Is FrameForge worth buying for storyboarding?

[Ryan Elder]

Oh no there is still the need for storyboards though, I thought, cause the degree of the angle is on the storyobards, like whether you want a profile shot, a dead on shot, a cowbow shot, etc.

And if you want the camera to move, that is on there too. So I still thought the storyboards had a purpose.

[John Nantz]

What? No reply from the gurus yet???
The thought abut only having two shots concerns me but (disclaimer) I don’t know how the movie people typically do it. This issn’t the Olympics so here’s my take. (Lots of puns here).

There’s a saying, “If they want it bad they get it bad.” Substitute boss/ leader/ Director for “they”.

Not every shot is equal, as in the same amount of difficulty. And there are other “actors” (f.e., camera operator, lighting, boom mic, etc.). They aren’t all on stage but they’re part of the scene as much as if they were. Any one of them can have a problem that would benefit from another take. Stuff happens.

In the beginning one can make it known that “two takes” is the goal, the gold standard, and try to hold to it but have some flexibility to break the rule. It’s in everybody’s interest to ultimately have a good take but they need to understand there is a budget that can’t be busted and it is what it is. The question is “how to strike that balance?”

Thinking out of the box: If this was run by an Industrial Engineer / Lawyer-Judge team, a stopwatch could be put on the additional takes and apportion the cost to those who forced a re-take and subtract it from their salary.

Speaking of Industrial Engineer: It wouldn’t be a too difficult task to price out the film production by taking scene by scene, pricing out the “staff”, equipment, and space/studio, and come up with a total budget. By tracking actual cost vs budget can determine if one is ahead of, or behind, the cost curve. This would help determine how much flexibility there is in the number of takes. Maybe this has been done already? How do the studios do this?

One of my favorite movies is Dirty Dancing (not to be watched by young teens). When one finds out how it was made, rejected by the major studios, put together in a minimal amount of time, then made mega bucks, it is impressive. Also, another back story: The two major actors, Swayze and Grey, turned out they didn’t like each other!!! (At least for a large portion of the filming)

Waiting to read what the gurus take is.
Ooops … Just saw that Paul jumped in.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

Oh no there is still the need for storyboards though, I thought, cause the degree of the angle is on the storyobards, like whether you want a profile shot, a dead on shot, a cowbow shot, etc.

And if you want the camera to move, that is on there too. So I still thought the storyboards had a purpose.

No one is saying you don't need to plan.

All this seems to be going around in circles, as if you're looking for set pattern, some simple way that everything can be covered, regardless of content or importance. Planning no more than 2 shots each, as if each character has equal weight in the scene, is nonsense, You give the characters the shots required to tell their part of the story within the scene, some may have 3 or 4 shots, while others may only have one shot..

You need to work within the time limits that you have, so give more to the key characters who progress the scene with dramatic points within it and less to the other characters. The camera has to be in the right position to capture those points in the most effective way.

Since we of no knowledge of the scene, the coverage needs to be planned by you, so that the scene has a sense of dramatic progression when it's cut together. There's a wide range of options open, from doing it all in a single moving shot or a series of shots that reveal what's going on between the characters. The choice being dictated by your resources and how well your actors can hold together a performance.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, I can do that then and plan each scene on a case by case bases, but try to keep the shots down low still.

One thing I do in my shot planning is I will do what I learned other filmmakers do, and draw along the script when you want the shot to begin and end in a scene. Like let's say you only want a certain shot to last a few lines, then I will plan for that. But when I get to the shoot, I change my mind, and have that shot run for the whole scene, just in case, for extra coverage. But should I learn to just be comfortable with only letting certain shots just from for a couple of lines, if that's how I see it in the planning?

[Brian Drysdale]

Don't cover just one or two lines, there's no need (you're not shooting film on a very tight budget), let the actors get a feel for their performance (especially with inexperienced actors), plus you get reactions, which can be more important in the final film than the actor saying the line. You may not realise this at the time of filming.

You don't have a producer or studio who will want a recut of your scene, which is the reason why some directors only shot what they needed, so the studio couldn't interfere during the editing. These are highly experienced directors with some power in the system, who could get away with this. most can't because of the pressure from the producers.

On one film I drew lines showing the shot coverage along the script. It worked, especially in this case because much of it was inside a car, so the film was shot not scene by scene, but camera position by camera position, since it took so long to rig each camera set up. BTW This was at night, so lights had to be rigged and the camera was an Arri 16BL film camera with a zoom lens, which isn't a small camera (although a Betacam with a clip on battery on the back is worse).

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, I thought maybe I should decide which shots should be on which lines specifically for time.

There was one director, I worked under who I felt got too carried away with this though. He would put the camera in a certain place, have the actor say a couple of sentences, then put the camera in another spot, have the actor say the next couple of sentences, then keep on doing that. He had different shots for several spots of dialogue.

I felt that the actor really had to break up his performance a lot to do that. So I wouldn't want to get too carried away with that for sure. It didn't show the final edit though, and the actors still did a good job it seems.

However, if it's best to have every shot run for the entire scene shoot, then I can do that, if that's better, performance wise. But I would have less shots because of that, cause it would take more time though, if that's okay?

[Brian Drysdale]

Unless you're got an extremely tight budget shooting on film, there no reason to reposition for each couple of lines, the actors never really get up to speed, when you're trying to improve their performance on the tighter shots. From experience, you can spend time getting those single lines just right, especially if the other actors aren't there.

In TV dramas they usually don't have time to get great performances in the wide shots, so they're tuning this as they move for the tighter shots.

You don't need to shoot the entire scene if the character is only seen in the first half, once they're finished in the scene you can stop.

You're not editing in camera, you're providing material for the edit.

[Ryan Elder]

Yeah it's just it was said before that four shots might not be keep a scene interesting if that scene is 3-5 minutes long for example, so if more shots are in order, should I really have them all run for the entire scene shoot?

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Paul R Johnson]

I don't think I have ever sat at the editor and even counted shots. Do you not just edit to tell the story? If it worked, why would I even want to count them, let alone plan to have X number? 4 could be good, so could 8, or maybe just one really good one?

I'm trying to chill a bit after a horrendous day of rehearsals where the weather was wild and the water was pouring in through every possible entrance. Stopping the cast to mop the floor, and keep the water out of the electrics became my role today. Supposed to be in charge, but at one point was bucket person while everyone else tried to work.

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

It's your decision how you cover it.

[Ryan Elder]

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?