180° rule when establishing shot outside to inside?
 

Hello,

I am aware of the 180° rule for a scene, however, how would one approach starting a scene with a wide shot of a store (establishment), then move to inside the store from behind the counter. The reason I ask, the characters will be mostly behind the counter, playing jokes on each other. Does the 180° rule apply here, from outside to inside like this? (I will stick to it once inside for continuity.)

Any thoughts are welcome, thanks,

Jer

I'd say no - if you can't see the characters in the establishing shot it doesn't apply.

Not necessary but I'd TRY to reinforce that this is in fact the same location by "leading" the audio inside into the exterior.

For example:

Visual:Exterior Audio:Guy: "So Jane..."
Viusal: Interior Audio:Guy (continues) "... how did you get home last night?"

The 180 rule would only apply IF you were doing a switch from behind the counter to in front of the counter on the interiors.

Another name for the "180° rule" is the "line of action"...

Are there any actions happening in your establishing shot (and if there are do they continue to the interior)? My reasoning is, if there is no action, there is no line, therefore the 180° rule doesn't apply.

If your performers start outside and walk inside than there is a line of action and the 180° rule does apply...

Hope this helps.

Establishing shots with no actors do not create a line.

Thank you gentleman
 

Thank you guys for the thoughts, the audio tip is great and the specification of a line of 'action' is appreciated. The lack of need for that rule makes sense if there are no actors as a few of you noted.

I'll probably be doing a location cheat anyway, so this has been great.

Best to you all,

Jer

Upon further consideration, I'd like to add something to Colin's note:

(I know you said it's just an exterior but for the sake of being complete...) IF you had your characters walking in front of the building in the establishing shot from screen left to screen right toward the door and then picked up the shot from inside facing the door, the characters would need to pass the window or enter the doorway moving from screen right toward screen left because you HAVE created a motion vector (related to the 180 degree line of axis) that needs to be mirrored because you have in fact "jumped over" an established line, which in this case would be the front of the building until another line of axis is created, possibly by actors on either side of the counter interacting with one another.

Since we have now moved into the theoretical (I was going to make some comments on this sort of thing but was keeping it within the description of the actual shot also):

Yes, it is true that when doing a 180 degree reverse, screen direction travel will have to be preserved which can appear jumpy. The ideal then would be to make the cut occur at a point where the direction is somewhat neutral, i.e. entering through the door.

Reverse masters can be a little tricky to conceive when (for instance) two people are facing each other, and they will appear to swap places on the reverse shot. However, as long as the geography between characters is well established, you can often swap sides of the line for coverage as needed without the audience getting confused. The rule of thumb that I generally use is that wide shots can play from virtually anywhere in the room, but when you have closeups with obvious screen direction i.e. character A is looking off left to character B, it's best to have the complementary look i.e. character B looks right to character A. This can get confusing when there are multiple people in a scene, like around a dinner table, sometimes necessitating multiple coverage for individual actors to get all the necessary looks in place.

That said, rules are meant to be broken and many contemporary films ignore the line, with mixed results in my mind. Unless one has really mastered the art of the line (which I can barely say about myself even after many years of working with it on a daily basis), it's best to play it safe and send the looks going the "proper" directions.

So I'm not the ONLY one who notices? Thanks for making me feel just a little less neurotic...

And Jeremy, when Mr. Papert speaks, the wise among us listen...

Well said Charles.

So very true. But if one intends on breaking the rules, one should know why the rule is there, so they can minimize their chance of getting caught out... Ignorance is no excuse. :)

After all, it's not illegal if you don't get caught! (although there is no excuse for copyright infringement)

I picked up on that.
It is great feedback. I storyboard most things (stick figures and arrows) and will practice Charles' theory. There is only one way to grow. Thank you Charles.

I have often thought that the lines of action are jumped in movies in particular. Saving Private Ryan for example, the first 20 min. Sometimes the camera is from the rear of the allies, moving in (makes sense), sometimes looking out as the germans, sometimes from either perspective to the right or left.

In that scene, some of the confusion helps tell the story which is the point. Other times, I believe most people just know what is going to happen helping to avoid confusion normally occurring with jumping line of action.

Wish you all the best, thanks again,

Jer

EXACTLY! The confusion creates a psychological response of mild panic ("wait, this doesn't make sense!") and most people can figure out the the sea is one way and the pillboxes are the other and just about everyone is running away from the sea. When an objective is THIS cut and dried, it's a little easier to "sell" the confusion caused by switching vectors.

BTW, vectors of all sorts are a pet of mine. We spent a LOT of time on them in media college and I'm thankful for that and try to teach my students (when I teach...) about motion and other vectors AND the axis line.

Lines and circles
 

I sometimes wonder if the current fashion for near-constant camera movement in some productions has de-sensitised viewers from appreciating lines. I can see no justification for some of the horizontal and even vertical circling movements that seem to pervade certain tv productions, unless it is feared that the viewers' attention span is so limited that few would watch the programme otherwise. Sometimes I find it as irritating as the unjustified dolly zooms and sudden inexplicable overcrankings (not that these affect lines directly). In a way I hope I continue to be irritated by them as at least it shows I can still notice. I suppose it's a bit like listening to bad grammar in language. Or maybe it's just a sign of age.

Vectors and it 'feels' like too much motion to me as well.
 

Shuan and Colin,

Vectors are something I only know the principle of, hence this post, however, it facinates me that the brain interprets information a certain way, and one can create that information, properly, or improperly. It is wild to me that the left brain handles the numbers and objective information, that hero is on the left, the villian on the right, yet the right brain 'feels' the intensity of the situation. That 'feels' is what I want to master, at least for making a short film. Don't we all I suppose. All to say, lines of action, vectors, and all the other things that involve blocking, planning and telling our story are part of that, and worthy of the work that goes into them.

As far as too much motion goes, it is just not to my taste at the least, it is not to a lot of people's taste in the middle and wrong at the most. I would rather have a solid story, or just entertaining story and skip the confusion and fancy tricks. It is my opinion that if somone can explain a complex situation in an easy way, using all the tools at their disposal, that is an art and something I would love to master.

It all comes to hooking into the viewer for me. From a football game, (Soccer or NFL), to out right entertainment, that is the the goal to me, of this high art. (I love the science in it too.)

Jer

Me too. I consider myself 1 part artist, 2 parts technician and 3 parts visual storyteller...

That's a lot of parts but I'm a big man... <laughs>

In media college we were taught two rules (that again, were allowed to be broken IF you understood them in the first place and could then explain WHY you were breaking them):

-artificial lighting should be motivated
-camera movement should ALWAYS be motivated

Say, there are a couple of gems in that one. Great guidelines.

On the vector note, how does one go about deciding when to jump the line of action if there is one? Why I ask, I would like to use a couple of over the shoulder shots for some people in the woods to create that feel of hugeness to the character. I'd like to use a poor man's steady cam and pan the shot ending on their face or OTS. I'm not looking for confusion, just the bigness of their environment. They are not lost exactly, just being chased and I'm trying to create fear or thrill. The shots prior to this will be cuts and TA's of them running right to left in the frame.

Any wisdom there?

Jer

Depending on how it fits overall, one way to transition from outside to inside is to zoom in on something on or in a window and then transition to the same window element from the inside at the same scale and then pull out to your inside scene. If done well, tihs sort of technique can "forgive" the 180 rule.

Hello Jim,

That is a great idea. The next challenge for me personally, would be the lighting. I have purchased some CTB gels to cool the color of some halogens (you have to start somewhere) to use inside to balance out door light and exposure. I do not have any sheets of neutral density gel for entire windows. I think I would have to experiment with what I have to keep the look consistent going from out side to inside.

It is my understanding and observation that the out side light is usually cool in color (unless high noon or golden hour) and light inside hovers around orange or green for the tungsten or flourescent lights. This is for another thread, photon management, but worth mentioning as part of the process.

Those are are all tools to play with and that is part of the fun, thank you for the suggestion.

Jer

I wouldn't try to make the inside light match the outside light. Just make sure you set white balance for your inside and outside shots. You aren't attempting to hide the fact that you moved indoors but you do need to adjust your white balance when you do your inside shots so the colors are natural.

I appreciate that feed back...
 

Hello Jim, thank you for the thoughts, would not the possibility of that cool outside color mix with the tungsten, 'normal' inside lights on the actors' faces? I will be using makeup but I am trying to avoid that cool blue window look as I have seen in many new inde movies. That is all I am going after.

I will try it your way and see, that was just what I was thinking prior to getting to it.

Thanks,

Jer

Jeremy, I'm generally in favor of shooting for balanced color and then color grade in post for any desired effects (warmer, cooler, less or more saturated etc.) If you are concerned about the lighting at the particular spot where the subjects are positioned, you can do a white balance at the exact spot where they are.

I recommended that you also look at Magic Bullet Looks for applying a color theme to your work. If you use it, go easy; you don't want it to look like you did anything. A little bit goes a long ways and can really give your work a more professional and finished look.

Red Giant Software: Magic Bullet Looks 1.2

If the storefront has plenty of windows and you light for tungsten inside, you will certainly have a mix of color temperatures that will have a good chance of looking amateurish, or "indie" as you call it, Jeremy. A possible compromise is to use 1/2 CTB on your tungsten or halogen units to give a partial correction, then white balance under this--the daylight will still be coolish but not blue per se. If there are a lot of existing fluorescents, they will read a bit warm compared to your lights but not terribly. It's usually better to allow warmer units on faces than cooler ones.

Gelling the windows is expensive and time-consuming but it solves a lot of these issues, unless the front door has to open during the scene (where the color correction would become apparent. One advantage of gelling is that you can use a combo CTO and ND gel (i.e. 85N6) that allows you to shoot towards the windows without them blowing out.

Good point. That blown out window look, maybe with even some lens flare, is another way to create an amateur look. I imagine there are times when you have to spend a great deal of time to make shots with challenging lighting problems look good. The bright window is one of the banes of an event videographer. In event situations, you have to shoot it like it is without the ability to setup the shot. But it gives us the ability to appreciate the work that guys like you are able to do. I was talking to a friend recently, who is a very accomplished event videographer, about lighting challenges at weddings. His advice was, "Get the faces right." But when you setup a shot, you get the faces and everything else right!

Thank you for the thoughts.
 

Thank you for the feed back Charles and Jim,

The blown out look is something I am hoping to avoid, now that you mention it, by choosing the shots without 'much' of the windows in the picture. (We'll see, no pun intended.) I saw the ND gel mixture you mentioned, 85n6, at a web site for not an unreasonable price all together, I may consider that after some higher priority purchases are made. Thank you for the advice.

I have looked into Magic Bullet Looks for sure. I am using Sony Vegas Studio 9.0b (you can laugh, but don't point:) and MB Looks is not documented to work or be compatible with this. However, the demo operates fairly well with it, albeit some bugs every once in a while. Believe it or not, I may purchase it anyway as someday I will likely upgrade to the full Sony Vegas Pro and I am quite impressed with it.

Regarding the coolness of the color and exactly what you were both helping solve a problem for, would it be beneficial to white balance (I use a whi-bal board, its actually 18% gray but works great) with the out door light and the tungsten halogens cooled with the CTB gels inside, simply to have a nearly singular light temperature for each shot. Then, increase the warmth of the faces with the post prod. software I have available?

I agree fully, that faces and skin look more attractive, or human or natural etc. with the 'orange' tungsten lights, etc, I am just looking for as polished a look as I can and I have not had time to experiment and see.

It is apparent to me that there are tools for this kind of job that just work and that is what I am being told. However, I am always for trying to get the most out my resources. (Another thread, how to spend good money after bad...)

If I had my choice, I would buy the 85N6 stuff for all the reasons mentioned, but I have musts on the budget first, food, costumes, makeup, etc.

Thank you again for your interest and help, I do appreciate it,

Jer

I used 85N6 as an example--that will cut 2 2/3 of a stop out of the window light, but you may want more or less depending on what time you are shooting, how the sun hits the exterior viewable outside the window etc.

In terms of your question regarding white balance, I would do so under your corrected tungsten units at the beginning of the shoot and leave it there for the duration, or until you change the lighting style (i.e. night interior, you can pull the CTB off the lights and shoot straight tungsten).

Thank you again Charles.
 

Thanks Charles, I appreciate the information. Its time for me to just do it and see how polished I can get it. I certainly know more now than I did 2 weeks ago. Awesome!

Thanks again and best of success to you,

Jer