# 30 degree rule or 33 degree rule?

7 replies to this topic

• Basic Members
• 16 posts
• Student
• Los Angeles

Posted 08 February 2016 - 12:03 AM

In the book 'Film directing fundamentals' by Nicholas Proferes, he mentions as 33 degree rule (Page 174). In other books, it normally says as 30 degree rule. I know three degree doesn't make a difference, but I would like to know why he specify like that?

Thanks.

• 0

### #2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
• Sustaining Members
• 20182 posts
• Cinematographer
• Los Angeles

Posted 08 February 2016 - 01:28 AM

"30 degree rule" seems to be the more commonly used term.  Doesn't really matter, you just have to understand the gist of the idea, not the specifics.  Truth is that it matters more that the new shot have enough of a size change to not seem like a jump than it does an angle change, but doing both isn't a bad idea.

• 0

### #3 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
• Sustaining Members
• 12283 posts
• Other

Posted 08 February 2016 - 04:42 PM

How have I not heard of this rule? What does it state?

• 0

### #4 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
• Sustaining Members
• 3510 posts
• Cinematographer
• San Francisco, CA

Posted 08 February 2016 - 05:10 PM

Simply that in order to avoid a jump cut, you should move the camera relative to the subject by at least 30 degrees. Or drastically change the shot size by punching in, as David says.

https://en.m.wikiped.../30-degree_rule
• 0

### #5 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
• Basic Members
• 1431 posts
• Digital Image Technician
• Melbourne, Australia

Posted 08 February 2016 - 05:15 PM

The 30 degree rule is one of the first rules I read (as teenager) in a study of classical continuity. A "33" degree rule would be just a typo.

30 is just a nice round number in the decimal number system (and 360 is easily divisible by such). In other words if you had to choose a number for what would be a good change in angle (in order to avoid a jump cut), 30 would be one you might easily come up with (compared to other nice round numbers in the context of angles).

C

Edited by Carl Looper, 08 February 2016 - 05:18 PM.

• 0

### #6 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
• Basic Members
• 2353 posts
• Cinematographer
• Tokyo

Posted 08 February 2016 - 07:58 PM

I dont think it really applies that well though..  if the frame is anything like similar it still looks like a jump cut.. well over 30 degree,s.. conversely ,a "decent" enough change in frame size even on the same axis is totally fine.. move it over a little if you want too..  I think the change in frame size is the key.. where as a medium change in frame size and moving the camera even 50 degrees or more will still look like a jump cut.. or at very least not aesthetically pleasing..unless thats the effect you want of course..

Edited by Robin R Probyn, 08 February 2016 - 08:00 PM.

• 0

### #7 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
• Sustaining Members
• 12283 posts
• Other

Posted 09 February 2016 - 06:10 AM

I was gonna say.

Excessively well-matched over-the-shoulder shots can end up looking like jump cuts if there isn't enough variation in them. S'why it's always worth shooting a profile too.

• 0

### #8 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
• Basic Members
• 2353 posts
• Cinematographer
• Tokyo

Posted 09 February 2016 - 06:58 AM

But your onto another subject (face) another background and angle at least... personally I always like a dirty over shoulder too..  the 30 degree rule.. as I know it.. is presuming a direct cut to the same subject..  its a very old rule from early silent film days..  actually I wasn't taught this either at film school.. far better to have a cut away to another shot or change the frame size significantly enough to avoid jump cuts.. similar size frame direct cut will always look like a jump cut regardless of 30 degrees..  or 45 for that matter..  the only time you would want to do this would be for exactly that jarring effect.. IMHO anyway..

Edited by Robin R Probyn, 09 February 2016 - 07:13 AM.

• 0