I find myself not having as much time for getting a scene done on the micro budget scale. Actor availability, location availability, etc... I was thinking of maybe shooting scenes in one take. Not the whole scene but a lot of the scene, with a few closer up shots, in between to convey certain perspectives and emotions. During the one shot take, I could have the camera operator either keep the camera still or move it throughout but it would probably be a good idea to move it maybe. It could actually look good like an old school movie shoot. Does this sound like a good idea to save time, cause then I won't be constantly cutting and putting the camera in different spots and readjusting, to save time?
Does this sound like a good directing approach?
- Thread starter ironpony
- Start date
MadMonkFish
Well-known member
The old style method is shooting a wide master, where the actors play out the whole scene and then going back for singles and two shots etc (depending on the scene). Most trained DP's will want to shoot this way & then do pick ups and coverage to provide material for the edit.
I agree with Cassius, plan your shots.
Some master shots can just be a single placed/wide camera - others could be a planned dolly/track (ie following the flow of a conversation of around a large dinner table etc). Pre plan and look at your blocking... use cuts to make dramatic intent obvious or to enhance/progress the visual story flow (if a character coughs during the dolly around the table, that gives a great edit point to cut to a single reaction shot of somebody else sitting around the table... cutting with action always helps the visual flow).
I agree with Cassius, plan your shots.
Some master shots can just be a single placed/wide camera - others could be a planned dolly/track (ie following the flow of a conversation of around a large dinner table etc). Pre plan and look at your blocking... use cuts to make dramatic intent obvious or to enhance/progress the visual story flow (if a character coughs during the dolly around the table, that gives a great edit point to cut to a single reaction shot of somebody else sitting around the table... cutting with action always helps the visual flow).
Okay thanks. I actually do plan my shots, though. Storyboards and all. I just don't often have enough time to get them all. I go by a lot of modern movies, how many shots are in those movies, but in the microbudget world, there is not just enough time, to get that many number of different positions on the availability I have. The DP has to move the camera, refocus, possibly relight even. The sound guy might have to re-position blankets. This way if I do mostly master shots, that are moving, with some close up shots, for certain sections, and coverage, I then will be able to get things done in the amount of time allotted.
sonofaresiii
Well-known member
Well, part of planning your shots means being realistic with how much you can get done. Problems arise, sure, but with experience you should have an idea of how much you can actually get done, with the crew you work with and the shots you want.
Don't plan for a best case scenario. Shoot low and if you get done early, go for extra stuff.
Of course, if you get in trouble and you're running behind, then sometimes you have to do whatever you have to to get the film done-- and sometimes, yes, that means cutting set-ups and combining shots.
Don't plan for a best case scenario. Shoot low and if you get done early, go for extra stuff.
Of course, if you get in trouble and you're running behind, then sometimes you have to do whatever you have to to get the film done-- and sometimes, yes, that means cutting set-ups and combining shots.
You're misunderstanding what I mean. It's not planning your shots that matters so much, it's planning how to get them and in what order to minimize the production needs. I've shot microbudget plenty of times and learned with experience how to get the shots I want when I want them. I used to do the same thing you're talking about doing, back in my early learning phase, and my work suffered. Figuring out the most efficient way to shoot and keeping people moving is the key. Followed, of course, by securing people for longer than you currently are. That's an art all to its own.
A wide run through for safety is something I like to start with just in case I overlook an important part, but you can't think of it as the primary focus. That leads to a lack of creative and meaningful shot selection. It may seem like a big deal to convince actors to hang out a little longer, but if you don't you'll end up with an amateur looking project. Limit your shooting where you can, plan so that some actors can wrap before others and move like you're racing in the Olympics.
Another thing with the planning phase... you know how long you have ahead of time. You know what shots you want. With experience you should be able to estimate how long the setups should take and give yourself deadlines. With that knowledge you can decide which shots are necessary and which ones can be replaced with more generic coverage beforehand, so instead of not getting what you planned you're planning for what you can get. If there's extra time left over - which I always have now that I've learned - you can grab other shots that are in your optional category. It's important to be able to differentiate between necessary and optional shots in this world.
I would also consider reexamining the issue of actor availability. I've found that even in the microbudget world - by which I mean not paying people - serious actors who believe in the project and value their work will make the time if you give them enough warning. For my last short I traveled to the area that I would be shooting and finding actors a little over a month before the shoot to meet everyone and clarify the scheduling needs. I estimated how many days we needed even though the script wasn't finalized and they were all able to take the four requested days mostly off, though there were a couple of things that got in the way at certain parts of the day. We still worked through it successfully because everything was taken care of so far ahead of schedule.
Obviously I don't know you, your experience, the issues you're having or anything else about the situation other than the couple of short paragraphs in this thread. I could be totally off base. So it's up to you to take what you need from the responses and decide what applies to your situation.
A wide run through for safety is something I like to start with just in case I overlook an important part, but you can't think of it as the primary focus. That leads to a lack of creative and meaningful shot selection. It may seem like a big deal to convince actors to hang out a little longer, but if you don't you'll end up with an amateur looking project. Limit your shooting where you can, plan so that some actors can wrap before others and move like you're racing in the Olympics.
Another thing with the planning phase... you know how long you have ahead of time. You know what shots you want. With experience you should be able to estimate how long the setups should take and give yourself deadlines. With that knowledge you can decide which shots are necessary and which ones can be replaced with more generic coverage beforehand, so instead of not getting what you planned you're planning for what you can get. If there's extra time left over - which I always have now that I've learned - you can grab other shots that are in your optional category. It's important to be able to differentiate between necessary and optional shots in this world.
I would also consider reexamining the issue of actor availability. I've found that even in the microbudget world - by which I mean not paying people - serious actors who believe in the project and value their work will make the time if you give them enough warning. For my last short I traveled to the area that I would be shooting and finding actors a little over a month before the shoot to meet everyone and clarify the scheduling needs. I estimated how many days we needed even though the script wasn't finalized and they were all able to take the four requested days mostly off, though there were a couple of things that got in the way at certain parts of the day. We still worked through it successfully because everything was taken care of so far ahead of schedule.
Obviously I don't know you, your experience, the issues you're having or anything else about the situation other than the couple of short paragraphs in this thread. I could be totally off base. So it's up to you to take what you need from the responses and decide what applies to your situation.
MadMonkFish
Well-known member
It sounds like your 'boards might be over complex if you often run out of time when shooting.
Looking at modern movies as your base is fine... but the older ones will often give you a lot of options and ideas too. There's nothing wrong with a scene playing out in your master/wide... or letting a scene play out on one character in ECU. It all depends on what type of shot structure is required/needed to drive the narrative.
Consider the next scene/project you storyboard with a limit of 3 set ups. Master/Wide, single or 2 shot and reverse single or reverse 2 shot. Then storyboard only using these 3 camera positions. Give the 3 set ups to your DP and you'll find that he will probably only have to relight (or make small adjusts) to the reverse set up.
In terms of your storyboard, you can cross cut and ping pong as much as you like (to match modern edit styles)... but your basic coverage is still focused on a classic master/single/reverse set up.
Use your edit to up the amounts of cross cutting (if needed) or bridge problems. This way, during the shoot you can spend time with your actors, let the DP get on with his job and you'll get better performances as the talent will benefit from your focus.
Looking at modern movies as your base is fine... but the older ones will often give you a lot of options and ideas too. There's nothing wrong with a scene playing out in your master/wide... or letting a scene play out on one character in ECU. It all depends on what type of shot structure is required/needed to drive the narrative.
Consider the next scene/project you storyboard with a limit of 3 set ups. Master/Wide, single or 2 shot and reverse single or reverse 2 shot. Then storyboard only using these 3 camera positions. Give the 3 set ups to your DP and you'll find that he will probably only have to relight (or make small adjusts) to the reverse set up.
In terms of your storyboard, you can cross cut and ping pong as much as you like (to match modern edit styles)... but your basic coverage is still focused on a classic master/single/reverse set up.
Use your edit to up the amounts of cross cutting (if needed) or bridge problems. This way, during the shoot you can spend time with your actors, let the DP get on with his job and you'll get better performances as the talent will benefit from your focus.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Watch Woody Allen Films. Most of his shots are pretty much master shots. There are a couple of things that I read he does... 1) rehearsals. 2) let the actors 'work' with the scene, and not be chained to the written word. This allows the actors to do better with the master shot style I believe, given that if there is a flub, the whole shot needs to be pretty much reshot. So the 'dialog' must come from the actor integrating the scene.
It is more akin to theater performance that film, given these days the average duration of a shot is around 2-3 seconds. So a cut will cover a flub, or audio from one take can be used on another, where the visuals didn't work, but the audio was good.
Okay thanks. A lot of times the actors don't mind staying or coming back, but the availability of the locations is tougher. If I have to come back another day, I've had problems with locations looking different and cannot change them back. Office buildings changing all the time for example, with new things in them I am not allowed to move. It tried looking up ECU but several acronyms came up. What is that? Cassius mentioned how it might look amateur if it is shot from mostly the master shot though, and I agree that it is a risk, when trying to show my work and make a good impression. What about a scene like this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2o3QWwwQLI
Shot mostly from master with a few shots in between, to focus on other perspectives going on. But not like a more modern movie with different kinds of close ups on each character, thrown into the mix. Is that kind of shot too amateur for today's standards? Aside from the fight scene, which will have to get more specific, what about the number of dialogue shots, beforehand, and how the master takes up most of the edit? I was also thinking what I could is have my DP move the camera in foward slowly during the master shot as the scene gets more personal, that way it doesn't look so locked in one place. Would that still look amateur?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2o3QWwwQLI
Shot mostly from master with a few shots in between, to focus on other perspectives going on. But not like a more modern movie with different kinds of close ups on each character, thrown into the mix. Is that kind of shot too amateur for today's standards? Aside from the fight scene, which will have to get more specific, what about the number of dialogue shots, beforehand, and how the master takes up most of the edit? I was also thinking what I could is have my DP move the camera in foward slowly during the master shot as the scene gets more personal, that way it doesn't look so locked in one place. Would that still look amateur?
Last edited:
A lot of people will say that scene is just fine, but it's a matter of opinion. I think that the modern audience needs more movement in the camera. That scene is only fine because it looks older. These days energy has to come from the shots, not just the dialog. But it's a style choice and not something that can be said as fact. My opinion is that holding on those shots too long, with the exception of certain incredible landscapes and visuals, can lose your audience.
Now that there's more information on what you're talking about and I (and others) have had time to think about it I can give you a better opinion. If you know that location is going to be an issue do what you can to make it work. It's better to miss shots than to miss the scene. Start with a wide locked down shot. That's your safety. Once you have that you'll be fine whatever else happens. Then get your necessary close ups. Then get your necessary other angles that might make the scene have impact. Then move to your optional shots and room tone before heading out. Just make sure that it's planned ahead of time and that you choose your second set of shots carefully. Your original post made it seem like you would be changing styles as a way to rush through things without keeping much else in mind.
So to answer the original question, there's nothing wrong with keeping that wide as a primary focus. But if you do it you should do so because it fits stylistically with what the final product should look like. I can't go into detail about my workflow and how I keep track of shots and continuity because it's going to be completely different than what you do, but I can say that you need to be careful about becoming formulaic. Just think about it ahead of time, and in the end the only thing that matters is if the shots you plan to get fit in with the movie you see in your head.
Now that there's more information on what you're talking about and I (and others) have had time to think about it I can give you a better opinion. If you know that location is going to be an issue do what you can to make it work. It's better to miss shots than to miss the scene. Start with a wide locked down shot. That's your safety. Once you have that you'll be fine whatever else happens. Then get your necessary close ups. Then get your necessary other angles that might make the scene have impact. Then move to your optional shots and room tone before heading out. Just make sure that it's planned ahead of time and that you choose your second set of shots carefully. Your original post made it seem like you would be changing styles as a way to rush through things without keeping much else in mind.
So to answer the original question, there's nothing wrong with keeping that wide as a primary focus. But if you do it you should do so because it fits stylistically with what the final product should look like. I can't go into detail about my workflow and how I keep track of shots and continuity because it's going to be completely different than what you do, but I can say that you need to be careful about becoming formulaic. Just think about it ahead of time, and in the end the only thing that matters is if the shots you plan to get fit in with the movie you see in your head.
Yeah I want to come off as not amateur and professional and creative, but have the problem of coming up with too many shots, I have time for. MadMonkFish's 3 camera position sounds good. I have a project I am storyboarding I want to do, and want to keep the shots to a minimum whilst still making it look professional. Once scene I started storyboarding is a simple dialogue scene in an office of a police Captain. The scene will probably be at least 3 minutes though, cause there's plot to cover. Here are my shots:
1. the entrance of the scene where 3 male cops walk in from the hallway. It's the Captain's office, and he takes his chair. The other two characters are a Lieutenant and a Sergeant. The lieutenant leans against the wall at the side, and the Sergeant sits across from his captain. They are all in the scene as they walk in and sit, and this can serve as the safety master shot, if need be for later on.
2. An over the shoulder shot, from the sergeant's point of view. But I tell the DP to move in closer at certain points. This way the scene plays out and the DP does not have to reposition the camera, as he is closing up during the acting, which will save some time.
3. An over the shoulder shot, from the captain's point of view, also moving in closer during certain points.
4. A close up of the lieutenant, with no one else in, from the sergeant's angle, since he is focusing his conversation on the serge in the plot, and focusing none on the Captain.
5. A wide shot of the serge leaving and the lieutenant escorting him out. This could be the same as the previous mastershot, and the camera just moves over in the process, but that will depend on how the location is shaped.
Does this sound like enough shots and a good storyboard? The old me would have more planned at certain times to convey certain emotions, but the new me wants to get everything done in time. Any time leftover, great, I can get more maybe.
1. the entrance of the scene where 3 male cops walk in from the hallway. It's the Captain's office, and he takes his chair. The other two characters are a Lieutenant and a Sergeant. The lieutenant leans against the wall at the side, and the Sergeant sits across from his captain. They are all in the scene as they walk in and sit, and this can serve as the safety master shot, if need be for later on.
2. An over the shoulder shot, from the sergeant's point of view. But I tell the DP to move in closer at certain points. This way the scene plays out and the DP does not have to reposition the camera, as he is closing up during the acting, which will save some time.
3. An over the shoulder shot, from the captain's point of view, also moving in closer during certain points.
4. A close up of the lieutenant, with no one else in, from the sergeant's angle, since he is focusing his conversation on the serge in the plot, and focusing none on the Captain.
5. A wide shot of the serge leaving and the lieutenant escorting him out. This could be the same as the previous mastershot, and the camera just moves over in the process, but that will depend on how the location is shaped.
Does this sound like enough shots and a good storyboard? The old me would have more planned at certain times to convey certain emotions, but the new me wants to get everything done in time. Any time leftover, great, I can get more maybe.
Last edited:
MadMonkFish
Well-known member
This sounds OK
Basically, if you add a dolly/track/jib (or even a pan) at the head of the shot - let the master play all the way through - and then have some type of end shot that follows the action of the characters leaving... at this point (if your script can have it), get a character to close the door... you can then hold on the door for a breath... afterwards (maybe) cut back to a 'knowing' shot of your seated Captain (looking angry or knowing or whatever is relevant to the scene).
Obviously you can use your 3 set-ups and you'll find that you'll have many options that will come as a bit of a fluke - as your talent moves around and feels their way through the scene.
Just make sure you run through the whole scene in your master... and as much as you can in your singles & over the shoulders etc. It's good to have editing options, as you can very easily change the pace of the scene by editing in different ways (increasing or decreasing shot counts).
If you can, spend a bit of time with the DP on a location scout before you shoot... if not, when your talent is in makeup (or maybe have an earlier call for your crew to get things set up) discuss options with the DP. If he/she knows what you're planning and how you want to work with getting extra coverage but in less set-ups, they'll respond well
Then, whilst your DP is setting up, spend time with your actors - do some basic blocking and inform them of the shooting plan - and the way you're going to break the scene down (and set ups). This will help them decide how to focus their performance... most actors like to know where the camera is - as this will help them dial their emotional level up and down.
In terms of camera shot to imply emotion (as you mentioned), it's better to have an actor convey the emotion with a little help from the camera... rather than the camera doing the work for them
BTW - ECU is extreme close up.
nycineaste
Well-known member
Lack of camera movement isn't necessarily unprofessional- it can look artsy/indie/acting based, ideally your dialog rocks-Woody Allen, Kevin Smith, Jim Jarmusch, Tarantino, anything French.
Master Shot style is overrated as a money and time-saver. The lesson from my first disastrous short, burned into my brain: Amateur or Not Highly Rehearsed Actors Cannot Sustain A Long Master Scene.
Montage filmmaking is not necessarily a budget killer, it's Robert Rodriguez' technique for making movies fast and cheap.
Master Shot style is overrated as a money and time-saver. The lesson from my first disastrous short, burned into my brain: Amateur or Not Highly Rehearsed Actors Cannot Sustain A Long Master Scene.
Montage filmmaking is not necessarily a budget killer, it's Robert Rodriguez' technique for making movies fast and cheap.
bruce southerland
Active member
Using a moving master shot as the bulk of the finished scene is a technique that is used by a lot of directors. A moving master can save you some setups, but only
if your operator and actors are experienced enough to keep the takes to a minimum, and if you pick up a little coverage. I personally like a moving master.
if your operator and actors are experienced enough to keep the takes to a minimum, and if you pick up a little coverage. I personally like a moving master.
This is another thing. Since this scene for example, only has five angles, I am going to have a lot less coverage than usual. Before I have been able to often get plenty of coverage and lots of choices in the editing. If one shot, was out of focus in all the takes, I have another angle that is in focus and just use that, for example.
I won't have such a luxury, if I have a few shots only. Plus in the editing I had shots at different distances of close up to choose from. Now I am planning on closing up during the takes to save time. So I have to be sure in preproduction when to close up, and there is no going back. I will have a lot less coverage, but on the plus side, get the scene shot, before the locations possibly change, and save money. Especially since I want to take on bigger projects with more complex locations. So I will have to be a lot more sure to what shots I want.
I won't have such a luxury, if I have a few shots only. Plus in the editing I had shots at different distances of close up to choose from. Now I am planning on closing up during the takes to save time. So I have to be sure in preproduction when to close up, and there is no going back. I will have a lot less coverage, but on the plus side, get the scene shot, before the locations possibly change, and save money. Especially since I want to take on bigger projects with more complex locations. So I will have to be a lot more sure to what shots I want.