OT: Prof. Standards, and Personal Prefs Clash

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 9/22/2006, 9:19 AM
OK, I know that what we do is as much artistic as it is technical (or maybe even more artisitic depending on what type of vids you make), but somethings been nagging at me for some time and I want see where others are on this.

When I shoot interviews in WS (wide screen) I almost prefer the look of taking off the top of someones head in the framing, it makes me feel like it's more.... focused on what they're saying and I don't get my eye wondering off to the right or left. Now this isn't an always thing mind you, but I have no real aversion to it if it feels right generally a pretty tight shot of the face with just a little below the chin showing is when I feel it works best). My problem with that is that I know that it's usually considered a faux pa to most. Now with 4:3 I don't feel so much like that because there is so much space that if I am cutting off his head, I better be so tight that there's a reason.

There are other things that I may have wonderings about, but I do a lot of corp. style shooting where it's talking heads, and cutaways and one thing that I am bothered by is a shot that makes my eye wonder off the screen. This may come from my years of photography (it got engrained in me to have something in a majority of the corners to help keep the eye moving back to the picture instead of off to the wall).

Anyway - I'm interested in hearing your input.

Thanks

Dave

Edit: It would seem that perhaps I have gotten the wrong impression on this particular topic, however the overall question still stands.... What do you do, when the way you like to shoot isn't what is considered the normal acceptable thing?... and to throw a wrench into that most others don't like it?

Comments

JJKizak wrote on 9/22/2006, 9:30 AM
The Italian Western director "A little Town Out West" with Henry Fonda perfected that technique. I like the fly in the gun barrel of Jack Elam.

JJK
Spot|DSE wrote on 9/22/2006, 9:33 AM
I'm not understanding your question, Dave...it's perfectly acceptable to cut off the head above the eyebrows but rarely acceptable to cut off any portion of the chin except in an extreme C/U or cutaway shot. In other words, what you say you "prefer" is also the accepted standard.
As far as wandering eye, for this sort of work you want your subject looking into the frame as opposed to looking out of the frame. If they're on the right side of the frame you want them looking left, and vice versa.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 9/22/2006, 9:36 AM
Perhaps i have been mis-informed as far as what people consider acceptable in this sort of thing. As far as the wondering eye business - I was refering to the watcher, not speaker.

Dave
ken c wrote on 9/22/2006, 9:46 AM
I'd like to get a book on how to frame shots in HD and using foreground/background shot setups, all that stuff.. let me know if any suggestions... actually anything that would make me a better videographer would be much appreciated.. I'm still new to all this stuff...

(here's my first attempt at widescreen talking head, kinda boring shot setups though, I should rem the rule of 1/3rds.. but does that even apply to widescreen non 4:3? at http://www.daytradingu.com/tradingvideoblog.htm )

agree w/widescreen taking off top of head over eyebrows should be fine.. kinda like that helicopter shot in 'dawn of the dead' :p

thx,

ken
Spot|DSE wrote on 9/22/2006, 10:14 AM
Although this should not be considered as a "product announcement," you'll soon have access to a training DVD done by one of the producers of "Contact," "Beauty and the Beast," and other big-name films that answers this sort of question exactly. He's got an amazing eye, and really knows how to scam crappy footage into HD projects, use every inch of the aspect to present various moods and modes, and brings a lot of "secrets" to light in his presentation.

Widescreen composition is definitely more challenging, not because it's "bigger" but because of what most of us have grown up with, and how we look at pictures.
Coursedesign wrote on 9/22/2006, 10:32 AM
The rule of thirds applies just fine to widescreen also.

If you dive into it, it isn't actually about the film frame per se, although in most cases what you will apply the rule to will be the actual frame.

Steven D. Katz has a wonderful book, "Film Directing, Shot by Shot" with lots of story boards with explanations for the different framing of oneshots like what you are doing (as well as everything else). This book is one of my absolute favorites, highly recommended.

Your blog video looks very flat. Better lighting would help (it's not flattering right now), and also a lighter shirt (the current one looks murky on video, at least in this light).
ken c wrote on 9/22/2006, 10:53 AM
thanks... I'll get the book ... lighting now is done w/two jtl softboxes + overheads .. I'll try a 3-light with key light etc ... I appreciate your help with all this.. there's so much to learn, like trying to become an accomplished musician, takes years of practice... you're both (and others here) helping me shortcut my learning curve by a lot, so I appreciate it.. let me know if I can be of help in any way, too..

regards,

ken
JackW wrote on 9/22/2006, 11:23 AM
Dave: Seems to me it's not a question of what's acceptable but, as you suggest in your post, what's appropriate vis a vis the content of the situation. E.g.: I don't need to look deep into the eyes of the female news anchor, so a shot that fills the screen with her head and shoulders -- even just her head -- is probably appropriate; I definitely want to stare into the eyes of the woman who says she loves me, so the very tight shot that crops her head seems appropriate to this situation and, as Spot points out, even cropping to just the eyes might work.

I think where this all gets problematic is with what corporate clients want. I've shot standard head and shoulder framing in training tapes, only to have corporate critics complain that it's "too intimate," too "in your face." Seemed pretty good to me at the time.

Jack
Coursedesign wrote on 9/22/2006, 12:09 PM
You also have to consider how the end result will be presented.

A closeup that looks great on an iPod, or even on a 27" TV in a living room, may look totally scary on a huge movie screen if you're sitting close.
dand9959 wrote on 9/22/2006, 1:30 PM
wandering
kkolbo wrote on 9/22/2006, 2:46 PM
All of the frame you discribed is perfectly acceptable with widescreen. That is one of the reasons that widescreen is prefered to 4:3. The close ups do have a tendency to be more intimate with the cut off head room etc. You can create great power that way if the eyes are in just the right spot.

Your still photog guts work just fine with WD video.

The MTV era opened up a new world of what was professional and acceptable. Even at that, it is about the power. It is about leading the eye. It is about everything that you learned in stills. It is also about breaking the rules to add impact.

It took me way to long to learn to break the rules more often to get the audience to join me in the experience. It took a high school student to beat it into me.
Serena wrote on 9/22/2006, 6:16 PM
"Widescreen composition is definitely more challenging, not because it's "bigger" but because of what most of us have grown up with, and how we look at pictures"

Ah, Spot, didn't "The Robe" (1953) sweep widescreen into the cinemas? Now some of us might have grown up somewhat prior to that film, but surely not 'most'. Now in this forum I guess 'most' might have been shooting 4:3 but weren't we watching widescreen? Ah, of course, TV. Pan & scan wrecked so many film compositions.
fldave wrote on 9/22/2006, 6:28 PM
What was an eye-opener for me lately has been viewing some of the current PBS documentaries in HD. Stunning over the air HD footage, and if well made, you learn a lot about what works in 16x9 and what doesn't.

Closeups cut off above the eyebrows on a 65" HD screen are very powerful. Really shows the intensity of the subject's feelings. Wider shots for moments when talking with their hands.

I've learned a lot from this forum the past couple of years, and not just technical Vegas stuff. I now critique in my head what visually works and what doesn't work. So I guess I should thank everyone for opening my eyes and brain to the art.

So Dave, what works best is what You want to convey and how You want to convey it.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 9/22/2006, 8:09 PM
"I've learned a lot from this forum the past couple of years, and not just technical Vegas stuff. I now critique in my head what visually works and what doesn't work. So I guess I should thank everyone for opening my eyes and brain to the art."

That's part of the reason I ask these questions, fldave, even if I am pretty certain of the answer. It generates good conversation, and provides several viewpoints on things that will help others to learn how to improve their abilities.

Dave