Hey Psispy, interesting video. I read up on the info you provided at the bottom of the video and still don't get the point of the experiment but that's cool.
Anyway about the 180 rule. I suppose you're thinking you broke it because you went on opposite sides of the judge? I would like to hear what others have to say about this, but for me I don't think you did and here's why...
The 180 rule is really about perspective, a guide to help maintain spacial continuity. Say you have two people (A and B) on opposite sides of the table talking to each other and are connected by an invisible line of sight between them. If you start with person A on screen left and person B on screen right, then crossing the invisible line of site (the straight, invisible 180 degree line) results in a flip-flopping of the people - which can result in a jarring effect and detract from your story/message.
For me you didn't do this because you focused on the table and didn't show the other side of it. So for me the line was the table itself because flipping on either side of the judge did not result in a flip-flop of the orientation of the pictures. Now if you would have gone on the other side of the table and showed us upside down pictures then that would have been jarring.
Now the 180 degree rule is just a guide to help with spacial continuity. It can be broken though. You could have gone wider to give us the room and some other cut away and come back on the other side of the table. You could have hinged on the second person in the room with the judge (who by the hands I am assuming was a woman) - by hinging I mean, put her on the line, take a shot from her perspective and by doing so establishing a new line and use the new line to jump the original 180 line and like that, you're on the other side of the table.
Just my two cents, but I'd like to hear what others have to say about this. Keep up the good work.
