Film school graduate. Independent film maker and music composer working in London.
I don't entirely agree with the argument here. Kubrick seems to break the 180 rule because it was logical to do so from the vantage point of the camera on opposite sides of the characters - of course their positions would be reversed because that's what would happen if the viewer (the camera) actually shifted to that space. It's neither an error or a deliberate change in emotional perspective.
Kubrick does it because it was visually advantageous (and he needed cutting points) while NOT being visually jarring. Proof? The scene actually STARTS from the reverse shot. So he didn't save the angle for an especially subtextural "revelation". The two shots are logical angles given the location, and Kubrick simply trusted his audience's spatial orientation skills. Just my opinion. Happy to be proven wrong.
In my own experience, you can break the 180 rule as long as it makes spatial sense and doesn't unintentionally jar. However, MOVING figures that "cross the line" can indeed be disastrously jarring. So it works best for static subjects.... unless you REALLY know what you're doing.
Cheers and luck
Coins for baseplate screws etc. At the right moment, a penny is priceless.
Cute but unless it has similar low light capabilities to the A7S, I don't see why folks should be upset about their previous 4k purchasing choices. The a6300's demo video didn't show anything about ISO 1600. I mean it seems fine as a handy little 4K shooter, but there seems to be other options like this available. I fail to see the big deal.
The fixation on extremely blurry backgrounds, where everything looks like it's been shot through a tank of Vaseline, is really starting to seem like a Youtube indy-film mannerism. So achingly "pretty" that it's almost kitsch now. It screams "Look! I've no money or a script, but I'm making a MOVIE!!!"
Take another look at any half-dozen of the best photographed films ever made. You won't see this effect used so excessively. If anything, deep-field is more valued for visual story-telling. No, you have to use this shallow DOF effect selectively...and for a good reason.