180 Degree Line Rule

No the repercutions of breaking this rule without reason or understanding will be that your continuity will be thrown off and the holes of the movie will become more apparent. Such holes can be distracting and even discouraging for an audience.

Remember that the best production Values are those that are never seen. Generally when you notice the editing (unless you are watching for it or are an editor) then the movie fails to become seemless and again loses the focus of the movie.

 

For Pete's sake...stop repeating yourselves. And who the heck is Pete anyhow?

Keith

 

The horse is dead.


NO WAIT! I think I saw it move!!


No. It's dead.


Sauja

 

Explain to me why you do not speak in 17:th century Old English. Afterall, those were RULES of grammar, weren't they?

Yep they sure are:
subject-verb-object

Same rules as today. Gee, look at that.

And sorry, I do not share your "humor" since I dont think that learning about new things is a "crutch".

 

Hey, how about we give it a rest!

Holy crap! It was just a freaking metaphor!

Either you agree with it or not [it meaning the 180 rule not the metaphor], and it will show in your final product whether you understand it or not.

End of story.

Sauja

 

Okay just before the horse completely flat-lines I'd like to put a question up:

You have a scene where two or more people are talking, and you dolly/orbit the camera continuously around them in a circle. Could it be regarded that you are actually rototating the 180 degree line, rather than breaking it?

I've seen this done, and the continuous camera motion, rather than cut-to-new-frame method, seems to preserve the continuity of the shot. Well it does for me at least.

Am I right?

 

As far as I understand it, from what I've read (I'm not a pro by a long shot) is that the case you describe isn't really breaking the rule, but rather moving the line.

The rule really only applies to cuts, where visual cues are necessary for the viewer to identify with the new point of view (POV).

In a continuous shot there the POV hasn't jumped so there is no need for the cues.


Sauja

 

You have a scene where two or more people are talking, and you dolly/orbit the camera continuously around them in a circle. Could it be regarded that you are actually rototating the 180 degree line, rather than breaking it?

The rule is mostly for editing. It applies to cuts. When you cut together two shots that are on opposite sides of the line you break the line. In your case the action is continuous within one shot. That doesn't break the rules. However, camera movement is one of the ways to change the line. You are correct that the line shifts as the camera does.

There are four easy ways to shift a line.
1)Camera Movement: When the camera moves within the shot and crosses the line, it is actually shifting the line. In your example of the Orbiting Dolly Shot as the characters are talking, the line moves as the camera does. If the camera stops (depending on the set up of the sujects) a new line is formed. Thus no line is broken
2)Character Movement:Within a shot if the characters move off of the line, they again shift the location of the line.
ex. two character are fighting but begin circling each other in a cliche predatory style. Because they are rotating the line is rotating with them. The camera can either stay in one place or follow them (neither will break the line)
3)Spacial Cues:As Stated by MasterZap several times spacial cues oftne blur the line so that it is no longer important within the shots. The line is necesary when the shots give no indication of location or character positioning. If all characters or spacial cues exist within the shot then there is no need for the line.
4)Eyelines:When eyelines change either for a new subject involved or to an object elsewhere, the line can shift along with the eyelines.

Now Cutaways also help.
Cutaways (a new shot inserted in between two other shots) is a great way to prevent continuity errors like jump cuts, timing errors and breaking the line. When the scene cuts to a new shot the original line becomes irrelevant. A new line is presented. when cutting back to the original content another new line is formed. if you had crossed the line but seperated the two shots with a cutaway, two seperate lines are formed.

This is likely best seen in Episode 1 when Qui Gon and Darth Maul are dueling and Obi Wan is seperated by the energy sheild. The editors cut to him several times changing the set up of the line and then cut back presenting a new line. The camera sometimes switches to different lines between Maul and Qui Gon, but these lines dont break the rule due to the cutaways.

I hope this clears things up.

 

Yeah it does thanks.

Any room in the TV or film industry for a physics graduate?

 

Sure if you can figure out how to make a lightsaber that isn't dangerous and actually works you can save us hours of Rotoscoping.

 

LOL, aww and I wanted to do somethign more in line with what we talk about on here !

However, I would take the sort of saber that are sold at master replicas, parks sabers, etc, but with one difference. Alter the composition of the of the plastic tubing to include some carbon fiber, shoud make it less brittle. It worked for tennis raquettes Best I can come up with since I don't specialise in material physics

 

<<Any room in the TV or film industry for a physics graduate? >>

Broadcast engineer.

anyway,

Nick "Shorty" Long

 

You have a PM

 

"When the camera moves within the shot... ...no line is broken"

"When the scene cuts to a new shot the original line becomes irrelevant."

According to these two statements, as worded, it's impossible to break your rule, anyway. What you actually mean by the second statement is that when you cut away to a new subject, the line becomes irrelevant. And this is still wrong. In the absence of other spatial cues, cutting away, and then back, will still leave the audience confused as to how the on-screen relationship of the subjects changed. If other spatial cues exist, then you don't need a cutaway. A cutaway can remove the sting from a jump-cut (where objects in a shot occupy the same - or similar - positions as objects in the preceding shot making it look as if one thing suddenly transformed into something else, or instantaneously jumped a short distance across the screen - which, in itself isn't neccesarily "wrong", anyway: you can deliberately use a jump-cut if you want to. Godard did it by neccesity to remove almost an hour of footage from À bout de souffle, and started a stylistic trend that you can still see in commercials almost fifty years later) but it won't really help here. You may have avoided breaking the "text book rule", but you'll still have confused your audience.

The implication that there is - or should be - some member of the crew on set keeping an anxious eye on a protractor at all times to ensure that the 180 degree rule isn't broken is quite false. Crossing the line is just something that happens occasionally. You fix it at the editing stage, and it's just one of the many reasons for ensuring that you get adequate covering footage whilst shooting.

 

Spiderfan- you were talking to me earlier, right?

I would just like to point out that I said: "No ones going to arrest you if you break the rule a few times (done well, not by accident.)"

Meaning that you can break the rule once in a while if you know what you are doing. If you don't know the rule and cross the line alot by accident, things can become horrendously confusing, which may be the effect you would want if you were shooting a sequence where someone goes crazy or something, but wouldn't work in a linear sequence.

You can also place a shot right on the line in between two shots that are on opposite sides of the line, to make it clearer to the audience that you have switched sides.

 

Basically, the rule is IMPERATIVE to follow when no other spatial cues exists. When other clear spatial cues exist, the rule is not important.

So when do you have a situation where there are NO spacial indications?

Even if it's the most non descript room in existance with two people standing in it, people should be able to tell what's happening, regardles of the angle.

I agree that there can be sequences of shots which are confusing, or don't show what's going on well, but I stipulate that this is mostly because of composition.

You have your establishing shots, and you have your close ups, and if people can't tell what going on, then I would say the problem is most likely an issue with the shot progression, or their compostion.

The line rule has it's worth, but no where near as much as some people seem to put on it, and rarely do I ever see it as something which is ABSOLUTELY IMPERITIVE, but ideal, in many circumstances.

Ah well, it's just a heated discussion on an obscure internet forum where no one wins and everyone agrees on some small level....

 

And by us debating it on this obscure internet forum hopefully someone somewhere learns something from this. I certainly have.

 

"If you serious think this than you are the one that is stupid. The audiance is actually usually more 'smart' watching a movie because they are normally because they are concentrating without distraction on one thing for 2 hours (What else in the world do people concentrate on continuously for 2 hours these days?). "

I'm going to disagree here. There's a difference between 'concentrating' and 'absorbing'. But this' OT, so I'm not going to pursue it.

 

Even if it's the most non descript room in existance with two people standing in it, people should be able to tell what's happening, regardles of the angle.

Not when what the audience needs to FIGURE OUT is "is he looking at the other guy, or not". Thats the data the audience "needs"...."which people have eyecontact".... i.e. "who is he talking to"

If you are in a completely white room and film just closeups of single people, this data is unavailable to the audience.

/Z

 

If you are in a completely white room and film just closeups of single people, this data is unavailable to the audience.
And you have just made a really dull movie.

Wait that sounds like about 20 minutes of THX 1138. No wonder that movie sucked.

 

"Vader release him, this bickering is pointless".

Follow the rule, or don't follow the rule. The results will speak for themselves.


Sauja

 

<<Wait that sounds like about 20 minutes of THX 1138. >>

or an apple ad

anyway,

Nick "Shorty" Long

 

I don't need rules. If I watch it and it feels disjointed, and someone else agrees with me, I do it again, PROPERLY. I'm sure there's a ton of principles I'm adhering to subconsciously, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go out and find out the names for all of them. I don't need the scientific definition of a tomato to know that I like the thing.

 

No but you do need learn the methods of growing a tomato, in order to make it.

You don't need to know the rule to watch a movie, but I would highly recomend knowing it to make a movie. Otherwise the it will become quite apparent to anyone with a trained eye that you are unaware of what you are doing.

Walk...then run. Its rather simple.

Think of film making rather like writing. YOu have to learn the abc and rules of grammar first. Then when you know that you can go off and write a book. But until you understand those principles you are not going to be writing Shakespeare. Similar to film. Until you learn the basics you are not going to be making masterpeices.

 

<kisses you for being irish>

oh come on, your avatar said so!

back to the topic...
I'm going to make two statements similar in nature.
All movies are bad. You either like them or you don't.
All movies are good. You etc...

I don't know... people who see my movies think that they are good. When something does not sit right, then I fix it. It's simple. When I sat back and analysed my film after hearing about the 180 degree rule for the first time, I was surprised to learn that I'd almost uniformly adhered to it's principles.

I can't afford to go and 'learn' filmmaking as such. I'm happy with what I've got at the moment. As soon as something becomes too strict, it's not fun anymore. When it's not fun you shouldn't be doing it.
And I never said I was making masterpieces. I mean... at present my longest film is only going to be 16 minutes or so.

This rule, in particular, is sound. I'd stick to it. It makes the movie watchable. However, to say that all rules must be followed all the time, to the letter, is bunk.