An idea for camera placement.

[Jimmy]

Was thinking the other day about how the DP/ Director selects his camera angles for each shot. It's been nagging me for a long time. I figured there just has to be some kind of formula or guideline, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

The standard rule is that you just place your camera so that the audience can see only what you want them to see. Well, that makes perfect sense, of course. But I thought, surely there's another element as well. I mean, you can probably show them everything you want them to see with all kinds of angles.

And, after you've shown something interesting to your audience, they're immediately going to want to see something else about it. And if you don't show it, they'll lose interest.

So, how do you decide what they will want to see, and how they would try to get themselves into position to see it?

Well, here's my notion. I think you should think of yourself as somebody who is standing in the room where the action is taking place, and beside you, there is a KID watching it, too, but he can't see it all clearly, because he's a kid and you have to help him to see it. You have to be the person who SHOWS the kid exactly what's happening so that they "get it" right away without any explanation.

Example: Your main character enters the room - [you'd put the camera at kid height and facing the door, because the "kid" will be looking candidly and openly at everything to begin with.]

Next, your character walks to one side, towards a table, and stops at the table and open a drawer - [you'd put the camera right close alongside the table, at the same height as before, because the "kid" will have approached the character to find out what he's doing].

Next your character searches through the drawer - [you'd put the camera close up behind the character, at kid height, as if it's looking past his arm and peering into the drawer as well, because the "kid" will have approached him totally unselfconciously to see what he's looking for in the drawer.]

Next, your character finds a gun in the drawer, lifts it out, and checks it - [you'd place the camera back a few feet, at the same height but angled up at the character, because the kid will be slightly frightened and be paying much closer attention to the character now].

Then, because the kid's focus of attention will be on the gun, (or the character's face), you keep your camera at the same kid height and track up and in to the gun.

And so on.... sounds extremely simple, I know. BUT at all times you have kept in mind what the kid would want to see, and how he would best position himself to see it.

I chose a "kid" because really, an audience is a very childlike entity. I think that if you play to the kid in the audience you'll never go far wrong. The kid (audience) is your camera - the camera is the kid (audience).

Thoughts?

 

[PT]

Camera placement

Camera placement

Thanks for this topic. Here are some alternatives for comparison:

I've always thought that it made sense for filmmakers to think of themselves as similar to comic-book, or graphic-novel artists. You present a series of pictorial panels with whatever you want the reader to see at each stage. If you storyboard like that, then you can place the camera wherever it gives the desired next panel view.
One thing that is achieved by the storyboarding is the element of cheating. That next panel may need some prop or person shifted from a strictly realistic positioning to one that isn't really in the right place for the new perspective, but the viewer expects it to be there, or the filmmaker wants to include it anyway, such as a wall clock giving a needed time reference.

Some filmmakers might prefer the first method because they like to look over the available views, and not be limited to what they had pre-imagined while storyboarding. But then if you do that you should exploit that method fully by trying many different viewpoints, meaning footwork. Visual cheating can still be done as needed.

So it may be a choice of at least two methods.

And a third might be collaboration, if there is more than yourself visually concerned, such as a DP, cameraperson(s), art director, etc. That would automatically achieve more searching around, and a greater wealth of techniques.

 

[Dan Selakovich]

OK, wow. I was just going to leave this thread alone, but I can't. Since I lecture on camera placement at NAB and film schools, this odd way of selecting shots kind of hurts my heart a bit.

This is too vast a subject to get into on a forum, but camera placement should be, above all else, geared toward the EMOTION of the scene. Not what the you think the audience might want to see. And that starts with your actors, and what they are trying to convey. There are more considerations, but this if first and foremost. You can't move an audience unless they are emotionally connected to the characters, and camera placement has a huge role in that. This is what separates Master directors from hacks. If you think of it in literary terms, do you want to be Hemingway with the Sun Also Rises or "The little engine that could". Most directors now don't get beyond "The little engine that could". You should ask yourself in EVERY set-up "What does this shot MEAN?". If you don't have a good answer, maybe it's not a good placement.

BTW, if you're letting your DP place the camera, you are not directing. He is. Of course you can discuss placement, and he/she can reframe slightly within your lens and placement choice, but ultimately it's the director who should be making these kinds of decisions.

Focal Press has been bugging me for years to write the "Finding the Right Shot" lecture as a book. Maybe I should. Please watch more of the Master Filmmakers like Polanski, Bertolucci, Frankenheimer, Hitchcock, etc. And really STUDY camera placement. Think about why they've put the camera where they have.

Dan
www.DVcameraRigs.com

 

[Kim Welch]

Nyc la

Nyc la

hi Dan, thank you. are you on the east coast or the west coast?

 

[Jimmy]

Thanks for this topic. Here are some alternatives for comparison:

I've always thought that it made sense for filmmakers to think of themselves as similar to comic-book, or graphic-novel artists. You present a series of pictorial panels with whatever you want the reader to see at each stage. If you storyboard like that, then you can place the camera wherever it gives the desired next panel view.

Hi, PT. Funny you should compare graphic novel artists to film directors. Film directors were using various techniques to guide camera-placement long before graphic novels were on the scene, so to speak.

And even plain old old-fashioned comics were very obviously using Hollywood movie camera-placement techniques to guide the drawing of panels. It's always been about showing your audience what you want them to see.

There still remains the question, however, of how you decide that.

It's the same with any form of story-telling. If you're telling a joke about a traveling salesman, you don't digress and start describing the cows in the farmer's field...

One thing that is achieved by the storyboarding is the element of cheating. That next panel may need some prop or person shifted from a strictly realistic positioning to one that isn't really in the right place for the new perspective, but the viewer expects it to be there, or the filmmaker wants to include it anyway, such as a wall clock giving a needed time reference.

Absolutely. There's nothing to stop you including an element in the shot, even in an incongruous position, if it tells the audience something.

And a third might be collaboration, if there is more than yourself visually concerned, such as a DP, cameraperson(s), art director, etc. That would automatically achieve more searching around, and a greater wealth of techniques.

Again, agreed. Trick is to get a DP who thinks the same way as you do.

 

[Jimmy]

This is too vast a subject to get into on a forum, but camera placement should be, above all else, geared toward the EMOTION of the scene. Not what you think the audience might want to see.

And how do you convey EMOTION? By showing your audience exactly what you want them to see, in relation to the previous scene you just showed them.

But in one sense, I agree with you. If you only show what you think the audience wants to see, BUT you do it blandly and literally, you'll make an unengaging film.

But understand that I'm saying two things - you show the audience what you want them to see, AND you show them what they want to see. The trick is in reconciling what they want to see, with what you want them to see.

You mention Hitchcock. Perfect example of what I'm saying.

And yes, you need to consider the underlying EMOTION of the scene, as you've conceived it. But if you've decided what is the EMOTION of the scene, you first must have decided WHOSE emotions are to be engaged. EMOTIONS have to be felt by audiences, not by just by the screenwriter and the actors.

There is a danger in trying to wring an emotion out of your audience by using contrived camera angles. Example: every horror movie in which the killer pops up DIRECTLY in front of the close-up of the running girl.....

My "Camera as Kid" technique uses the mind of the Kid, (the audience) to help me decide what I should fill the frame with so as to satisfy the Kid. I place my camera so that it can "see" what the kid wants to see, in order to match the Kid's demands vis a vis the EMOTION of the scene.

BUT, I take into consideration what information I want the Kid to have, and what I want to withhold from him.

This is what I think film-makers have to nail, right at the start. You MUST think like your audience. You must give them what they want, but you must be the one who decides how they come to want it. And how do you do that? You think like them. Doesn't matter if you think your story is the most exciting thing you've ever read. Or if you think you've got infallible actors. That will all come to nothing unless you are equally as confident in your knowledge of your audience.

You don't think ONLY of the emotion YOU want to convey. You think of the emotion THEY want to feel.....

This is what separates the hacks from the Hemingways.

You should ask yourself in EVERY set-up "What does this shot MEAN?".

Yes, you should ask yourself in EVERY set-up "What does this shot MEAN, to the audience?" Not to the Director, not to the actors, not to the writer, not to the critics... TO THE AUDIENCE.

BTW, if you're letting your DP place the camera, you are not directing. He is. Of course you can discuss placement..

Naturally. Sorry, obviously didn't make that clear. See "DP/Director" - the team.

 

[PT]

Re Jimmy:
"It's always been about showing your audience what you want them to see."

Well, it should be about what you want the audience to see, but the real hacks might decide based on logistics, like "We can put a tripod over here in this clear spot", or "Let's do a lot of swooping crane shots because we've got a crane".

 

[Jimmy]

Well, it should be about what you want the audience to see, but the real hacks might decide based on logistics, like "We can put a tripod over here in this clear spot", or "Let's do a lot of swooping crane shots because we've got a crane".

Yes. I'm sure that happens, too, unfortunately.

Same kind of mentality that says, "We've got access to a great CGI guy. Let's make CGI creatures instead of using actors." (See, "I am Legend").

 

[garychencool]

I've been watching several movies and shows like a lot of us here. What you should always do is understand the shots and why the editor used it, or why the DOP filmed the shot, at this angle, with this movement, with this amount of focus, with this much camera shake, stuff like that.

When the DOP plans a shot, it has to tell something. If it's a useless shot or unnessesary, the shot will probably still be shot, to be one of the several shots the editor has at it's disposal. Also, it must create the mood or setting for the location. For an example, an action scene where a sniper is on a bell tower and soldiers are on the ground shooting at each other. I'd plan our wide shots down to the close ups of guns, faces, fingers on the trigger, etc. with camera shake to create the feel that the warzone is unbalanced, chaotic, and loud.

It would not really work if the scene was shot without any camera shake at all. It's unnatureal because it's a war scene, people are getting shot, grenades are being thrown, it would feel plain and boring it there was no fast cuts or camera shake.

Then there are the useless shots, yet again if it doesn't fit, then it doesn't fit. When was the last time you saw a peaceful flower shot right in the middle of a war scene? Never, unless it's some sort of peace and war montage of some sort. If the shot is irrelevant, then it's irrelevant. Unless it's or a cut away but even those are mostly relevant.

When planning shots, it's always on paper. If the DOP would clone themselves and do all of the camera work they wanted, then other camera operators wouldn't be there. Since they can't, a really good way of communicating with the camera crew is with a storyboard planned with movements, shots, sketches, etc. From there, after being finalized and checked over with the director, the camera operators (often the DOP operates a camera but sometimes the DOP looks at a bunch of monitors of the cameras and oversees all of the cinematography) executes the shots, etc.

As everyone should know, the DOP works closely with the Director and Editor. The DOP often follows the Director around, understanding what the story is about and what is going on in pre-production. Sometimes, the camera shots are not planned the way it should be because the location is different or something like that. A good DOP should be able to overcome those problems and plan camera shots on the spot.

The point is, as the DOP you plan the shots but make sure to follow the story, emotion, directing and the cast, director as it will help you draw the picture the Director has. If you don't know what the audience wants, ask the director. Or you may not have been listenning to what the director has said about the story, or you havent read any of the scripts and screenplays. Remember, you are an audience member too. If you don't know what you want to see, then there's a problem.

 

[Jimmy]

What you should always do is understand the shots and why the editor used it, or why the DOP filmed the shot, at this angle, with this movement, with this amount of focus, with this much camera shake, stuff like that.

Yes, one very good way to learn is by seeing how the pros do it.

When the DOP plans a shot, it has to tell something.

Again, agreed. But a shot can't tell us anything if it can't speak to us in a language (or in an idiom) that we understand. My suggestion was based on the fact that, to impart information to a person, it's helpul if you understand how that person thinks. Since movie audiences tend to think with their "id", ie, their "child", one must phrase one's information so that the audience's "child" responds to it.

After all, we go to the movies to gratify our childlike need for entertainment. A damn good thing, too!

Hence, my "tip", to place the camera with a child's mind.... in mind.... What would the Child want to see? Where would he move to, to see it best? (That's your angle). Where would his gaze rest, and where would it dart around? (That's your dolly/crane/handheld shot). What would loom large in his mind when he saw it? (That's your close-up) What would he want to move away from? (That's your long shot)

I don't think this is incompatible with the established wisdom or conventions of cinematography per se. I think it is simply another way of looking at them - a simple way of expressing them.

[I certainly didn't want to "hurt" anybody's "heart" here...(Yes, I'm looking at you, Dan!)]

The shot ... must create the mood or setting for the location.

I tend to think of it in reverse, Gary. I think the shot must "reflect" the mood of the action. For example, if you're filming a sequence where a sniper and soldiers are engaged in a battle, that situation itself carries its own drama. It can hardly do otherwise! No real-life exchange of gunfire is boring......!! But the camera must find the right angle/placement to best capture that drama to display it the most "easily-readable" way on the screen.

However, it is feasible to film such a dramatic event with a static camera and languid editing. The action and situation can be viewed by the audience just as well, and the requisite emotions can also be felt by the audience just as well. The difference is that the emotion will be less intense, that's all.

Since it is the job of the film-maker to entertain, and since people can be entertained by experiencing intense and exaggerated emotion, then it is generally better to enhance the inherent characteristics of a situation by using camera placement and movements to exaggerate those characteristics, if you want your movie to be remembered.

When was the last time you saw a peaceful flower shot right in the middle of a war scene? Never, unless it's some sort of peace and war montage of some sort.

Not a peaceful flower, but will a peaceful butterfly do? "All Quiet On The Western Front" (the original).

As everyone should know, the DOP works closely with the Director and Editor. The DOP often follows the Director around, understanding what the story is about and what is going on in pre-production. Sometimes, the camera shots are not planned the way it should be because the location is different or something like that. A good DOP should be able to overcome those problems and plan camera shots on the spot.

Exactly.

Remember, you are an audience member too. If you don't know what you want to see, then there's a problem.

Exactly... again.

Thanks for your post, Gary.

 

[Kim Welch]

Workshop with Peter Stein, ASC

Workshop with Peter Stein, ASC

We have a workshop with Peter Stein coming up in October you might be interested in.

http://www.studentfilmmakersforums....in-ASC-Composition-Camera-Actor-Location.html

 

[Jimmy]

We have a workshop you might be interested in.

Haha, that sounds like a subtle way of saying, "You haven't got a clue, Jimmy."

I checked that link and read the preamble, Kim, and let me just say that I'm well-acquainted with the points he outlines in his Program Details. I know them, agree with them, and use them.

I'd also say that my "Kid's view" suggestion does not contradict or ignore any of those well-known rules. As I said before, I am merely making the point, (apparently a novel one), that DOPs and Directors should keep in mind the principle that the audience sees and thinks like a Child, and to act accordingly.

The course is too far away for me to travel. Unless someone wants to pay my air fares from Australia???

 

[PT]

... as the DOP you plan the shots...

Is that always true?

 

[garychencool]

Is that always true?

Well it's the DOP's job, while following what the Director and his/her vision.

I tend to think of it in reverse, Gary. I think the shot must "reflect" the mood of the action. For example, if you're filming a sequence where a sniper and soldiers are engaged in a battle, that situation itself carries its own drama. It can hardly do otherwise! No real-life exchange of gunfire is boring......!! But the camera must find the right angle/placement to best capture that drama to display it the most "easily-readable" way on the screen.

Whops, your actually right because the mood, action is created by the actors, setting, etc, while the camera just shows it to the viewers.

 

[documentarytube]

I think camera man has to be flexible and intelligent, at times you have to go out of your plan according to setting and how the scene is being unfold...