I'm just starting out and I find myself often having to pick between two of the best takes for a lot of takes. Usually the best acted one is near the beginning. But it's not shot as well, cause the actors often improve a little and their faces go off camera. The camera operator, is therefore late in following them as they move. Then there is the other best take of the same shot. This take is not as well acted but the camera stays on the actor, since we discussed after the improve what to do. But we still couldn't get it as well acted. So that's the choice I find myself having to make often. What would you guys often choose? So far I'm more confident choosing the better acted ones, even though the cam was a little off.
Better acting vs. better shooting takes.
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
I can't reshoot it cause the location looks different, and too Christmas-ish now, but if I can find a different location then sure. The thing is is that I want to do the whole take in one shot and that's hard. Would it be possible to do it in two takes and make it look like one? Cause the area of the location I screwed up on still is not Christmas-ish, and if I can make two takes look like one in real time, then that's definitely do-able and can do it this week even. I might be able to if I put the data back onto the datacard, put in the camera, and try to match up the footage exactly with the position of the camera. It's a scene like in Halloween where the camera moves throughout a house, with no actors on screen most of the time. So I'll cut it on a second with no actors and try to match it up and make it look like all one take.
Last edited:
Don't know.. I know it CAN be done, but I don't think it's something that can be done cheaply or easily.
If it were me,
I'd either find a way to do a reshoot now,
Do a reshoot in a few months,
change the scene and reshoot, or
give up on the single shot idea, shoot some coverage, and make it work.
But that's what it's all about right? Weighing the things you'd like to have against the things you NEED to have. Good luck, at any rate.
Out of curiosity - is this the cop conspiracy film you were talking about several months ago?
(I haven't been around and I may be remembering wrong, but I'm fairly sure it was you talking about it..)
If it were me,
I'd either find a way to do a reshoot now,
Do a reshoot in a few months,
change the scene and reshoot, or
give up on the single shot idea, shoot some coverage, and make it work.
But that's what it's all about right? Weighing the things you'd like to have against the things you NEED to have. Good luck, at any rate.
Out of curiosity - is this the cop conspiracy film you were talking about several months ago?
(I haven't been around and I may be remembering wrong, but I'm fairly sure it was you talking about it..)
No this is just an experimental short film. The cop conspiracy is a feature I wrote. I will have to wait till after Christmas to reshoot cause every location I've asked to borrow is filled with Christmas decor, that the owners don't want me to remove. If only the person behind the camera told me that the actor was out of frame too much in all the shots. All they had to do was say it, instead of doing a bunch of takes for the day, with it happening in each, and not saying anything.
Last edited:
LOL! I've done this A LOT! Yes, jarring for the actors, but the payoff is fantastic. This is where low budget filmmakers can shine.
I can't say I agree. For me, I really want all camera movement to be planned and rehearsed. I suppose it would be different if we were doing straight improv, but for scripted stuff I want to know what my camera is going to do, and I want my actors (and boom-op) to know what my camera is going to do.
You're right I'll redo what I can. And for one scene, which would be very hard to redo, I can just use a take where the camera is in the right place, if the performance is good enough. I'll intercut and see.
I know that you want this to be the best that you can get it, but you have to write this one off as a learning experience. Don't belabor it; finish it off as best you can and move on to the next project. Remember about 1,500 posts ago when we told you your first couple of projects would suck? The most important thing is to remember all those lessons learned.
Words of wisdom to live by.
I'm actually rather proud of my first short, and I had a heck of a lot of fun making it. But I'd be rather embarrassed if I were still making movies of the same quality (or lack thereof). It's a learning experience, and something to grow on.
I'm pretty sure Jimi Hendrix didn't melt people's faces off with crazy-awesome guitar licks, the very first time he picked up a guitar. It takes practice. Lots of it. Same is true of filmmaking.
Jimi Hendrix and the Lost Guitar of the Covenant? Indiana Jimi perhaps? 'scuse me while I kill this guy....
Okay, I'm done now.
Yeah it's not like I want to redo the whole thing. There are a dozen things I would do different. There are more scenes in the script with the same problem where the person behind the camera could not follow the actor. However in this one I feel I can re-shoot it no problem, and it won't take much. The rest I accept the losses.
This is true. A superb performance on a flawed take often can be saved in post.
True, there are some takes where I think I can do that. There is one scene I want all shot in one take which I think I will try to fix once I get the location back. But I'll tell the friend behind the camera exactly when to move it and what signs the actor can give to indicate when.
Peformance vs. Quality.
Do yo filmmakers often feel it's best to choose by the actors performance in a take, if the quality of that take isn't as good? If it's a little of out of focus and needs to be sharpened, or if the shot is just too far away and has to be zoomed in, but thereby loosing some resolution, or if the audio is somewhat distorted but the line was delivered much better than any other takes. There is focus sharpening and ADR of course, but you still have to choose between the two. What's best for the audiences and critics who will look at your work and want to get absorbed in the story?
Do yo filmmakers often feel it's best to choose by the actors performance in a take, if the quality of that take isn't as good? If it's a little of out of focus and needs to be sharpened, or if the shot is just too far away and has to be zoomed in, but thereby loosing some resolution, or if the audio is somewhat distorted but the line was delivered much better than any other takes. There is focus sharpening and ADR of course, but you still have to choose between the two. What's best for the audiences and critics who will look at your work and want to get absorbed in the story?
There are so many variables to the question, I have experienced what you just wrote hundreds if not in thousands of takes from different movies of mine. And it so happened to be almost 50/50 each time where I almost couldnt choose, great adting, but bad camera, and vise versa.
The only way I decided is I ran a risk factor in my head. Which was, will the audience be more distracted by the acting or the camera, then I choose.
Lots of this decision will have to come from the mind of the editor, if you, then its up to you.
I hope this helped
The only way I decided is I ran a risk factor in my head. Which was, will the audience be more distracted by the acting or the camera, then I choose.
Lots of this decision will have to come from the mind of the editor, if you, then its up to you.
I hope this helped
I was apprentice editor for a pro way back in the day (1987) who had a mantra, which I adopted: "performance dictates the cut".
Having said that, you don't want to take the audience out of the movie because of some egregiously shoddy camera work. I will very often take an actor's line delivery out of one take and try to sync all or part of it with a take that looks better.
As an editor, you will be amazed at what you can get away with.
Having said that, you don't want to take the audience out of the movie because of some egregiously shoddy camera work. I will very often take an actor's line delivery out of one take and try to sync all or part of it with a take that looks better.
As an editor, you will be amazed at what you can get away with.
True but there are times when the audio does not match. Even if you sync it up syllable by syllable, the actor's facial acting, does not match his or her tone of the line at all. Those instances are tough.
Out of focus is an automatic cut, but save the dialogue track. Use cutaways if no other take works.
Last edited:
Okay thanks but in the action shots, the camera goes out of focus in some, where I have no extra coverage of. I will have to use one of them. I could sharpen it, but does that mean I have to sharpen the whole movie just to match?