cutting in camera or coverage? at DVinfo.net

Michael Gibbons · January 6th, 2005, 02:47 PM

both methods obviously have there uses, but lately I've found that I'm really drawn to making to meticulous storyboards and following them exactly.

I'd love to hear everyone/anyone else's thoughts on this.
TIA

Charles Papert · January 6th, 2005, 04:34 PM

Michael:

If you mean by this that you only shoot the sections of dialogue that pertain to a given angle rather than shoot the whole scene (or large chunks of it) from different angles, I like a certain balance of this myself. There's no real point to shooting the entire action from a high-and-wide if you know for sure that it only really plays for the entrance and the exit; you will save time and (obviously not a big deal) tape stock with this method. However, it may be beneficial for the actors to run through the entire scene as a master, or "ramp up to speed" performance-wise on a tighter angle by starting the dialogue earlier than you think you will use. Obviously the danger is that you leave yourself with fewer cutting options, which may become an issue if you end up editing the scene in an unexpected way, which can be the case with any film. For instance, if a later scene is made more comprehensible by cutting back to a few shots from an earlier scene, it may be desirable to use a different angle than the one represented in the first scene.

The way I approach this sort of thing is to start with a shotlist (preferably in advance, but sometimes it's created on the day of the shoot, or even after the first rehearsal) and make sure that we have delivered at least one way to cut the scene. A good editor can then make maybe half a dozen different cuts from that material, but we know that it is at least cuttable. If the scene calls for it, we might attempt a "one-er", i.e. a continuous master, and if we are really feeling brave we won't cover it any other way. The risk here is that the pacing will be perfect, the performances all good and that the scene can either live intact or if it needs to be shortened, that it can be done so from the beginning or the end. The huge risk is that it doesn't work in the context of the film as a whole. It's very hard to predict whether or not an extended shot will slow down the pace of a film until you get to the cutting stage.

Michael Gibbons · January 6th, 2005, 04:45 PM

Thanks Charles, you're helping to crystalize my thoughts on this topic. I'm thinking a balance is the best way to go. Or, maybe time allowed, go both ways. With a wide master, and OTS shots for each actor- and then work the storyboards.
So much for tape, time and batteries though...

Richard Alvarez · January 6th, 2005, 05:04 PM

I think one of the best/worst things about the DV boom, is the low cost of tape. When you are shooting film, even Super 8, you are pretty well forced to plan your shots ahead of time. (Unless money is no object). An overlooked drawback to the low cost of tape, is the endless variations and re-takes that can be generated by an undisciplined director/actors and crew. Just as it can be daunting on an editor to have barely enough coverage, so too can it be overwhelming to have an hours worth of coverage for a thirty second scene.

Bottom line, as Charles points out, best to use a bit of a mix. Judicious pre-production planning/storyboarding/shotlists - a bit of creative flexibility on the set - a good "Script girl" or continuity person to keep track of what coverage you get - and on to the next shot.

Michael Gibbons · January 6th, 2005, 05:47 PM

Well said, Richard.
I'm working up a full on pre-viz for my next project, with shot for shot storyboards, lighting and sound notes ect...and I am tempted to just shoot the boards and see how it goes, but I am a bit worried about coverage. I'm not to concerned about the overwhelming the editor with too many choices, because I am the editor, and frankly I'd much rather have too much footage than too little.
But as far as balance goes, I think I'll need a bit more experiance mixing the two methods before I can relistically know when to say enough is enough.

but as you said this the benefit of DV. I can afford to make a mistake and the monetary cost will be relatively low- the spiritual/emotional cost on cast and crew is another matter altogether, though, and I recognize this- hell, I've paid the price myself a time or two.

I've read that Hitchcock just shot the boards- of course, I'm no Hitchcock- I mean, hey , have you seen the gut on that guy?

Lloyd Choi · January 7th, 2005, 07:01 PM

Also remember... your movie will also not strictly follow your storyboard... so I think some coverage is good in case the pacing of your storyboard is not effective.

Rob Lohman · January 9th, 2005, 06:37 AM

I think it also depends on experience. The less experience the more
you shoot usually (and is probably better as well to give you options).
The more experience the more easy you can see what can work
and what doesn't, what might need (or warrant) more coverage
and where you can save time etc.

January 6th, 2005, 02:47 PM	#1
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	cutting in camera or coverage? both methods obviously have there uses, but lately I've found that I'm really drawn to making to meticulous storyboards and following them exactly. I'd love to hear everyone/anyone else's thoughts on this. TIA __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

January 6th, 2005, 04:34 PM	#2
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Michael: If you mean by this that you only shoot the sections of dialogue that pertain to a given angle rather than shoot the whole scene (or large chunks of it) from different angles, I like a certain balance of this myself. There's no real point to shooting the entire action from a high-and-wide if you know for sure that it only really plays for the entrance and the exit; you will save time and (obviously not a big deal) tape stock with this method. However, it may be beneficial for the actors to run through the entire scene as a master, or "ramp up to speed" performance-wise on a tighter angle by starting the dialogue earlier than you think you will use. Obviously the danger is that you leave yourself with fewer cutting options, which may become an issue if you end up editing the scene in an unexpected way, which can be the case with any film. For instance, if a later scene is made more comprehensible by cutting back to a few shots from an earlier scene, it may be desirable to use a different angle than the one represented in the first scene. The way I approach this sort of thing is to start with a shotlist (preferably in advance, but sometimes it's created on the day of the shoot, or even after the first rehearsal) and make sure that we have delivered at least one way to cut the scene. A good editor can then make maybe half a dozen different cuts from that material, but we know that it is at least cuttable. If the scene calls for it, we might attempt a "one-er", i.e. a continuous master, and if we are really feeling brave we won't cover it any other way. The risk here is that the pacing will be perfect, the performances all good and that the scene can either live intact or if it needs to be shortened, that it can be done so from the beginning or the end. The huge risk is that it doesn't work in the context of the film as a whole. It's very hard to predict whether or not an extended shot will slow down the pace of a film until you get to the cutting stage. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

January 6th, 2005, 04:45 PM	#3
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	Thanks Charles, you're helping to crystalize my thoughts on this topic. I'm thinking a balance is the best way to go. Or, maybe time allowed, go both ways. With a wide master, and OTS shots for each actor- and then work the storyboards. So much for tape, time and batteries though... __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

January 6th, 2005, 05:47 PM	#5
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	Well said, Richard. I'm working up a full on pre-viz for my next project, with shot for shot storyboards, lighting and sound notes ect...and I am tempted to just shoot the boards and see how it goes, but I am a bit worried about coverage. I'm not to concerned about the overwhelming the editor with too many choices, because I am the editor, and frankly I'd much rather have too much footage than too little. But as far as balance goes, I think I'll need a bit more experiance mixing the two methods before I can relistically know when to say enough is enough. but as you said this the benefit of DV. I can afford to make a mistake and the monetary cost will be relatively low- the spiritual/emotional cost on cast and crew is another matter altogether, though, and I recognize this- hell, I've paid the price myself a time or two. I've read that Hitchcock just shot the boards- of course, I'm no Hitchcock- I mean, hey , have you seen the gut on that guy? __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

January 9th, 2005, 06:37 AM	#7
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I think it also depends on experience. The less experience the more you shoot usually (and is probably better as well to give you options). The more experience the more easy you can see what can work and what doesn't, what might need (or warrant) more coverage and where you can save time etc. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

January 6th, 2005, 05:04 PM	#4
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	I think one of the best/worst things about the DV boom, is the low cost of tape. When you are shooting film, even Super 8, you are pretty well forced to plan your shots ahead of time. (Unless money is no object). An overlooked drawback to the low cost of tape, is the endless variations and re-takes that can be generated by an undisciplined director/actors and crew. Just as it can be daunting on an editor to have barely enough coverage, so too can it be overwhelming to have an hours worth of coverage for a thirty second scene. Bottom line, as Charles points out, best to use a bit of a mix. Judicious pre-production planning/storyboarding/shotlists - a bit of creative flexibility on the set - a good "Script girl" or continuity person to keep track of what coverage you get - and on to the next shot.

January 7th, 2005, 07:01 PM	#6
Lloyd Choi Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Toronto Posts: 106	Also remember... your movie will also not strictly follow your storyboard... so I think some coverage is good in case the pacing of your storyboard is not effective.