You know, short, quick "rules" or "rules of thumb" or techniques, or whatever concise info you want to give.
Everything I know I learned from funny books, so I could be way off base, but I might as well toss out what little I "know."
Upshots and down shots: the camera determines the psychology - if "you" (the camera) are looking up at someone, the someone is given the aura of power and dominance. If "you" are looking down at someone, the someone is given an aura of weakness and submission. Can be played with, but that's the general rule.
Edit: there are other ways to play with dominance/submission in composition. Size, distance, relative position, etc.
Distance: long shots are "cool" (less emotionally invested, more big-picture, heh) and close-ups are "warm" (more emotionally evocative, personal). Shooting from partial cover implies the camera is actually the viewpoint of a hidden observer, especially with the right "shaky cam" or slight camera movement. You see this a lot in horror. Rule of thumb: be sparing with the super close ups, they're best as spice, not the main course.
Moving shots: just came up with this thinking about the shooting from cover thing; crane shots are a good way to dispel the intuition that the camera is actually a person's POV, unless he can fly or something. "Impossible" shots (crane shots, fast panoramic shots, etc) imply a disembodied or "supernatural" viewpoint. 1st person vs. 3rd, basically.
Design: could go on forever about this, there's just too much to go into. Nutshell, be conscious of where the lines in the image lead the viewer's eyes. Read up on composition and design, I'd bet dollars to donuts the zillion books on comp/design/color theory for fine arts translate to film no problem.
Establishing shots: in funny books it's a good idea to have an establishing shot whenever you have a new location. Basically, a long(ish) shot that shows the building, forest canopy, outside of the moving car - wherever the scene takes place.
Rules I learned here: there's the one about not moving the view axis more than 180 or 90 degrees or something, but obviously that one hasn't sunk in just yet.
And there's the one about how you don't change the direction of the flow of shots, except in special circumstances - if the characters are walking left to right in one shot, they should be walking left to right in the next, until the movement is finished...or something. :]
One I noticed myself: in dialogue, I've noticed that when cutting back and forth between two characters exchanging dialogue, the camera seems to be "territorial." John's head stays in the same place in his shots relative to where Jane's head is, and vice-versa. And the two heads seem to stay in separate parts of the camera's real estate; if John's head is on the left, with blue sky on the right, then shots of Jane's head tend to be on the right, with background where John's head was.
Framing the action: I don't know if this is anywhere close to a rule, but it seems like a good idea to "frame the action"; whatever's going on in the shot, it generally needs to be far back enough to take in the action, with a bit of breathing room around the edges, but not much further back than that. If you're showing someone dialing a phone, you can get in nice and close, but a fight takes a bit more room.
Forgot another one, this one I got from a high school videography class. It's about the nuts and bolts of framing, but I forget the exact ins and outs. You don't want to cut people off in the wrong places. If I recall correctly, you don't want the joints (neck, elbows, knees) to be at the ultimate edge of the frame because it looks weird. Instead, cut them off halfway between the elbow and the shoulder, or halfway between the knee and hip. Obviously a rule of thumb. And it's been so long I could be remembering this all wrong.
Oh yeah, another one from the funny books: it seems counterintuitive, but you can (should?) generally show the reaction to something shocking/horrible first, then show the actual shocker/horror (unless it's a "jump out and scare you" thing) This way, the viewer sees the reaction and is a) teased by the mystery "OMG what is it? What?" and b) "cheated" into an emotional reaction by the actor's emotional reaction, before he's even seen what's being reacted to. You build a bit of tension, then show the shocker/horror. I don't know if that's a rule, but it is a trick that works in funny books and should work in film too. (Now that I think about it, this works for pleasant surprises too: a character's face lights up, and then we see the object of his affections)
And yet another one I forgot: you should strive to make images that make sense without sound. Even without dialogue or sound effects, you should be able to convey the basics of what's going on. Guiding principle more than rule.
Exceptions to rules: the rules aren't there to rule you, they're there to help. The best way to know when to break the rules is to know the rules well. It's much better to know you're breaking a rule, than to break one by accident.
Which reminds me of "happy accidents." I don't know if they amount to much in film, but in graphic arts, happy accidents are a lovely thing. It's when you do something you didn't intend to do, but love the results. It's important to know when you've made one, and whether to keep it.
Steal. Steal like there's no tomorrow. If a shot sequence works for you, use it. Your work is the finished product, not a couple of shots. But don't slavishly copy. Put your own twist on it, make it your own.
Okay, I think that's all I've got for now. Lay some real knowledge on me?
Wild speculation: since moving shots (particularly the kind that can plausibly imply an embodied 1st person POV) are more dynamic, it might make sense to correlate that dynamism with the action of a scene? I.e., a scene goes from static dialogue to dynamic action, meanwhile the shots take on more movement to complement the rising action, then slow back down as the action winds down.
Everything I know I learned from funny books, so I could be way off base, but I might as well toss out what little I "know."
Upshots and down shots: the camera determines the psychology - if "you" (the camera) are looking up at someone, the someone is given the aura of power and dominance. If "you" are looking down at someone, the someone is given an aura of weakness and submission. Can be played with, but that's the general rule.
Edit: there are other ways to play with dominance/submission in composition. Size, distance, relative position, etc.
Distance: long shots are "cool" (less emotionally invested, more big-picture, heh) and close-ups are "warm" (more emotionally evocative, personal). Shooting from partial cover implies the camera is actually the viewpoint of a hidden observer, especially with the right "shaky cam" or slight camera movement. You see this a lot in horror. Rule of thumb: be sparing with the super close ups, they're best as spice, not the main course.
Moving shots: just came up with this thinking about the shooting from cover thing; crane shots are a good way to dispel the intuition that the camera is actually a person's POV, unless he can fly or something. "Impossible" shots (crane shots, fast panoramic shots, etc) imply a disembodied or "supernatural" viewpoint. 1st person vs. 3rd, basically.
Design: could go on forever about this, there's just too much to go into. Nutshell, be conscious of where the lines in the image lead the viewer's eyes. Read up on composition and design, I'd bet dollars to donuts the zillion books on comp/design/color theory for fine arts translate to film no problem.
Establishing shots: in funny books it's a good idea to have an establishing shot whenever you have a new location. Basically, a long(ish) shot that shows the building, forest canopy, outside of the moving car - wherever the scene takes place.
Rules I learned here: there's the one about not moving the view axis more than 180 or 90 degrees or something, but obviously that one hasn't sunk in just yet.
And there's the one about how you don't change the direction of the flow of shots, except in special circumstances - if the characters are walking left to right in one shot, they should be walking left to right in the next, until the movement is finished...or something. :]One I noticed myself: in dialogue, I've noticed that when cutting back and forth between two characters exchanging dialogue, the camera seems to be "territorial." John's head stays in the same place in his shots relative to where Jane's head is, and vice-versa. And the two heads seem to stay in separate parts of the camera's real estate; if John's head is on the left, with blue sky on the right, then shots of Jane's head tend to be on the right, with background where John's head was.
Framing the action: I don't know if this is anywhere close to a rule, but it seems like a good idea to "frame the action"; whatever's going on in the shot, it generally needs to be far back enough to take in the action, with a bit of breathing room around the edges, but not much further back than that. If you're showing someone dialing a phone, you can get in nice and close, but a fight takes a bit more room.
Forgot another one, this one I got from a high school videography class. It's about the nuts and bolts of framing, but I forget the exact ins and outs. You don't want to cut people off in the wrong places. If I recall correctly, you don't want the joints (neck, elbows, knees) to be at the ultimate edge of the frame because it looks weird. Instead, cut them off halfway between the elbow and the shoulder, or halfway between the knee and hip. Obviously a rule of thumb. And it's been so long I could be remembering this all wrong.
Oh yeah, another one from the funny books: it seems counterintuitive, but you can (should?) generally show the reaction to something shocking/horrible first, then show the actual shocker/horror (unless it's a "jump out and scare you" thing) This way, the viewer sees the reaction and is a) teased by the mystery "OMG what is it? What?" and b) "cheated" into an emotional reaction by the actor's emotional reaction, before he's even seen what's being reacted to. You build a bit of tension, then show the shocker/horror. I don't know if that's a rule, but it is a trick that works in funny books and should work in film too. (Now that I think about it, this works for pleasant surprises too: a character's face lights up, and then we see the object of his affections)
And yet another one I forgot: you should strive to make images that make sense without sound. Even without dialogue or sound effects, you should be able to convey the basics of what's going on. Guiding principle more than rule.
Exceptions to rules: the rules aren't there to rule you, they're there to help. The best way to know when to break the rules is to know the rules well. It's much better to know you're breaking a rule, than to break one by accident.
Which reminds me of "happy accidents." I don't know if they amount to much in film, but in graphic arts, happy accidents are a lovely thing. It's when you do something you didn't intend to do, but love the results. It's important to know when you've made one, and whether to keep it.
Steal. Steal like there's no tomorrow. If a shot sequence works for you, use it. Your work is the finished product, not a couple of shots. But don't slavishly copy. Put your own twist on it, make it your own.
Okay, I think that's all I've got for now. Lay some real knowledge on me?
Wild speculation: since moving shots (particularly the kind that can plausibly imply an embodied 1st person POV) are more dynamic, it might make sense to correlate that dynamism with the action of a scene? I.e., a scene goes from static dialogue to dynamic action, meanwhile the shots take on more movement to complement the rising action, then slow back down as the action winds down.
Last edited:
