Jump to content


Photo

Theory Behind Reverse Lead Room


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#1 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1009 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 01 May 2017 - 04:10 AM

Saw 50 Shades Darker yesterday (had really funny moments but only a decent flick) and shots with reverse lead room were abundant.

 

Example:

c413cdd9fd334a31474e38042f75ba20.png

 

While this shot seems to have the purpose of showing the interaction behind them, there were many others without any form of activity going on, just completely defocused backgrounds without detail.

 

Obviously this isn't the first film to ever do something like this, but I was wondering if there was some form of philosophy for why a DoP would elect to do the complete opposite of the lead room rule if there are no other details present.

 

The primary rule of lead room where space is in front of the nose feels intuitive to me.

 

Thanks for all insights.


Edited by Macks Fiiod, 01 May 2017 - 04:12 AM.

  • 0


Support Cinematography.com and buy gear using our Amazon links!
PANASONIC LUMIX GH5 Body 4K Mirrorless Camera, 20.3 Megapixels, Dual I.S. 2.0, 4K 422 10-bit, Full Size HDMI Out, 3 Inch Touch LCD, DC-GH5KBODY (USA Black)

#2 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1648 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 01 May 2017 - 04:21 AM

Totally agree.. one of my pet hates.. if there is no reason its just pretentious IMHO..   might as well light it with the key on the wrong side too.. just to look edgy and breaking the rules man.. wonder who's idea it was.. DP or director.. 


  • 0

#3 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 01 May 2017 - 01:12 PM

Saw 50 Shades Darker yesterday (had really funny moments but only a decent flick) and shots with reverse lead room were abundant.

 

Example:

c413cdd9fd334a31474e38042f75ba20.png

 

While this shot seems to have the purpose of showing the interaction behind them, there were many others without any form of activity going on, just completely defocused backgrounds without detail.

 

Obviously this isn't the first film to ever do something like this, but I was wondering if there was some form of philosophy for why a DoP would elect to do the complete opposite of the lead room rule if there are no other details present.

 

The primary rule of lead room where space is in front of the nose feels intuitive to me.

 

Thanks for all insights.

 

Since I've not seen the film, my initial guess of the sample image, is the guy is 'pushing his way' into the off camera person's space.

 

A person staring out a window, with could be interpreted two ways depending on the 'space'... no space... perhaps 'blocked' person... much space... perhaps many options... it is of course hard to tell post facto what was on the mind of the filmmaker/director/dop that lead to that specific composition.


  • 0

#4 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3298 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 May 2017 - 01:28 PM

Usually when I see this trick used, it's to highlight something in the background. Maybe it's the location, or what's physically happening in the background. 

 

I personally don't like this trick at all. 


  • 0

#5 Rakesh Malik

Rakesh Malik
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tacoma, WA

Posted 01 May 2017 - 01:39 PM

My theory for why the DP would choose to frame that way:

 

When there's nothing in the background, it's going to make the frame unbalanced, which tends to make the audience uncomfortable. It also has the effect of making the other person's space feel cramped, while giving the other person a visually stronger and move overbearing position.


  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19562 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 May 2017 - 01:47 PM

If it was OK for Gordon Willis, then I'm OK with doing it:

 

manhattan6.jpg

 

manhattan7.jpg

 

Simplest reason is that there might be more visual interest in the background when short-siding the framing -- I've been in many restaurants where your choice is to short-side and see the restaurant or put the extra space conventionally ahead of the actor's look and see a wall.

 

Other reasons include creating some sort of tension from the subject not "paying attention" to what is going on behind them, or suggesting that the world is going on without them so to speak, that the character is "outside" of society, or simply creating a feeling of unease from the unconventional framing.

 

The scene from "Manhattan" above is about a couple breaking up and the short-siding emphasizes the happier couples around them in the restaurant that the main characters are not perceiving.

 

"The Insider" has a lot of unconventional framing choices including short-siding characters.


  • 0

#7 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11821 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 May 2017 - 02:13 PM

I've become a bit of a fan of doing that, but frankly I'm probably just copying much more skilled people than I am.

 

I do notice that most of the examples here are in scope frames, which would clearly make it more noticeable.


  • 0

#8 Justin Hayward

Justin Hayward
  • Sustaining Members
  • 881 posts
  • Director
  • Chicago, IL.

Posted 01 May 2017 - 05:22 PM

I like it too.  And sometimes only because I like unusual compositions.  For some reason it tends to feel more like a painting, which I like.


  • 0

#9 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1648 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 01 May 2017 - 07:06 PM

But what if any background is totally out of focus.. there is no information there at all..   as the OP says... that would be the reason then.. in an otherwise "unstylised" film..   just because its jarring.. why not light it badly too.. have bad acting.. make it out of focus.. also jarring to an audience .. sure there can a reason to do it.. same as a jump cut.. but if there is no reason .. it can only be seen as some pretentious attempt as being "edgy " and even now its been over done .. 


  • 0

#10 Justin Hayward

Justin Hayward
  • Sustaining Members
  • 881 posts
  • Director
  • Chicago, IL.

Posted 01 May 2017 - 08:44 PM

why not light it badly too.. have bad acting.. 

 

I just think the framing looks cool.  Maybe that means I like bad lighting and bad acting too, but I hope not.  ;)


  • 0

#11 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1009 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 01 May 2017 - 08:51 PM

Is getting an F on a Math test cool too? The answer is yes, but I feel there's tons of room for a feature to purely look "cool" without breaking certain rules. David showed those examples above but they really backed the primary rule of "telling the story". If there's nothingness in the background I see zero reason to mess around with the principles of lead room. It's there for coherency, which is important for spatial awareness within the telling of a scene.


  • 1

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19562 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 May 2017 - 08:55 PM

Like anything, it's a matter of exercising taste. Gordon Willis often had strong compositions that sometimes were unconventional but he did them with a certain conviction, they had a feeling of weight and purpose.
  • 0

#13 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1778 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 01 May 2017 - 09:02 PM

......the primary rule of "telling the story". ........ the principles of lead room......spatial awareness......

 

The principals of headroom are a really worthy topic,  even if it feels like an uncertain ship..When you invoke the "story" word it's like you jumped into the lifeboat


  • 0

#14 Justin Hayward

Justin Hayward
  • Sustaining Members
  • 881 posts
  • Director
  • Chicago, IL.

Posted 01 May 2017 - 09:11 PM

I think some of you are overestimating my intelligence.  I'm not that smart.  I look at images and nod "yes" or shake "no".  :P

 

But seriously, I think those Gordon Willis shots look great and what I mean by "look great" is they stimulate my aesthetic... they excite my taste... I like them... regardless of the context.  But in context, even better!


  • 0

#15 Satsuki Murashige

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

Posted 01 May 2017 - 10:04 PM

Lol, I was just framing this way today on a beauty ad! Handheld, wide-open type of stuff. The shots on sticks/slider were more or less framed conventionally.

I think part of it is just instinctual, if it looks good and feels right, do it. You can certainly intellectualize the choice, especially for a narrative film, but for advertising it's mostly done if it looks good.
  • 0

#16 Satsuki Murashige

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

Posted 01 May 2017 - 10:12 PM

But what if any background is totally out of focus.. there is no information there at all..   as the OP says... that would be the reason then.. in an otherwise "unstylised" film..   just because its jarring.. why not light it badly too.. have bad acting.. make it out of focus.. also jarring to an audience .. sure there can a reason to do it.. same as a jump cut.. but if there is no reason .. it can only be seen as some pretentious attempt as being "edgy " and even now its been over done .. 


I don't think short-siding a composition is 'bad' - it's just unconventional. Now, I'm not saying the composition in question is good or bad. To me, it's somewhat flat. If you look at the films of Wong Kar Wai, you'll see incredibly beautiful compositions using this technique.

What makes a 'good' composition can be such a complex thing, purely on an aesthetic level. If you look at still photography, you tend to see a much wider range of 'acceptable' conventions being used. I think it's a shame that framing in cinematography is often much more bland as a whole.
  • 0

#17 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1648 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 02 May 2017 - 04:05 AM

 

I just think the framing looks cool.  Maybe that means I like bad lighting and bad acting too, but I hope not.  ;)

 

 

Justin.. sorry I wasn't meaning to imply that.. nor was my rant :) directed at you sir..   it really is a pet hate of mine.. but each to their own.. maybe Im too old !!  my wife thinks so.. 


  • 0

#18 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1648 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 02 May 2017 - 04:20 AM

I don't think short-siding a composition is 'bad' - it's just unconventional. Now, I'm not saying the composition in question is good or bad. To me, it's somewhat flat. If you look at the films of Wong Kar Wai, you'll see incredibly beautiful compositions using this technique.

What makes a 'good' composition can be such a complex thing, purely on an aesthetic level. If you look at still photography, you tend to see a much wider range of 'acceptable' conventions being used. I think it's a shame that framing in cinematography is often much more bland as a whole.

 

Yes good point.. I think in stills you can get away with alot of "un convectional " framing.. its just one frame..stand alone.. even the stills shots Dave posted of Mr Willis frames.. look great as stills.. you could hang them on the wall..but as a scene in a film.. of course moving images .. there are some conventions that exist for reason.. jump cuts.. POV,s.. crossing the line between 2 two talking to each other.. it could be fun.. cool.. jarring .. edgy or suite a film that would make that decision have some point or meaning.. but if there is no reason.. its just two people talking-to each other.. why do it.. solely that reviewers will comment on it.. ? why cram someone into the "wrong" side of the frame.. if you have nothing even in focus on the "air" side.. commercials and music videos you have alot more leeway and Ive done that too.. its totally what looks good.. thats what you getting paid for..but in a straight dialogue scene .. with no reasons to be "arty".. it should be what they are saying thats important ,not an awkward frame with just totally out of focus info not adding in anyway to the story... just for the sake of it.. IMHO.. 


Edited by Robin R Probyn, 02 May 2017 - 04:22 AM.

  • 1

#19 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1778 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 02 May 2017 - 06:07 AM

 

The principals of headroom are a really worthy topic,  even if it feels like an uncertain ship..When you invoke the "story" word it's like you jumped into the lifeboat

 Sorry,  I meant lead room....


  • 0

#20 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1648 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 02 May 2017 - 09:04 AM

 Sorry,  I meant lead room....

 

 

Thought you might have been watching North Korean TV..  in Tokyo they always seem to be showing clips of North Korean tv .. possibility due to imminent nukes coming this way.. but they always have this huge amount of head room.. it annoys me more than the missiles TBH.. 


  • 0



Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

The Slider