Is FrameForge worth buying for storyboarding?

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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,

[Paul R Johnson]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

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?

[Josh Bass]

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).

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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?

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

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.

[Paul R Johnson]

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!

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

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

[Paul R Johnson]

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!

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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

[Paul R Johnson]

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

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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.