Montage (filmmaking) A montage is "a single pictorial composition made by juxtaposing or superimposing many pictures or designs." In filmmaking, a montage is an editing technique in which shots are juxtaposed in an often fast-paced fashion that compresses time and conveys a lot of information in a relatively short period. Montage is a technique in film editing in which a series of short shots are edited into a sequence to condense space, time, and information. The term has been used in various contexts. It was introduced to cinema primarily by Eisenstein, and early Soviet directors used it as a synonym for creative editing. In France the word "montage" simply denotes cutting. The term "montage sequence" has been used primarily by British and American studios, which refers to the common technique as outlined in this article. The montage sequence is usually used to suggest the passage of time, rather than to create symbolic meaning as it does in Soviet montage theory. From the 1930s to the 1950s, montage sequences often combined numerous short shots with special optical effects (fades, dissolves, split screens, double and triple exposures) dance and music. They were usually assembled by someone other than the director or the editor of the movie. Development: The word montage came to identify . . . specifically the rapid, shock cutting that Eisenstein employed in his films. Its use survives to this day in the specially created 'montage sequences' inserted into Hollywood films to suggest, in a blur of double exposures, the rise to fame of an opera singer or, in brief model shots, the destruction of an airplane, a city or a planet. Two common montage sequence devices of the period are a newspaper one and a railroad one. In the newspaper one, there are multiple shots of newspapers being printed (multiple layered shots of papers moving between rollers, papers coming off the end of the press, a pressman looking at a paper) and headlines zooming on to the screen telling whatever needs to be told. There are two montages like this in It Happened One Night. In a typical railroad montage, the shots include engines racing toward the camera, giant engine wheels moving across the screen, and long trains racing past the camera as destination signs zoom into the screen. Montages cannot create strong emotions. Ergo, they are not used to make the audience feel, rather they make the audience know. Montages inform. This is so true that the message inherent to some montages could be replaced by simple text cards. However, this alternative is far less exciting and stimulating… far less cinematic. Think of Rocky (1976) and the now famous training montage. That whole sequence could be replaced by a title card reading "After weeks of training, Rocky improved his stamina and perfected his boxing skills." This short sentence essentially summarizes that 3-minute montage… but which one do you think is more cinematic? Which one would make you have goose bumps? For this reason, it is often said that characters cannot fall in love during montages. The courtship and romance would be too bland or dull. Love deserves a better treatment.
montage theory, film as an art, jump cuts, tilt shift lens, production manager, Sound and its applications , DSLR's limitations
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Montage (filmmaking)
A montage is "a single pictorial composition made by juxtaposing or superimposing many pictures
or designs." In filmmaking, a montage is an editing technique in which shots are juxtaposed in an
often fast-paced fashion that compresses time and conveys a lot of information in a relatively short
period.
Montage is a technique in film editing in which a series of short shots are edited into a sequence
to condense space, time, and information. The term has been used in various contexts. It was
introduced to cinema primarily by Eisenstein, and early Soviet directors used it as a synonym for
creative editing. In France the word "montage" simply denotes cutting. The term "montage
sequence" has been used primarily by British and American studios, which refers to the common
technique as outlined in this article.
The montage sequence is usually used to suggest the passage of time, rather than to create symbolic
meaning as it does in Soviet montage theory.
From the 1930s to the 1950s, montage sequences often combined numerous short shots with
special optical effects (fades, dissolves, split screens, double and triple exposures) dance and
music. They were usually assembled by someone other than the director or the editor of the movie.
Development: The word montage came to identify . . . specifically the rapid, shock cutting that
Eisenstein employed in his films. Its use survives to this day in the specially created 'montage
sequences' inserted into Hollywood films to suggest, in a blur of double exposures, the rise to fame
of an opera singer or, in brief model shots, the destruction of an airplane, a city or a planet.
Two common montage sequence devices of the period are a newspaper one and a railroad one. In
the newspaper one, there are multiple shots of newspapers being printed (multiple layered shots of
papers moving between rollers, papers coming off the end of the press, a pressman looking at a
paper) and headlines zooming on to the screen telling whatever needs to be told. There are two
montages like this in It Happened One Night. In a typical railroad montage, the shots include
engines racing toward the camera, giant engine wheels moving across the screen, and long trains
racing past the camera as destination signs zoom into the screen.
Montages cannot create strong emotions. Ergo, they are not used to make the audience feel, rather
they make the audience know. Montages inform.
This is so true that the message inherent to some montages could be replaced by simple text cards.
However, this alternative is far less exciting and stimulating… far less cinematic. Think of Rocky
(1976) and the now famous training montage. That whole sequence could be replaced by a title
card reading "After weeks of training, Rocky improved his stamina and perfected his boxing
skills." This short sentence essentially summarizes that 3-minute montage… but which one do you
think is more cinematic? Which one would make you have goose bumps?
For this reason, it is often said that characters cannot fall in love during montages. The courtship
and romance would be too bland or dull. Love deserves a better treatment.
Q. What is a Jump Cut? Justify its deliberate use in a film.
A jump cut is a transition between two shots which appears to "jump" due to the way the shots are
framed in relation to each other.
A jump cut is a cut in film editing in which two sequential shots of the same subject are taken from
camera positions that vary only slightly.
This type of edit causes the subject of the shots to appear to "jump" position in a discontinuous
way. For this reason, jump cuts are considered a violation of classical continuity editing, which
aims to give the appearance of continuous time and space in the story-world by de-emphasizing
editing. Jump cuts, in contrast, draw attention to the constructed nature of the film. Although the
term is sometimes used in a loose way, a cut between two different subjects is not a true jump cut,
no matter how jarring.
George Melies is known as the father of the jump cut as a result of having discovered it
accidentally, and then using it to simulate magical tricks; however, he tried to make the cut appear
seamless to compliment his illusions. Contemporary use of the jump cut stems from its appearance
in the work of Jean-Luc Godard and other filmmakers of the French New Wave of the late 1950s
and 1960s.
Cutting between People
The jump cut effect is even more disconcerting when it happens between two different subjects.
For example, if a shot of one person is followed by a shot of a different person in the same position,
it looks like the first person has transformed into the second one. When cutting between different
people, pay attention to looking room and other positioning elements. For example:
If both people are facing the camera, you have a jump shot.
If one person is facing left and the other is facing right (with appropriate looking room), it
looks like two people talking to each other.
Jump cut used in films:
In Godard's ground-breaking Breathless (1960), for example, he cut together shots of Jean Seberg
riding in a convertible (see right) in such a way that the discontinuity between shots is emphasized
and its jarring effect deliberate. In the screen shots to the right, the first image comes from the very
end of one shot and the second is the very beginning of the next shot — thus emphasizing the gap
in action between the two (when Seberg picked up the mirror).
The jump cut has sometimes served a political use in film. It has been used as an alienating
Brechtian technique that makes the audience aware of the unreality of the film experience, in
order to focus the audience's attention on the political message of a film rather than the drama or
emotion of the narrative — as may be observed in some segments of Sergei Eisenstein's The
Battleship Potemkin.
Jump cut is sometimes used to describe any abrupt and noticeable edit cut in a film. A famous
example of this is found at the end of the "Dawn of Man" sequence in the film 2001: A Space
Odyssey. A primitive ape discovers the use of bones as a weapon and throws the bone into the air.
When the bone reaches its highest point, the shot cuts to that of a similarly-shaped space station in
orbit above the earth. This edit has been described as a jump cut, including on the box of the DVD
release of the film, but it is more correctly a graphic match because the viewer is meant to see the
similarity between the bone and the space craft and not the discontinuity between the two shots.
Jump Cut Applications:
The jump cut was an uncommon technique for television until shows like "" popularized it on the
small screen in the 1990s. It was also famously used in a campaign commercial for US President
Ronald Reagan's successful 1984 reelection bid.
The jump cut is also sometimes utilised, particularly on children's television shows, as a very cheap
special effects device to give the impression that a character or item can suddenly 'appear' in a
scene, usually accompanied by an appropriate sound effect to show the audience that the visual
discontinuity is part of the story. A truly convincing visual effect of this nature would need to
involve some variation of chroma key visual effects or some form of digital or optical compositing,
and so the jump-cut is often used as a 'passable' quick-and-easy and moderately effective
technique.
Jump cutting is also very common in horror movies (and video games) as a way to frighten the
audience into believing that paranormal events are happening (eg. the ghost-girl-walking-down-a-
hallway clip). Movies such as "The Ring" and games like F.E.A.R. use this often.
Other films, such as Cloverfield and the Blair Witch Project, are filmed to look as if they were
filmed by an amateur on a hand-held home video camera, and utilise jump cuts to reinforce this
impression.
Q. Is film a collaborative art? Explain.
Films always have a story to tell, but whose story is it? As its credits show, a film is born out of a
collaboration of many different skills and talents. However, films are also largely attributed to its
director. The auteur theory would say this is rightly so, but what about all the other people that
contributed to the filmmaking process? There is a contradiction, then, between the auteur theory
and the origins of film as a collaborative art.
Hollywood Ending: Film as a Collaborative Art
A large number of people from different fields of expertise come together for the making of a film.
Here, individual skill becomes absorbed in group effort. This group effort is what characterizes
film as a collaborative art, where collaboration is the core of cinematic creativity, and the creativity
of each person influences and contributes to the making of a film. As Woody Allenís Hollywood
Ending shows, such collaboration calls for a great deal of communication.
Perhaps the most important piece of communication takes place between the cinematographer and
the director, where they most share their respective visions for the film in order to come up with
the film they together with the studious big bosses want to create.
In Allenís Hollywood Ending, the cinematographer and the director could not communicate with
one another. The cinematographer was a Chinese man who needed the help of an interpreter who
unfortunately, had studied business and not film. Since the interpreters understanding of what
would be important to the two creative minds was limited, the cinematographer’s creativity then,
could have been lost somewhere in the translation. The director, on the other hand, was
psychosomatically blind, so he could not even see if things were turning out the way he wanted
them to in his mind. He had no way of expressing his vision for the film because he literally didn’t
have the means to do so. Thus, the film flopped partly because of the lack of communication
between the cinematographer and the director, both important people in the creative process.
The director is an important figure in the filmmaking process not just because of his creativity, but
also because he serves as the link between the studio and the film itself. The communication that
happens between him and the film’s producer boils down to just this: the producer believes the
knows what the public wants it, and the director must conform to what the producer says in order
to give the public the film they want.
The relationship between director and producer is the contradiction between the industrial nature
of film and what is known as the auteur theory, where the director is the controlling force in the
structure of a film. The auteur theory seems to disregard the presence of the producer as a
controlling force which, in reality, he is. A line in Hollywood Ending affirms this in saying that
the producer Hal likes to hire and fire, having the power to choose the film’s director: with much
reluctance, he took a chance on Val. Val is given power over the film as well, but it is always
subject to the wishes of the big bosses in New York. Thus, as the director conforms to the studious
demands, he contradicts the very theory that regards him as the driving force of the film.
OR
Wong Kar Wais Chung King Express and Fallen Angels: Film and the Auteur
Theory
It is not uncommon for films to be identified by their directors. As their movies are governed by a
certain style and technique as well as certain themes and philosophies viewers learn to identify
these elements and expect the director’s next film to be just like its predecessor, only different. In
the words of Jean Renoir, air director really makes just one film in the course of his career.
Wong Kar Wai is one director who personifies the auteur theory. Both Chung King Express and
Fallen Angels bring the viewer into the world of Hong Kong, a place that does not have any
concrete roots and suffers from an identity crisis. But more than introduce their viewers to Hong
Kong as a locale, both films depict the loves and lives of individuals lost in the frenetic pace of
Hong Kong life. Thus, they juxtapose Hong Kong’s identity crisis as a nation with the image of
lost, confused characters living in this place that is just as confused as they are.
In both films, the exchange of goods and services serves as the basis of all relationships, instead
of emotional connection. Chung King Express shows how Badge 663 unknowingly benefits from
the relationship with Faye as she breaks into his apartment every day to clean it and fix it up even
if she gets nothing in return. Fallen Angels parallels this with the mutual relationship between the
assassin and his agent: she fixes everything he needs and all he has to do is show up and gun people
down, while he fulfills all her sexual fantasies even in his absence. In none of these instances does
a relationship form out of love at first sight or anything other than economics. Thus, this exchange
of goods and services proves to be the binding force between individuals, where only one person,
no matter how absent he or she is, can fulfill the other person’s needs and desires.
Film is a collaborative art, and this is a reality that is most recognized by the people involved in
the filmmaking process itself. These people would be the first to contest the auteur theory and its
notion that the director is the controlling force of a film. They know that the director always takes
his orders from the studio and the film’s producers, and he must make a balancing act out of
pleasing the studios and satisfying his creative urges.
Among all the people involved in the filmmaking process, viewers tend to identify most with the
actors because they are the film’s most visible personalities. However, viewers recognize the
artificiality and limitations of the roles actors play when they see that these roles cannot connect
films in the same way that a director’s worldview or philosophy consistently characterizes his
films. In the long run, the recognition of patterns embedded in a directors films allows viewers to
begin identifying films with the director rather than the actor. The auteur theory, then, is correct in
saying the director is the controlling force of the films creative aspect, as he has the power to
express his views through film. It is important to note though, that he is not the controlling force
of the entire film.
The challenge for the viewers, then, is to realize that although a film may convey the director’s
personality and life philosophies, he is not the only one responsible for the making of a film. A
whole lot of people are involved in it, and most of the time they don’t get the credit they deserve.
Film is and will always be a collaborative art, an art the director simply uses to express certain
ideas he has of the world around him.
OR
Film is a collaborative art, and this is a reality that is most recognized by the people involved in
the filmmaking process itself. These people would be the first to contest the auteur theory and its
notion that the director is the controlling force of a film. They know that the director always takes
his orders from the studio and the film’s producers, and he must make a balancing act out of
pleasing the studios and satisfying his creative urges.
Among all the people involved in the filmmaking process, viewers tend to identify most with the
actors because they are the film’s most visible personalities. However, viewers recognize the
artificiality and limitations of the roles actors play when they see that these roles cannot connect
films in the same way that a director’s worldview or philosophy consistently characterizes his
films. In the long run, the recognition of patterns embedded in a directors films allows viewers to
begin identifying films with the director rather than the actor. The auteur theory, then, is correct in
saying the director is the controlling force of the films creative aspect, as he has the power to
express his views through film. It is important to note though, that he is not the controlling force
of the entire film.
The challenge for the viewers, then, is to realize that although a film may convey the director’s
personality and life philosophies, he is not the only one responsible for the making of a film. A
whole lot of people are involved in it, and most of the time they don’t get the credit they deserve.
Film is and will always be a collaborative art, an art the director simply uses to express certain
ideas he has of the world around him.
The issue of films authorship, then, is all a question of perspective.
OR
“Filmmaking in the real world is collaborative”. “This business is time-sensitive. There is always
the pressure of the clock. Filmmaking is so expensive, and there are so many unknowns and
variables, so there has to be a system to cope with that. And the reality is that a camera crew works
most efficiently with an operator. The work of the director of photography is wide-ranging. He or
she is burdened with thinking and planning ahead. An operator makes that possible.”
Operating a camera gives students insight into all aspects of filmmaking. “You get to learn an
enormous amount about directing, for example, by being a camera operator”. You can see what
works and what doesn’t. You get to know what the director is envisioning. You become privy
(hidden) to many of the conversations between the director and the actors, and you will be able to
talk performance with the director, and to participate in the visual storytelling.”
Camera operating provides film students with an unparalleled opportunity to learn, regardless of
which role they hope to play on a film crew.
“A camera operator also sees how the cinematographer’s choices affect the movie,” he says.
“Creatively, it’s the best job on the set, because you are responding instinctively. The dolly is a
great platform from which to observe what is happening across all departments. Communicating
with all these departments is a requirement of the job. You get to have an impact on all the factors
involved in creating the shot and the movie.”
We also spoke with cinematography instructors at top film schools. They all agree that it is
important to train future cinematographers how to collaborate with operators.
“Collaboration is the name of the game,” says Judy Irola, ASC, head of the cinematography
faculty at USC. “We would be irresponsible to teach that anyone can make a top-quality movie on
their own. This fall, we are starting a revised graduate curriculum that brings together all five
disciplines from day one. We are making stronger connections with the USC writing, animation,
theater and music programs, for example.”
Bill MacDonald has been teaching cinematography at UCLA for more than 20 years. “Students
come to us sometimes with an auteur sensibility, because that’s what they read about in the popular
press,” he says. “They read reviews that talk about Steven Spielberg lighting scenes when in reality
he collaborated with Janusz Kaminski, the cinematographer who shot his last 11 films, and Mitch
Dubin, a master camera operator. They are told that all you need is a camera and an iMac to make
great films. They soon discover they can’t do it all by themselves.
“Teaching them to work with each other is absolutely a fundamental principle of our approach,”
says MacDonald. “We’re building a collaborative environment that requires well-defined, clearly
articulated visions. Generally speaking, filmmaking is maybe the most collaborative environment
ever created by humanity to create art. To make a certain kind of film, you need to know how to
get others on the same page. Our focus is on making very individually-driven and passionate work,
but in an incredibly collaborative environment.”
Bill Dill, ASC is head of cinematography at Chapman University. “Any complex undertaking
requires a group of skills that rarely resides in a single person,” he says. “In addition to that, the
advantage of the collaborative process is that you have lots of great ideas coming from a number
of different directions. Filmmaking has always been a group endeavor. Quality art tends to come
from a concentrated effort. It’s an intense experience that comes from many minds feeding into
the creation of the end result. That is much more of a determining factor of how we will make
movies than mere mechanics.
“Technology has never been the determining factor in human creativity,” says Dill. “That’s a naive
attitude. Smart directors don’t believe that hype. They are interested in making the best films they
can by working with other people who share their vision. The people who do that do very well in
their careers.”
Stephen Lighthill, ASC is the Senior Filmmaker in Residence, Cinematography, at the American
Film Institute. “It’s great that people can shoot little movies and put them on YouTube,” he says.
“However, we teach traditional team filmmaking. Fellows in our two-year MFA program shoot
five films in collaboration with directors, producers, editors, production designers, writers and
camera crews, often including operators. The very essence of what we teach is collaboration. The
crafts we are teaching take second place to learning how to work in a team environment. We see
having a camera operator on the crew as another opportunity for fellows in our program to learn
effective communication in narrative filmmaking production.
“We also find that cinematographers can often concentrate more effectively on the range of
production challenges while working with operators,” he adds. “They have more time and energy
to collaborate with their gaffer, key grip, AD and director.”
OR
Filmmaking is NOT a collaborative art. It is a collaborative PROCESS. Those are two totally different things.
This goes across the board with any artistic endeavor, be it music, painting, or design. Let’s use
painting as the example. One person can stretch the canvas, another person can mix the paint, but
when it comes time, only one person can hold the brush—or it will look like it. If more than one
person holds the brush the painting will lack unity and the perspective will be off. Then, of course,
you can have another person sell to painting to a gallery, and yet another person at that gallery
selling it to the consumer.
Sure, filmmaking by committee exists, and I have no problem with filmmaking by committee. But
people might confuse filmmaking by committee as a collaborate art—it isn’t. It’s a collaborative
process. There always needs to be one person in charge—the head honcho—whether the director,
a producer, or a studio executive. If you have too many people making decisions, the end result
will be chaotic and lack any kind of unity or focus. Which sometimes happens, and we’ve all seen
examples of the outcome.
When you’re about to make a film it’s very important to define who is the leader. If you are merely
a director who is translating what the producer tells you to do, you need to have a clear
understanding of what that means. And so does the producer. You don’t want to wait until half
way into your shoot and realize you’ve done it all wrong, that he’s in charge and you aren’t.
Once I was working with a make-up person who wouldn’t create the “faces” and looks I wanted,
but rather, wanted to do it his way. He said, “but this is my art.” I replied, “No it isn’t. This is
about PROCESS. It is your job to use your abilities to translate what I want, because this is my
vision, my perspective.” If we had our actors wear the make-up he wanted them to wear, the movie
would’ve looked like a cartoon. He had been hired based on his technical skill, not his taste.
On the flip-side, there are artists I’ve worked with that have an absolutely keen eye. When we
filmed THE CASSEROLE CLUB, I asked Jane Wiedlin to be my second set of eyes. I value her
opinion as an artist, and in this case, we had reached an aesthetic understanding of what we were
creating, so I knew that if she had any ideas, they would be worth considering. And they were.
Still, she knew I was in charge, but I gave her the freedom to speak up if she had an idea that could
make the scene brighter, or point out something that didn’t seem right, or props that weren’t
historically accurate.
As a director, if you can define your vision and share those definitions with people, chances are
that when you set them free inside that spectrum, they will create something you love. I usually
like to make a list of rules that apply to every aspect of the process. I make a “look book” that
illustrates what we’re going for. If you tell someone to make it “exotic” or “gothic” and not much
else, they could come back with something appropriate for a Tim Burton movie, or at the other
end of the spectrum, a look suitable for Twilight. Neither of which may be what you want. But,
it isn’t their fault. It’s yours. Because you didn’t communicate effectively. Remember: the
meaning of communication is what the other person hears—not what you say.
It’s very important to illustrate verbally, visually, and in great detail, what it is you’re creating so
that everyone’s on the same page. Then, the collaborative process can be an enjoyable one. But,
remember, there must always be one person in charge and it’s important to define who that is right
at the start.
Q. Describe the output of the Tilt Shift lens.
A Tilt & Shift lens is a special kind of lens that enables you to change the sharpness (tilt) of a
subject and to straighten warped vertical lines (shift right ). Tilt Shift photography involves taking
photos with a type of specialty lens which allows you to control your plane of focus.
Lenses are made for 35mm DSLR and film cameras (Canon and Nikon) as well as medium format
cameras. You typically see tilt-shift photography for things like
By adjusting the tilt mechanism ensures that the whole subject remains in focus or only a certain
part of the subject. The shift mechanism can draw distorted vertical lines right. This distortion is
caused by the angle from which is photographed and is most common in wide-angle lenses. By
using the shift mechanism you change the way the image is perceived on the sensor, ensuring that
vertical line are truly vertical.
By using both the tilt and shift mechanism, you have complete control over vertical lines and field
of depth.
Tilt & Shift lenses are popular with food photography and architectural photography where it is
necessary to precisely control the plane of focus (so that a whole plate of food is in focus) or correct
converging lines (so that buildings appear geometrically correct), but also with product
photographers who want to have complete control of field of depth.
More recently photographers have been using it with great success for interesting portrait
photography, and tilt-shift photography is gaining in popularity.
When using it with portraits it helps create almost three dimensional images helping your subject
pop out of the photo. At times it also grabs the viewers’ attention as being unexplainably different.
A tilt-shift lens can perform two different actions: it can tilt, and it can shift. The following two
images show each function, and how it affects the same image.
1. Miniature Faking: It is a technique that employs the use of tilt-shift photography.
Miniature Faking photography is an interesting photography technique that photographers
'transform' the actual scene into a 'toy-like' scene. The image captured is made to look like a
miniature model scale setting, where every subject is minified.
Miniature Faking is either achieved by using tilt-shift lens or using image-editing software to
digitally modify the images, which is popularly known as Fake Tilt-Shift.
One result tilt can have on an image is creating the appearance that everything is miniature! This
effect is most obvious in city shots, and shots taken from above, like the following.
2. Correcting converging lines: Use of the shift function to correct the converging lines in the
building. When you’re taking a photo of a building from the ground up lines converge. That means
that they appear closer together at the top. By using the shift function of the lens you will be able
to effectively straighten out the building. While not perfect, the lines appear much more vertical.
3. Portraits: The examples above are more landscape images than portraits, but this lens can also
be used effectively for closer portrait photography. Notice the tilted plane of focus in the next
image. You can think about the plane of focus sloping down into the photo. Their eyes are in focus,
and the bottom of the trees behind them are in focus. Just connect that plane and you’ll see that tilt
effect.
Controlling the plane of focus like this can be useful when you want to draw in other graphic
elements in a scene, bringing them together in tight focus with the subject. The image below is a
good example of this. The couple is in focus as well as the strong graphic element of the repeating
red pillars.
Tilt is definitely the function anyone could use the most in order to isolate subjects.
4. Selective focus: Selective focus can be used to direct the viewer's attention to a small part of the
image while de-emphasizing other parts.
With tilt, the effect is different from that obtained by using a large f-number without tilt. With a
regular camera, the PoF (plane of focus) and the DoF (depth of field) are perpendicular to the line
of sight; with tilt, the PoF can be almost parallel to the line of sight, and the DoF can be very
narrow but extend to infinity. Thus parts of a scene at greatly different distances from the camera
can be rendered sharp, and selective focus can be given to different parts of a scene at the same
distance from the camera.
With tilt, the depth of field is wedge shaped. As noted above under Tilt, using a large amount of
tilt and a small f-number gives a small angular DoF. This can be useful if the objective is to provide
selective focus to different objects at essentially the same distance from the camera. Because the
tilt also affects the position of the PoF, it may not be possible to use a large amount of tilt and have
the PoF pass through all desired points. This may not be a problem if only one point is to be sharp;
for example, if it is desired to emphasize one building in a row of buildings, the tilt and f-number
can be used to control the width of the sharp area, and the focus used to determine which building
is sharp. But if it is desired to have two or more points sharp (for example, two people at different
distances from the camera), the PoF must include both points, and it usually is not possible to
achieve this while also using the tilt to control DoF.
Q. What is the role of the production manager?
Production Managers are responsible for all the organisational aspects of production scheduling
and budgeting. They work across all genres in television production including documentaries,
current affairs, light entertainment or children's programmes, situation comedies, soaps or serial
dramas, or one off dramas.
They assist the Producer to interpret and realise the Director’s vision, financially and logistically.
They prepare production schedules or script breakdowns to confirm that sufficient time has been
allocated for all aspects of the production process, and to check the Producer’s budget and
schedule.
On drama productions they use special software, such as Movie Magic, to provide logistical
breakdowns of scripts, detailing all aspects of production requirements, such as: how many and
which actors are needed on which days; what locations are required each day; and crewing
requirements.
The Production Manager is the key person in the production department. They report directly to
Producers. They work closely with all other heads of department to ensure that productions run
smoothly, meet deadlines, and stay within budgets. Throughout shooting, they monitor schedules
and budgets, and prepare daily report sheets for Producers, detailing all aspects of each day's shoot.
During pre-production and shooting, they deal with any unexpected circumstances and prepare
workable alternative plans. They oversee all aspects of the day-to-day running of shoots, from
contract preparation to all Health and Safety requirements, and work closely with members of all
other production departments, Actors, and other contributors.
On drama productions, they oversee the 1st Assistant Director’s (1st ADs) preparation of daily
call sheets for actors and crew members. They must ensure that all cast and crew members'
conditions of work are in compliance with the relevant local agreements and regulations.
Sound in Filmmaking
“Sound” refers to everything we hear in a movie — words, sound effects, and music. Sound is used
in film to heighten a mood, provide us with information about the location of a scene, advance the
plot, and tell us about the characters in the story.
There are two categories of sound in film: Diegetic and Non-Diegetic.
Diegetic Sound refers to all those audio elements that come from sources inside the world we see
on the screen, including dialogue, doors slamming, footsteps, etc.
Non-Diegetic Sound refers to all those audio elements that come from outside of the fictional
world we see on screen, including the musical score and sound effects like the screeches in the
shower scene in Psycho.
How do sound effects help to shape a film?
Sound effects can be used to add mood or atmosphere to a film by creating a soundscape that
accents or adds another layer of meaning to the images on the screen. Pitch, tempo, and volume
may be altered to indicate how the filmmaker expects the audience to respond to a given noise.
For instance, high-pitched sounds, including screams or squealing tires, help to create a sense of
anxiety, while low-pitched sounds, including the sounds of waves or the swinging of a door, can
be used to create a sense of calm or mystery.
Perhaps the most interesting use of sound in a movie is the very absence of it: silence. At key
points in a film, directors may use silence in much the same way that they would use a freeze
frame. Both tend to arrest the audience’s attention to highlight some action or change in story
direction. Silence can be used to build up a scene’s intensity or to foreshadow impending doom.
In recent years, special sound effects have been added to movies in order to heighten the film
experience. Many of these sound effects, including explosions, phaser blasts, wind, and animal
sounds are drawn from computer sound effects libraries and are added to a film after the movie
has been shot. Besides creating louder and more dramatic movies, these effects have tended to
draw more attention to movie sound. With advancements in surround sound, sound effects have
developed a more “directional” element, appearing to come from a specific place or direction. This
directional quality of sound (alongside elements such as echoes) enhances a three-dimensional
sense of space in the movie.
Examples:
a) Simulating Reality:
Scene: In a western barroom fight our hero is hit over the head with a whiskey bottle.
The bottle is fake. It becomes real with the addition of an actual glass bottle crash from the sound
editors library. In gun battles the weapon actually is actually loaded with blanks and what is
called quarter loads which means one-fourth of normal amount of gunpowder contained in a real
bullet. The actual sound is just slightly louder than a cap pistol until the sound editor has completed
work.
You see it - you hear it - you must believe it!
b) Creating illusion:
Scene: A safari makes it through the jungle.
The sound editor cuts a lion roar. Nor has he placed a lion in the film where none exists but he
has also placed the safari in danger.
Scene: A woman is sitting in her living room. The door opens and her husband walks into the
room.
With the addition of a few sound effects, it is possible to inform the audience that he has driven
up to the house, parked his car, walked to the door, and used his key to unlock the door. None of
this was shot. It was an illusion created with effects.
c) Mood:
Scene: A leading lady awakens in the morning snuggled in her bed.
The sound of a distant train whistle make is a lonesome scene.
Replace the train whistle with the sound of kids playing outside, and the audience perceives
an entirely different emotion
Scene: The leading man drives up to a house.
As he parks, we hear the sound of a small dog yapping. No particular danger is perceived.
Inside is probably a child or an old lady.
Change the small dog yapping to the sound of a vicious Doberman, and the mood is again
changed.
The sound effect is not only a mechanical tool (e. g., fire a gun, cut a shot), it can also be employed
creatively and artistically.
How does music help to shape a film?
If we step back and think about it, music is one of the most peculiar conventions in movies. No
one questions that music should be a part of movies because we’ve all grown used to the idea that,
in a movie, when two people kiss, we should hear music in the background. Or when the platoon
attacks the beach, a symphony should provide the inspiration behind their assault. Of course, no
one has a soundtrack accompanying their real lives. But in movies we not only accept this
convention, we demand it.
Music can be used for a number of effects in a movie. The most obvious way music scores are
used is to guide the emotional response of the audience. They provide clues, or, in most cases,
huge signposts, that tell audiences how the filmmaker wants them to react to a given scene. Some
directors play against our expectations and use music in ways we might not expect.
Stanley Kubrick shocked audiences when he used “Singin’ in the Rain” as the backdrop to a
horrible rape scene in A Clockwork Orange (1971).
Music can also provide an overture for a movie when it’s used as the backdrop for the opening
credits. The brassy theme music composed by John Williams for Star Wars is one famous and
often-parodied example.
In some instances, directors use music to foreshadow upcoming events. In horror movies, for
example, the score is often used to build up tension and suspense just before the monster attacks
one of its victims.
Finally, music can be used to shape the ethnic or cultural context of a film.
How does the spoken word help to shape a film?
In addition to giving voice to the characters in a movie, two of the more interesting ways the
spoken word can shape a movie are through voice-overs and by providing subtext to a scene.
Voice-overs are typically used in documentary films, although they occasionally turn up in fiction
films such as the original Blade Runner (1982), to provide background to a story or to help move
a story from one set of events to another.
Used well, voice-overs can be unobtrusive. Used poorly, voice-overs can often seem like “the
voice of god”, bringing forth wisdom audiences are supposed to accept unquestioningly. For this
reason, some filmmakers refuse to use voice-overs in their films to let audiences have more
freedom in determining what the meaning of the film is.
We all know from our own personal conversations that there is often a subtext to the words we
hear. Subtext means there is an implicit meaning standing behind the language we actually hear.
In film, actors use this element of language to shape a scene without actually saying what they
mean.
Similarly, some actors are known for their distinctive voices which have helped define the
characters they play. Marilyn Monroe is remembered for her high-pitched breathy voice, which
gave a slightly ditzy feel to many of her characters, while John Malkovich has a distant, aloof, and
direct manner of speech which helps to give a sinister edge to many of his best on-screen
performances.
The function of sound effects is three-fold:
To simulate reality.
To add or create something off scene that is not really there.
To help the director create a mood.
Simulating Reality
The simulation of reality can be something as small but distinctive as the sound of a door opening
and closing on the Starship Enterprise, to the extremely complex creation of a language for the
Star Wars series' Ewoks.
Sometimes the reality that sound creates is so compelling that even though it contradicts what we
know to be scientifically true, we believe it anyway. Though we know, for example, that because
space is a vacuum sound cannot travel in it, we are still utterly compelled by the sounds of
intergalactic battle or just spaceships traveling at warp speed in nearly every space opera produced
since the creation of Buck Rogers in the 1930s. And gunshots never sound as satisfyingly long or
loud in real life as they do in Dolby with the bass cranked way up. Finally, in many of those great
Hollywood musicals, the best songs are not actually performed by Audrey Hepburn or Debbie
Reynolds, but by unsung singers like Marnie Nixon, whose faces and figures don't look as
appealing on-screen as those of the major stars.
Adding or Creating Something That Is Not Really There
You are the director of Victor/Victoria (Great Britain, 1982), and you want more emphatic
applause for Julie Andrews's big number than the actual audience of extras was able to provide.
This is the kind of sound effect provided by the Foley artist, who creates sound tracks that amplify
or add sounds not easily available as ambient noise. Sometimes sounds can be added to a film from
a "library" of sound effects. But for more particular and idiosyncratic sounds, the Foley artist
creates effects on a Foley stage, which is simply a production room in which everything is a sound
prop, including the floor, which can provide different kinds of footfalls. The film rolls on-screen,
and the Foley artist matches the kind of sound the filmmaker wants to the image projected:
submarines submerging, horses clopping into the distance, echo effects, crowds roaring, and so
on.
Creating a Mood
Test your ability to create a mood. Here is the shot: A woman gets into a bath or shower. Match
the movie to the background music we hear.
Music:
A. Driving, shrill string music leading up to discordant screeches.
B. Slow, stately full-orchestra music, filled with pomp.
C. Five-piece jazz combo playing something with a slow, bluesy beat.
Movies: Cleopatra, Psycho & The Happy Hooker.
Obviously, the erotic Cinemax soundtrack is meant to titillate, while the Cleopatra (1963) music
is supposed to impress you with the royal pomp of the queen's most elementary activities, and
Psycho (1960) sound effects are supposed to set you on edge from the very beginning of the famous
shower scene. Of course the photography in these films is very different, but the mood of each is
still dependent on the musical accompaniment. The same music, depending on context, can
actually mean different things. The terrifyingly screechy violins in Psycho have a more comic
effect when used as background music when a character stabs Mel Brooks with a newspaper while
he is showering in High Anxiety (1977).
Besides setting the mood, sound can introduce important elements of the plot, or even intentionally
confuse or mislead audiences. Because nothing about the voice of the transvestite Dil in The Crying
Game (1992) is masculine, and because she sings the title song in a feminine manner, we assume
the character is female until a full frontal shot informs us otherwise.
Because he describes himself as a nebbishy, nerdy character while narrating the story of The Usual
Suspects (1995), we don't know that the small-time hood Verbal is actually the arch-criminal
Keyser Soze. Sunset Boulevard (1950) is narrated by the film's hero. However, we don't learn until
the end of the film that he is telling the story from beyond the grave. Narration can reflect a film's
meaning in other ways. For example, documentaries have traditionally been narrated by male
voices, suggesting that history is essentially a masculine domain.
LIMITATIONS OF DSLRS
While the benefit of a large variety of lenses is tempting, there are still limitations to using DSLRs.
More specifically there are three on my list: maximum record time, manual zoom control, and
lack of good audio recording control.
While the benefit of a large variety of lenses is tempting, there are still limitations to using DSLRs.
More specifically there are three on my list: maximum record time, manual zoom control, and lack
of good audio recording control. Starting with record time, you can get up to about 29 minutes at
the highest 1080 resolution, depending on the DSLR manufacturer. This is a self-imposed DSLR
limitation which could take another blog just to get into the reasons why! Traditional HD
camcorders don’t have this limitation, with record times of about 2 hours, depending on the HD
record quality, and the media storage used. For example, my 1- year old Sony 3D TD10 camcorder
can record over 2 hours continuously at the highest resolution on a 32GB SDHC card! The same
record time can be had for all other standard HD camcorders as well. Zooming for all of us
camcorder enthusiasts is a feature we take for granted. It’s there when we need it, but always
automatic, usually with variable control on speed. Unfortunately, when shooting with a DSLR,
only manual zoom control is generally available. Many of you might be able to zoom manually,
but it does take considerable practice before that zoom is smooth with no stop and start bumps.
Manual audio control is a must-have feature for traditional videographers. However on many
DSLRS that feature is either not available, or it’s got clumsy controls. Better DSLRs offer a
stepped audio setting that achieves better results.
OR
1. No Viewfinder: When in video mode you need to use your LCD screen instead of viewfinder,
(viewfinder image will be blocked since the mirror is up). This could be tricky; bright light
conditions often make it very difficult to see the LCD clearly.
2. Shaky Footage: The compact size of the DSLR could also work against it, also it does not
feature a handle so unless you use some sort of stabilization solution, videos shot with DSLRs will
end up as shaky footage. Use a tripod, shoulder stabilizer or even better a steady cam rig for better
results. These rigs average around $500 with the higher quality ones around $2,000. You can do
what some people do and build your own rig or order the components separately and assemble
it yourself.
3. No Auto Focus: In video mode there is no auto focus available, DSLRs require you to manually
pull focus; for people who are accustomed to auto focus video cameras this could be a big turn off.
4. Poor Audio Quality: The audio recording qualities of DSLRs are pathetic and it is completely
unusable for any professional use. If you need decent audio quality along with your high definition
video you need to invest in some independent audio solutions to capture audio. Because the DSLR
has poor audio capabilities, what most people do is buy a portable audio recorder to capture
audio separately from the camera. You plug your mic in use that to digitally record your audio.
That’s a great way to get high quality audio, the problem is, since the video and audio are not
being recorded by the same device, you’ll need to sync these in post. You can do this manually
using the a clapper or snap etc. but there is a much simpler solution which is a program called
plural eyes. Plural eyes will automatically sync your video to your audio in your timeline. It
does this by lining up the separately recorded audio waveforms to the audio waveforms
recorded by your low quality built in camera mic. It’s not always perfect but if you’re getting
decent audio from your camera then it works quickly and effectively. There’s also a sister
program called dual eyes that will automatically sync all the video files to all the audio files
outside of your editing application.
5. Very Short Clip Limits: DSLRs have very short clip limits you will only be able to shoot
somewhere about 15 minutes or so before your camera heats up, shooting times vary depending
on your camera make and model.
6. Lens use: Most DSLRs don't tend to use prime lenses, as prime lenses tend to be really
expensive. But filmmaking pretty much needs prime lenses. Yes, you can work around it, but
prime is better.
7. DSLRs are built for still photography and only recently started offering video. This means
that they have crude audio capabilities. No manual audio gain controls without hacks or patches,
no xlr (high quality audio input), the built in mic is too low quality to use, also it’s small and
without a handle so it’s difficult to operate smoothly and it doesn’t have a controlled zoom.
DTH as a medium to release films
In reality, there are two types of independent or low budget filmmakers. There's either a) the type
who lurk in anonymity because they are so indie that they don't even tap into the small audience
of “mainstream” independent filmmakers or b) mainstream independent filmmakers waiting for
their big break. In this scenario, the common denominator is that they're both waiting for the man
to make their next move.
Twenty years ago, this would have been an acceptable end to the story. We'd all throw up our
hands and admit that life is tough. But there's no excuse now. I'm referring to the revolution of
digital distribution. While it's known for catering to the generation of “right here, right now,” it is
actually an extraordinary opportunity for independent filmmakers. It puts a considerable amount
of control back into the hands of the filmmakers because as you well know by now, making your
film is really only half the journey. Is a great film really great if no one sees it? You can push up
your horn-rimmed glasses and stick up for indie values with the rest of the sub-culture , but we all
know the answer is a resound no.
Advantages:
Money: Traditional distribution is expensive and often doesn't receive a lot of gain. If films do get
picked up, they do so in a small number of theatres, receive too little attention to marketing and
are generally not accessible to a majority of the general public. Taking control with digital
distribution ensures some money back into the independent filmmaker's pocket. Oftentimes, the
money will be vastly more than most filmmakers would make in a small theatrical release.
Range: In limited releases, it's difficult to reach a wide array of audiences. There's no telling that
in these small releases that your film will even find the target audience. Digital distribution
eliminates this worry. By submitting your film online for viewing, you allow your audience to find
you. If you've sufficiently and effectively marketed your film online, your tech saavy audience
will have no trouble finding you online. Between two clicks your film will not only be viewed, but
also shared among their communities.
Keeping up with Technology: It would seem that the internet were a lurking demon in the film
industry. There's a nearly obsessive fear of films leaking online or being spoiled by bloggers.
Digital distribution is a way of fighting back. Online distribution takes a jab at these would-be
pirates by making their services irrelevant and redundant. It recognizes the format the audience
wishes to view films and how – free, in their personal space and whenever it suits them. Digital
distribution is certainly miles away from eliminating piracy but it does pose a valiant threat. Your
audience is certainly busy and you have plenty of competition for their attention, but you can't win
if you're not in the fight.
Disadvantages:
Money: Let's think in realistic terms. Digital distribution might make you money, but it won't make
you much. Filmmakers including documentarian Morgan Spurlock have spoken loudly about how
unprofitable the medium is today, but have also spoken promise about its future delivery. The
method (as an exclusive means of distribution) is still new and untraversed. Audiences are still
having to adapt their mindset of the internet being a free service to paying for online content. For
films especially, it is not popular to pay for a film online when there is so much free content. It
will get there, but it's certainly not there now.
Marketing: Marketing in digital distribution is as, if not more, important than marketing for
traditional distribution. The online world is extremely competitive and, as they say in the biz,
noisy. There are multiple interferences between your film and its viewer related and unrelated—
it's overwhelming to try and consider it all. A strong marketing strategy has to accompany any
digital distribution strategy. In fact, the two should parallel. This doesn't necessarily mean shelling
out the big bucks, but it does mean being creative with your resources (i.e. money and film
content). Your audience will find you, but they have to know to look for you.
Destroying Art: Depending on how loyal you are to the idealized art form of film, digital
distribution can be seen as contributive to the slow death of theater-style viewing. Audiences are
preferring to see films on their computers, on their ipods while they're on the go and to an extent,
on their televisions. If people are willing to pay for films, they aren't willing to pay for the
inconvenience of going out to the theater to do it. Digital distribution plays right into this hand and
exclusive use of it actively condones this behavior. It's not a problem if you're not too attached to
the traditional cinematic experience. If you are, then I suppose it's all down from here and you