Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?

[Paul R Johnson]

Ryan - surely you have imagination? I can think of a few of my real friends and loads of facebook friends who could easily become vigilantes, and I think I could find almost any type of person, even extreme ones who with a little imagination could be used as real baddies quite easily.

Every time I have to conjure characters I always use people I know slightly or well. It's much easier to have a good start on characterisation.

[Ryan Elder]

Well I could see a couple of people I know becoming vigilantes but they would do very different things than my villains would do so some parts still have to be fictionalized I figure.

But I think you also have to be careful with using people you know because, I don't want to copy other personality traits that are not as original, and not from my own imagination either, do I?

[Brian Drysdale]

Usually writers use composites, rather than direct lifts of people they know, They combine a number of people into one character. The story is going to be what defines the characters, it's what they do that reveals their character.

They noticed that many of the Nazis were very ordinary people, nothing that shouted out monster when you saw them.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. I've based three of the main characters off of actors I worked with before cause I saw them playing them. Even if they are not interested now, I still based three off of them as an example. But the script has quite a few characters in and I cannot associate enough people for those characters, or at least I don't think I could.

[Ryan Elder]

I have a question about the short film I posted before. Before it was said on here that I shouldn't have broken the 180 degree rule, which I broke at 2:49 into the clip:

YouTube

However, I watched the movie Parasite and that movie broke the 180 degree the same way. It cut back and forth between two OTS shots of two characters. One of the shots was on the other side of the line than the other, yet it kept cutting back and forth between the two, breaking the two constantly.

I do not have access to the clip as I am not allowed to upload it to youtube but it's the scene where the fake art therapist is having a conversation with the boy's Mother, at the dinner table about the boy's traumatic incident. Why did they break the 180 degree rule there, in which it was okay?

[Brian Drysdale]

The problem with that cut is the stick being held up in the closer shot while in the wider shot it's down, The lighting doesn't match either, the woman is more or less facing the right direction.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, so it's not that I am breaking the 180 degree rule, that's the problem, but the stick and lighting continuity?

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

The problem with that cut is the stick being held up in the closer shot while in the wider shot it's down, The lighting doesn't match either, the woman is more or less facing the right direction.

I've mentioned this before and have seen this in other scenes of his movie.

Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco

There are a number things that don’t feel right about that scene. It’s probably do to a cramped location but I don’t like the framing or shot selection. The lighting/exposure is off between the two angles, makes it feel like it’s not the same scene. ....

It looks like he is setting up lights on one side then when he changes the camera to the opposite angle (in this case her) he's not moving the lights or lighting in her direction.

What's funny there are all these glaring defects and all Ryan can think about is the 180 rule. Hilarious!

[Ryan Elder]

Oh the reason I was thinking of the rule, is because it's my job to decide whether to break it in the storyboards, where as I leave the lighting up to the DP. But I can definitely try to keep a closer eye on the lighting from now on.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Based on your questions, despite obsessing over the 180 rule, you don’t understand it.

[Josh Bass]

Yeah, as others pointed out, there are numerous other issues, but I am not seeing a line cross/180 rule broken.

IN the wider shot screen direction for both characters is same as tighter shot, hence no line cross. If line was crossed he would be looking at least a little left and she right. AS it is they are still both facing the same way between the two shots.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, it's just the 180 degree rule was brought up, not only on here, but with other viewers as well. But if it's not a problem, then it's not..

As for the cane continuity, to me this seems odd cause you actually see him lower the cane, before it cuts to the shot in front of him where he has it lowered. He lowers it in the previous shot, so I thought it matched unless I am missing something?

For the lighting, so far in my experience, when I am going to switch camera angles, the DP always wants to change the lighting in between shots. If I were to shoot with multiple cameras, do you think that would cause the DP not to change lighting cause he can only light a scene once therefore, and all the shots will then match, lighting wise?

[Brian Drysdale]

The DP may wish to change the lighting, but they also need to be aware of maintaining lighting continuity. This is also a good reason to start filming with the wider shots, rather than the closer ones.

If they can't keep the lighting continuity.get another DP, it's a key part of the job.

If the man lowers the cane, it won't be up at chest level in the next shot. I not sure how this could be something that could be missed.

Regarding the girl's eye line, she wasn't looking directly at him in the previous shot, It would work better if she either looked directly at him before the cut or just after the cut, which would depend on the dramatics of the scene. This doesn't affect the 180 rule that you don't seem to understand, since it's a two shot and you're remaining on the same side of the line in the spacial relationship between the two characters. That is he stays on the left and she on the right in both shots.

[Paul R Johnson]

Ryan - you MUST remember why rules get created. They are a response to problems. They fix things that people totally unaware of process, notice - often subconciously. Your continuity needs your attention. DPs and lighting people in general are very aware of shadows. Very often they are the only thing that gives clues. The light provides illumination, the shadows provide direction. If you break the 180 rule for effect, then it can work fine, we know that. However, if the lighting changes so that the subliminal direction and height also changes in the wrong way, this adds to the confusion.

I fail to understand your thinking. Surely you grasp these very basic concepts? You must accept that to make rules work, you need a good understanding of it's purpose. Knowing a rule and following it ignoring consequences is how wars get lost - documented in history. Stop your habit of using prior rule breaking to bolster your accidental, not planned versions. Just because it was done in one movie doesn't mean you have the ability to do the same.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. Yes I don't want to do it accidentally. It's just that for my current project that I am storyboarding, there are times where I am tempted to break it, to show different perspectives of things, but want to know when it works and when it doesn't, so I know that I am not going to far with it.