Is FrameForge worth buying for storyboarding?

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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 :).

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Josh Bass]

Best typo ever.

[Brian Drysdale]

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..

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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.

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

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?