I have a short film project coming up where I want to do crash zooms in a few shots.

However, when I do crash zooms on my Canon 70-300 lens, the lens goes out of focus during the zoom, and then snaps back into focus, right after the zoom is done.

I was told by others that I need to pull focus during the zoom. But I'm having a lot trouble cause I have to pull focus one way really fast, and then pull it the other way really fast, just as the zoom finishes, and I have to do the push and pull, all within a small fraction of a second, since it's a fast crash zoom.

Does anyone know how to do this exactly for crash zooms?

You're running head on into some of the limitations of using a lens designed for still photography for video. AFAIK there is no magic bullet for the challenge you're facing.

A focus pull would need to be done in MF mode. In cinematography, it would be done by the 1st camera assistant (AC). And, with a rehearsal or two and some tape marks an AC could pull your focus. A follow-focus would allow easier repeatability, and a whip for it would get the AC's hands away from yours.

A zoom lens designed for video/film is parfocal, that is, if you accomplish sharp focus fully zoomed in, the design maintains focus throughout the zoom range. Such are a bit more expensive than most still lenses.

Some of Canon's still lenses will do better at this than others. I've not used the 70-300, but it's a USM lens, right? The STM designs I've used (18-135, 24 pancake, 55-250) tend to be more responsive in focus for video use, but I couldn't say how well they'd keep sharp with a crash zoom - never tried.

The 17-55 f2.8 EF-S is a USM, but, it's *almost* parfocal.

Could you do a slower zoom that has the focus characteristics you want, then speed it up in post?

No magic bullets...

Are you Ryan Wray or Ryan Elder?

There are four different Canon 70-300 lenses:

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, appx. $500
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, appx. $1350
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, appx. $1400
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, discontinued 2016

Not that the circumstances change much from one of these lenses to the other, but it's always helpful to be specific about which one you've got.

I have a short film project coming up where I want to do crash zooms in a few shots.

However, when I do crash zooms on my Canon 70-300 lens, the lens goes out of focus during the zoom, and then snaps back into focus, right after the zoom is done.

I was told by others that I need to pull focus during the zoom. But I'm having a lot trouble cause I have to pull focus one way really fast, and then pull it the other way really fast, just as the zoom finishes, and I have to do the push and pull, all within a small fraction of a second, since it's a fast crash zoom.

Unless this kind of stuff is a piece of cake for you, I'd say no, it can't be done.

http://www.juggle.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Aleksandra-944x590.jpg

To do this you need a true parfocal lens.

One of the reasons DSLRs are very convenient, but often poorly equipped to do what conventional video cameras do without any issues. They're excellent value for money when you compare image quality, I realise this - but they have far too many limitations for me to use mine for video, unless it's a locked off, static shot, or handheld wide angle.

Are you Ryan Wray or Ryan Elder?

There are four different Canon 70-300 lenses:

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, appx. $500
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, appx. $1350
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, appx. $1400
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, discontinued 2016

Not that the circumstances change much from one of these lenses to the other, but it's always helpful to be specific about which one you've got.

I'm Ryan Wray. I have the first one on that list.

You're running head on into some of the limitations of using a lens designed for still photography for video. AFAIK there is no magic bullet for the challenge you're facing.

A focus pull would need to be done in MF mode. In cinematography, it would be done by the 1st camera assistant (AC). And, with a rehearsal or two and some tape marks an AC could pull your focus. A follow-focus would allow easier repeatability, and a whip for it would get the AC's hands away from yours.

A zoom lens designed for video/film is parfocal, that is, if you accomplish sharp focus fully zoomed in, the design maintains focus throughout the zoom range. Such are a bit more expensive than most still lenses.

Some of Canon's still lenses will do better at this than others. I've not used the 70-300, but it's a USM lens, right? The STM designs I've used (18-135, 24 pancake, 55-250) tend to be more responsive in focus for video use, but I couldn't say how well they'd keep sharp with a crash zoom - never tried.

The 17-55 f2.8 EF-S is a USM, but, it's *almost* parfocal.

Could you do a slower zoom that has the focus characteristics you want, then speed it up in post?

No magic bullets...

Okay thanks. I keep trying to pull focus during the zoom but I can't pull it fast enough since I want a fast zoom.

I can't speed it up in post, cause I want to do the zoom while actors are moving fast, and if I speed it up, the actors will speed up too and it will be noticeable.

Have actors move in slow motion.

Seriously that technique is a bit of a fad. You either need to get the proper equipment (which you most likely don’t have the money) or do something else.

Okay thanks, but is how is the technique a fad now though? I haven't seen it done in a movie in so long that I thought it would be a newer technique for today, compared to 30 years ago.

Mostly I just wanted to do a couple of crash zooms, to show reveals, like when an actor runs into a room then we quickly zoom back to reveal that their are men waiting to ambush him. That is what I wanted to use it for, things like that.

I was told to dolly back instead, but I can't move the dolly fast enough, and it then becomes a much slower reveal, instead of a fast reveal. The actors then have to wait for the camera to play catch up to their ambush, if I am dollying much slower, if that makes sense.

This is why I was told to pull focus faster, when doing the crash zoom. But is focus pulling during a crash zoom absolutely impossible then?

I think what they mean by “fad” is that it was in vogue for a time...that time (probably) being the 70s and 80s. At some point it fell out of fashion and now tends to make things look amateurish/dated unless used exactly right. I understand Tarantino brought it back in Kill Bill and I’m sure others have done it recently(ish) too, but it’s all context...are you INTENDING a 70s look/feel? Or does it clash with a modern style you’re attempting?

I understand your issue with the dolly being too slow but ths makes me think perhaps the whole shooting plan for this sequence should be rethought...perhaps a blocking change, or a shot where the camera moving ever so slightly to the side or only having to dolly out a little (as opposed to the massive shot size you would get from the crash zoom) to reveal the bad guys would work. Or do it with edits instead of cam moves.

No I'm not trying to have a 70s throwback but I just wanted to do a zoom back fast, to do a quick ambush reveal, just before the ambush happens. So I don't think it would look 70s, as long as I have a legitimate type of reveal for using it, but that is just my guess.

The reason why I wanted a zoom is cause it can cover more ground in a faster amount of time than I can run, with the camera on a gimbal.

I thought about doing it with an edit but I felt that the audience would lose the sense of space of where they are in the scene, cause all of a sudden we see a close up of the actor's face, then it cuts to where he's very far away in the scene, so far, that the audience has to re-orient themselves, to where they are, as oppose to doing a fast zoom, and then the audience will be able to keep up where they are geographically, instead of having to cut and the audience having to re-orient.

But I was told I could do the zoom if I learn to focus pull it faster, so is it just a matter of that?

Crash zoom was made popular by The Office. They didn’t invent it but like most things there are styles of shooting that become hot. Everyone tries to emulate, eventually it gets over used and abandoned. It’s not to say it doesn’t have use and might work great for your intended scenes but if you can’t pull it off what’s the point?

Here’s a video where they pull it off by I think having a large dof so everything is in focus. But for all I know they could be using a parfocal lens .

Office Snap Zoom Compilation - YouTube

I tried doing the large DOF to have everything in focus but I would have to go beyone f20 and not sure if we can get lights bright enough for that to light a parking garage, where this ambush is suppose to take place.

Here's a test I did in the garage under it's natural lighting so far. And everything is in focus, but still goes out of focus during the zoom:

zooming test - YouTube

But I was told I could get the shot if I learn to pulls focus really fast during or get a focus puller who can, so is that possible then, or no?

It's standard to pull focus during a shot, a shallow depth of field has become a fashion for many film makers.

However, the zoom lenses used on still cameras aren't designed for zooming and maintaining focus. They are varifocal lenses, so they will lose focus when zoomed. The zoom test you've posted is distracting because it loses focus in the opposite way to normal. In practice, you can get away with zooming in the opposite direction because, with fast moving action, audiences are used to focus hunting in news and documentaries after a crash zoom into the subject. Editors keep these in because of the energy, although camera people tend to get annoyed by them.

In this case, a cut (even a jump cut) would be better.

Okay thanks, so when I was told I am able to pull focus during the zoom, then I cannot then at all?

Plus, you are saying that if the lens goes out of focus during the zoom, it's okay to go out of focus if you zoom forward, but not backward?

It looks like in the video you posted you have auto focus on. The technique I use is set the focus manually to the zoomed in subject and leave it that way. When you zoom out to super wide anlge of view even if it’s out of focus the dof is so great it won’t be noticeable. Some modern cameras compensate for this and you might not be able to prevent it. Someone else pointed out earlier some lenses are less parfocal than others. Big part of idie film make on no budget you have to be creative and flexible to overcome these things.

Okay thanks, but I didn't have the autofocus on in the video. If I put the autofocus on, then the lens cannot zoom back as fast, and it does it slower. The only way to do a crash zoom is to take the autofocus off. So it definitely was off. I just did another test to make sure, and the manual focus is on, and it still goes out of focus during the zoom.

But I feel that the question I asked is not really being answered though if that's okay. My question is how to pull focus during a zoom, not don't do the zoom cause I don't know how to pull focus. I am asking how, if that's okay :).

While I don’t work in Hollywood as far as I understand stand it they don’t use autofocus, there is a dedicated person whos only job is to “pull” focus. They might be next to the camera or using a remote to control it. Often there is a geared mechanism attached to the lens.

All of this is moot because either your camera and or lens is interfering with should be happening. In addition you are also hung up on using a crash zoom when it’s not necessary. For example take a look at any of the classic spaghetti westerns by Sergio Leone who use direct cut to a super close up. If you take the time to watch any movie you will find very few zooms.

Okay thanks. But I'm not using autofocus! Why do people who see this clip say think I am using autofocus? There is no autofocus being used. I am free to pull focus but yet no one wants to explain how, during a zoom it seems.

The thing about Sergio Leone's movies though is that you know where the person is in the far away shot cause they are right there in the middle of nowhere, clearly seen.

Where as in mine, the guy is hiding behind a door, in a parking garage full of pillars, with other people hiding behind them waiting to ambush him.

So in mine, you will not be able to see where the guy is in the far wide shot if I do a cut, cause there is too much else in the room to see and, compared to a Leone movie.

The audience will likely loose their sense of orientation if I jump cut back so wide from a close up I feel, cause they cannot clearly see the character in the wide cause he is hiding, where as a zoom will reveal where he is compared to everyone else geographically.

Plus how do other people pull focus on a verifocal lens? In this film riot video they do a crash zoom with a DSLR verifocal at 4:41 into the video:

The Difference Between Dolly & Zoom Shots - YouTube

If you look at the zoom lens they are using on the DSLR it is not a parfocal lens, so how they pulling focus during the zoom, or what are they doing?

I just feel like my question isn't being answered, is how do I pull focus during the zoom. I didn't ask if Hollywood has focus pullers. I know they have focus pullers. I am asking HOW to do it during a zoom.

For example, when I pull focus normally I will use a grease pencil and set focus marks on the lens. But how do I do that during a zoom? The lens only goes out of focus for a fraction of a second and it's not enough time for me to set a mark, before it goes back into focus. So since I have no time to set marks during the zoom, how does a focus puller do it?

I just feel that the question I am asking is being avoided, and other resolutions are being offered, and that's fine, but I just really want to know how to pull focus for this type of shot, if that's okay. If the camera or lens is interfering with what SHOULD be happening, well what SHOULD be happening then and how can I fix that? :)

You should reverse your approach. Understand your limitations and work back from there altering the scene to suit your limitations.

You might be surprised that what you feel won’t work might actually work. There a whole host of movies that disorient the viewer during an action scene. Instead of being a calm distant observer they are in the middle of the choas. Done right it makes the viewer feel apart of the action.

I can’t go into any more detail about pulling focus it’s a highly technical skill with specialized equipment. You would get more details on an indie film making group.

Okay thanks, I understand that being open to different solutions is good but it turns out that focus pulling on a verifocal lens during a zoom can be done though, according to the film riot video I posted, so how are they doing it?

As was stated earlier that is usually done by a separate human being, the camera assistant. The pro way would be to figure out exactly where you/camera will be, where the actor youre zooming out from will be, then find a way to mark your lens where it’s in focus at the start mark of the move (the CU) and the end mark (wide). Then you have to turn the focus ring from one mark to the other as you zoom, timing the focus change to the zoom timing. A friend could do the focus ring turn as you zoom out, since you wont be able to watch the shot and the focus ring at the same time (unless youre locked off on a tripod and the composition doesnt change as the shot widens out, then you can look away from the shot to watch the focus ring, check it after you stop recording to see if you nailed it.

I’m sure there are focus pulling tutorials on the proper method on youtube.

Some folks also learn to do it by feel...if you know where your focus ring hand needs to be while holding the ring when the lens is focused at the start of the zoom, and where your hand is to be in focus at the end of the zoom, you can feel when your hand/the ring is in the right position. Apparently some pro sports shooters can do this...focus zoom and pan/tilt simultaneously while following a ball through the air or whatever. But youll have to practice. I recommend figuring out the focus points, marking lens, having friend move the ring as you zoom.

I still say, like some others have, that it’s kind of a dated technique for narrative fiction filmmaking these days. The office, modern family etc. are pseudo documentaries and are supposed to have the feel of such, so the camera zooming all over like the operator is following action he doenst know is about to happen makes sense. Not really the case in narrative. I think if all the issues you describe exist, you should rethink your approach to the cinematography of this scene/sequence. Luckily for you you live in an age where youtube and vimeo exist and there are probably a couple thousand free examples of similar scenes to inspire you on different approaches you could use.

Okay thanks. Sometimes I have to pull focus myself though, which I don't mind.

I usually set markers, but what I mean is how do I set markers when it only goes out of focus during the zoom. When I am not zooming it's in focus. It only goes out of focus during the zoom. So how do I figure out where the marks go when it only goes out of focus while zooming?

Like when I'm actually zooming, it's out of focus, if I stop zooming it's in focus. So how do I set markers then during a zoom? The crash zoom lasts about a fraction of a second then goes back into focus. So I only have a fraction of a second to figure out where the marks go. How does a focus puller figure out where marks are to be set, when he/she only has a fraction of a second to figure it out before the lens is back in focus. Like I will zoom back and it will go out of focus but as soon as I stop to mark the first mark, it goes back in focus all of a sudden, cause I stopped zooming. That's my dilemma that I cannot figure out is how to make focus marks while it's moving in just a fraction of a second to figure it out.

I don't think the technique is dated all the time though. I mean Rise of the Planet of the Apes came out in 2011 and that had a couple of crash zooms in during key moments. Plus in documentary style shows they are zooming cause they are not quite sure what is happening, where as mine, it's done to do a very planned reveal, so I didn't think it would come off the same way it does in a documentary.

But I posted the film riot video and they were able to pull focus on a verifocal lens while zooming it seems, so how did they do it?

Some stills zoom lenses manage to keep reasonable focus, even though they aren't true parfocal zoom lenses.

The Sigma zooms may be worth checking out, their cine zooms are described as "nearly parfocal" by them, so I'd follow up by checking out the stills version of these lenses to if this applies to them. Although it may be the case that they're selecting the best lenses for their cine zooms.

However, I wouldn't generally regard zoom lenses intended for stills photography as suitable for doing zoom shots, but more as a variable focal length lens. They are missing a lens group found in cine and video lenses that maintain focus while zooming. .

Oh okay. So it's not possible at all to pull focus while zooming then?

Their is a Sigma lens that can zoom into from 18mm to 300mm but it's for APS-C format cameras only, so I would have to not shoot in full frame then, which may not be a bad thing, but I would have to buy the lens and test it for and then if it went out of focus while zooming I would have to return it. But is there any way to tell if this lens can maintain focus while zooming:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home/BI/2855/KBID/3801

As far as cutting instead of zooming for some reason this shot just feels to me that the camera should move to do a reveal rather than cut. It just feels like it should be a move. I could use the gimbal and run with it to do the reveal, but I feel my running will do the reveal too slowly compared to a crash zoom.

Therefore it was suggested on here to speed up the running movement in post and just have the actors act it out slowly. But will the audience be able to tell that the actors are faking slow movements that were sped up later?

If it is in focus at the start and the end without you moving the focus ring at all and only goes soft during the zoolm, which is what you seem to be saying, you need a diffferent lens. But again, you are now looking to spend money to buy or rent (unless you can borrow) for a single shot in what is presumably an unpaid project that is has no guarantee of making money (please dont get mad, this is just reality with indie filmmaking).

I have been the subborn guy that insists there is only one way something should be as others have advised changing my approach, probably will be again at some point, I know how it is in your mind when you are sure youre right and everyone telling you to do things differently is wrong, but I still urge you to try to see past all that, step back, and see if there might not be another approach that accomplishes the same goal without you having a janky looking soft focus zoom or spending money to avoid it (unless youre ok with that). I will say my experience is that no one who isnt attached to the project will care nearly as much as you do. You will not have friends, family, review blogs, etc. watching your movie and saying “this movie would have been great instead of merely good if he had only used a crash zoom in that ambush scene instead of a stupid, pedestrian dolly/cut.”. We artists tend to be ossessive and I’ve definitely obsessed over minute details in personal movie and music projects that people who arent filmmakers or musicians would never care about. And thats the bog thing to remember...your audience is usually “regular” people, not other filmmakers. Regular people just want stuff to be good/entertaining...they dont know about/care about/notice cinematography and technique and theyre not really supposed to...if you get compliments on your crash zoom from non-filmmakers it usually means in that moment they were focusing on technique and not the story/world youve created, which is generally considered a filmmaking fail.

I went way down the rabbit hole on that one but this is to all to say spend money to address the issue or find another approach.

Okay thanks, I see what you mean. I perhaps could dolly it and just go really fast and live with the fact that it's a slower reveal, or cut it.

However, as far as regular audience goes I showed the zoom test to 4 people so far, and three of them said that they thought it going out of focus was just naturally part of the shot and it didn't bother them that it goes out of focus and then snaps back in. Only 1 out of 4 of them said it looked too weird and distracting but the other 3 that it was intentionally stylistic.

Do you think maybe I should do a crash zoom and have it go out of focus and act like it was intentional, and just own it then?

Or as far as Sigma goes, if it's true that those lenses can stay in focus while zooming, I could get the Sigma 18mm-300mm that I posted before, but does it really do that? That lens is actually cheaper so if I traded mine in, I wouldn't be loosing any money and that lens also can zoom out quite a bit further for a bigger reveal, but not sure if it actually maintains while focus while zooming.

I think it looks bad. I’m a firm believer of not doing something unless you can do it right. If this is a school project then your professor is the target audience. If you spend all your time resources on one shot the rest of it will suffer. If you’re trying to use this on your reel to get work amateur technique is going to be noticed by anyone in the industry. Like Josh said you seem obsessed by this zoom but in the big picture it’s not as important as you think it is. A ordinary viewer isn’t going to scrutinizing the details they will either like it on the whole or not. Does it visually tell a story well?

Okay thanks. I thought maybe they wouldn't care if the zoom was done in focus as long as the story was good maybe. I thought that when it comes to visually telling the story that a crash zoom is more effective of a real than a much slower gimbal move cause I thought the speed of it would make it more frantic for the plot situation.

But I can do the reveal with a much slower gimbal move then if I have to and if that's best then.

A crash zoom like this is more television than cinematic in nature. A track has more impact, you can speed ramp it up if need be during the move, but with a wide angle lens it'll have way more energy than a zoom. .

Okay thanks. I can do the track, but if I feel that it is too slow, how do I speed ramp it, exactly? Like is there any movies that a have are really fast tracking reveal shot like this, to get an idea?

Ryan, may I suggest an option you may not have considered? If getting this particular shot (and getting it right) is as important to you as it sounds like, you may want to consider contacting a few AV rentals place in Saskatoon and look into renting a higher end digital cinematic camera and lens for a day (or half day if you plan it right) for just this one shot then color match, etc in post.

It shouldn't be too expensive but then you have exactly the shot you want and how you want it.... Just food for thought.

Whatever you do decide to do, all the best! If you can, please share your finished results here. I'd love to see it!

Okay thanks. It's just that I am worried about the camera footage not matching if I use a different camera compared to the rest of the footage.

Also whenever I rent, I have to book weeks in advance, and if one person in the cast and crew has to reschedule anything, I cannot get the rental then. In the past, renting has been very tough cause of this. But I can certainly try.

Or if tracking it is going to look even better, than I can do that, I am just not sure how to track it fast enough.

You can apply a speed ramp in post during the edit, many NLEs allow you to do these.

Even if the track is slower than the the crash zoom, it will still carry more energy than the zoom, especially in an action sequence.

For a fast move you're better running forward than a going backwards, Steadicam probably has the advantage for this, but you could try the same with a gimbal mount. Having the gimbal facing back as the operator runs forward. Practice should get a good technique..

Not as fast as a crash zoom, but more power.

Martin Scorsese // Fast Dolly Zoom in on Vimeo

Oh yeah for sure I would definitely run forwards compared to backwards.

However, if I speed it up in post, how do I make it look non-sped up? Like when I take frames out to speed up the footage, you can tell there is missing frames, and it looks unintentionally cheesy. Plus the actors in the shot are moving faster, where as I just want to speed up the camera movement and not have the actors look sped up.

Is this possible?

Basic rule is you shoot at a higher frame rate for slow motion and at a lower rate for fast motion.
https://www.diyphotography.net/learn-choose-best-frame-rate-videos-just-10-minutes/

Most cameras only offer 24, 30 and maybe 60 but I've found you can do both even if filmed at a normal rate. Speeding up in the editor more forgiving than slow motion. Speed changes are always ramped. Again whether you'll be able to do it will depend on your editing software both Premiere and FCPX will. So you might go from normal speed and ramp up to twice the speed.

Okay thanks but what do you mean by 'ramp' in this context? Is ramp an actual Premiere Pro term for example?

I have Premiere Pro. What feature in Premiere Pro are you referring to?

ramping is acceleration or deceleration of video speed.

You would find a clip speed control in your NLE, and keyframe that effect on that particular clip to go from normal speed to 200% or 2x or whatever your software calls it, then back to normal at the right time. You could try to get a friend or whoever to help you test having the actors do that shot at half speed so when it is sped up it looks normal. That’s the only way to know if itll work for you. Tests.

Okay thanks, I am just worried it will look like the actors are moving fake, when they try to fake moving slow.

I can't really test it cause I don't have the gimbal yet and will not have it till later on before production. That's why I was hoping to know if it would work sooner than that. But I can test it later if need be.

Every time I try get an actor to fake something physical like that, it always comes off looking fake, which is why I prefer the real deal if I can.

Another thing is, when I move a camera really fast, there is a serious rolling shutter jello effect going on. Especially when you move a camera as fast as you can. That's another reason why I was more comfortable with zooming fast instead.

But is there a way around this?

As for shooting at higher frame rate for fast motion the camera can only shoot as low as 24 and no lower unfortunately.

.

But is there a way around this?
Yes film a romantic comedy instead

Okay thanks, but it's too late for that now :)

As a matter of interest, why to you wish go wider rather than move into the action? Are there people running in to join the fight?

Oh I wanted to start out with a close up of the main character peaking around the corner than go wider to reveal the people hiding behind walls, and pillars waiting to ambush him. If that makes sense as to why I want to go wider?

I suspect that would work better as a slow dolly short, revealing the danger. This is the old Hitchcock suspense concept, the crash zoom is more surprise. The audience will be more emotionally involved if you tease them with the increasing danger as the main character enters the space moving ever closer to the threatening figures. .

http://www.thereversegear.com/hitchcocks-suspense-and-surprise/

Well I thought that a surprise would be better. The thing is, is that the main character is a cop and his police co-workers are getting killed, so he is on real ticking time bomb scenario, and I thought that he wouldn't just pause to wait a for a dolly move to finish.

Plus it's a fast moving scene in general, with all these other fast camera moves so I thought that a slow reveal may suddenly feel out of place, if everything else if fast.

If it was a place of possible danger the cop wouldn't just rush in, he'd use his senses, listening ,watching before he/she makes their move. Camera moves should be motivated and the character wouldn't wait, the camera would move at the pace the tension requires.

I'd read up on Hitchcock, he knew how to hold an audience on the edge of their seat and top directors still use the same techniques .

Not to continue to tell you how to shoot your own movie but another approach might be cu shot or tracking/leading shot with the guy slowly proceeding through the room, thinking he’s alone, then CUT to a wider shot of the room showing the guys hiding around corners/behind pillars/wherever. A sour sounding music cue accompanying the cut tell us things are about to get nasty.

If theyre hiding physically close where hes peaking around corners a tiny cam move rather than a dramatic zoom can reveal them...thats down to blocking.

There are really an almost infinite number of ways to approach any filmmaking scenario. Your mind is locked into this one idea. Look stuff up on Youtube. There are probably many clips of scenes just like this from shows and movies from the 80s onward with every possible approach, not to mention stuff from other indie filmmakers.

Well I guess I just feel that there is the way to shoot something that feels right and every other way does not feel as good, and the less compromises I make, the better I feel.

I suspect you're caught up in what the camera is doing rather than what the audience is doing and emoting. You can have changes of pace within fast action.

Top 10 Tensest Movie Moments of All Time - YouTube

In the end it's your production.