composing shots?

creepyclownproduction's

creepyclownproduction's

Active member
Hi

I know how to compose shots fairly well but i can tell from videos on you tube and what not allot of people have know idea how..


so as a filmmaker what exactly are you looking for when you are composing your shot...?

thanks.
 
yahoo_dontknow.gif



Edit: you confused me. I had to reread the original post a few times to see if my eyesight was off. :)
 
Last edited:
Make it work for the story. Sometimes ugly makes the mood. Sometimes off balance creates a feeling. Sometimes symmetry suggests something the 2/3rds rule can't.

Find out what is best for the story and let the framing just compliment the hell outta it.


Most of the time, pretty works though.
 
In my humble opinion, stray from watching TV shows. They have a completely unique style of shooting that I feel would totally fail if done on a feature. It's funny, cause when you watch a good movie from the POV of a DP, you realize that what seems like shaky or 'ugly' shots are sometimes demanded by the mood of the scene. Likewise, you see very little static shooting, as more and more DPs are trying to get motion in their scenes. Just some trends I've noticed, hopefully something in that jumble helps...
(I love the rule of 3's)
 
RandomHero said:
In my humble opinion, stray from watching TV shows. They have a completely unique style of shooting that I feel would totally fail if done on a feature. It's funny, cause when you watch a good movie from the POV of a DP, you realize that what seems like shaky or 'ugly' shots are sometimes demanded by the mood of the scene. Likewise, you see very little static shooting, as more and more DPs are trying to get motion in their scenes. Just some trends I've noticed, hopefully something in that jumble helps...
(I love the rule of 3's)
Click to expand...


Having posted a review of someone film in the user film section, it occurs to me that one should watch films, or TV, that one is anticipating working on. For example... those who have a DVX100, which has a 'natural' 4:3 aspect ratio should watch films from the early days to about late 40's... almost all these films were done in 4:3 aspect ratio, and the cinematographers composed for that ratio.

If one is going to do the 16x9, or the 'super' wide 2:1 (or whatever...), then watch a bunch of films in those aspect ratios.

Also, note that some of the films are shot in one ratio, then in the digitial intermediate stage, reframed for a specific ratio. The problem here is a matter of resolution... DV even HD may not have enough resolution to allow for 'reframing' to any great degree. So if one really want's a extra close up... one has to be able to live with the results...


The 'rule' of 3rds is a good place to start on any configuration of framing.

The next order of business is... once one has The Shot all set up in one's mind... getting the talent to stay in the frame... unless one is using people who have been filmed for years... blocking out the scene, attempting to minimize the bobbing head syndrome, awkward looking movement on 'screen', etc. are items that need to be worked out. So, if one is using inexperienced talent, then more time for rehearsal/walkthroughs will be required so that the talent moves to, or away, where they are supposed to be for that great 3rds composition.
 
I totally agree. And you definitely sound more knowledgeable than I. In my experience so far I do benifit from watching other work in the prefered genre, but to over absorb others' work will sometimes hinder your own creativity. Since I don't have as much experience, this may not work for everyone, but I've found limitting my influences to be very benificial.
That's why I love this forum... I learn something new even when it's just a reply to my opinion. Thanks :0)
 
Having posted a review of someone film in the user film section, it occurs to me that one should watch films, or TV, that one is anticipating working on. For example... those who have a DVX100, which has a 'natural' 4:3 aspect ratio should watch films from the early days to about late 40's... almost all these films were done in 4:3 aspect ratio, and the cinematographers composed for that ratio.
Click to expand...

That is of course specifically gunning for the Academy aspect ratio. But who's doing that these days ?

=

My suggestion with compositions and framing of shot sis to stay far away from Close Ups unless otherwise motivated.

Practice framing with wide and beyond; this is where staging and blocking and general Mis-en-scene comes into play; true balance and harmony of the frame.
 
Not to be contentious, but I think the rule of thirds (ro3) is a load of hooey. Why not make a rule of 4ths, or 5ths, or whatever? Ro3 is an arbitrary approach that doesn't add anything significant to one's understanding of composition. At best, it makes one aware of the elements of the frame in certain instances in a highly simplified – and often simplistic -- way.

Besides, the ro3 implies that the screen should be divided symmetrically along horizontal and vertical lines, and most compositions are not strictly horizontal and vertical, but rather dynamically skewed at an angle. (See any frame from Eisenstein, for instance.) The ro3 does nothing whatsoever to enlighten about this crucial aspect of composition.

One should not be striving to make a movie that uses conventionally pleasing imagery and standardized rules; rather, one should be selecting imagery that is most fitting and emphatic in relation to the narrative, and if this means breaking with aesthetic conventions, so much the better, as a movie is only worth making when it accomplishes something new.
 
I disagree with your overall assesment on the Ro3. Like many techniques and standards, there's a reason they exist. It is a fundamental lesson in compostion; art, photography, cinematography.

Re: Eisenstein

Rethink that statement. Battleship Potemkin is loaded with classicly composed shots that showcase the rule of thirds.

I do not find the rule to be absolute, but a basic principle in which to guide.

It comes natural to the eye and is a mere afterthought for those who already understand the basic rules. But there is much more to comp and framing than simply this.

This is merely one element that makes up a frame.
 
mpalmer12345 said:
Not to be contentious, but I think the rule of thirds (ro3) is a load of hooey. Why not make a rule of 4ths, or 5ths, or whatever? Ro3 is an arbitrary approach that doesn't add anything significant to one's understanding of composition. At best, it makes one aware of the elements of the frame in certain instances in a highly simplified – and often simplistic -- way.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a load of hooey... and there can be only one Jackson Pollack... and forty gazillion imitators... not one of which will everl lift a creative finger, except claim their 'splats' are 'art'... ok, sure, fine... I'll buy a couple of vintage urinals for you...

What also can be said for the current gallery circuit is it a highly 'in crowd' system. Sure in Bugtussel you can find a person selling art... but if you want to hang in the first museums of the world, you have to be on the in crowd, and of course buying wall space in upscale New York galleries helps... giving parties in upscale venues also helps... getting acquainted with the 'right people'... once that is done, and who knows perhaps a few blowjobs here and there... maybe a little SM/BD action, perhaps you too can have a showing where you break all the rules...

And if that is one's goal in 'film', there's a small venue theater circuit as well that is sort of recovering from the disappearence of 'downtown' movie houses in America.

But if you do have any inclinations to find an audience outside of that narrow zone... probably having 'received composition' techniques well in hand is a necessity... Sure break a few rules here and there, break them with some identifiable motivation... and who knows perhaps you too will be welcomed in to the lofty heights of Hollywood... or if all else fails, at least you can put the 'action' on the 3rds crosshairs shooting porn in Chatsworth...
 
J.R. Hudson said:
That is of course specifically gunning for the Academy aspect ratio. But who's doing that these days ?

=

My suggestion with compositions and framing of shot sis to stay far away from Close Ups unless otherwise motivated.

Practice framing with wide and beyond; this is where staging and blocking and general Mis-en-scene comes into play; true balance and harmony of the frame.
Click to expand...

My point is whatever aspect ratio one choses, one should find good examples of composition in that format to study. If the current rage is 2:1 or wider... fine, find as many examples as possible and study those. I just noted that the 'natural' format for the DVX 100, being engineered for standard TV, is 4:3... and sure with an anamorphic lense, squeeze mode, or even cropping, one can change that... but in doing so, something like 'resolution' is lost.

In some cases it looked like people were using a 4:3 formated camera, then cropping post-production to get the wider ratio. A friend was doing this and somehow the idea of makign a template to put over his camera monitor to match his idea of the eventual cropping never occurred to him until I ask...

As a note, I do like the wider view in theaters... I'm not convinced I like it for home or computer viewing... something about a thirty/forty foot wide screen gives it more... umpf... on the small screen or the micro screen... I feel like I'm looking out a tank periscope...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top