Based on some of Paul’s posts in these threads I think some thing like a small zen garden while listening to Enya would be a better way to chill than coming here after a stressful day.

I don't know - I rather look forward to Ryans constant run of problems, which kind of makes me feel my life is actually better than I think.

It really depends on the scene and the action, you do need use your judgment

If it's just someone standing talking in front of sitting people, that may not be enough. If they're moving around the room interacting with the listening cops in a dynamic fashion, with fast one liners coming back at the inspector in carefully choreographed action, you could do it in one shot with a moving camera. We're assuming it's the former, rather than the latter

You seem to be set on rules, when it's more a case of how long is a piece of string.

You're the director.

Some shots will have the actors move, some will not, it depends.

It's your decision how you cover it.

Well I thought I should also have two master shots, for coverage, in case it turns out something is wrong with one of them. But you want to make one master different from the other one, by either shooting on more of an angle, or backing up the camera more, than the other master. Is this normal for coverage to shoot two masters?

There are no rules, it depends on the scene and the action.

Think wide shot(s) rather than master shot and if that's what you need to tell the story.

Oh okay, I thought a wide shot, was not necessarily a master, cause a wide might not include everything in it, where as a master does, or so I thought :).

Eh? Isn't the point of the master mainly as a cover all events, fallback shot? The one that contains everything when the other shits will be more detailed and usually closer, but more prone to failure when shooting. A wide shot is the norm for being used as a safety, but there are plenty of circumstances when it's not wide, just safer. If the shot in question is not suitable for use when shot very wide - maybe it reveals things we don't want to see - then it's shot narrower. There's no rule for the lens angle of a master shot, there is a rule that says it's the most useful shot that has so many uses.

Best typo ever.

Of course, there are also directors who don't shoot master shots. I've shot scenes in dramas where there is no master shot.

Often the master is just there so that everyone can see where everything goes, it can act as a safety, but many times it never sees the light of day in the final cut because the performances aren't yet up to speed..

That's true, but since I want to shoot with a style like the movie High and Low, which relies a lot on masters, should I perhaps shoot the master last then in a lot of scenes that rely on it, so the performances will be better in the master shots therefore?

Usually you do master first so you know where everything is happening. If you start with CUs etc. you can end up with a weird master where no one is where you want them (if trying to match CUs) and the lighting is weird etc. cause you were only shooting one person at time and not seeing the big picture.

Oh okay, but shouldn't I have the same lighting for every shot though, without changing the lighting? The other short films I made, the DP wanted to move the lights, when going from master to close up, and you can see inconsistency in the lighting as a result.

So therefore, I thought it would be safer to just have the DP light the scene once, and keep it for all the shots, for consistency sake, or at least as many shots as you can, unless you really have to move them.

It's supposed to LOOK the same from shot to shot, but depending on individual circumstances that can necessitate "cheating".

When the camera is at X position, talent at Y position and a certain light at Z position, it might look good. But now if the camera swings around 30 degrees or whatever, all of a sudden that light looks nasty 'cause it leaves too much of the face in shadow, or is too hot, etc. Lighting sometimes only works for a certain camera setup position, and if that position is moved that lighting looks funky, so you have to tweak the lights to make it APPEAR consistent.

You can light so the camera has more freedom, but the more positions you light for simultaneously, the more you compromise each one, since lights, flags etc. can't be visible from any those angles. Typically, the more positions you light for, the flatter/less interesting it has to be. And you may spend even more time doing it 'cause you have to make position 1, 2, 3, etc. look good, not just position 1.

You'll probably be lighting "from the floor" (lights on stands), not with them hanging from a grid, shooting at real locations and not a studio/set. The multiple position lighting is much easier if you can hang them since then they don't have stands etc. that can be seen.

Ryan, if you MUST have a rule book, it needs to have context. This lighting one is typical. Josh's answer is really something you should have been able to answer yourself. You answered it really. Inconsistency is bad and even casual viewers notice, so the lighting changes restore consistency. You already do this. If lighting was perfect and even, you could set the lens to f5.6 or whatever, and put the camera anywhere and not adjust it. However in a real interestingly lit scene the light and shade, highlights and shadows dictate changes when you alter things. The DP would have his hands tied if somebody told him to light it so it would be possible to shoot any angle. Who would this person be, telling him how to do his job? Most people I know would preen, and tell this person to keep to their job, and don't be silly.

I'm left with the conclusion that none of the people you work with have earned their titles, yet think they know it all! Who are these idiots you work with who seem to constantly do everything in very non-professional ways? I'm getting the distinct impression everyone you work with has been trained very poorly, has no real movie/video experience, yet all carry name badges. It's like my old college situation. You give everyone a title for the next project irrespective of their ability.

That's why I keep saying I think he needs to PA or intern on a legit budgeted feature, which I think he has not been on yet.

I'm old now, but I still take some jobs that are perhaps lower than my level to keep my overall knowledge up. Considering I'm approaching retirement in a few years, I've taken some rather dull offers at Pinewood and Elstree in the past couple of years just to keep up to date, and am not ashamed to say I still learned things by observing other people working. The one thing Ryan has missed is that people work in bubbles. The guy running a boom cares little for the problems the lighting people have. 100% of their attention is on what they do. It's fun to watch HODs in disagreement about problems, sorting it out in a way that works, then reporting back to their teams with bad news. I loved this one. "sorry guys, they can't light it, so we need to strike the set we spent all day building, and re-build it three feet that way so they can get the window background lit."

Ryan's jobs all seem to be done by some sort of unorganised, unskilled committee.

I try to get on as many feature shoots as I can, and have been on a few so far, where I volunteered for experience. I've found them hard to get on but been on a few, as well as other people's short films as well. One of the features I helped on had a multicamera set up, so they didn't change the lighting, since all the camera angles were shot simultaneously of course.

So I thought lighting for multiple angles, without changing them was a possibility therefore, and thought it would be less risky, than moving them, if I were to do such a set up where all the shots are lit, like that.

It's fine, but remember the budget implications. Lighting for multiple angles creates the need for light from far more locations. Think back to the old three point lighting scenario always taught to students as the basic requirements. Key, fill and a backlight. If you have three cameras, or three camera positions, then at worst, you have 9 point lighting, although with scrims and cleverness, the back light for one might do dual purpose as key for another but if you are not able to block your actors and fix set in precise locations, you could find the kit list getting very hot and prescriptive. In tungsten old speak - your 1Kw might need to be further away to get more cover, so needs upping to a 2Kw or a discharge, which requires more power, and people to look after them. How many needed to provide fill, or set lights. Extra angles also means revealing things like stands, so you need to rig alternative suspension. Nowhere near as simple as it appears.

It's fine, but remember the budget implications. Lighting for multiple angles creates the need for light from far more locations. Think back to the old three point lighting scenario always taught to students as the basic requirements. Key, fill and a backlight. If you have three cameras, or three camera positions, then at worst, you have 9 point lighting, although with scrims and cleverness, the back light for one might do dual purpose as key for another but if you are not able to block your actors and fix set in precise locations, you could find the kit list getting very hot and prescriptive. In tungsten old speak - your 1Kw might need to be further away to get more cover, so needs upping to a 2Kw or a discharge, which requires more power, and people to look after them. How many needed to provide fill, or set lights. Extra angles also means revealing things like stands, so you need to rig alternative suspension. Nowhere near as simple as it appears.

Oh okay, I thought there would be more lights of course. But I could just try to find a DP that can keep it consistent with 3 point lighting and one camera.

Usually you do master first so you know where everything is happening. If you start with CUs etc. you can end up with a weird master where no one is where you want them (if trying to match CUs) and the lighting is weird etc. cause you were only shooting one person at time and not seeing the big picture.

I was thinking about this, and I'm wondering, how is it that no one where be where you want them if you start with CUs first as long as the blocking was planned out?

If you find a DP happy with 3 point lighting and one camera then this means two things. Reset time and compromise. Three point is the minimum approach, something that sets the lowest common denominator for adequate, not good, lighting. The minute you have not just one person, then it falls apart. Increasing the space, filling it full of things that need illuminating, and turning adequate into interesting the design component increases drastically. This is why you need good talent on the team. If a DP is really somebody who knows how to attach the camera to a wedge plate and level it, and be able to locate a power point for the three lights in their car, initially asked to be the makeup person, but then retailer to DP, you're in trouble.

Your second point is proven perfectly by the clip you posted of the people in that room where we pointed out we had no clue about the space and people seemed to jump about between shots. If you start with a master shot it gives the actors their place in space the very first time. Blocking is always learned best when everyone does it at the same time. If somebody is an extra, but is on your left, you feel them. Remove them as they're not in shot and you stand differently, you direct general comment differently and your entire stance is subtly different if it's only you. Plus of course, that's the best way to do it, the normal way, proven in thousands of shoots. Your new way is unlikely to be novel, or successful, so don't do it.

Oh okay, but won't the people be in the exact spots in close ups and masters, even if they are extras though? Also which clip, that I posted are you talking about?

If you shoot the closeups first, the emphasis is on the frame contents, and you will frame to get the best composition - which means adjustments in angles, the orientation of each actor, their reference points - the other actors, the set etc, but the camera itself will be close in normally which can often place people in locations that in wide shot look very odd, and are not how people in a room place themselves naturally. the example is your time machine video where we had that section in a small space (or possibly big space - we didn't know) where what appeared in the edit lacked orientation and spacial awareness, so we were guessing what the room looked like, where the exits are - remember? it was explained to me once like how most people do jigsaws by completing the edges first, then they move to the centre - while very few people start with the centre and work outwards, if you do, you suddenly find things don't fit without moving everything else.

Oh okay, but in that scene you are talking about, I shot the mastershot, first then the close ups after, so what did I do wrong when if I shot the master first?

It's usual to shoot the master shot first so that you and the actors know where everything goes.

You can cheat the closer shots a bit, if required, just so long as it makes geographical sense in the end

3 point lighting is very basic stuff, usually found in TV studios, the starting point. In practice, on dramas,good lighting is usually motivated by lighting sources in the location. I've had directors ask "where is that light coming from?"

Light the master shot so that it looks right for the location and mood, then use the motivation from the sources to light the closer shots to the actors so that their emotions, sub text etc are revealed to the best visual standards.

Please don't start learning lighting in a forum it takes years to be good and there are numerous books on the subject and you currently seem to be at a pretty basic level. Spend some money on the books and learn from top DPs. not the "I've been told" people

Let’s try another approach on for size, even though this is now me talking out of my butt since I really dont do this kind of work.

Blocking doesnt happen in a vacuum. It happens according to what looks good ON CAMERA. You wouldnt just start arbitrarily placing people without seeing how it looks in the shot. So if you start with CUs, youre only going to know what that one guy looks like in his position. And then the next guy. And the next. And maybe they all look great in their respective CUs, positioned just so. But now when you go to the master, to keep them matching their positions for CU, they may now have end up in ridiculous spots and it looks terrible as a wide or makes no sense (why are they 12 feet if theyre supposed to be standing close?).

Oh okay, but in that scene you are talking about, I shot the mastershot, first then the close ups after, so what did I do wrong when if I shot the master first?

Oh - I was hoping the reason we commented on the editing of that scene was explained by the error of shooting the others shots first. It would have explained the confusion. Personally, I suspect I'd have not owned up to that one Ryan.

What everyone is saying is that the established practice of doing master shots first is done simply because it works best. Most of the time!

Oh ok, thanks. Well I can shoot the master first if that's best. Its just if I have certain scenes where I wanted to have it play out with the master for a long portion of the scene, how does a director make sure the performances are just as good as the close ups ideally?

Im not sure I understand what he confusion is.

If youre planning a “kurosawa approach” where your scene mostly plays in long wide/master shots, only occasionally using singles, then you plan your shot list accordingly and focus equal attention to performances in both.

People here are saying that in many films today, the master is hardly or never used, so they can get away with not needing the performances to be amazing, counting on coverage to make the scene/performances strong. If youre not taking that approach, then you ensure your master performances ARE strong.

I think Josh has hit something here - we're all giving opinions on this based on the experiences we have and we're not considering that your production will have amateur actors. They may be being paid Screen Guild bottom rates but they don't seem to have experience. The Director also seems lacking so all this talk about the actors needs to be based on their lack of formal training, their lack of professionalism and their lack of plain simple experience. Ryan seems to want to mimic the directorial processes of the greats but without their skills?

I wonder if we've got into the habit of treating master shots as the final rehearsal, but with results that can be used if needed?

What is clear is that Ryan's problems are made worse by the planning bearing little resemblance to the finished products. Too many part-trained people in every role, but horrifically high intentions.

Ok thanks. Yes I wanted to use the Kurosawa style in the sense that he has a lot of wide shots and holds them longer without cutting so much.

And I do deel my planning is better than the execution, which doesnt bare much of a resemblance so far.

If using wider shot's, rather than cutting into a series of closer shots, you need to rehearse your actors the same as the theatre director does. Casting is also vital, unless you have actors in the right roles you're mostly wasting your time, more practice direction pieces than a final work.

Okay thanks. Yes, for sure, I would want to cast actors that fit their parts, and would want a casting director for that. As for lighting, I would want a DP for that, rather than learning it myself, if that's better to get a DP you can trust with that.

What about scenes that are short, and therefore, you can have actors do it all in one take hopefully? A scene like this for example:

James Bond, Dr No 1962, Miss Moneypenny 720p - YouTube

I like that it's all in a wide, because it feels more I guess you could say natural or genuine then. But if I were to shoot a scene kind of like that, of course it's still good to get CUs of both actors, which they probably did too, I am assuming?

I doubt it very much, there was no need for the dialogue to be cut at all, was there? Pan, tilt, and a dolly move, nicely choreographed to not even be obvious. When there was a cut, it was quite a shock, as we'd been lulled in by the gentle movement. Very nicely executed with no need for new angles? I can't even think what other angle would have been better.

One test we used to do in college was take a still from each clip available and see if the frame stood up as a photograph on its own. Any of the frames in that one could be used as a still because they are composed properly. I'm not sure that clip could be considered as a wide, either.

You mightn't get everything right in one take when shooting a scene in a single shot. especially when throwing hats. Although, the way to do it in one or two takes is to spend more time rehearsing, however, it's not really a pressure you're under when shooting digitally, it's more one when shooting film on a low budget.

Bear in mind that the final call on casting is with the director, not the casting director. They're good at dealing with agents and finding good new acting talent, but the director still has to do the selection.

Brian's right with the hierarchy thing here - casting hierarchy is quite variable. Casting Directors have the sources, the phone numbers, the contacts, and they are sort of hoovers with filters, sucking up everything and spewing out shortlists. They're great at determining pay ranges too - they know what people will want and take. The Directors want certain people in certain roles, and then the producers jump in and demand changes, and because they have the money, they usually get them. The art of compromise without losing face. I did one where the Executive Producer was also a Director, and had been a casting Director. The most smooth thing I did for years. Every Directorial decision could be made without reference to money, or other people. If only this happened more.

In Ryan's case, what I really don't get is the expanded production team for what appears to be simple, low budget basic productions. The constant need for giving everyone titles, but not the responsibility that comes with that role. Ideally, you could do these with a Director/cameraman and a sound recordist. One person with the idea and the vision if you like, somebody to record the sound. Maybe an assistant/technical all-rounder. If more people are available, then split the Directing by pointing a decent camera person who can do what's needed. He wouldn't be a DP, because the vision and look still come from the director. The key feature is having people with the right skills in the right role. If you look at yourself and then properly analyse what you bring too the table, maybe you need to give the Directing to somebody better at it. Maybe you can get better sound by choosing somebody else. Perhaps your camera skills are a bit weaker than the other guy on the list. What it leaves you as is the Producer. If however, that role is already taken, then you don't have a job. Nothing you can do is a primary role, leaving you as general assistant, third class, making the tea.

Oh but I thought I would be working with a small team, wouldn't I? I feel I need a DP, and a focus puller, if we decide on a more shallow DOF, and sound recordist.

I doubt it very much, there was no need for the dialogue to be cut at all, was there? Pan, tilt, and a dolly move, nicely choreographed to not even be obvious. When there was a cut, it was quite a shock, as we'd been lulled in by the gentle movement. Very nicely executed with no need for new angles? I can't even think what other angle would have been better.

One test we used to do in college was take a still from each clip available and see if the frame stood up as a photograph on its own. Any of the frames in that one could be used as a still because they are composed properly. I'm not sure that clip could be considered as a wide, either.

Oh well they say to get more than one shot for coverage's sake, so wouldn't they have done different shots, other than the one still?

Having more than one shot depends on the scene. With one shot scenes the actors and crew need good timing and rehearsing..

The longest day amazing one shot scene battle - YouTube

There's coverage to keep the producers and studios happy and there's the coverage that you really need to tell the story to best effect,

Oh well they say to get more than one shot for coverage's sake, so wouldn't they have done different shots, other than the one still?

Why? 1: because studio time with this type of movie is horribly expensive, and 2: they don't need it? They don't take chances. If they're about to blow a million quids worth of set up in a one-off scene, then there will be backups for backups, but here, this could be take 5 or 6, we don't know - but the director just stops when his plan worked. If there was a different angle shot, it would have been planned for - but what in this scene do you think could have been improved by a two angle intercut edit?

I don't know that I entirely agree with the minimum number of roles. For a "fartin' around with your buddies short"? Sure.

But Ryan is aiming, ideally, for a distributable, saleable product of feature length. I would push for a larger crew for that. Yes, of course they should all be qualified, not just randos who "like doing those jobs".

I would say you should not just have a DP to handle lighting...I've been there. It'll take a hundred years for every setup. At LEAST a DP and gaffer/experienced grip/electric person. Camera assistant is generally not versed in that stuff 'cause ACing is a totally different job and you (Ryan) will probably be too busy with a thousand other things (you SHOULD be, anyway) to help with lighting. SOME sound guys know that stuff (at least that's how it works here), would not count on it unless verified. So DP and at least one other person. Two might be better. And yes, they have to know what they're doing or they're less than useless (if DP has to explain to someone how to set up a light/flag, that might take even more time than DP just doing it him/herself).

Why? 1: because studio time with this type of movie is horribly expensive, and 2: they don't need it? They don't take chances. If they're about to blow a million quids worth of set up in a one-off scene, then there will be backups for backups, but here, this could be take 5 or 6, we don't know - but the director just stops when his plan worked. If there was a different angle shot, it would have been planned for - but what in this scene do you think could have been improved by a two angle intercut edit?

Oh nothing could have been improved, I think it was a perfect one shot scene. It's just it was pointed out how if you do the masters first, the actors will not give the best performances likely in those takes, and I have experienced that in my previous shorts, hence why I used the close up takes, shot after the master.

So I just meant, it's probably still a good idea to shoot other shots for coverage just in case, but still try to get the best performances in the master somehow, if that is what you want to use?

I don't know that I entirely agree with the minimum number of roles. For a "fartin' around with your buddies short"? Sure.

But Ryan is aiming, ideally, for a distributable, saleable product of feature length. I would push for a larger crew for that. Yes, of course they should all be qualified, not just randos who "like doing those jobs".

I would say you should not just have a DP to handle lighting...I've been there. It'll take a hundred years for every setup. At LEAST a DP and gaffer/experienced grip/electric person. Camera assistant is generally not versed in that stuff 'cause ACing is a totally different job and you (Ryan) will probably be too busy with a thousand other things (you SHOULD be, anyway) to help with lighting. SOME sound guys know that stuff (at least that's how it works here), would not count on it unless verified. So DP and at least one other person. Two might be better. And yes, they have to know what they're doing or they're less than useless (if DP has to explain to someone how to set up a light/flag, that might take even more time than DP just doing it him/herself).

Okay thanks, I will do that, and be sure to get more than just a couple of people in the cinematography department, if posible. Thanks for the input.

I don't think that was a master shot Ryan - just shot 33 or whatever. Mastershot, as a description indicates to me, the big wide with lots of things happening within the frame, then the closer shots for detail and emphasis. The James Bond scene was just a medium shot with some movement wasn't it. Don;t get bogged down on jargon. Wide - Medium - Closeup - all have quite a variation between them, and there are plenty of others - was the James Bond clip mainly a wide 2 shot, for example? Semantics rule!

So I just meant, it's probably still a good idea to shoot other shots for coverage just in case, but still try to get the best performances in the master somehow, if that is what you want to use?

If using one shot for a scene in your film, you should know in advance that's the plan, so you don't do a "master shot" and then waste time shooting lots of "coverage".

You can then spend more time getting the best performance in the one shot scene because you won't need the time to shoot lots of coverage. Time is a precious thing when making a film, so you can't waste it

Mike Hodges has a dining scene in "Croupier" which is done in a single shot because he know that the schedule didn't allow him to shoot with lots of camera set ups.

In a single shot scene, the frame size doesn't need to remain the same, within the same shot it can vary from wide, to CU, change to medium and back to MCU and finish on a BCU and all the other combinations

This is the 'art' part in my view. Camera movement done in a way you don't notice. The daft thing is that these are the ones were Ryans gimbal fascination would work for him. Very slow moves are what these things are really good at, not taking out wobbles! That James Bond shot, for instance. You can imagine the people pushing the beast, while the cameraman gradually panned and tilted. That's what? Three people minimum to do that one shot - and we could replicate it with a hand held gimbal mount and a bit of practice?

I've got an amazingly heavy and old Vinten jib, that moves with fingertip pressure and can do some of these things - very slow swings look great!

Oh okay thanks.

I just thought that if I planned to use a wide shot or two shot for a whole scene, that maybe I should still get coverage just in case... Cause what if the gimbal shaked a little in part of the shot for example or what if a character went slightly out of focus. I thought that even though a one shot scene is planned, maybe some coverage is good just in case?

You do another take if you've got camera problems,editing isn't just for covering technical issues.

Seconded. 'and once more please' is a Director's most used phrase.

You do another take if you've got camera problems,editing isn't just for covering technical issues.

Oh okay thanks. It's just a couple of times in the past, I didn't notice camera problem until on a bigger screen in post, so I thought it was best therefore, to get coverage from at least two shots, just in case every take in one of the shots was compromised, but didn't notice until later.