Photo blogger describes exposing video using "180-degree rule"

ahalpert

ahalpert

Major Contributor
https://fstoppers.com/education/how-properly-expose-video-482201

Interestingly, I see more and more photographers giving advice about shooting video, indicating an increasing demand for hybrid shooters (with an emphasis on still photos).

Most of the videos I see shot by professional photographers have very nice compositions and lighting but zero camera movement. Nevertheless, this industry trend doesn't bode well for competition and rates for videographers.

(I shouldn't be so hard on him about the "180-degree rule." I get what he means about shutter speeds, it was just a funny conflation of film terminology.)
 
Last edited:
Nothing new though...a lot of people pick up a camera and learn everything on YouTube within a few months and create better content than many professionals who have 10-20-30 years of experience.

Not a knock; just a reality.

And there's a lot of garbage out there too.

But the fact-of-the-matter is this job is extremely expendable. Which is why we live and die by great clients.
 
P.S. But what I think that 10-20-30 years provides is amazing production experience. Good ole-fashioned on-the-job, in-the-field knowledge that can't be taught on YouTube.

People/crew skills, reaction skills (camera operation)...adjusting on the fly in high pressure situations...doing things the best way for that job...things like that.

But yeah, basic videography skills and content creation (a lot of similar work that we see on YouTube that many of us have created at some time or another like promo pieces, interviews, product showcases, etc) are dime-a-dozen at this point.
 
By the way (keep forgetting to write things)...the article might be from a photographer (IDK), but the video is from wolfcrow who's a video guy and has been around for a while.

If the writer added the word shutter after degree - "180-degree shutter rule" - it would have been better but I think it's still fine (assuming most people stick to 180° for the most part even though 172.8° is just as popular...and other shutters are also of course used depending on the purpose).
 
NorBro said:
By the way (keep forgetting to write things)...the article might be from a photographer (IDK), but the video is from wolfcrow who's a video guy and has been around for a while.

If the writer added the word shutter after degree - "180-degree shutter rule" - it would have been better but I think it's still fine (assuming most people stick to 180° for the most part even though 172.8° is just as popular...and other shutters are also of course used depending on the purpose).
Click to expand...

Yes, Wolfcrow I know. I've watched some of his camera reviews and comparisons and they were very useful. This particular video I thought could have been much shorter or longer. I didn't think he was very clear and probably confused some people.

The blog (fstoppers) was really just passing on the video without adding anything. I just thought it was funny that they referenced the "180-degree rule" without explaining it. Then some poor person googles it and finds a load of articles about screen positioning.

So, his blog post probably caused more confusion than anything. Especially since the 180-degree shutter is not a rule. More like a tradition and a good idea. But there are lots of reasons to deviate from it, although it's true you don't want to use shutter speed to control exposure unless you really have to.
 
The one for people on screen is not a rule (regulation or principle) you have to follow, but it has the word 'rule' in its name and that's what most people refer to it as.

The other is simply a 180° shutter, and traditionally a strong recommendation for motion for a shutter working at 24 frames per second.
 
Yes, exactly. I was just left with the impression that this photog had heard of the 180-degree rule and also knew that a 180-degree shutter is typical and so assumed that the former referred to the latter. I could be wrong.

As an aside, I was shooting a little promo for a salon recently and we swung around for a reverse-shot and I said I wanted to figure which placement upheld the 180-degree rule. The 20-something year old producer told me we didn't need to worry about it and I thought, "this is exactly when we want to follow it...when there's no reason not to and we want the edit to be invisible/seamless." I don't get this notion that the rule is old-fashioned or no longer applies or whatever. Sure, you don't have to follow it, but it's still a good idea most of the time.
 
I was actually complicating it, lol...I just saw it as a typo and that most people would understand it to be just that (as there are dozens in various articles I read every day). But you're correct that it's better to make sure you're writing perfectly when trying to teach.

180° rule is still very important for a lot of filming, but it doesn't apply to a newer generation of video presentation(s) because it's just part of the look and style. Like jump cuts and a variety of zooms and text/animation on the screen.
 
Right, but you see it as a typo because you know the subject matter. The audience this article is aimed at does not.

What is the shutter angle/speed you see people using more recently? Most people I know (including myself) default to 1/48 or 1/50 (depending on camera) for 24fps shooting, although I know some who prefer 1/60 for a bit of extra crispness. Obviously, there are reasons to go 1/60 or higher for clarity or effect, but I don't think I ever go lower than 1/48 unless I'm starving for light (or 1/60 in 30p, 1/120 in 60p - most of my cameras don't read out shutter angle).
 
Shutter speeds...

Normal: 1/48, 1/50 and 1/60.

[But I'll easily sometimes shoot 1/80 or even 1/100 for static shots because I just like the way it looks depending on the scene.]

Lowest for low-light: 1/40, maybe 1/30 depending on if it's static enough. Too much motion will = ghosting artifacts.

Slow-motion: Could easily get up to 1/500 or 1/1000 (depending on the frame rate) for the ultimate pin sharp slow-motion freeze frame. (Also depends on speed of the action.)

___

Bottom line: No normal person will notice a difference between 1/40 - 1/80 on YouTube. 1/100+ is when things start to get visually...different. And someone may wonder about stuttering.
 
Yes, completely agree.

Although what people "notice" is different from what "affects" them whether they know it or not.

Also, there's a lot of stuff (even in high end music videos) where you see 24fps stuff with a 1/120 shutter (or higher) because they shot it slow-motion and used some of it at regular speed. Ideally, they would have shot it again at 24p with a lower shutter speed, but I don't think "normal" people notice in this case either.
 
ahalpert said:
Yes, completely agree.

Although what people "notice" is different from what "affects" them whether they know it or not.
Click to expand...

Definitely.

ahalpert said:
Also, there's a lot of stuff (even in high end music videos) where you see 24fps stuff with a 1/120 shutter (or higher) because they shot it slow-motion and used some of it at regular speed. Ideally, they would have shot it again at 24p with a lower shutter speed, but I don't think "normal" people notice in this case either.
Click to expand...

More professional cinema camera productions actually obtain this effect/look (movement appears to be a bit faster) by shooting at 20 or 22 frames per second (and they experiment with the shutter too). Hollywood music videos, fight scenes, dancing, etc.

20 or 22 under 24.

(Versus "over" which wouldn't be possible because that's not over and that would be slow motion.)

They are under-cranking. Same goal is achieved visually, IMO.
 
There's also the double-speed recording where you lip sync and dance to music playing at 50% speed and then double the speed during playback. A little off-topic but another form of crispness (in movement)
 
Eh, fundamentals...

There are panning speed tables for those who want to avoid judder, like, for example, in some scenes in "Spectre", which was shoot on 35 mm film.
They even didn't bother to smooth it out in post, what a disappointment after beautiful camera moves in "Skyfall".
 
That's an even different conversation!

(And not related to what was said here thus far.)
 
laverdir said:
Eh, fundamentals...

There are panning speed tables for those who want to avoid judder, like, for example, in some scenes in "Spectre", which was shoot on 35 mm film.
They even didn't bother to smooth it out in post, what a disappointment after beautiful camera moves in "Skyfall".
Click to expand...


That's interesting, I haven't heard of such tables. What is the post solution for smoothing it out?

NorBro said:
That's an even different conversation!

(And not related to what was said here thus far.)
Click to expand...

Lol weren't you just the one saying being off-topic is ok? I'm always happy to follow a tangent
 
ahalpert said:
Lol weren't you just the one saying being off-topic is ok? I'm always happy to follow a tangent
Click to expand...

For sure. I meant like "add it to the list" in this conversation...but wanted to be clear it's not what was being discussed here (meaning...a panning speed table/chart for frame rates was not the answer to everything that was said before and about the look we were talking about from shutter speeds, lol).

Nice tool: https://www.red.com/panning-speed
 
NorBro said:
That's an even different conversation!

(And not related to what was said here thus far.)
Click to expand...

Haven't seen what fstopers claimed, but have read here that smoeone was unclear why there are mostly static shoots coming from photographers:

1. you can't adjust exposure with shutter angle without affecting fluidity of motion pictures and, in general, adjusting exposure with ND filters on stills cameras isn't fun

2. most stills cameras have bad rolling shutter nusproducts, it's one of areas in which CCD still has advantage and why GS sensors are being developed further

Camera movement is an art by itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top