[brazzy]

Interesting read, though sometimes it sounds a bit like over-analyzation. Especially the constant mention of "triangular composition" - three points form a triangle (unless they form a line). You'd have to make a conscious effort NOT to have "triangular composition".

[bentcorner]

Completely agree. I enjoyed reading about framing, how positioning backgrounds to ensure the viewer can easily follow action, the far/medium/full shots, bird/worm's eye view and the like.

Mentioning triangular composition so often was strange. I guess it's a basic filmmaker thing? (don't line up talking characters in a line?) Moving the camera out-of-plane of the conversation allows the viewers to more easily understand the flow of conversation, who the characters are paying attention to, and who we should be paying attention to.

[rquantz]

You'll notice that the triangular composition shots had three figures on three different levels in the shot, when most shots with a single figure in them had their head at basically the same level, right below the top of the frame. If the default placement for a character's head is near the top of the frame, it would indeed be a conscious choice when placing three head in a shot to make them at three different levels.

[larve]

i used to think that a lot of talk about composition is over analyzed. I put in a lot of work the last few years to learn painting and drawing, and I am now at a (very amateurish) level where what I actually focus on and consciously work on is at that "triangular composition", "color palette", "contrast" level of thinking. The rest really just pales. It's the job of so many people on an animated movie production to figure these out just right: storyboard, then set design, light design, color design, camera animation. Each of these is an individual job (often filled with multiple artists).

[Crito]

Absolutely agree. How am I suppose to take things like this (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-49KvfGbTdbA/ULJiQ4gTNDI/AAAAAAAAbu...) seriously?

Okay yeah, if you draw those lines, you get a triangle. But why did the author exclude the one guy? Why is this an example of some triangle-y thing, and not an example of an quadrilateral whatever?

The author is just massaging and manipulating the data to make whatever points he wants.