Last Book Read: The Five Cs of Cinematography

Previously, I reviewed Gustavo Mercado's The Filmmaker's Eye: Learning (and Breaking) the Rules of Cinematic Composition and complained about two problems:

• It disagreed, using a tone of certainty, with standard definitions of shots in the language of cinema.
• It overemphasized "breaking the rules" to the point that it became vague.

Well, if that book stepped out of agreed-upon shot definitions ... where exactly did those definitions come from? One key source in beginning cinematography courses has been, for a very long time, the text:

The Five C's of Cinematography: Motion Picture Filming Techniques

Okay, great. But ... is that book good, or just omnipresent?
I'm glad you asked.

Who is it for?
Joseph V. Mascelli's book has long been a seemingly simple guide to practical cinematography. It focused on an approach breaking down the art into five components:

• Camera Angles
• Continuity
• Cutting
• Close-Ups
• Composition

Well ... good. Anything that takes the study of a field often presented as magically complex and makes clear the elements we can actually get a handle on is a good thing. So this is for beginning cinematographers or anyone reviewing the building blocks of the field to develop a deeper understanding.

But ... ?

My issue with it has always been that the "Cs" would be better if restated as questions. For example, let's apply some "Ws" to the issue:

• What are the camera angles commonly used in filmmaking?
• What determines if one shot will edit well to another shot in continuity editing?
• What factors determine how a shot can be used in cutting a series of shots?
• Why, practically, is filming close-ups different from more general shooting?
• What factors in shot composition have an impact on the edit and the film?

This, to me, would remove the book's major problem: Clutter. There's a lot of material seemingly under an organizing factor ... but not really addressed with enough Clarity.

What does it cover?
The book addresses examples of those Five Cs, using a dollop of theory but mainly demonstrating a practical approach. It gets right into "types of camera angles" and "filming techniques" as, essentially, lists with examples.

How well does it work?
The "this is how we do it" approach seems to lack the balance of an effective "because doing it this other way leads to this problem..." element that seems natural here. In other words, it's a guide, but would be stronger with a series of warning callouts presented in a clearer way.

As in: shoot a Medium Shot this way, don't shoot it this way because X, Y, Z.

There are, in fact, many "don'ts" listed --

"Don't show a player looking off-screen, then cut to what he sees -- and pan the camera around and end up on the player. This will jar the audience, because a person cannot see himself as he looks about! What starts off as a point-of-view shot becomes a straight objective shot, as soon as the player is included."

And that's good advice, right? But read it carefully and the tonal issue of the book becomes clear: it suffers very much from the common problem experts experience when they begin to teach. Instead of being an expert on what material a student / learner needs, and then comprehending the best system to deliver that material, the book presents material (good material!) without a real understanding of the best way we will learn that material.

Think of the difference between "Here's the local building code ..." [ drops book on desk ]

versus

"We'll show you how to make a chair first ... and then how those techniques are applied to a shed ... and then the additional skills needed for a barn ... and in volume 2 we'll get to house framing."

Okay ... but should I read it?
That's a tricky question. I think the best way to answer it is to take a close look at the work of the book's author. I mean, if he's a great cinematographer, it will probably be a great book ... right?

So, what did Joseph V. Mascelli shoot? Could I see any of it on Netflix?

Well, you can probably find:

The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?

You can see the trailer for that here:
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3415277849/

REALLY? HE SHOT THAT?
Yes. And a few other really, really odd films. I mean ... puzzlingly odd.

Recommendation
Read it in sequence with related books and form a bigger picture you can apply to your own practice.

Last Book Read: The Filmmaker's Eye

Last book read:

Gustavo Mercado's The Filmmaker's Eye: Learning (and Breaking) the Rules of Cinematic Composition.

Who is it for?
Mercado's book can be used in a class introducing the basics of cinematography or filmmaking, but can work as a refresher for more advanced practitioners of the craft.

What does it cover?
The approach here is to break down the "standard shots" used in filmmaking, considering both the technical and aesthetic concepts behind the standard approach. Then, as counterpoint, examples of breaking these standard rules effectively are given and discussed. So, a typical chapter is titled "Medium Close Up."

How well does it work?
I recommend this book, but I think two problems interfere with how effective it can be in a classroom or for personal study. If the reader is informed of those two issues, it is well worth the read.

Two problems?
The first problem: Mercado is incorrect in the definition of certain shots, and a student comparing this to more standardized practice will be confused. (I find this really puzzling myself, and pulled out several cinematography textbooks for comparison.) The book's definition of a "Close Up" is generally considered a version of an "Extreme Close Up" in general cinematography textbooks, and this sets up an examination of each shot that is very closed (and a bit too narrow) in definition.

As an example, if we study this book's example of a "Medium Close Up" we read:

"The size of the subject in this medium close up requires that the top of the head is cropped to give him the proper amount of headroom."

Well, that's a bit confusing -- we crop into the head to give headroom?

More importantly, however, is that this proposed definition:

• the top of the frame cropped into the subject's head
• the bottom of the frame is shown at the shirt pocket of the subject

is often considered a Close Up, and many directors would consider a looser framing as a workable "Medium Close Up." For example, if you turn on a typical TV news program, you might see:

• the top of the frame just above the subject's head
• the bottom of the frame at the shirt pocket

Mercado doesn't address this very common news/documentary framing -- it doesn't exist in the book, implying it wouldn't be acceptable. I would be happier with a more open approach -- obviously "standard" shots expand out into variations, and that's fine. So Mercado's implied "here's the right way" becomes an issue. If this is an issue that can be discussed in a class (or in one's personal reading of the book) that will be fine. But it's written as if the shot examined in the book is a closed truth, rather than one example of many possibilities.

The second problem, in my view, is that book puts so much energy into the "breaking the rules" aspect of the discussion ... yet some of the examples are nearly identical to the shots discussed as standard. The framing of the "breaking the rules" shot under "Medium Close Up" is essentially identical to the main shot presented.

So ... what does Mercado say makes it "break the rules"? That it is used "by itself" rather than in a progression of shots toward a Close Up. This is a strange interpretation, and really focuses on editing choices rather than cinematography.

But ... you like it?
Yes, I think this is a good book, and worth the space on a filmmaker / film student's bookshelf. Take the definitions with a grain of salt (and learn from where you personally disagree, or from examples that differ). It places a system of shots at the heart of the study of cinematography, and serves as a good introduction to a key concept.

Recommendation
Read it in sequence with related books and form a bigger picture you can apply to your own practice.

First Canon 7D Test

Redrock Captain Stubing Test from matt conway on Vimeo.

I'm remotely producing (and later will edit) a short documentary. It's interview-based, and it's being being shot in California.

So, big whoop. What's new about it?

Well, one thing that's new is that it will be shot on the Canon 7D. As you may know, a lot of folks are very excited about the possibilities DSLR cameras now offer for video. Since this can be particularly interesting for documentary, I've developed an idea for a short that I think is a good match for the strengths of the camera.

Above: a first test with the Canon. More soon, and thanks to Matt Conway and Kirk Dilley.

Soderbergh Speaks

I posted previously about Stephen Soderbergh use of the RED camera in "The Girlfriend Experience", so here's the word from the horse's mouth in an NYT audio slideshow.

I think the slideshow makes the movie feel darker than it reads on a television screen, but it's very interesting from the viewpoint of cinematography. As well, Soderbergh's approach here is very similar to that used in documentary production.

Depth of Field for Videographers

Students of photography spend a lot of time learning about "depth of field," but for most people shooting video it's a bit of a mystery. (Note: I prefer the term "depth of focus" as more accurate and useful, but since it is used less often, I'll go with "depth of field" for this post.)

In part, this is a matter of practicality: while one can easily use depth-of-field techniques with a 35mm camera, most DV camcorders have sensors smaller than a piece of 35mm film and are generally shot at the wide end of the lens -- two conditions that end up creating deep focus. This means that in your typical "stand a few feet away from the subject" setup used by small-crew and solo documentarians and video bloggers, your subject is in focus and so is the background.

That's fine, but for greater control, experiment with this:

1. If your camcorder allows it, set your aperture on the F-stop with the lowest number. That is, the end of the aperture scale that is F1.4, F2, F2.8, or F4.
2. Now zoom in. That is, use the long focal lengths your lens provides -- as if you were trying to bring a distant subject closer.
3. Now you'll have to stand further from your subject to frame them the way you want -- for example a "head and shoulders" shot.
4. Consider how you can solve the audio problem this may create -- if you are working with a crew, a boom microphone would be great, or you can use a radio-transmitting microphone, or a clip on microphone with a long cable.

When you try this setup -- or a more refined version where you set up a subject at the near end of a room and shoot into the room to create depth -- you will discover you are able to get your subject in sharp focus and to throw the background out of focus. That effect can work very well to control your audience's attention, and to emphasize your subject over their environment or background.

It can make for a very creative and beautiful shot -- so try it out.