I am currently working on a pretty big project but I'm having some trouble with camera angles. I only use one camera to film. When filming a dialog between two characters, should I film it twice from over each shoulder, and then mash the clips together? I think this is the only way I could do it, Unless I used a really quick camera movement between the two people... but I haven't seen that done since the Bourne films haha. Anyway any help appreciated, thanks!
cinematography Camera Angle Trouble
- Thread starter Beatlesfan1225
- Start date
If you are getting that idea from this thread, that is not the intent. My point is "Lots of Random Coverage" versus "Hitchcockian previsualization," like the post above this. I quickly wrote those shots down in response to Beatlesfan1225. That sequence could be made far more complex, without ever setting foot on location. Tracks and dolly shots could be added. The fall itself could be extended into a roll down the slope and off a short cliff. There are all sorts of possibilities, but a simple example is best to start.
That's not to say that you can't adapt shots to the location. The shotlist is a template.
Going back to the conversation example. I said that Closups can hide hand/body continuity errors seen in wider shots. I did not say use only closeups. I was referring to HAPPY HOUR, the footage I linked to. As you see, we need to follow what happens with the drink glasses, so most shots are wider. Time was of the essence, so no unnecessary coverage was got. We had 6 or 7 hours, on a Saturday, to shoot the 10 minute short, before the bar crowd started coming in. No way, that this is anything fancy, but do the shots serve the story? I'm going to post 6 image panels and some short description.
The bartender surveils a cheating couple and gives the tape to the wife ("Tape" was a required prop.)
Poison drink for hubby. "Happy Hour special - drinks on the house"
"Red Brick Inn, room 48. I'll look better, if you drink something stronger..."
"I need to use the little girl's room"
"I've got some good shit on you and your little whore. In 2 minutes, you'll be dead."
Missed the intended target. Mia ends up as collatoral damage.
Back to Hitch, I was amazed at how he would previsualize the whole movie in his head, before stepping onto the set.
NORTH BY NORTHWEST storyboards:
http://www.lst.inf.ethz.ch/teaching/lectures/ws05/229/RecitationSlides/Recitation 3.pdf
Cropduster scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCD983SxBRo
Missed the intended target. Mia ends up as collatoral damage.
Back to Hitch, I was amazed at how he would previsualize the whole movie in his head, before stepping onto the set.
NORTH BY NORTHWEST storyboards:
http://www.lst.inf.ethz.ch/teaching/lectures/ws05/229/RecitationSlides/Recitation 3.pdf
Cropduster scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCD983SxBRo
Last edited:
This is a bit of an exaggeration. If this were the case, then I might as well replace all of my actors with cardboard cut-outs, because according to your logic, the actor's delivery (facial expressions, body language) don't mean anything.
And besides, camera angles, camera movement, and all that stuff, aren't (shouldn't be) written into the screenplay. And for all you know, maybe as the director, all I want to do is place a camera in front of the actors and record the entire dialogue, without any camera movement or any change of angle, or anything. There are situations in which that can be very effective.
I don't think every single shot has to have some grand artistic meaning. Sometimes, "talking heads" is exactly what you want.
"I don't think every single shot has to have some grand artistic meaning. Sometimes, "talking heads" is exactly what you want. "
And sometimes people change the channel.
Sometimes they walk out.
Sometimes they talk on the phone.
Sometimes they laugh in all the wrong places.
One dimensional scenes are boring.
They're fucking boring.
There's far too much talking heads amateur Youtube stuff out there. I'd much rather see some cinema with all the chatter. If the scene is only a conversation, I'd seriously reconsider including it at all. It needs more. It needs new elements -- visual elements -- that aren't cliches and keep the audience on the edges of their seats. This is very, very hard. It's not about simply pointing a camera at your friends, giving them words to say, and expecting the product to turn out artistically.
(I thought Cracker was pretty good with this, seeing how his long conversation scene that I clicked on was shot as two guys were scoping out cars to steal down the street, and continues as they rob a car. Not exactly random. Not just a "talking heads" scene.)
Back to something said above, particularly the word "random." Choosing "random" camera angles?
Again, that's one way.
Do real movies rely on randomly showing up and pointing the camera haphazardly?
Seriously, these are the concepts we're discussing here.
A solid plan and an intimate knowledge of the location, the information you wish to communicate, and some TALENT on how you communicate it are basic requirements. If the goal is to end up with something watchable.
The audience is quite spoiled and used to high-end productions, which are basically free nearly everywhere you turn. The value of even megaproductions has been diminished in this post modern (post sane) world. Competition is brutal. Going in blind and hoping for "random" solutions to your film is a bit silly and naive.
Not to say you can't get something good, if you truly have talent and know what you're doing (not at all clear yet). But, relying on randomness and long dialogue scenes is counterintuitive. This is film. It was designed to show the audience things without relying on dialogue. Quite the opposite of where we started.
Whatever.
It's not like people actually want to hear anything that disagrees with their preconceived notions and the first ideas that popped into their heads.
Basically 98% of what I see out there is absolute shyte. It is the rare one, or two, who exceed expectations. Some do, and so this partial reinforcement keeps me coming back, renting titles, etc.
I am pretty good at this. 
All I'm saying is that I've seen scenes that were minutes-long, that had absolutely nothing going on but people talking, and they were riveting. My point is that there are no rules. Sometimes a scene should be about so much more than the dialogue. The scene of mine that you referenced isn't about floppy-titties; it's about learning who these two characters are. Sometimes, however, the dialogue might be all that a scene is about, and maybe a director wants the audience to key in tight on the dialogue, alone, and the actor's performance. I think that's a valid directorial decision to make, and there are valid reasons to go either direction.
All I'm saying is that I've seen scenes that were minutes-long, that had absolutely nothing going on but people talking, and they were riveting. My point is that there are no rules. Sometimes a scene should be about so much more than the dialogue. The scene of mine that you referenced isn't about floppy-titties; it's about learning who these two characters are. Sometimes, however, the dialogue might be all that a scene is about, and maybe a director wants the audience to key in tight on the dialogue, alone, and the actor's performance. I think that's a valid directorial decision to make, and there are valid reasons to go either direction.
So, let's see... Going back to the initial post:
Apparently, the kid never heard the term "coverage" before. Go look it up. Educate yourself.
Next, coverage is certainly not the only way to get that shot. The shot could include both parties. It could include only one. It could alternate as they move about a location. It could be a voice-over as something entirely different is shown on screen. The possibilities are vast.
It does not have to rely on whipping a camera back and forth, unless the camera is supposed to be a character and some kid who just opened the box is controlling it. Then, it makes some sense for one part of a film.
Either way, everything I said above stands. Every film needs a strong visual component, and should not rely on diaolgue. That's critical to getting anywhere. Visual elements absolutely belong in the script. Exposition heavy dialogue is an obvious sign of an amateur and it will be tossed very quickly.
Whipping a camera back and forth is so jarring and so obvious that it tells the audience a lot about who is filming -- or who is supposed to be filming -- and therefore breaks the fourth wall. Another term to go look up.
"Camera Angle Trouble
I am currently working on a pretty big project but I'm having some trouble with camera angles. I only use one camera to film. When filming a dialog between two characters, should I film it twice from over each shoulder, and then mash the clips together? I think this is the only way I could do it, Unless I used a really quick camera movement between the two people... but I haven't seen that done since the Bourne films haha. Anyway any help appreciated, thanks! "
I am currently working on a pretty big project but I'm having some trouble with camera angles. I only use one camera to film. When filming a dialog between two characters, should I film it twice from over each shoulder, and then mash the clips together? I think this is the only way I could do it, Unless I used a really quick camera movement between the two people... but I haven't seen that done since the Bourne films haha. Anyway any help appreciated, thanks! "
Apparently, the kid never heard the term "coverage" before. Go look it up. Educate yourself.
Next, coverage is certainly not the only way to get that shot. The shot could include both parties. It could include only one. It could alternate as they move about a location. It could be a voice-over as something entirely different is shown on screen. The possibilities are vast.
It does not have to rely on whipping a camera back and forth, unless the camera is supposed to be a character and some kid who just opened the box is controlling it. Then, it makes some sense for one part of a film.
Either way, everything I said above stands. Every film needs a strong visual component, and should not rely on diaolgue. That's critical to getting anywhere. Visual elements absolutely belong in the script. Exposition heavy dialogue is an obvious sign of an amateur and it will be tossed very quickly.
Whipping a camera back and forth is so jarring and so obvious that it tells the audience a lot about who is filming -- or who is supposed to be filming -- and therefore breaks the fourth wall. Another term to go look up.
Yes, obviously he's new to this. That's why he's here -- asking for help. And that's why the first thing I taught him was the concept of coverage.
To be frank, I don't understand your point. I don't think anybody has suggested that visuals don't matter. This is sort of a strange argument that you're making. And why are you now attacking the OP for asking a question?
I appreciate you trying to help in the thread, but honestly, this is the newbie thread, as Cracker Funk said, I'm here to learn.
So back to the falling angles mentioned earlier in this thread... if my actor is landing on a bed, should I take a bunch of coverage of him falling with the bed out of the shot, then remove the bed and put him on the ground, and get a lot of coverage of that?
That would be a good way of doing it. Your goal will be finding the best editing combination of "Fall" and "Landing." Try it and see what works.
If that doesn't work, you might need to add something to cut away to, like a friend in the next room and she hears a big Crash sound. Or, you can add a camera's point of view - falling towards the ground. Even with your actor gone, it's easy to add shots like this.
If he's falling backward, then yeah, I'd use a mattress. If he's falling forward, I'd just tell him to suck it up, and fall on the ground. I suppose there's a little bit of a risk there, but not much. For coverage, in this instance, if we were getting the latter half of a fall, except it wasn't really a complete fall, the latter half is what I'd be most worried about -- I'd want to get as much coverage of that, as possible. And you know, we don't necessarily need to see him hit the ground. He could just fall out of frame. You can cut away to something else -- somebody's reaction, maybe? A closeup of his schoolbooks falling out of his hands, as he falls? A closeup of the coffee spilling? Whatever. I would get a few different angles of him half-falling, and more than a few cutaways.
It was fake, or did it look fake in the edit? Without knowing the details, like where he fell, why he fell, if other people are involved and if he gets hurt or not, there are still shots you can get to sell it...
Let's say he's hiking with his girlfriend on a narrow foot path. The shots might look like:
1) LS ( long shot) of hikers going up a path, away from the camera.
2) MS (med shot) reverse angle of guy approaching camera, with girl behind him.
3) MCU (med closeup) of guy's right foot stepping on a rock. The rock is not secure and slides...
4) MCU of guy's face - he falls downward out of frame.
5) MS of the two hikers from the side, as the guy falls downslope, towards camera. (There is a matt below the frameline, for him to fall onto.)
6) MCU of girl's face (towards camera) reacting to guy falling. "Rick!!"
7) Falling Wide Angle of Guy's P.O.V. (camera assumes his Point Of View). NOTE: Put the camera on an extended tripod and arc it towards the ground (point of impact). Ramp up the speed in editing if necessary.
Low Angle (on the ground) MCU of guy falling into the frame, hitting ground and kicking up dust. His head stays down. ( This landing can be from a semi-stance position onto soft dirt, pine needles or leaves, so he doesn't hurt himself.)
9) MS of girl (camera on trail) Pan with her as she descends to help her guy.
10) Low Angle MCU of guy. He lifts his bloody face from the dirt, groans and winces. Rack focus to the girl descending towards him in the background of this shot.
11) Handheld Wide Angle following behind girl as she gets to her guy and rolls him over. "Are you okay?"
This is how I plan a scene, instead of just filming every possible angle. I have to see the fall work in my head and write the shots down. The guy's POV falling to the ground and the cutaway to the girl allows me to suggest a pretty good impact. A good thud sound effect will sell it. You can make it as intense as you want with insert shots of a fake arm or leg snapping (from a higher fall), etc. Or it can just be a regular old fall.
That's a good idea, I'd probably add in something falling out of his hands or a reaction rather than going through the trouble of editing him hitting the ground, and removing the mattress (He fell off a pretty tall ladder)
I think using references is a good start point. Watching carefully movies with similar editing and story (how coverage is effectively used to advance a concept or story) will help in resolving some technical and causal issues behind the ideas.... Even pros use references when they need an inspiration... Nothing wrong with it I think
Time stamps are used to gauge chromatic relevance, and can be located on the first line of each post. Usage instructions: first, read the time stamp. Then take into context the "timelessness" of the posts topic. In example, if the topic is "the meaning of life" it does stand to reason that people would retain interest for let's say, 13 years. In contrast, a person seeking advice about whether or not they should buy the new U2 album "The Joshua Tree" may have already made their decision in the past, and moved on to other parts of their life.
It's a tough call on what's relevant. Subjective really.
It's a tough call on what's relevant. Subjective really.
We must help each other as this forum is all about cause knowledge is timeless. Even though answering to somebody and resolving "his" problem when most needed could not validate the further existance of this topic unless the topic remains important for future indie filmamkers and is still open for discussion.... Well, let's admit someone's curiosity in 2023 (seems indie filmamkers got all the answers).