It seems to me that it's the opposite and that close ups are your safety's Sometimes in a master there may be a continuity flaw, or something doesn't match. In close ups of one actor at a time, there is less likely for that to be noticeable, so why is the master the safety? In my experience, it's the most risky. Not that I object to it all, I love mastershots, depending on what part of the scene, and what mood I am going for. I just don't quite get the safety thing.
How are master shots your safety?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Mastershots are't your safety, because you messed things up.
Your anwser is in your question.
I never plan shots for safety. I always plan for the shots I need and the shots I want. Most of the time they are the same, but during edit I sometimes find that I didn't need all the shots I wanted.
Your anwser is in your question.
I never plan shots for safety. I always plan for the shots I need and the shots I want. Most of the time they are the same, but during edit I sometimes find that I didn't need all the shots I wanted.
They are called your "safety" because if all else fails you can play out the entire scene in the master shot.
That is if you didn't suck and didnt f**k up on your master.
Then u can cut to the "cat in the window" to splice two takes of the master.
Last edited:
I tend to build my scenes from the closeups, based on the pacing of the dialog... til it sounds right. Then cover the visual problems with those moments from the master shot, or extend a head or tail to show a reaction using J or L cuts. Usually, my cutaways and insert shots are planned, so I don't have extras of them laying around.
The wide is the 'safety' because it shows everything, and you can always cut back to it.
Realistically though, all your shots should be planned so you have a rough idea of how it's going to cut together anyway.
You should have a list, and you should know what shots are necessary and what shots aren't. Shoot what you need first, and then get what you want. Simply shooting a master wide as your 'safety' and keeping it on that all, or most of, the time (unless it's carefully planned with moves) is going to look boring anyway, so you may find you have safety shots that you need to get.
Realistically though, all your shots should be planned so you have a rough idea of how it's going to cut together anyway.
You should have a list, and you should know what shots are necessary and what shots aren't. Shoot what you need first, and then get what you want. Simply shooting a master wide as your 'safety' and keeping it on that all, or most of, the time (unless it's carefully planned with moves) is going to look boring anyway, so you may find you have safety shots that you need to get.
If the boom mic or something else crew related is visible, the wide can't be the safety. I rarely take Masters for the length of long scenes - just the intro and exit parts of the scene, but that's me. Short scenes, yes. My safety is the Cutaway shot, but you need to make a conscious effort to get some coverage of the environment. When continuity isn't working or if you didn't get the line of dialogue, you can dub it over a cutaway.
If your main scene is two people talking in a bar, the cutaway can be of the band or jukebox that is playing in the background, the bartender looking at the couple talking, a stray cat that got in, a smoking cigarette in an ashtray, a shot of picking up/putting down a glass (both since either could be used depending on what's in the actors' hands), a clock on the wall, someone entering through the door, other patrons, the girl's foot twirling or guy's foot tapping, etc.
If your main scene is two people talking in a bar, the cutaway can be of the band or jukebox that is playing in the background, the bartender looking at the couple talking, a stray cat that got in, a smoking cigarette in an ashtray, a shot of picking up/putting down a glass (both since either could be used depending on what's in the actors' hands), a clock on the wall, someone entering through the door, other patrons, the girl's foot twirling or guy's foot tapping, etc.
Last edited:
I almost always get masters, simply because I want them. And I think the audience wants them. We need spatial context. At least just a little bit. Unless it's a really brief scene, as both director and editor, I would rarely want a scene composed entirely of closeups and mediums.
The concept that they are your safety is only if you lack the ability (either through lack of experience or maybe you just suck) to shoot a scene that will cut together. Well, at least you've got the master, no cuts needed.
The concept that they are your safety is only if you lack the ability (either through lack of experience or maybe you just suck) to shoot a scene that will cut together. Well, at least you've got the master, no cuts needed.
You have actual professional experience, so I guess I'll have to defer to you, but that's not the definition I know. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if the master isn't the shot that gets EVERYTHING in the scene, then what defines a master?
You have actual professional experience, so I guess I'll have to defer to you, but that's not the definition I know. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if the master isn't the shot that gets EVERYTHING in the scene, then what defines a master?
Perhaps I should have been more specific - jetlag from a 12 hour flight is thrilling haha.
What I meant was the master doesn't have to be an ultra-wide 18mm from 20' and capture everything. If your scene is two people talking, then your master could be a 35mm two-shot. It just depends on how you design your scenes. If you need an ultra wide shot, then that's going to be your master, but if most of the scene plays out in MCUs, CUs and even some ECUs, then your master doesn't have to be a super-wide get the table in and their legs and the background and deep focus blah blah etc. (as I've seen some Directors want). Your master could be what I like to refer to as the Mid-Wide - closer than a wide but wider than a mid. As long as it covers their actions.
But, it all depends on what you, as the Director, want. I prefer to work with interesting coverage that furthers the story, rather than simple standard coverage - I'd rather have a slow dolly in that cuts to an ECU than a wide, mid, cu, ecu etc.
As an example, if we were shooting a couple chatting and laughing sitting on a hill overlooking the city in the middle of the night cliche love scene, Even though the Director wants to end the scene on a really wide shot of the whole city with their backs to the camera, If that was the only time we'd use that shot, then I wouldn't treat it as the 'master', instead I'd treat the mid-two shot that covers all of their actions for the entire scene as the master. The mid-two (in general) is going to be 10x more useful for the editor to cut back to than the super-duper wide where all we can see of them are silhouettes.
This is all generally speaking, it's going to differ on a per-project and a per-scene basis. But I have seen Directors get caught up in making sure we get full takes that are perfect of the 'master' wide, when he knows we're probably only going to use 15 seconds of the 4 minutes we shot.
Gotcha. Makes sense, and I'm on board with that, and thanks for the clarification. 
Okay thanks, I get the concept more now. For future projects I want to concentrate more on masters. However some rooms are small and shaped in a way, that you cannot show every characters face in the shot. So I was thinking maybe I should shoot the master from two sides if that's the case, or what is better? I also need to take less time on future shoots, and not going to have as many shots, as I did before.
One thought...A master shot allows more latitude with dialog. That way I can use dialog from another take if I need to, taking advantage of the fact that the lips do not have to match perfectly.
We always shoot from outside in. We start with the widest shot then move to the mediums, them move to the closeups, then shoot the cutaways.
Okay. Sometimes getting a good location is tough enough as it is though. But I can look around for different ones, to use.
Yup, I've said no to locations in the past because there wasn't enough room to achieve what we wanted, or simply because there wasn't enough to power to power the lights we wanted.
I've even said no to sets that weren't big enough for how we wantd to use them. Don't merely settle for a location because it's too hard to find somewhere else.
I've even said no to sets that weren't big enough for how we wantd to use them. Don't merely settle for a location because it's too hard to find somewhere else.
Okay thanks. I'll expand my searches and travel farther if need be.
Last edited: