Hey guys I'm curious on how you guys shoot conversation scenes? Do you guys shoot the scene repeatedly with different angles (180 degree rule)? How do you maintain the consistency of the conversation?
Conversation scenes.
- Thread starter charles827
- Start date
I shot 1080p, but because of my insufficient coverage, often found myself cropping down to 720p, to make edits work. It's a thrill, in one sense, to be able to get creative in post, finding ways to piece together a puzzle that doesn't at first fit. Yet at the same time, it's a little dis-heartening to know that I've just selected a shot, not because it's the one I like but because it's the only one I can toy with to make fit. Editing scenes by default can be frustrating. Next time, more coverage.
And, more rehearsal. There was too much variation in between takes, and I absolutely do not blame this on my actors.
And, more rehearsal. There was too much variation in between takes, and I absolutely do not blame this on my actors.
Do you think storyboards would have aided in getting the frames you needed?
Given the choice between storyboards or more coverage (both of which take time to do), which would be preferable for your shooting style?
Had to do a TINY bit of this in my last film. We didn't notice the top of one of the fake walls peeking at the top of the frame until we got into editing and had to trim the frame just a little bit to get rid of it. It's just part of it sometimes, unless you have a skilled eagle eyed continuity person/script supervisor, boom shadows, unwanted items in frame, etc.. are just going to happen sometimes. That being said, "Once more for coverage" gets said a LOT on my set.
Last edited:
It wasn't a problem of framing, but in inconsistincies on performances between takes. This might be partly due to my actors being primarily stage-actors, but mostly I attribute it to the fact that the entire production was very run-and-gun. My actors probably could've used more time for rehearsal, and I would've liked to not have to wear so many hats simultaneously. If I could've hired one more crew member (it was just me and my boom-op), I would've hired a script supervisor. The difficulties I had in editing were almost always continuity-related.
In this shot, his head is facing forward. In that shot, his head doesn't face forward until after he says the line. This arm is facing that way, that arm is facing this way, and absolutely none of my takes fit together for this particular edit. That'd be not so horrible, if I had more cutaways, but for this particular edit, I have no cutaways that make sense. So...how about we crop his head out of the shot, for a closeup on that half-empty beer bottle he's carrying.
Rik is right on the money here. My motto is 'we need more coverage'.
Dumbass question: What would an insert be? You have a full master, full CU, full OTS...
Let's say one of the characters is smoking a cigarette. An
insert would be a tight shot of the ashes being tapped off
in the ash tray, maybe a shot of it being ground out, or
just a close up of the cigarette in the ash tray, smoke
rising off the tip. Maybe a hand fiddling with a book of matches
or a lighter.
An insert could be someone drumming their fingers on the
table, holding a glass, picking up a pen. I find that shooting
several shots of "business" can help in editing. If you need
to emphasize something important or just have something to
use in case of a continuity error or awkward cut an insert can
come in real handy.
Yes and also get cutaways, they can come in handy as well.
Cutaways can be different things (anything from people to animals to objects) which once established can be cut to later if you're in trouble. Of course it can also be something that is integral to the scene and is cutaway to on purpose.
Cutaways can be different things (anything from people to animals to objects) which once established can be cut to later if you're in trouble. Of course it can also be something that is integral to the scene and is cutaway to on purpose.
THANK YOU. I've done that, just didn't know that was the term. I'm so un-technical.
"conversation scenes"
To me this very description is a red flag. Scenes need to be more than a conversation. If nothing is being communicated visually, or at least aurally above and beyond dialogue, then the scene has inherent weaknesses.
I know these occur all the time, especially on television. That doesn't make them particularly worthwhile or compelling.
The purists, like Hitchcock, would prefer the dialogue to be superfuluous and unnecessary to telling the story. Hitch is dead, of course.
I prefer a hybrid approach where communicating to the audience is balanced between the visual and the conversational. But, any time you communicate the plot to the audience through dialogue you run the risk of glaring exposition, tedious dialogue that wouldn't occur in real life. That's what the red flag is for.
Crappy sophomoric screenwriting is easy to spot, and it ruins many a project. You see these all over the internet in amateur short films. They get clicked off pretty quickly.
The remedy is an immersive education in film. You don't learn much by playing around with a camcorder. You learn by studying the great films for years and years. A basic arts and science education wouldn't hurt either.
To me this very description is a red flag. Scenes need to be more than a conversation. If nothing is being communicated visually, or at least aurally above and beyond dialogue, then the scene has inherent weaknesses.
I know these occur all the time, especially on television. That doesn't make them particularly worthwhile or compelling.
The purists, like Hitchcock, would prefer the dialogue to be superfuluous and unnecessary to telling the story. Hitch is dead, of course.
I prefer a hybrid approach where communicating to the audience is balanced between the visual and the conversational. But, any time you communicate the plot to the audience through dialogue you run the risk of glaring exposition, tedious dialogue that wouldn't occur in real life. That's what the red flag is for.
Crappy sophomoric screenwriting is easy to spot, and it ruins many a project. You see these all over the internet in amateur short films. They get clicked off pretty quickly.
The remedy is an immersive education in film. You don't learn much by playing around with a camcorder. You learn by studying the great films for years and years. A basic arts and science education wouldn't hurt either.
Amen to that!
My current short project has zero lines of dialog. It's interesting to attempt to tell a story through purely visual means, and good practice for filmmaking in general.
What hasn't been said yet, or perhaps I just missed it, is that the way you shoot depends on the story and your approach.
If you want to use a minimalist style, like Jim Jarmusch, then you will shoot differently than what others have mentioned.
Think about how the conversations were filmed in Stranger Than Paradise, for instance.
You're either going to shoot coverage or decoupage style.
Then of course, there are a multitude of variables at play once you decide on which style you want to shoot in (flat angles, strong lines, weak lines, telephoto, wide angle, 3/4, MS, LS, MLS, CU, MCU, OTS, three-key lighting, single source, etc. etc.) Then you have to think about sound as well!
Composition is vital. Sound design is crucial. But vision...that's key.
I strongly agree with what was said about studying films.
If you want to use a minimalist style, like Jim Jarmusch, then you will shoot differently than what others have mentioned.
Think about how the conversations were filmed in Stranger Than Paradise, for instance.
You're either going to shoot coverage or decoupage style.
Then of course, there are a multitude of variables at play once you decide on which style you want to shoot in (flat angles, strong lines, weak lines, telephoto, wide angle, 3/4, MS, LS, MLS, CU, MCU, OTS, three-key lighting, single source, etc. etc.) Then you have to think about sound as well!
Composition is vital. Sound design is crucial. But vision...that's key.
I strongly agree with what was said about studying films.
Shots of things in the scene other than where the focus of the action is. The clock on the wall, a tea kettle whistling on the stove, closeup of one characters foot tapping on the floor, whatever. Cutting to it provides an easy way to edit togther two shots that otherwise might not edit together well, or speed up a scene by cutting out a chunk from the middle, etc...
ussinners asked the same question on 11-06-2010 (reply #27).
I answered in reply #28.
Both of you thought it was a dumb question - it is not. Not
everyone knows the terms. That’s why we’re here - to help
each other out.
Go back to page two and you’ll see my answer: