance cameraman and lighting grip.

The rest of you guys:

Thanks for the comments on film look and visual story telling. It really helps to think about these things.

Ed

Nick Hiltgen April 21st, 2004 04:29 PM

Ed, I've been hearing the same things as you as far as production in atlanta that it's picking up, I'm just afraid that instead of 1 HD movie a year there doing 2 and thus thigns are picking up, maybe it's not as bad as all that but I guess time will tell.

Martin, I've heard about that shout (actually I think I saw a segment of it on TV where they discusses the entire audience leaning to the right to try and see the actress) I'll keep looking for visions of light.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:17 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network