How many see something (technically) egregious in this?

Chris Santucci said:
The scale difference is about 76% as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
You mean 24%.

That CU has so much diffusion it looks like a lens flare which also jars the cut.

Right, someone needs to post another piece of work that we can dismantle. Charles, over to you with the next what's wrong with this thread:-)
 
Chris Santucci said:
I didn't watch the whole piece but this clearly shows that you moved the camera off axis between close and medium:

View attachment 71899View attachment 71900



Good points. It might be the eye height that's really pissing me off.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can compare a piece to camera with the 'talent' looking down the barrel to that Mel C or B (whatever) piece. Different ways of shooting. Moving the camera on the politician piece would mean asking her to do a slight head turn to maintain eyeline. There is not usually time for this or a need. Also, there was so much about the way that was shot that I didn't like that I didn't really notice the cuts.

Usually,when shooting politicians you are dealing with tight schedules and quick turnarounds and shooting solo. The cuts are not really an issue and the target audience wouldn't notice.

What I hate more is when there is a piece to camera with the talent looking down the barrel of cam A and then a second camera (Cam B) off axis. Cut to camera B and the talent is still looking down the barrel of cam A. Looks a little 'behind the scenes' to me and sloppy, disconnecting them from the audience.
 
Last edited:
...aaaaaaaand thats another thing we do frequently on shoots with that same corporate client. Can help break up the edit when broll not available or no time to shoot mcu and cu takes when down the barrel.
 
vtwiz said:
I don't know how you can compare a piece to camera with the 'talent' looking down the barrel to that Mel C or B (whatever) piece. Different ways of shooting.
Click to expand...
Chris didn't post that, I did. Agree with your other points though.
 
Josh Bass said:
...aaaaaaaand thats another thing we do frequently on shoots with that same corporate client. Can help break up the edit when broll not available or no time to shoot mcu and cu takes when down the barrel.
Click to expand...

Yep, lots of people do it. Personally I think that once the talent starts talking directly to the audience (down the barrel) that relationship should be maintained. It goes from being spoken to / part of the conversation to being an observer once the B Camera is used. I prefer the axial cut technique unless you start the interview Mel C style and maintain it.
 
In a case like this where the talent is looking directly into the lens (and reading a teleprompter no less) I can't see any other way of shooting this than doing axial cuts. Unless she did a news anchor "head turn to camera 2" but that would seem even more silly, and require a potentially more difficult lighting setup.

But to adjust the camera a few degrees left or right to avoid an axial cut would seem more distracting to me, because in order to keep her looking at the lens, she would have to magically alter her head position on the cut. This would feel even more like a continuity error than the moving necklace to me.

What bothers me more is the serviceable but not great lighting, the yellowish backlight and the smeary look to it all. Plus, Michelle Bachman is repulsive in the first place.
 
dvbrother said:
In a case like this where the talent is looking directly into the lens (and reading a teleprompter no less) I can't see any other way of shooting this than doing axial cuts. Unless she did a news anchor "head turn to camera 2" but that would seem even more silly, and require a potentially more difficult lighting setup.
Click to expand...


That's exactly right. I believe the biggest issue is the too subtle scale change. This features a greater scale change as does Charles' example and to me, they don't have distracting axial jump cuts at all:

 
The funny thing I find, living in Hollywood, is the bigger the celebrity, the less anyone wants to hear from or see the camera crew. Often times you end up lighting an empty seat, anticipating the needs of the talent. I'm not talking production people here, I'm referring to the publicists and talent wranglers.

Thankfully my producers allow me to shoot with two cameras to get an off-axis angle to cut to. And a lighting package to make quick fixes (and my set of Classic Softs to take the edge off).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top