composing a shot for anamorphic

[Max Jacoby]

The "rules" are pretty broad with lots of exceptions. For example, one useful guide when composing tight close-ups is that it is better to crop the forehead than the chin if you have a choice. But that's just a general guideline.

For close-ups in the classical sense (i.e. where the actors performance is paramount) it's usually best to simply put their eyes on the upper third line and let everything else (forehead and chin) fall into place.

[David Mullen ASC]

For close-ups in the classical sense (i.e. where the actors performance is paramount) it's usually best to simply put their eyes on the upper third line and let everything else (forehead and chin) fall into place.

 

That's the normal rule (eyes at the upper third) for a regular close-up where you can fit the whole head in the frame -- I'm talking about when you push in tight into an ECU. At some point, you let the eyes be a little higher and lose more forehead rather than crop the chin, especially if someone is talking. Anyway, that's the rule I've always heard, that cropping the chin can be distracting.

 

Of course, if you get even closer, you're back to framing for just the eyes and forgetting both the chin and forehead. It gets a little weird at some point in a super ECU of two eyeballs whether to crop the bottom of the nose or not if it's borderline in or out, but it depends on the aspect ratio too (scope is ideal for the "two eyeballs ECU" shot...)

 

Some films have broken these classic notions -- for example, the Matrix films (especially the two sequels) where even ordinary close-ups were so high in the frame that the frameline went through the forehead. Conrad Hall did something similar in "Searching for Bobby Fisher" except there it was justified as calling attention to the chessboards below the faces (even when they were off-camera).

[Jamey Johnson]

Thanks for the replies and also the bonus info. It's very helpful. I have a tendency to over think shots right now, but I know how awful it feels to review footage and realize how I could have done it better, and also the pains of doing reshoots if possible.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Some films have broken these classic notions -- for example, the Matrix films (especially the two sequels) where even ordinary close-ups were so high in the frame that the frameline went through the forehead.

Conversely, close-ups in classic 1.33:1 westerns were usually framed almost centered - to make room for the hats!

[Paul Bruening]

I gave some thought to grinding out the aperture plate of my techniscope camera to get 2.7:1. It didn't seem to benifit me anything to end up with a frame size off of the common scope projection ratio. Sure it would be kinda cool, but not really that cool. I wonder how much the perf edge could be pushed. Could I squeeze 3:1 out of the framing?