Camera Work: Shots and Scenes (page 2)

Aye, there's the rub. There's no way to define it beyond noting that the "right" camera angle delivers exactly what the audience wants and/or needs to see at any given moment. In story and music videos, the right angle also delivers the emotional message--the feeling--that the videomaker wants to convey. An instinct for exactly the "right" angle is an essential talent for professional directors.

But if the subtleties of choosing angles are elusive, the basics are plain common sense. At each moment in your program, just ask yourself what is the most important thing to convey to the audience.

To see how this works, look at figure 2, a purposely corny and overwrought scene in which the emotions on the actors' faces are obviously the most important information. In the first version (figure 2a) every camera angle is wrong. Marsha drops her bomb on John in a distant and uninvolving 3/4-length two- shot. Then it gets worse: for John's anguished reaction, we cut to a long shot in which we can't see either actor's expression. Then, for Marsha's emotional explanation, all we get to see is the back of her head.

The alternate version in figure 2b (though hardly Academy Award material) is a big improvement, in several ways:

• Every shot is close enough to clearly show the actor's emotions.
• Each shot features the face of the actor whose emotions you want to see at that particular moment.
• Intimately close to begin with, the shots get progressively closer, to help intensify the drama.

The next reason for changing angles is to provide visual variety. Looking at the same image for too long is not only boring, but also tiring to the eye.

To see this, go back to figure 1 and study figure 1c. Like figure 1b, it changes angles from shot to shot. But it does so only by repeating the same two setups, a technique used by directors forced to shoot quickly and cheaply. (A "setup," by the way, is a single camera position, including lights, microphones, etc.)

When you compare the figures you'll see that the improvement from 1c to 1b delivers a clear moral: don't get lazy. Do whatever it takes to shoot from varied setups.

And finally, you want to vary camera angles to help control the rhythm and pacing of each scene:

• You control the rhythm by varying the amount of time you allow each shot to remain on the screen.
• You control pace by setting the average amount of time shots stay on the screen. In general, shots in an action sequence will be shorter (though their lengths will vary from shot to shot); while the shots in a lyrical interlude will tend to run longer.

Rhythm and pace are primarily editing issues, of course; but they belong to production too. You must make sure and capture the necessary angles appropriate to the intended style of the sequence for editing. A fistfight with only two or three angles will be difficult keep lively, while a romantic embrace broken into 30 separate shots may be unintentionally funny.

Changing camera angles involves two kinds of operations: choosing a different image and setting up your equipment to record it. Let's start with changing the image.

We said earlier that to do this, you can shift your camcorder's position, height or distance from the subject. We also said that if a change in angle's too small, the resulting edit will make the image "jump" on the screen. To ensure a big enough change in image you should always shift at least two out of the three possibilities typically camera position and subject distance. (You can also change "distance" by zooming to make the subject larger or smaller.)

To see what this means, look at figure 3. In 3a the second shot is identical to the first one, except that the camcorder has moved closer. In 3b the opposite is true: the camera has stayed at the same distance, but moved around to capture the actor's profile. Both edits are jump cuts because the shift in viewpoint is small enough to let the viewer compare the first and second shots. In 3c, however, both camera position and subject distance change, and the resulting edit looks smooth and unobtrusive.

In choosing which two changes to make, it's perfectly all right to shift camera height instead of lateral position; but it's a good idea to always shift the distance, and hence, the image size. If this sounds a bit confusing, just look at figure 3, whose six pictures are worth far more than the preceding 200 words.

Changing angle always means shifting equipment, so you need to know how to minimize the time and effort required to get a variety of images. The obvious method is to move the camcorder to a completely new setup for each angle. But there are other possibilities.

For instance, you can group several shots from the same setup together, even though they appear at different points in the finished program. By shooting out of sequence like this, you can avoid having to break the setup, shoot from another position, and then rebuild the old setup again. Secondly, you can change image size only (by zooming in or out) as long as you won't be cutting the two shots together. That is, if new setup B will appear between shots A and C, you could make shot A a long shot and shot C a closeup from exactly the same position. (The result would look like figure 3a) By separating the two with a shot from setup B, you avoid a jump cut.

Finally, you can also get varied angles by shooting inserts--cut-ins of small details of the action or cutaways of reaction shots.

So far, we've looked at reasons for varying shots and ways to do so smoothly. Now the question comes up: how strongly should you change the shot angle? As always, it depends. If you study films from the golden age of Hollywood (and they're all over the classic movie cable channels), you'll notice that the changes in angle were mild compared to what we're used to today. (Figure 4a represents a "Hollywood" edit.) For one thing, extreme changes in angles called attention to the edit and that, again, was a big no-no.

For another thing, films back then weren't shown on underachieving TV screens, so there was less reason to punch in to closeups as often. So when you did see Ingrid Bergman's luminous eyes fill the width of a theater screen, the effect was all the more breathtaking.

Nowadays, as you can see from figure 4b, we tolerate and even prefer stronger edits, just as we demand faster pacing and fewer transition effects (dissolves and fades).

Figure 4c represents a shock cut: an angle change that's intended to jolt the audience. In our illustration, shot 4b's position has changed along with the distance; but in extreme cases like this, directors use jump cuts intentionally to heighten the shock even further.

When you should use each style of angle change depends entirely on your subject matter and your intended audience. If you're making an informational video on pension plan options, then angle changes may be the only lively program component you've got. If so, use them exuberantly.

By contrast, if the topic is "Choosing Your Memorial Park," then shock cuts a la "Nightmare on Elm Street" may be just a tad extreme. But however mild or extreme, the typical size of your angle changes will be a strong component of your videomaking style, so you need to be aware of them as you work.

• Digg This!
• del.icio.us
• Technorati
• StumbleUpon
• Reddit