Yeah that's what i am saying. I though sticking to the shots and not deviating might help keep those things in order.

Let me suggest this:

If you shoot your master/wide shot of the whole scene first (like you SHOULD be), you can always refer back to that (play back footage) for continuity and blocking at every step in the closer shots/coverage. Then if you deviate from your storyboards you have a blueprint for the scene to keep you honest on screen direction and continuity. Make sense?

It's 30 degrees apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30-degree_rule , which makes more sense than 40 degrees, which would be extremely limiting.

Although, i wouldn't get too paranoid about it, since it gets broken quite regularly during interviews, it also depends on the action..

Continuity is less of an issue on video, because you can check it on playback if you've got a doubt. However, storyboards won't prevent continuity errors, having an eye for detail and making continuity notes is what you need. Storyboards can only be a snapshot in how you previsualise a shot, it's not the shot in its entirety and there will be a lot more going on in a scene than can be represented in it, so you're wide open for continuity errors.

It's not unusual to cheat positions and heights when shooting a scene.

Oh okay, I thought the continuity flaws would be less though, if the blocking was already planned out and rehearsed in advance, rather than trying to come up with new blocking on the spot.

Plus I thought the storyboards would help for the more advanced scenes for sure, such as the chase scenes, fight scenes, etc.

Continuity errors can be caused by many things, from mistiming moves, the glass being less full, an object in the wrong place or disappearing, the actor uses their right hand instead of their left hand and many other things. These issues come up regardless of when you block out the action. Continuity is a job on a drama crew, so if you don't have someone doing that job, the camera operator and the director needs to keep an eye out, otherwise coffee cups can appear on the table in a fantasy drama.

Storyboards assist in many ways, but they're not the answer for everything.

BTW I've read Walter Murch's book and I recall reading the 30 degree thing in it. but since I had already learnt something similar from actually making films/TV productions and watching them, just I didn't go around rigidly applying 30 degrees to everything, so I just do what looks right and is natural for cutting a scene together. You can do this in your head as you watch the rehearsals, that's something you should do even if you've storyboarded it.

With my educational hat on - consider the reason rules are formulated. Wasn't this particular one (30 degree) the result of somebody noticing over 100 years ago that some edits made the view 'jump'? After reviewing edits, it was noticed that the effect increased when angles got narrower, and by observation, it evolved into a 'rule'. In a multi-camera studio, especially on a small set, these angles sometimes get pushed because there really isn't the space to generate wide angle differences. They cheat a little by height changes which mean that the backgrounds have a significant change, while the heads might stay quite similar from the previous shot. The background shift seems to trick the brain into not finding the narrow cut jarring.

The weird thing of course being nobody notices until one cut doesn't work.

The killer with the visualisation software is simply time. I tried drawing a sketch on paper of this room. It took me 30 seconds. I then tried doing the same thing in my 3D software plan app, which works very similarly to Frame forge. I drew some walls, added some windows, fireplace and sofa etc from the library. Set the camera in the right place. 15 minutes later I got the image. Which is best? Not sure, but one took a lot longer and is nowhere near accurate in terms of content or placement.

The use of enlargements from 4k cameras for use in HD productions don't always look that good when cut directly together.

Life drawing classes are worth doing to improve your drawing skills and how you see spatial arrangements.

I took a life drawing class once, but probably at 17, for the wrong reason............

I've used frameforge for a number of short films, it helped me to lay out what I visualised and 'see' it outside my head. I can't draw for nuts so Frameforge it is

I could see and fix problems in camera placement, angles and blocking, but I think the most important thing for me was being able to hand out the storyboards to others and say 'here's what I'm thinking'

Sure, things change in production but at least we have a common starting point.

The current film I'm directing has storyboards for 1 scene and not others and I find more conflicting ideas and debate when there is no starting point. I'm much prefer to have storyboards all the time - I just ran out of time.

It really depends on what works for you personally.

Oh okay, I think I'm okay at drawing it out so I can try it that way.

I don't like making changes during shooting unless I have to because when you have the 30 degree rule, and the 180 degree rule already planned out on paper, changing any shots, may break those rules, without noticing at the time until later, I feel. So that is why I like to not make changes from now on, unless absolutely have to.

You seem obsessed by a 30 degree rule, you can sense if there's going to be a problem as you shoot. People shoot documentaries on the fly that cut together beautifully and they probably don't know anything about the 30 degree rule.

Oh well people have pointed out to me that my shots look too much the same when cut together before sometimes, and I was advised by a couple of other filmmakers that the 30 degree rule would help that.

If you follow what you first learn in film making, wide establishing shot, medium, and closeup, you should be able to mix those shots anyway you like and not violate the 30 degree rule. It should be apparent when shooting any of those angels you can’t make a minor change to angle/zoom/camera position and expect you’ll be able to cut to it.

You’re probably taking shortcuts while filming and not taking the time to significantly change angle between shots.

moving the camera progressively closer to the subject's eye line as you get tighter, so that CUs are close to the eye line, while wider shots are further from the eye line, This generally will keep you out of trouble.with any 30 degree rules, get the DP to move the camera and not just zoom in for the tighter shots.

Well I would cut from a MCU to a CU but was told they are too much the same and and i have to change the degree of the angle more.

You must've been very close to the eye line with the MCU. Is this a monologue or part of a dialogue scene with other actors?

Its just with one actor so far. When you say eyeline, do you mean shots that are at face level, as oppose to looking up ay someone, or looking down? Or shots that are dead on, and not on a diagonal angle?

Eye line is the direction the subject is looking, in some cases that's going to define where the line is and allow you to move it.

Single actors doing a monologue are different to dialogue scenes with other actors, you need something to motivate the cut, for example, a head turn and a cut to a closer shot, together with a new camera position, will assist the cut.

YOh okay, well none of the shots were eyeline MCUs or CUs.

Ensure that your framing sizes sufficiently different i.e. you're not cutting from a tight MCU to a loose CU: that there's motivation for the cut, the action matches and you're not using the same camera position

With a monologue, you may have to have the subject move in order to motivate the cut, which can be a surprisingly small movement depending on the size of the shots (a pause to gather thoughts may be enough).

It can also depends on if the subject giving the monologue is directly addressing the camera i.e the viewer, when I would;t worry too much about about 30 degrees rules or some unseen person (real or imaginary) off screen, when 30 degrees could apply because it's staying within the world of the film

Oh okay. Should these movements decided during shooting, and plan the cutting during shooting more, or is better to just let the actors perform as it may be more natural to them then, knowing that they don't have to turn their heads during certain lines and what not?

Any actor moves/action should be discussed with the actor as part of their performance. If they have to move heads on cues, give them a reason for doing it, so that it feels natural for them. It will come out of the script and the beats within it.

... shots look too much the same when cut together ....
And it doesn't have to be just the 30º angle to make it look boring.

Speaking for myself, it can be difficult to watch a movie with my wife because she gets engrossed with the story while I’m looking at details in the shoot. For example, while watching Downton Abbey I frequently got really distracted because so many shots were obviously using the Rule of Thirds and it was so distracting. This is a very highly rated series with “a cast of thousands” (adding the actors and the production crew together), and a much bigger budget than the average person here has.

By contrast, the series Ballykissangel, from my viewer point of view, was easier to watch because the camera shots were more interesting. It seemed to me that Ballykissangel had more creative camera shots than Downton Abbey but then that may have been colored by the fact I also really enjoyed the series.

With Ballykissangel there were a number of creative shots where I wanted to remember what they did but now I’ve forgotten what they were. :-)

Even in the youtube “Ballykissangel Behind the Scenes - Part One”, it opens with the writer cutting to the Director and it seems so natural even though they are in a different setting. A following scene was with an interview (2:46) with two of the actors talking to someone beside the camera, who we never see, and it is so natural. Then there are the little parts like at 3:52. At 4:38 there was an annoying jump but from 5:13 > 6:20 were an interesting series of jump cuts and these worked well.

Another behind the scenes is "Ballykissangel Cast and Crew Full Episode" (long at 1.06:19)
The casting in this series was good and the Writer obviously liked the series. Writers often complain that any similarity between what they wrote and the movie is purely coincidental, or something like that.

Notice that the “Behind the Scenes” is all about the director, author, cast, storyline, personal reactions, and setting but nothing about the invisible production crew.

Bottom line, rules are not necessarily laws. In general, they are good guides depending on how they are implemented. The Rule of Thirds when constantly used can get very monotonous.

Maybe the ultra formal cinematography of downton abbey reflects the rigid people in the show?

Maybe the ultra formal cinematography of downton abbey reflects the rigid people in the show?
That's a good point.
So the style of cinematography should fit the kind of film that's being presented.
One fairly recent TV series "Amazing Race" was about couples who race around the world in stages. Typical of the reality-TV type series it uses a lot of handheld cams with shaky takes and extremely short edits, often only a fraction of a second, and was really difficult to watch.

So point well taken, the type of movie would be a factor in the video presentation style.

A point to remember about the early "Ballykissangel" series is that it was probably framed 14:9 on Super 16, for showing on 4 x 3 televisions. This was common on film TV dramas around that time, I worked an the first episode and I don't recall it being different.

I used to switch my Aaton film camera regularly between standard 16 and Super 16 during this period, before 16:9 became the norm. The same used to happen on Digital Betacam cameras when you switched between 4 x 3 and 16 x 9 for a couple of years.

I was sort of (but only half) kidding. I've never seen a second of Downtown. My (half joking) theory would make sense though.

On the other hand I do remember a Jane Austin adaptation my girlfriend was watching once, that had very very dry cinematography...very plain, flat lighting, simple or no camera moves. One could say the same thing as above...buuuuuuuttttt I suspect it was just ultra low budget (for one thing, it had the video look/interlaced).

And it doesn't have to be just the 30º angle to make it look boring.

Speaking for myself, it can be difficult to watch a movie with my wife because she gets engrossed with the story while I’m looking at details in the shoot. For example, while watching Downton Abbey I frequently got really distracted because so many shots were obviously using the Rule of Thirds and it was so distracting. This is a very highly rated series with “a cast of thousands” (adding the actors and the production crew together), and a much bigger budget than the average person here has.

By contrast, the series Ballykissangel, from my viewer point of view, was easier to watch because the camera shots were more interesting. It seemed to me that Ballykissangel had more creative camera shots than Downton Abbey but then that may have been colored by the fact I also really enjoyed the series.

With Ballykissangel there were a number of creative shots where I wanted to remember what they did but now I’ve forgotten what they were. :-)

Even in the youtube “Ballykissangel Behind the Scenes - Part One”, it opens with the writer cutting to the Director and it seems so natural even though they are in a different setting. A following scene was with an interview (2:46) with two of the actors talking to someone beside the camera, who we never see, and it is so natural. Then there are the little parts like at 3:52. At 4:38 there was an annoying jump but from 5:13 > 6:20 were an interesting series of jump cuts and these worked well.

Another behind the scenes is "Ballykissangel Cast and Crew Full Episode" (long at 1.06:19)
The casting in this series was good and the Writer obviously liked the series. Writers often complain that any similarity between what they wrote and the movie is purely coincidental, or something like that.

Notice that the “Behind the Scenes” is all about the director, author, cast, storyline, personal reactions, and setting but nothing about the invisible production crew.

Bottom line, rules are not necessarily laws. In general, they are good guides depending on how they are implemented. The Rule of Thirds when constantly used can get very monotonous.

This is how non-filmmakers are when they critique my work, if I ask them if they noticed problems in the shots, that other filmmakers noticed, they say they are just paying attention to the story, and that the style of shots is not that important to them, they say.

Only filmmakers noticed that I broke the 180 degree rule, for example. If I show it to a non-filmmaker, they say they don't even notice anything jarring or strange, unless I explain to them what that is.

That's the same with most crafts, people who aren't involved with it may easily may miss the difference between a good mortise and tenon joint in carpentry and a bad one. Although they'll notice after it breaks and they fall on the floor..

The brain also compensates from what's there to what expects to see, so you may get away with one or two shots with people facing the wrong way in a conversation/interview. However, if you do it continuously with every conversation the brain will spot the pattern and sense something is a bit strange.

A point to remember about the early "Ballykissangel" series is that it was probably framed 14:9 on Super 16, for showing on 4 x 3 televisions. This was common on film TV dramas around that time, I worked an the first episode and I don't recall it being different.

I used to switch my Aaton film camera regularly between standard 16 and Super 16 during this period, before 16:9 became the norm. The same used to happen on Digital Betacam cameras when you switched between 4 x 3 and 16 x 9 for a couple of years.
Geeze, Brian, I'm impressed!
While watching the series on a digital TV I would have never thought some of it came from film.

Question: since this wasn't a Hollywood budget operation, as a cam operator, were you allowed some artistic license or freedom to decide what would be in the shot or how to do it? Storyboard? or how were the shot decisions made, by committee?

In at least one of the "behind the scenes" clips there were some short coverages of the cam operator with a roll-film cam so that has to be the film camera you were using. Maybe there was a shot of you in it? The cams with all the accessories was quite large and obviously heavy, not so much as the Hollywood 35mm but a significant piece of iron. Our daughter calls them "the olden days".

The thing about film is the expense, and, no instant re-run to see if the shot looked or sounded okay. Oh, and the large umbrellas for when it rained.

"Ballykissangel" was all shot on film.

They used Super 16 cameras, which aren't large and heavy,they are pretty much the ideal weight for shooting hand held and are well balanced, although in studio mode, with the accessories, they get bigger. 35mm film cameras are much heaver as were some of the 2/3" video cameras of the period. An Arri Alexa is heaver.

The camera operator wouldn't touch the film rolls, the camera assistant does that on a drama.

I've never seen a storyboard on a TV drama, the director usually just carries notes and describes the shot. In a multi camera studio you'd get a shot list, I've seen storyboards on shorts and commercials and I know "Game of Thrones" uses them, but that has very high production values and lots of effects shots. There is an element of license, the idea is to make it better than the director wanted, or as one camera made said to a director "you'd better be careful, otherwise I'll give you what you asked for". Directors vary and some like to line up the shot with the film camera, but once they trust you, they often leave you to it.

Large umbrellas are used on all larger productions, as are clear plastic bags with holes to keep off the rain..

You can listen to the sound, which is recorded separately and if the film camera has video assist, you can play that back from a video recorder. But usually, you don't have time for that on a TV dramas..

Oh okay, that's interesting.

So if I use storyboards on a project, and describe what happens in the shot below the picture, is there any reason to have a separate shot list? Cause some filmmakers seem to have both, but is there a reason for it?

Use whatever works for you.

Assistant directors want a shot list, so they can schedule the day's filming.

Yeah that makes sense. But as far as flaws go in movies, you see it all the time, like in Straw Dogs (1971) for example, they break the 180 degree in some shots and I don't think they had a real reason for doing it. So I think you see these flaws show up once in a while and no movie is perfect. So maybe as long as I have a good script, and good actors, the occasional flaw like that is not so bad?

I think you need to revisit straw dogs, and then compare the stuff you shoot on a scene by scene basis. remember the time machine video? You forgot the whole thing hinged on the time machine, which we hardly glimpsed, and the angles you chose that revealed the traffic passing in the background, and the car sequence where we weren't certain who was following whom? None of these issues would have been solved by storyboard quality. I'm seeing your production style as a wander down the aisles of a supermarket, grabbing all kinds of ingredients and then hoping it would taste nice because the ingredients were all really good quality. We're talking about a shopping list scribbled in pencil, or beautifully printed with an expensive computer and promoter on wonderful paper.

You can't cite Straw Dogs as an example of where the 180 degree rule was broken successfully (and I've not re-watched it to check, why would I?) against your own flaws. They're on a very different scale. I just don't know why you don't get this? You seem immune from the differences between laws, regulations, codes of practice, recommended practice, suggestions and conventions. The shot that started all this in the cemetery was not a problem because of 30 or 40 degree rules, or changes in field angle, or zoom settings or background focus or composition - it was that the cut was inappropriate and simply doesn't work, based on television and film making conventions. It's a kind of pass/fail conclusion on what is seen. We're trying to break it down, and you are looking for rules you have broken to support why it didn't work, we're content to simply state it didn't work - do we need to break it down. The critical issue is why you didn't see it as not working, and until you can move forward to seeing the whole, and becoming critical, you won't progress, because you will never be sure something is good without seeking reassurance from others. This is your weakest area, and it impacts on everything you do - you're just never certain, and you need to really work on your self-confidence in your products.

Every duff shot I have to use because there is no alternative really gets me, and I try to not get into that position for the next one. I know it's bad, I don't need to ask.

All the regular respondents to your posts probably would disagree with each other if we got together and shared our work - we'd find picky little things we didn't like, but I suspect we would already know the problems. We won't always agree, which is great. What happens in your topics is that we give you answers you don't like, so you try to justify them by using your really good movie knowledge to support what you did. If your favourite Director gets away with it, it does not mean you can do the same.

Oh okay, well I guess I need to see the distinction more between my short film compared to other movies sometimes. It's not that I want to justify my mistakes, but I feel that I have to quote precedent, since it's been done before, and a distinction therefore must be made. I think that if you are to point a flaw in someone's work, that you should point out the distinction if it's a precedent has already been set by past movies, unless I am wrong?

Because that way I see the distinction. Otherwise, I am always second guessing myself, thinking well I've seen this shot before, but can I do it, if no one cares about past precedent?

For example, the scene where you say you didn't know who the woman was following in the car. There have been other movies where someone will follow someone and you don't see the person being followed in close up, and just from the followers POV. Also, the guy being followed is driving a convertible car, and you can see that it's him, even if it's from her POV. Unless audiences are watching on smaller screens more and cannot see this compared to older days, maybe? But since it's been done without close up before, I feel that precedence from other movies, must be cited therefore, in order to understand it all.

Flaws exist in all human projects, however, there are occasions when you can get away with crossing the line and when you can motivate the line to shift within a scene using the actor's actions.

Shots that are dropped during the editing can result in a crossing of the line because other demands in the sequence were thought to be more important. Sometimes it's not noticeable on first viewing because the action carries you though it.

If it's the cut I'm thinking of in your film, it's a poor cut that draws attention to itself without good reason and didn't emotionally connect with what you were trying to convey.

A film isn't a case in law which can carried up to the supreme court where precedence can be decided, it either works within the context of the scene in the film or it doesn't, What works on one film may not work in another.

Oh okay. Do you think I should get several more shots then, in case it turns out something doesn't work in context later? It's just that I am trying to shoot in the least amount of shots possible, to save on time with my budgets.

So how do you know how many shots you need, in case, it turns out in editing, people want a close up of someone driving for example, during a following scene, when you may not have it, etc.

You dont. Thats why we shoot coverage.

Okay thanks. Well so far I've been two shots of coverage for everything, if that's enough, to try to get through shoots faster. Like I will do a master shot, and then a close up of the characters, thus two shots of them each.

Based in what we’ve seen and what we’ve been telling you, I think you need all the coverage you can get. Your idea of not shooting unnecessary stuff is commendable and in a ideal situation, even something to be aimed for, but you have tried it that way and it apparently has not been working out. I think you need enough stuff to be able to edit around unforeseen problems like the ones you’ve described.

Okay thanks. Well lately I've been trying to knock out two pages an hour if possible, but is that too unreasonable to shoot for?

There is a scene for example I am storyboarding now for example, where it's a conference room meeting with probably around 15 actors in it at least. But do I have to get a close up of everyone of them, even if they are not all major characters?

I wouldn't push for more than 30 camera set ups in a day on a drama unless you got two cameras. Two pages an hour sounds more like TV soap, rather than a film

You only need to cover the actors who are key to the scene, let the scene run a reasonable time on each of of them, don't just cover their lines, you need a performance and their reactions. You can shoot some of others who you see in other scenes in the film who are reacting to events. but shooting 15 is a waste of time, especially if you never see them again.

Yeah, I mean the scene is police officers getting a briefing and then see them again during the SWAT/arrest scene later, but they are still not major characters at all.

As for how many camera set ups a day, it depends... How many takes should I do? I've been doing 4-5, usually, but I was told by one director that for me to get better acting I should be doing at least 20 takes. But that would take a lot longer, so is that too many? I assume she means 20 takes per camera set up?

These people are total idiots - stop taken advice from them! If you do 20 takes, the turns will get bored, not better! If you shoot one shot, and it's perfect when you actually review it there and then, it will almost certainly be the one that makes the edit, so one more for safety and you are done if that one works. Only fools would keep the actors hanging around this long - the technical folk get used to repeated processes, and don't even notice the actors wandering around, but actors have micro attention spans if they are extras, and only slightly more if they have a line!

In fact, from my acting management experience, even when it goes badly, more than 6 or so is too much and performance drops. In the UK, we also have very rigid rules on actors time if any are union members, so we're looking at tea breaks and food time which will eat your days up. 20 takes will have a union rep running around.

Stop looking at numbers. The problem is the complexity of the shot, and with all these extras managing them - while you review each shot. With so many people, it takes time and patience to review each wide shot watching for that one person who is not with it, spoiling the shot.

Okay but if I review each take, I definitely will not be able to knock out two pages an hour like I've doing lately I don't think. But shouldn't there be a max number of takes still, so the shoot doesn't go on for two long though? Even if you feel you don't have the perfect one maybe after say the 10th, it's time to move on?

For example, one short I did, the DP wasn't satisfied with the camera movement and kept wanting to do it again and again, but I just finally said we had to move on, and pick whichever take was the best from that shot. So should therer be a limit therefore?

Surely you have this wrong? You shoot each one, and DON'T review it? This is very dangerous. 5, 10 or 100 shots and no guarantee of any of them being good? If the shot lasts five minutes, then 5 minutes is well worth watching, and most are much shorter. You get a gut reaction if the shot was good/bad, so you only watch the good ones. If you get a good one - what is the point of wearing everyone out and decreasing the quality by repeating to reach some magic number???
I would rather have quality than quantity. Your way means your edit decisions are made solely because of covering mistakes. If you get two great shots, then move on and save time. If the shots go bad, bad, good, good, then the next one is a bit pointless isn't it? Whatever spoils the shot becomes the focus, not the whole - so your quality becomes getting it right, not a great performance.

How does the director know the camera movement wasn't right without reviewing it?

I thought your aim was to be as professional as possible, within a limited budget? You seem to be doing the quantitative vs qualitative shuffle. All this extra shooting means extra edit time, just to watch out and log it.

Moving on is a skill - how can you produce a decision if you don't watch the footage and review it? Madness!

For the last two I didn't review all of them, to save time, but I figure in the old days of filming, they could not watch over every take, and had to rely on watching the take as it played out, so I thought I would just do it old school to try to get more shooting done in a day. But I can review each one if that's better, it's just before, shoots went a lot longer and people were starting to get anxious as a result, where as not reviewing each take made shoots go by faster for people.

But I can review the footage then after each take. If I should aim for no more than 30 camera set ups a day though, how do I time it out if I don't have a set number of takes though? I don't have to have a set number of takes and call it when I feel we have gotten two good ones, if that's better. However, how do I time a shoot out though, without a set number?

You guess! But a guess, based on experience. Your variables are limited - people and camera. Camera moves need to be practiced, but then they're sorted. Your people are the unreliable elements.

Your problem is trust. If you are directing, then you need to trust the camera operator to frame and focus properly - it's their job. I assume you have a monitor? The director needs to be able to split attention to the real scene and the monitor. If you can't do this, you have an assistant who can be alert for issues. As director, you will be intent on the leads - their facial, vocal and overall perspectives - you cannot also look at the rest of the people acting. Maybe the assistant can do that?

One of my roles in the past as production manager is to keep an eye on the time, and whisper in the directors ear - "if we don't get the next one, we'll be into a break, and then we'll lose the musicians for an hour. If we try one more, but then we HAVE to break" They get it, and don't like it, but know. So I'm looking at time, at progress and budget implications. I also know when scenes are too long so we start to get lighting changes that the edit won't like.

You need to be able to look at a scene on paper and your participants, and make a pretty good guesstimate. You know that camera track will go wrong. You know that speech is so long they'll mess up multiple times, and you know the boom people are going to dip into shot because you hassled them to get clear audio so ADR would not be needed.

You cannot have a rigid timing rule, because everything in the pot works against that. Shooting multiples is a waste of everyone's time if not needed. Remember the old days when they'd shout cut, and everyone waited for the "print it" because everyone had the thumbs up? If you alone cannot decide, trust others, then move on. If you save 20 minutes you can then have this for the shot later on where it will be terrible.