Coverage etc.

[8th Man]

I was just thinking again about how important shooting pleanty of coverage is.
While I edit a sequence for a short on my computer it becomes painfully obvious how much I need to remember to shoot the cut aways while at the location. There's nothing worse than knowing instinctively it's time to cut and having nothing to cut to.
I was reading in a how-to book some interesting advice on what scenes to shoot when.
Usually , I've started with a couple of easy shots at first just to get the day rolling, but in this book, it mentioned that we can sometimes put too much energy in getting the master shots and by the time we get to the important close-ups, our actors are less energetic.
In other word, get the performance when they can perform it best.
This makes sence to me both because it follows simple logic, and because it reminds me that there are priorities in dealing with a scene, and dealing with our actors.
I happen to storyboard every scene in advance to help visually explain a sequence to my camera guy and anyone else, how things should be set up and this does help me to shoot reaction shots and what not, but it often isn't enough given the possibility of changes made at the time of actual shooting. The fact is, when editing, it's as if your making the film all over again and it's so much nicer to have a rich palette to choose from than a few takes that don't overlap well and don't flow.
Do most people here shoot a whole scene from begining to end and then shoot the same scene from another angles in its entirety? I'm assuming most of us here aren't doing multiple cameras simultaneously.

------------------
PRM

[Matt Pacini]

This is such an important issue.
I made this mistake for much of my feature, Lost Tribes, and lived to regret it, big time.

My advice to everyone out there who doesn't know already is this:
Unless you have tons of time, and tons of money for film stock, DO NOT SHOOT MASTER SHOTS!

That is, unless you actually want your footage to look like a filmed stage production, because that's what's going to happen.

Here is what happened to me:

I got some great locations for my film; a local Dam, great restaurants, a Courthouse, and other cool places, all for free.
Problem is, I never had that much time, and/or I had to shoot while they were open for business, which meant lots of delays while people walked through the area I was shooting, etc.

I tried to shoot "by the book". That is, shoot a master shot(s) of the scene, then go in for medium shots, then close ups, etc.
Well, the reality was, that by the time I hung lights, got everthing and everyone arranged, and got through one master, I was usually out of time, or close to out of time.
I would get maybe a couple two shots, or a close-up or two of just bits of dialog, and they would be kicking me out of the location.

A real nightmare. So when I got to editing (still thinking that the Master shot was the most important thing, like the tell you in all the books), it was just impossible to edit.
Not only is the pacing off, and you can't do anything about it, but you have to match continuity to everyone's movements in the scene, which is just impossible most of the time. And even when it's not, you end up cutting not necessarily where the best cut is, for the timing and pacing of the action.

So now, I never, ever shoot a master. The
master shot is highly overrated. It's the most boring way to shoot a scene, and like I said, it is like watching a play.
The audience loses interest, really quick.
So shoot everything in medium and closeups, THEN IF and only IF you have time left over, shoot longs shots.
My bet is you will seldom use that footage.Even if that's not the case, if you're going to run out of time, or you can't afford the stock to shoot masters/medium/closeups, then if something has to go, it should be the master shot.

Matt Pacini

------------------

[mattias]

i agree. master shots are overrated. they are great as establishing shots, but shooting entire scenes like this? no. and several takes? no.

> but you have to match continuity to everyone's movements in the scene.

no you don't.

> And even when it's not, you end up cutting not necessarily where the best cut is, for the timing and pacing of the action.

it's usually better the other way around. get the timing and the emotions right and the audience will forgive a million line crossings, people looking at the wrong person and even t-shirts changing colors (i've had that). i've never edited a feature, but i've worked as an editor for several years, and this is something you learn with time. it's hard to swallow the imperfections at first, but when you let go and just look at the result, it can often be amazing. by the way, i haven't seen lost tribes (yet), so don't take this as critisism.

/matt