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
Locations are THE hardest part of nano budget film making. Nothing else is even close as far as pain in the ass, expense, etc.... They are usually responsible for about 90% of my stress level.
Locations are difficult without a budget.
Even with budget you can't always find what you want.
For my own very short projects I try to keep things close to home.
My parents house (used the same livingroom as different locations in the same project
), my brother's appartment, my friends house, etc...
Even with budget you can't always find what you want.
For my own very short projects I try to keep things close to home.
My parents house (used the same livingroom as different locations in the same project
), my brother's appartment, my friends house, etc...Same here. But I want to have some office like business scenes once in a while just so I can have some sort of plot that doesn't have to be confined to a home. There is an office for a future project I have my eye on, which I am storyboarding.
There are three people on the office, at the desk. The sides of the office don't have a lot of space to get much of a side view of the characters, sitting and talking, but the back and front of the desk has some. Only thing is, is that one of the characters face will not be shown, and the whole master will have to be the back of his head, with the other two showing their faces. Is this acceptable for a master?
There are three people on the office, at the desk. The sides of the office don't have a lot of space to get much of a side view of the characters, sitting and talking, but the back and front of the desk has some. Only thing is, is that one of the characters face will not be shown, and the whole master will have to be the back of his head, with the other two showing their faces. Is this acceptable for a master?
Let's redefine master:
'the totall scene from start to end in a shot you can always use to fall back on'
Decide for yourself.
Can you use it as a master?
The way you thing about mastershots: you should let all your scenes take place in a park where people are sitting next to each other talking. That way you are sure you can always see all the faces.
'the totall scene from start to end in a shot you can always use to fall back on'
Decide for yourself.
Can you use it as a master?
The way you thing about mastershots: you should let all your scenes take place in a park where people are sitting next to each other talking. That way you are sure you can always see all the faces.
'the total scene from start to end in a shot you can always use to fall back on'
That's certainly how I think of a master shot. Everything you "need" to see (all the dialogue, all the business that matters, etc....) for a scene takes place in a single shot wide enough to hold it (with Pans, follows, etc...)
That's certainly how I think of a master shot. Everything you "need" to see (all the dialogue, all the business that matters, etc....) for a scene takes place in a single shot wide enough to hold it (with Pans, follows, etc...)
100% same here. I hate it. All the more frustrating is how important a location is. No location = no film.
Shoot somewhere else, or adapt the scene - change the position. Or get creative about yoru shots; cover the two of them in a mid two, and then cover the third in a mid shot of her face.
I don't see how there wouldn't be enough room. Stick on a 25mm and you should be right doing a side-on shot. Shrink the size of the desk if necessary. If the location is still too small, then change it.
I just write for locations that I have access to. Makes for severe constraints on what I can write, but allows for no headaches. Which method is better? 
Whichever method works for you. As long as you can get the look/feel out of the location you want. I personally wouldn't write with actual specific locations (ie; knowing that you only have access to an apartment, an office block and a car and writing 10 films that only take place in those three locations).
You can adapt locations to look any way you want. A good set dresser and Production Designer go a really long way to lifting your movie from looking like a micro budget to looking like a decent budget film.
As long as you get shots that look good, it doesn't matter if you use the same apartment building with set dressings to make it look like 10 completely different places.
Personally, I like finding new and exciting locations - places we rock up to and go 'wow we have to shoot here'. It's certainly harder for my Producers, but in general people are pretty nice and happy to help, especially if you're happy to shoot in off hours.
I was also talking to a friend of mine who has an ineresting approach to locations... When he's out and about going places and sees locations that are really nice and he knows one day he's going to want to shoot there - he'll go in and introduce himself to the property owner as a filmmaker and chat about the property and how amazing it looks. He says it's better to go in and say 'I love this place, I'm going to write a film about it one day' and leave him with your card, then come back in two years and say remember that movie I wanted to write?
Instead of going in and saying 'Hi, I really need an x for my movie and I like yours, could you please let us use it?' as you're more likely to be met with a 'no' or a 'yeah that will be $500 an hour, thanks'.
You can adapt locations to look any way you want. A good set dresser and Production Designer go a really long way to lifting your movie from looking like a micro budget to looking like a decent budget film.
As long as you get shots that look good, it doesn't matter if you use the same apartment building with set dressings to make it look like 10 completely different places.
Personally, I like finding new and exciting locations - places we rock up to and go 'wow we have to shoot here'. It's certainly harder for my Producers, but in general people are pretty nice and happy to help, especially if you're happy to shoot in off hours.
I was also talking to a friend of mine who has an ineresting approach to locations... When he's out and about going places and sees locations that are really nice and he knows one day he's going to want to shoot there - he'll go in and introduce himself to the property owner as a filmmaker and chat about the property and how amazing it looks. He says it's better to go in and say 'I love this place, I'm going to write a film about it one day' and leave him with your card, then come back in two years and say remember that movie I wanted to write?
Instead of going in and saying 'Hi, I really need an x for my movie and I like yours, could you please let us use it?' as you're more likely to be met with a 'no' or a 'yeah that will be $500 an hour, thanks'.
That's good info. I saw some of Back to the future again, and I noticed how in the cafeteria scene, most of the master shot, that was used, was from behind Marty's head. I rarely see a shot that goes on for that long, where a character talks that much without seeing his face, but the director made it work, so as long as you can make it work, I guess there are no real rules about how much of the face has to be shown. But I will only do something like that for certain scenes, where the silent character's face, is more important.
So the point of the safety of the master is, to have a take or two, where the actors, successfully act the whole thing out in one shot, right? So I guess this means I should shoot a master on a steadicam, even if it's just a dialogue scene. Cause if the actors go to sit down and stand up, I can move the camera with them, where as a tripod, the tripod bends the camera up or down, causing it to curve. The steadicam has no curve, but rather elevates the camera, so I guess I should use that for masters, where movement is a factor, right?
So the point of the safety of the master is, to have a take or two, where the actors, successfully act the whole thing out in one shot, right? So I guess this means I should shoot a master on a steadicam, even if it's just a dialogue scene. Cause if the actors go to sit down and stand up, I can move the camera with them, where as a tripod, the tripod bends the camera up or down, causing it to curve. The steadicam has no curve, but rather elevates the camera, so I guess I should use that for masters, where movement is a factor, right?
Last edited:
Tilting on a tripod though, causes the picture to curve, and the curve doesn't look as good to me. It conveys a different feel, compared to elevation, without tilting.
Last edited:
Now analyse that scene:
why does it work?
- Who is he talking to?
- What happens behind his back?
- What happens in front of him?
(Remember: in Back to the Future Marty tries not to attract attention and his father is terrible shy and being bullied. Maybe these factors play a part in the director's decision? Or maybe Micheal J. Fox messed up the shot showing his face?
)Sometimes it's not important to see the talking head. Sometimes the rest of the scene can tell a lot more, than the talker can show with his face.
Besides that: not showing the talker's face leaves a lot of room to edit the conversation.
Btw, how is your first short?
I just write for locations that I have access to. Makes for severe constraints on what I can write, but allows for no headaches. Which method is better?
In my experience, you get tired of that one after a while and at some point say "Screw it, it only works if set in a hospital, bank, motel, alien planet, etc...."
Yeah, a master is wide enough that the "action" can always be in frame. I wouldn't be so tight in a master that somebody standing up took them out of frame (especially with just a little tilt/pan). Then it wouldn't be a master. Situations vary, but usually a master is (All Full Frame terms) a 50 at widest, maybe a 35, maybe a 28 or wider. A master is put it on sticks, go wide enough to get the whole scene in frame then slightly pan/tilt as needed to follow the movement of the scene.
Well a lot of people prefer camera movement nowadays. It just seems if you move with the actors as they move, it looks more pro, or at least that's why it seems so many directors are doing it. I was told before that by having so many still shots, it may make a bad impression, since the majority likes camera movement.
It depends on your film. All still shots gives off a different feel to all steadicam to all handheld. I've shot all three, and it has different effects on the emotion of the scene. None is inherently more 'pro', it just depends on how you use it.
If the heavy emotion of the scene means you want realy long, still shots then that could be really dramatically effective.
If anything, I'm noticing a 'float cam' trend.. Well, it's been trending for a while really, but float cam is certainly an interesting way to shoot your movie too.
If the heavy emotion of the scene means you want realy long, still shots then that could be really dramatically effective.
If anything, I'm noticing a 'float cam' trend.. Well, it's been trending for a while really, but float cam is certainly an interesting way to shoot your movie too.
If I read correctly, the "Curve" you're talking about is probably "barrel distortion"... If your lens is a zoom, push in slightly to get past the edges that are curved due to the thickness of the glass elements in the lens distorting the light (most drastically at the corners as they are farther away from the center of the lens).
If not, use a slightly longer lens to shoot the scene... should help with that "fisheye" (multioptipupilectomy anyone?)
If not, use a slightly longer lens to shoot the scene... should help with that "fisheye" (multioptipupilectomy anyone?)