Is FrameForge worth buying for storyboarding?

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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

[Josh Bass]

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?).

[Paul R Johnson]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

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!

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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.