archived-videos Indie Film Tech Tips (for beginners)

sonnyboo

sonnyboo

For our PBS show FRAMELINES we've been doing a series of short videos on the basics of filmmaking, some on cinematography, others on editing, etc.

Since these wind up being quite handy to the newbs (sp. noobs?) I thought I would share these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdS6Cu_u9h4
 
Upvote 0
directorik said:
An interesting point of view, Aveek.

But you say you sometimes agree with "rules" so there are some
good rules. Right?

One way to figure out how to tell a story visually is to understand
the grammar of visual storytelling. We all understand the grammar
of the written word and when writing for others we follow those
"rules". When we don't, we confuse people who are reading our work.
When we ignore the rule of spelling words correctly we are less effective
writers.

Visual storytelling is no different.

What if the word is changed? What if the word is changed to
"guidelines"? Would you say, "I don't agree with the notion that I
need to know a guideline to break it."?

I respect that you don't agree with the notion. We all have different
points of view. I happen to think knowing the rules (or another word
that makes you comfortable) is essential to learning to communicate
with others. The fact that you can point out time when the rules can
be broken proves that to me. As directors we should understand the
rules. Many times a beginning director crosses the line and doesn't
quite understand why the shot doesn't work. They know it doesn't but
they don't know why. Learning the "rule" helps a director figure out
how to tell a story visually. A director who then chooses to break the
"rule" is making a creative decision and not making a mistake. Do you
disagree with that notion?

Sorry for derailing your thread, Sonnyboo.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. That's why, the painters go to the galleries to reproduce the old masters' masterpieces, before they develop their own style. There's no harm to know the language and history of visual story telling.
 
kinglis said:
I totally agree. That's why, the painters go to the galleries to reproduce the old masters' masterpieces, before they develop their own style. There's no harm to know the language and history of visual story telling.
Click to expand...

What about the painters who cannot afford to go to the gallery and don't have internet access? Are they not supposed to paint because they don't know this language???

You can say, that because they don't know this language, they will never be great. But I think I'll reserve the right to disagree. Maybe they'll create something completely new. maybe they won't.

Also, I think I go to the gallery every time I watch a movie. So I think I know the language in my own way. Whether I know the name of the language is not really important. Also, how I use the language is also up to me.

Best,
Aveek
 
trueindie said:
What about the painters who cannot afford to go to the gallery and don't have internet access? Are they not supposed to paint because they don't know this language???

You can say, that because they don't know this language, they will never be great. But I think I'll reserve the right to disagree. Maybe they'll create something completely new. maybe they won't.

Also, I think I go to the gallery every time I watch a movie. So I think I know the language in my own way. Whether I know the name of the language is not really important. Also, how I use the language is also up to me.

Best,
Aveek
Click to expand...

If you make a great film (without knowing anything about film making/ history of film making), then you're a prophet...
You're still to prove your Greatness with a film example though :)
I challenge you!
 
kinglis said:
If you make a great film (without knowing anything about film making/ history of film making), then you're a prophet...
You're still to prove your Greatness with a film example though :)
I challenge you!
Click to expand...

Wow!!! If you are asking me to produce something spectacular because of what I'm posting, I must sound like a real jerk who is shouting about his greatness. So I think I'm going to stop.

Unfortunately, I dont have any masterpieces to share. But I like the way I paint.

Also, I'm not a prophet, but I dont think i'm a fool either. I think theres a lot of room in the middle.

On a side note. This is my first post from my phone. I feel like an addict :)
 
Thanks, Sonnyboo. Your show is a great resource for learning. I'm so glad that you all are making more of these. Scott Spears is awesome. You're awesome. Filmmaking Goodness. :)
 
Regarding the 180 degree line rule, it's interesting that some of you are showing examples of people in restaurant booths. I was taught that you can also cross the line as long as you aren't confusing the audience (unless that is your intent). With the booth, you have established the characters' relation (opposite sides) to each other, so the audience knows where they are at.

If I place the camera next to the actors, I can cut from the guy on the right talking to the girl on the left. However, if I place the camera outside the booth window and look at them with the guy on the left and girl on the right side of the frame, it probably won't bother the viewer. I probably went outside the window for a reason, such as showing the guy's ex-girlfriend watching through the window as he dines with the new girl.

If a bird flies into the window (outside shot), I can cut to the inside shot of the people in the booth jumpy and startled, as the bird slides down the window, leaving a wet mark on the glass. Even though I've crossed the line back and forth, there was a continuous action (the bird on the Z-plane of distance) and a pre-established space of interaction with the actors (left and right).

On the other hand, I've seen movies that had 4 people at a square table (one per side) and the eyelines were really screwed up and disorienting to watch. If they are playing poker, it will be important to know who is bluffing who, just by watching their eye movements. Of course, the focus of action is the gameplay around the table.
 
Last edited:
Scoopicman said:
On the other hand, I've seen movies that had 4 people at a square table (one per side) and the eyelines were really screwed up and disorienting to watch. If they are playing poker, it will be important to know who is bluffing who, just by watching their eye movements. Of course, the focus of action is the gameplay around the table.
Click to expand...

There can be more than "line" in a scene with 3 or more characters.

another video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4QfhaQufII
 
Some interesting debate here, and obviously a new thread has been started so I'll skip mentioning that here.

What I will say is I think the videos are amazing, I think when you're first getting into filmmaking there's so much you don't even realise and you can use all the help you can. For someone like me, who is still at the stage where I'm learning the craft, these are great, and considering while I'm at school my filmmaking time is limited to say the least, I'm looking to soak up as much info as possible. Keep up the good work, I'm sure it will help a lot of people!
 
Rules can be broken. I think it's super important to learn all the rules and demonstrate that you know and can follow and truly understand why they exist. Even if you're the guy trying to learn an art without reading any books or seeing any masterpieces (let's be honest, you wouldn't be making a film if you've never seen one) you'll still discover many of these rules on your own it will just take 100 times longer. The rules don't exist because of some guy's personal preference, they're the widely accepted truths of how to tell the best story.

Now, once you really understand a rule, you'll know when you can/should break it. If a 4 year old puts on mismatch clothing it's an accident, if a model wears the same outfit it in a runway show it's because the designer is doing something bold or making a statement or bending the rules to make art.

Same goes with film, if a student hops the line it's going to be perceived as a mistake. If Spielberg does it, it's part of effective story telling and no one thinks it an accident because there's 30 prior excellent films that were done right. You gotta know the rules before you can "legally" or "artfully" break them.

I guess that's my opinion though, not a rule :)
 
My much bigger complaint with the mafia film booth scene isn't the marginal line cross it's the framing of the two shot that is way too balanced with the two of them in the booth right in the center of the frame. That's the "amateurish" looking shot in that sequence not the line cross.
 
PaulGriffith said:
Rules can be broken. I think it's super important to learn all the rules and demonstrate that you know and can follow and truly understand why they exist.
Click to expand...

My philosophy is just a little different. Maybe it's because I don't know all the rules. I think I know the rules in general (I've watched movies like anybody else), but I don't think I'm an expert at any of them. Also, I don't think I will become an expert at any of them. So I approach filmmaking in generality.

So anytime somebody tells me I've to be an expert at something, it's just conversation to me, because I don't think I'll be an expert at anything.

So far I've come to this conclusion about myself:
1. I think I can plan a shoot
2. I think I can execute it almost as well as I plan it (I'm not saying that my movie is great, but just that I am able to execute what I plan)
3. I can handle people on my set, and get them to do what I want. They all start with the idea "Aveek is new at this," and I tell them so, but by the end of the day, they completely trust me and do exactly as I say. They stop questioning me.
4. I plan conservatively, and am able to shoot what I plan on a day. I might go an hour or two over, but never more than that.
5. I get more and more comfortable with post every day and take that into consideration in my planning.
6. I will never master sound. I can know about it, I can become better at it, but it will take too many hours for me to master it. So if I shoot something important, I'll hire a sound guy.

I've been on other people's shoots. Some of them are experts on many things. Some of them went to film school for 4 years. They plan. But I don't see them execute what they plan. When planning, they are more grandiose and elaborate than I am on what they're going to do (When I plan they always tell me how limited I am). But on execution, they never thought about how they were going to do it. So I've worked on a few films, that are still sitting on a hard drive, because, either they didn't have all of the shots, or because (yes, one of these experts and I swear to this) they actually crossed the line without realizing it and I pointed it out when I was helping with the edit. It's still sitting on a hard drive.

My point is that I don't think I'll be an expert at these rules. I just don't think it's going to happen. There's too many rules. And I can't wait to learn them before I start executing. I know one guy in Toronto, and he means well, but he's always telling me how my stuff, just isn't good enough. He has never made a film in his life. He is a filmmaker though. He knows more about lenses than I care to know. I use his time thoroughly every time I buy a lens. But he says that he hasn't made his film because he wants it to be perfect, so he can show it to people.

It's a great philosophy. It just doesn't work for me.


Now, once you really understand a rule, you'll know when you can/should break it.
Click to expand...

That may be true. But I don't think I will ever really understand a rule. I haven't dedicated enough time to it. And I plan to make more movies before I can dedicate the amount of time necessary to learn all these rules. [/quote]

If a 4 year old puts on mismatch clothing it's an accident, if a model wears the same outfit it in a runway show it's because the designer is doing something bold or making a statement or bending the rules to make art.
Click to expand...

That is true, when it comes to critics and other designers. But the four year old could also just put on something that looks good. I'm not sure I care what the four year old was thinking, as long as what s/he wears looks good.

So, before I become somebody, I will be a nobody. I understand that. The only difference is that I will be a nobody who doesn't know all the rules. Somebody else will be a nobody who knows all the rules. I don't think the difference is that significant.

I think I've lost my original point. And I think I talk in generalities a lot and my intention is not to disparage anybody on this site or their abilities. But from the summer program I attended, it just seemed to me that people spent too much time with rules and not enough time teaching execution. Everybody was planning an alien invasion for their movies. Then they executed a trip to the coffee shop. When I was planning my trip to the coffee shop, they said, Aveek you need to think out of the box. All I know is that I knew my limitations and I planned what I knew I could execute and then I executed it.

So I just thought that they were teaching the wrong things in class. And then when I talk to filmmakers, it just seems that they're still talking about the same things. Controlling human beings, making them come on time, making them do what you want them to do, to commit to a certain number of hours. This kind of stuff seems more important to me. And that's what I want to discuss.

All these tips Sonny is providing are excellent. And I've watched these very same clips before (either on his youtube channel or his website). I don't have any issues with them. I've learned from them. I'm not an expert at any of them. And I'm of the opinion that I can break them if it suits me, whether I'm an expert on it or not.

Like I said, my philosophy is just different. I think they should be teaching executing what you plan in film school. What they taught me was how voiceover is a crutch used by incompetent filmmakers unable to execute what they want visually. I wanted to introduce the instructor to a man named named Scorsese.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I just did not like the film school approach to filmmaking. And maybe it's the summer program I attended. But it put a bad taste in my mouth of what is important and what is not important. So far, I find that I get better with every shoot. I'm going to continue to do what I'm doing, cause I love it. I'll find out more as I go along. I'll decide for myself, if voiceover is good or bad or neither but just an effective technique. I'm not going to accept that it's bad, just because the prof, and the book he is using says so. That's my approach to filmmaking.

Sorry about the long post. I don't even have time to go back and read everything. Cause now I have to go
 
trueindie said:
That may be true. But I don't think I will ever really understand a rule. I haven't dedicated enough time to it. And I plan to make more movies before I can dedicate the amount of time necessary to learn all these rules.
Click to expand...



Most of these filmic *rules* are rooted in simple physics and the theory of a totality principle. You may break a rule which the audience doesn't recognize 'on paper' but, as a couple Indietalkers above noted, this audience will *feel* something is wrong...the physical mind seems to demand that each element must be part of a system of kinetic relationships, ie "a follows b, action is accompanied by an equal reaction" because that's what physics dictates. Anything which departs from adherence to said principle will always register a *huh* with the audience, even if they cannot verbalize exactly why it's a 'huh'.

Having said that, there's absolutely everything revolutionary about building upon these rules, like inventing the 27th letter of the alphabet.
 
bird said:
Anything which departs from adherence to said principle will always register a *huh* with the audience, even if they cannot verbalize exactly why it's a 'huh'.

Having said that, there's absolutely everything revolutionary about building upon these rules, like inventing the 27th letter of the alphabet.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree about the "huh" moment. but I've interviewed my audience. They didn't seem to feel it. Nobody told me about it, when I asked. They didn't know what I was talking about

I'm not trying to do anything revolutionary. I'm making do within my means.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
My much bigger complaint with the mafia film booth scene isn't the marginal line cross it's the framing of the two shot that is way too balanced with the two of them in the booth right in the center of the frame. That's the "amateurish" looking shot in that sequence not the line cross.
Click to expand...

The lighting was definitely amateurish. The color corrections was most definitely amateurish. The sound was atrocious.

The framing may be centered, and not on the thirds, but it was the way I wanted it. It may be amateurish to you and other knowledgeable people, but the framing is the way I wanted it to be. Lighting, sound, post, was definitely not how I wanted it to be. The framing was to my taste.
 
My DP always refers to the the OTS as a "Dirty Over" when the back of the head in the foreground is out of focus. I've picked up that terminology although in the shot list I always call it an OTS.

To each his own Indie. I just despise a perfectly squared up shot like that, I think it looks terrible. Obviously not everyone does. Sonny has one in that last demo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top