Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

No, I said "wider shots" not "wide lenses"...

There are two rules regarding diffusion filters which are somewhat contradictory:

#1 Wider-angle lenses need more diffusion than longer lenses to match sharpness.

#2 Wider shots need less diffusion than close-ups because we expect to see more fine detail in wide shots and don't need to see every pore and flaw in a close-up as long as the eyes look sharp.

The first rule is an objective one about matching sharpness and the second is a subjective one regarding viewer perception. The confusion comes from the fact that wide shots tend to be shot on wider-angle lenses and close-ups tend to be shot on longer lenses. But the reason we use heavier diffusion on close-ups of faces is because our eyes don't demand the same level of detail that we crave when viewing a wide shot of a landscape let's say. We look at a landscape shot and expect to see final detail in leaves of trees, blades of grass, the texture of brick walls, etc. but when we look at a face, an excessive amount of detail and texture in skin, for example, can be unwelcome or at least unnecessary -- we mainly expect things like eyes and eyelashes to be sharp, and strands of hair, but we often don't like seeing too much texture in skin.
 
Hello David. In Hugo Robert Richardson breaks the 180 degree rule of coverage in at least one scene.
2aifymb.jpg
Here is a screenshot of it. Looking to get your take on why he's able to do this in this particular scene?
In this scene as you can see the lady and the boy are speaking directly to each other but both are covered from opposite sides of the 180 line.
 
Peter Dmitriyev said:
Hello David. In Hugo Robert Richardson breaks the 180 degree rule of coverage in at least one scene.
In this scene as you can see the lady and the boy are speaking directly to each other but both are covered from opposite sides of the 180 line.
Click to expand...

If you look at the whole scene from the start, it begins with a pan from the hallway to the living room following the children into the room and the aunt is on the far right side of frame and Hugo and the girl are on the left, so the close-up of Hugo, which is a reverse angle, matches that master in terms of the line, Hugo is left-to-right and the aunt is right-to-left. And her first close-ups match that master, she is right looking left at the two children.

But when she looks at the ink drawing, she turns away from Hugo and Scorsese shot a new three-shot where the aunt visually splits the girl (on the left) and Hugo (on the right now). And he shot a new close-up of the aunt from that angle. But the close-up of Hugo is still from the original master screen direction. Now there could be two explanations -- Scorsese never got around to shooting a second close-up of Hugo for the second sub-master where he now is right-to-left (maybe because Scorsese had a child actor who had limited time on set) or he shot the new angle but in editing preferred the acting of the boy in the original close-up where he was left-to-right. But technically he did "cross the line" and I don't think it was intentional, but as you suggest, he (sort of) gets away with it.

Now I'm sure if the front door in the hallway was at the reverse end, he could have shot the master with the kids walking towards camera and then turning to their right into the room, with a right to left pan from the hallway into the room and ended with the aunt in the center between the two kids from the start, and then only needed coverage to match that screen direction, but instead he basically created two wide masters of the scene, one for the first part and one from the second part, which is nice if you have the time to shoot that and cover all of that. The jump to the second master where the aunt visually splits the children does have the effect of now making the aunt the center of attention as she reacts to seeing the picture.
 
thanks for the response David. That all makes alot of sense. It just seems like the most blatant example of 180 breaking in a top level movie (with all oscar winning talent involved in terms of director and DP). By blatant I mean the fact that it's a fairly long scene that continues uninterrupted with the "wrong" coverage yet seems to work and thus sort of makes me question how "wrong" the rule really is if it does in fact seem to work although I can't help to feel an undeniable sense of unease when watching it, feeling like the lady is looking in the wrong direction. Seems to prove the theory of Ozu (if I'm not mistaken) right where in the infamous anecdote he tested both types of coverage to appease his complaining DP and concluded that there is no discernible difference between the two. (I might have gotten that anecdote from this thread a few hundred pages earlier lol...can't quite recall).
 
Peter Dmitriyev said:
That all makes alot of sense. It just seems like the most blatant example of 180 breaking in a top level movie (with all oscar winning talent involved in terms of director and DP).
Click to expand...
About ten years ago, I worked on a fairly major TV project. During color-correction, after the director left the room, I turned to the editor (behind me) and said, "hey, what's the deal with this cut? You crossed the line here." The guy shook his head sadly and said, "that was a day-long argument that I lost. The 180-degree rule is one of many that have gone out the window a long time ago. The only people who are bothered by it are people like you and me. Nobody else will notice."

My usual joke is, I don't argue with clients have more Oscars than me. (Which certainly Martin Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker do.) I personally think crossing the line is an important problem in editing, but ultimately, it's the director's film, and if there's no other coverage, you gotta use what you've got.
 
I'm not sure even that the great Ozu gets away with it, sorry to say (it looks weird but at least most of his close-ups have the actor looking almost into the lens so the line is less clear) -- you really want people in single close-ups to look like they are looking at the person they are talking to, if that's what they are really doing. I don't mind line crosses in 3-shots or even 2-shots since the two people talking are in the same frame together. I'm talking about run-of-the-mill dialogue scenes -- of course there can be a stylistically motivated sequence of line crossing to establish a sense of paranoia and dislocation -- the trial in "Joan of Ark" would be a good situation where Joan is surrounded by her judges and the camera could pretty much cut to any angle of Joan for reactions whether or not it matched the line to the particular judge talking to her.

Line crosses when there is a strong sense of geography tend to be OK too, like a conversation between two people sitting in the front of a car while driving -- it's pretty clear where the two people are and who they are talking to no matter where the camera is, plus half the time, the driver is (hopefully) looking forward at the road, not at the person sitting next to him.
 
Yeah I remember another example given possibly in this thread hundreds of pages earlier (I read through all ~400 pages of this thread twice...lol) where in the Shining bathroom conversation I think it was the line is "crossed" but it doesn't matter because it's a 2 shot where you're able to see the orientation of both characters either way.
Am I correct to assume also that a line can be crossed when you "reset" the coverage. For instance let's say we have coverage of person A looking towards the right of screen and person B looking to the left then we suddenly show a 2 shot of them both from the OTHER side and then go to closeup coverage again this time person A is looking towards left and person B looking towards right.

In fact I forget where in the thread it is but I could have sworn that example you gave of Storaro (or was it conrad hall??) with the night time soft lit dialogue between 2 guys standing outside under a street lamp. Could have sworn the coverage changes different sides there but I could be wrong..
 
That was the scene in "Tucker" where twice in the movie, Coppola does a lateral dolly move on Martin Landau's character to create a new screen direction -- to suggest I think his moral duality. And then Coppola & Storaro shot a new matching reverse angle shot of the person talking to Landau. Other than the night exterior scene, the other time was more subtle but it was during Tucker's trial, when Landau is asked by the prosecutor if there is anyone who would trust what he says as an ex-convict... and the camera dollies over the other side of the prosecutor's shoulder as Landau now looks over at Tucker as he says "Yes, one man..." or something like that (I writing from memory, it's been awhile since I've watched that scene.)

You can create a new 180 degree line at anytime during a scene, and you can have multiple "lines" in group scenes (i.e. individual lines between sets of two people in a group) -- Scorsese sometimes does it to create an emotional shift within a long scene (and a visual change) there is a park bench scene in "Age of Innocence" that starts out on one side of the bench as two people talk then jumps to the other side when there is an emotional change in the scene, with new coverage from that new screen direction. I think the second park had the camera on the back side of the bench shooting what are sometimes called "French overs" for some odd reason, when you rake across backs to get the over-the-shoulder close-ups as two people sit at a counter or on a bench or a car seat (i.e. two people sitting facing the same direction but their heads turn now and then to look at each other.)
 
A lot of very classical directors don't mind crossing the line, even when it should be disorienting. Clint Eastwood seems to cross it from time to time and he's pretty classical. Lots of action directors go nuts. In the last scene in Casablanca there's a famous blatant line cross to get a better reaction shot. Lots of directors have no problem crossing the line. Does it bug you because you read it's bad to do or are you actually spatially confused? If you are confused, how bad a tradeoff is that relative to the other options: omitting the angle entirely, using a convoluted dolly move or eyeline shift to motivate the change of eyeline, etc?

There are plenty of times when crossing the line is no problem: any time it's done with a dolly move through the line it's fine; if there's a strong match on action it's okay; if a new line is established by a change in eyeline it's always fine; if you cut to an angle that is exactly on the line or a really wide new master with opposite screen direction, you can take coverage from another side cleanly.

The 180º line is almost ALWAYS on an eyeline, usually between two people. It can also be a line of implicit motion, like the path of someone who is running or a vehicle. But among a group of people, eyelines can intersect so you get some cuts that are clean between two specific shots, but then a third shot might intercut with one but not the other, like hinge shot between a group of three people or something. I think logistically dinner table scenes are the worst since you need to get more interesting than shooting from just one side, but you have so many different eyelines. The scenes in Drag Me to Hell and The Haunting are very elegant, but I haven't had a change to think about how they were shot. But in these instances you can break the 180º rule over and over and no one notices if you cut cleanly, because even if you follow continuity editing to the letter it's about eyelines, not about a single line you can't cross.

There's a pretty cool book I'm hoping to read, Grammar of the Film Language, that deals with keeping camera placement spatially coherent, but I'm just too lazy to read a 700 page book on this right now. But if you really want to avoid crossing the line, this book has some good advice and maybe after I read it I'll retract my thoughts on it. But if you adhere blindly to the 180º rule you'll get some boring old coverage; if you ignore it entirely and just cut super fast you'll get equally boring spatially incoherent action.
 
thanks for the responses, very informative.

David one of the things you mentioned made me think of another good question:
many dp's/directors use very subtle (not always I guess) and subconscious effects to convey shifts of some sort, i.e. a shift in regards to the character's emotions or story line, etc. This is basically using cinematography in a very advanced way to subtley and subliminally convey certain things.
An example would be for instance in King's Speech all those wide angle closeup shots that make you feel uneasy in a sort of claustrophobic way or the previously discussed (in this thread I believe) coverage shots in the same movie where Colin Firth's character is positioned in a very awkward part of the frame, i.e. facing left but also sitting at the very left of the frame thus not giving his eyeline any room to breath - a deliberate trick to convey unease and other subtle and complex cues.
These things interest me greatly, the MOST interesting one I've personally heard of or read about came from an american cinematographer issue on Biutiful (at least I'm almost certain that was the movie) with Rodrigo Prieto. It discussed how they went from spherical to anamorphic lenses in the middle of the movie, a technique I've never heard used before. They did this to convey a dramatic change in the character and his scope/outlook on life etc.
These sort of very complex cinematography tricks interest me greatly and so I was wondering if you could name some of your favorite devices such as these, whether ones you've used yourself or your favorite from other masters of cinematography?
 
There are examples that run the whole gamut of choices, the most extreme being a switch from color to b&w for example -- "Nixon" for example has two layers of flashbacks going through, one is the immediate past leading up to the resignation and the other covers Nixon's life from childhood, and there are different stocks, etc. for all of this -- but sometimes there is a change within the same scene to create some feeling of the fractured mental state of Nixon on the night he decides to resign.

Sometimes the shifts in other movies deal with choices of focal lengths -- "Prince of the City", for example, either goes from wide-angles to long lenses or the reverse as the story goes. Lumet often does this in his movie, restrict the focal lengths to certain sections -- for example, in "Murder on the Orient Express" you see the same scenes repeated as flashbacks as Poirot recounts his interviews with the suspects in the train, but the repeated scenes are shot with very wide-angle lenses.

But other subtle effects... well, there are handheld close-ups in Deckard's apartment in "Blade Runner" which don't move much, the subtle movement creates a feeling of tension between the actors, as if something is about to happen.

Of course, color design and lighting often are used symbolically or emotionally, a lens flare at a key moment may suggest unease or enlightenment.

Speaking of eyelines, you'll note that in "Silence of the Lambs" many of the key dialogue scenes between Hannibal Lector and Clariss Starling in the prison have the actors in single close-ups almost staring right into the lens rather than off to one side, creating a disturbing feeling that you are looking into their souls (or that Lector is looking into Starling's soul at least...)

Another example is "Kiss of the Spider Woman" where the director tried to shoot the two main characters in separate shots all the time, saving shots where the two are in the same frame together for later as their connection to each other develops. So shooting someone "clean", unconnected visually to the person that they are talking to, can have the effect of symbolizing their lack of connection, their distance.
 
thank you David.
Quick random question, how much light do CTB/CTO take off of a light? I can't find the info anywhere, let's say a full CTB/CTO?
 
Peter Dmitriyev said:
thank you David.
Quick random question, how much light do CTB/CTO take off of a light? I can't find the info anywhere, let's say a full CTB/CTO?
Click to expand...

Basically the same as 80A (blue) and 85B (orange) camera filters, nearly 2-stops for Full Blue and 2/3-stop for Full Orange... But the gel manufacturers can supply you with actual transmission figures.
 
Have you ever tried the Tiffen 80C, 80D Hot Mirror's? They don't go all the way to 3400, but Tiffen claims only 1 stop loss for the 80C (3800), and 1/3 for the D.

Cheers.
 
David, on the topic of screen direction and crossing the line. Have you found doing this creates problems with the lighting setup. Not just that the lights may have to be moved because they now may be in shot but because it may look flat or bad from the reverse angle. Assuming you have time to re-light for it, do you find it's a compromise between what looks good and matching the original screen direction lighting? These have been of observations.
 
Noel Sterrett said:
Have you ever tried the Tiffen 80C, 80D Hot Mirror's? They don't go all the way to 3400, but Tiffen claims only 1 stop loss for the 80C (3800), and 1/3 for the D.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

I've used the 80C and the loss is 1 stop, but never the 80C hot mirror. Would the hot mirror component really not lose any light, making the 80C HM equal in stop loss to the 80C?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top