 Ever since D.W. Griffith first decided that
movie audiences should be treated to two-shots, over the
shoulders, and close-ups, film makers have striven to
achieve proper impact by matching one performer's
close-up to the other. The accepted criteria for matching
has always been head size, but recent studies suggest
that there's more to this size matching business than
meets the eye.
According to
the findings of Southern Illinois University psychology
and cinema professors, the determining factor in audience
acceptance of "matching" close-ups is not head
size, but pupilary distance, the distance between
the pupils of the screen subject. It is this measurement
then, according to the study, that should be used when
computing proper lens and distance to subject when
composing close-ups.
Experiments
were conducted based on a theory by Dr. James L.
Buchannon that audience attention is directed to the
performer's eyes when the close-up is on the screen.
Since most people tend to look into the eyes of another
person during a natural conversation, Dr. Buchannon
reasoned that movie viewers generally concentrate on the
performer's eyes if the camera is close enough to feature
the eyes, as in a close-up. Using computer retinal
scanning techniques, audiences were observed watching
television monitors on which typical movie scenes were
presented. The procedure verified Dr. Buchannon's
hypothesis that the viewer's interest is indeed focused
on the performer's eyes during close-up shots.
Dr. Buchannon
began a study in association with S.I.U.'s Department of
Cinema chairman, Dr. Robert U. Kiddon, to determine
whether the pupilary distance should be the determining
criteria in matching close-ups. Test scenes were filmed
with opposing close-ups matched using three methods:
- Matches
based on lens and distance, without regard to
physical characteristics of the subjects
- Matches
based on head size
- Matches
based on pupilary dis tance.
|
The subjects filmed in the test scenes were
chosen to present a variety of physical differences from
one shot to the next. This included a large male subject,
a petite female subject, and a child. The physical
characteristics of these subjects is shown in figure 1.
In the first
series of scenes, exact lens and distance matches were
used for corresponding close-ups. In this case, the head
sizes in the frame are different since the subjects'
physical characteristics are not factored into the
matching process.
In the second series of scenes, the close-ups were
determined by matching the head size (as measured
vertically) from one shot to the next. Here, even though
there are differences in head size among the tree
subjects, they appear as the same size in the frame.
Finally, in
the third series of scenes the close-ups were determined
by the pupilary distance. In this case, the difference in
head size is not as pronounced as in the first series,
since while the head sizes varied as much as 10% (from
the adult male to the child) the pupilary distance only
varied by 6%. The effect on the screen is that the area
where the viewer's concentration is focused, based on the
earlier experiments, remains constant from one close-up
to the next.
The finished
scenes were then shown to two groups of viewers. The
first group was a random group of three hundred subjects
selected from the student body. The second group
consisted of film students from the Department of Cinema
|
& Photography. By using these
two groups, Buchannon and Kiddon hoped to compare the
observations of both a "typical" viewing
audience, and that of an "expert" audience to
evaluate the effectiveness of the three methods of
close-up composition. Neither group was informed of the
nature of the experiment, but were told only that they
would view some film footage and then be asked to
complete a questionnaire.
The results of
the experiment seem to support Dr. Buchannon's theory
that the pupilary distance should be the determining
factor in matching close-ups. Both the general audience
and the group of film students were more comfortable with
the close-ups accomplished by matching pupilary distance.
Dr. Buchannon suggests that this criteria results in
better matches for two reasons. First, there is an exact graphical
match on the screen--the eyes-- that help create a smooth
cut from one shot to the next. Second, there is a slight
mismatch in head size, which Dr. Buchannon believes should
exist since there are actual physical differences in the
subjects. "The child's head should appear smaller
than the adult's, because in the real world the child's
head is smaller," he explains, "but the
consistency of the image of the eyes, with an exact match
in pupilary distance, creates a better graphical
transition from one shot to the next."
Dr. Kiddon is
quick to point out, however, that certain physical
characteristics of subjects can cause difficulties in
using pupilary distance as the determining factor in
matching close-ups. "If the subject has unusually
close set eyes, the result in matching by pupilary
distance is what I call the Waterston Effect,"
he stated. "With a subject such as [film actor Sam]
Waterston, using this technique can lead to unpredictable
results."
Dr. Buchannon
is not convinced that this is a valid point. "The Waterston
Effect, as Dr. Kiddon calls it, is more likely to be
a result, not of the characteristics of the eyes, but of
the change in perspective that occurs when Mr.
Waterston's head position reveals even the slightest
profile, creating the optical illusion of a
difference in pupilary distance." |
