Question about the order of shots in a set up.

H

harmonica44

One thing I have seen and read that a lot of directors do (and I started doing as well), as to shoot the mastershot first, and then after, move in for the OTSs, CUs, and and insert shots, etc.

However, I find that the actors can give a better performance later on in a scene. For example, an actor can do a lot better on take 6, rather than the 1st take, cause they have gotten into the scene more.

So if for a scene, I want the mastershot to be shown more than any other shot for most of the scene, in the editing, should I perhaps shoot the mastershot last do you think, for example? Or how do you decide which shots should be shot last, in order for the actor to more likely give a better performance in those shots, since those shots will be used more?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
You don't know, because you lack experience.
Lack of experience makes it hard for you to calculate the time you need.
Another reason to make a really short film of a few minutes max.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I want to make a short film that is just a few minutes, I find it difficult coming up with a story that can have a beginning, a middle and an end, in such a short amount of time. I think I might go with the 14 page long script I have therefore. It's the shortest one I got right now.

So when it comes to doing mastershots for coverage and safety, do you think it's a good idea to have it be a static shot for safety, or should I move the camera, if the scene calls for certain camera movements?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shoot what you think you need. Go through the process. Learn from the mistakes. Let your experience guide you in the future.

do you think it's a good idea to have it be a static shot for safety
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

I want to make a short film that is just a few minutes
Click to expand...

We're shooting a one page script (we came across an easy to shoot joke) early this week so my new guys can see the whole process before we buckle down and produce a longer documentary. Budget: $0.

It's really not that hard unless you overthink it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. I was wondering how to do in a zero dollar budget... The short I posted before, cost a few 1000, most of it going to the post production pros, hired to work on it, since I don't know much about audio engineering and sound mixing. So I would still have to pay for that most likely.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I was wondering how to do in a zero dollar budget...
Click to expand...

It's really simple. If you cannot get it for free, you work out how to do it without. It's not that complicated.

Most of the time, you are your own worst enemy.

If you cannot figure out the simple stuff, how screwed are you going to be when you're tackling the slightly difficult stuff. It's too bad for you... film making is about creating the impossible. If you keep making excuses, you'll still be trying to crawl when you retire. What a wasted life for a film maker. Will you ever take the steps to gain the experience you need?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I can attempt to learn the audio engineering program again. One of the mistakes I learned from when it came to making my first short was to hire professionals next time. But if I am being told I should make the movie without them, I feel I would be making the same mistake twice, and not learning from it. That is why I have been hesitant on going forth on other projects, cause no DP, PSMs, or post production people, responded to my adds. Well not enough actors either, but those crew members are important though.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I can attempt to learn
Click to expand...

You don't know what you don't know.

You're continually trying to learn without context or perspective and it's the main reason you're failing on the film making front. You need to gain experience before you can learn to improve. Without gaining experience, you're fooling yourself. It's like sex. There's only so much you can learn before the lack of experience turns you into a virgin for life.

That is why I have been hesitant
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT. The truth is you're too busy making excuses to be making films. Do you want to make films or excuses? I know bigger fucks ups than you make films, and those losers won awards too. You need to decide. When you retire, do you want to look back at the films you've made or do you forever want to be making excuses?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. You're right I need to just do it, whatever it takes. Just like I did with my first my first short film. I totally let the ends justify the means, even to the point where I had a 16 hour shoot day, which the cast and crew hated, that was my downfall..

But I did it... So I need to get back into that mentally and do whatever it takes to get a movie made, no excuses. I will do that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. When it comes to getting the master shot, does the master shot, have to have every character in the scene for the entire time, in order to get maximum coverage? One of my favorite movies is High and Low (1963), and I love the way the master shots are done. However, in that movie, not every character is in the master for the entire time. Here is an example of a master at 2:19 into the clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcALFnBJ54c

As you can see, the master has three characters in the beginning of the sample, but then as they move, the camera pulls back and we see more characters, that we did not see the entire time of the shot. So should a master have all the characters in the frame, for the entire time, in order for maximum coverage, of nothing being missed, or do you think it's okay for a master to move, and have characters come and go out of frame, then come back in?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
They must be in the shot at all times. All of them. All the time. It's a serious no no. If the actors move out of frame, they risk losing their academy award and their movie status with the MPAA.

I find it best if you put sand bags on your actors to stop them from moving off screen. You may need to improvise with stronger actors.

If you're not going to get extra coverage, make sure your camera person presses the special "Red" button that prevents editing. That button is gold. Worth every cent, but it's hard to find cameras with this function these days.

Remind me later to tell you about the purple crayon.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Stop worrying about what a mastershot is.
Worry about telling your story in a clear way that makes sense.

About that shot: the camera moves to reveal.*
It reveals that everyone is witnessing what was said.
First it focusses on the emotions of the 3 characters and then we see the effect on the rest.
In essence this way nothing was missed: if it would be a total overview, you would at first not know where to look, you would miss the intensity of the emotions and you would miss the moment when you realise everyone heard it.

I think it is a great shot.
*) Moving to reveal is a good motivation to move.

If you want mastershots where everything is in frame all the time: become a director in theater. Then you don't have to ponder these things as there is only the mastershot with everyone relevant to the scene on stage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So far nobody mentioned the most important reason the shots are normally done in this way:

LIGHTING

Lets me explain, You always want to light the whole scene which would be in the Master or Establishing shot. As to the terminology Master does not have to mean first or most used. It could end up edited to be only for a moment or maybe not at all.

Now back to lighting, you light the whole scene and then you are able to move lights in as need as you progress through the setup for the Medium, Close Up, Inserts. By starting on the outside you may find you don't need to move or change all of the lights each time but only a few of them to fulfill the exact needs of each setup.

this is true even if your only using natural, practical or reflected lighting.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top