Curse of modern cinema relentless editing.

I watched this trailer for a documentary the other day on a subject that really interests me and it is a simple interview to camera but I felt like strangling the editor. Is it just me or do those cuts in and out grate like hell? It didn't need any of them - the first shot would have done for the whole clip to my taste but Ok maybe 2 or 3 would have worked but there are 19 in 1'20"!

Simon Nicol on the Unique Sound Techniques Sound - YouTube

What does modern editing, have to with it though?

I'm surprised you're unaware that the pace of cutting has increased in modern films.

Curse of modern cinema relentless editing.

I watched this trailer for a documentary the other day on a subject that really interests me and it is a simple interview to camera but I felt like strangling the editor. Is it just me or do those cuts in and out grate like hell? It didn't need any of them - the first shot would have done for the whole clip to my taste but Ok maybe 2 or 3 would have worked but there are 19 in 1'20"!

Simon Nicol on the Unique Sound Techniques Sound - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INc7uvxF7NM)

sounds like modern corporate video style. Shoot two cams, edit two cams.

I'm surprised you're unaware that the pace of cutting has increased in modern films.

Oh I didn't understand what you meant. I thought you were saying that the focus has something to do with the editing. But as far as wide shots and editing go, would using Kurosawa's style of editing in High and Low, be too slow paced for today's audience too much do you think?

It depends on the content, there are a number of modern films which are "single shot" films. If your actors can give performances (good timing etc) and have enough screen presence. plus your script is excellent, so it that can hold longer shots, it'll work. Although, small screens, like phones do introduce a difficulty, these older films are shot for the big screen, where you can see the details in actors' faces in the wider shots.

Editing is commonly used to cover flaws in the above.

sounds like modern corporate video style. Shoot two cams, edit two cams.

Certainly that style but the way it is done here actually distracts the viewer from what the guy is saying and I am sure that is not what anyone wants but it is like the director / editor has got a compulsive disorder to edit come what may.

S/he actually cut multiple times within one sentence! What a nutter - It's actually worse because with the two very similar angles, it makes it even more annoying - almost like its snapping between two zoom angles. Maybe the intention was to spice up a boring monologue, when in fact it is the kind of content that's a bit specialist, so the viewers want the info, and this makes there be even less need for rapid cuts. No cuts enables real concentration. If it were for casual listeners/viewer, you could understand the idea to drive it a bit. Just horrible!

Perhaps he stammered and stumbled so much that was the only way to piece it together. If you dont force em to do enough takes to get a good one all the way through or at least several longer chunks solidly, and have bo broll to cover, you could find yourself in that position in post.

If you look at other videos in the same series over cutting seems to be a habit. Also, this speaker seems to be very articulate, so stammering etc seems unlikely,

It would be poor filmmaking if you cut together an interview in such away to cover stammering and stumbling, you can do that in radio, but not in a video.

It would but thats never stopped some people!

If the rest are like that its probably a stylistic choice, albeit a bad one. Trying to be “hep” and “wizard”, as the kids say.

It depends on the content, there are a number of modern films which are "single shot" films. If your actors can give performances (good timing etc) and have enough screen presence. plus your script is excellent, so it that can hold longer shots, it'll work. Although, small screens, like phones do introduce a difficulty, these older films are shot for the big screen, where you can see the details in actors' faces in the wider shots.

Editing is commonly used to cover flaws in the above.

Would people watching movies on their phones be a problem? Older movies that have more wide shots in are still watched by today's audience, so they would they have problem with it? Like when people complain about a movie, I never hear them say the actors were often too far away from the camera.

But I also feel that on modern movies, there are a lot of shots where the actors are too close, or they concentrate too much on 'singles', if that is the right term, for one actor in the shot only. So I thought I would do this project in an older style, where you have wide shots with more actors in the frame, more often.

Again, these are decisions for the director of a film. They know the content, we don't

S/he actually cut multiple times within one sentence! What a nutter - It's actually worse because with the two very similar angles, it makes it even more annoying - almost like its snapping between two zoom angles. Maybe the intention was to spice up a boring monologue, when in fact it is the kind of content that's a bit specialist, so the viewers want the info, and this makes there be even less need for rapid cuts. No cuts enables real concentration. If it were for casual listeners/viewer, you could understand the idea to drive it a bit. Just horrible!

Makes you wonder how they did it. If two cameras then one would have to be virtually directly behind the other. The irony is that the topic - Sound Techniques studio - was all about spending the most time getting a great sound at source by careful use of microphones, placement of them and using the acoustics of the space, rather than post production work or even much tweaking on the desk. The filmmakers would have done well to take this approach themselves.

Everyone knows that Orson Welles and his cinematographer, Gregg Toland, used deep focus in Citizen Kane. But it requires a lot of light and a small aperture opening.

The lighting requirements would be a lot less today, they used a 64ASA film stock on Citizen Kane.

deep focus... Citizen Kane... requires a lot of light and a small aperture opening.

Not to mention the best part: some intricate triple-matte rear projection process shots, when nothing else will do.

Thanks for that, I never noticed! Very clever.

It is one of those "not because you can but whether and when you should" sort of things.

This debate was happening way back when the first home-made and affordable 35mm groundglass based film emulators for 1/3" and 2/3" camcorders became the talking point.

The signature of someone who had just bought themselves one or made one was the extreme shallow depth-of-field shooting going on.

The 35mm groundglass stuff was sometimes spoiled by the same threadbare economics which compelled the use of a groundglass device on a small format videocamera in the first place.

However, there were instances of serious skill, appropriate production values and post-production being applied to groundglass origination and then it looked good.

Three standouts for me were "Merantau", "Dear Wendy" and "Monsters".

Oh okay. I actually thought about doing rear projection shots as well, like maybe during driving scenes, with car windows, if you don't want to have the actors actually driving a car with cameras attached to it.

One thing about rear projection that looks fake is that it always looks faded compared to the actors. So if you blacken the blacks for the rear projected footage, and brighten the brights, it will look less faded. Will that work better for rear projection?

Video rear projection works pretty well compared to film, which involves going down a generation in film terms with the plate. However, you should run tests with the projection equipment and screen you're planning to use to see if they're up to the job during the planning stage. Doing it during the production may waste a lot of time setting it up.

A low loader with action car mounted on it may work out better if the rear projection doesn't work or you could test green screen. It depends on what you want to do and if you've got the lighting kit to produce an realistic effect. The rear projection would be easier for night shots than day time.

That's true, I do want to do night shots for one of the driving scenes. What do you mean by 'low loader'?

Not sure what the US term would be, but essentially a very low trailer with the deck as low to the ground as possible, and then you drive onto it and the actors pretend to drive. You fix cameras and audio to it, and then you drive the car on the trailer around giving realistic backgrounds. Much safer than letting actors try to act and drive at the same time.

Oh yes, one of those.

I don't have one of those at my disposal unfortunately. One of shots I want is the camera mounted on the hood of the car pointed at the driver, but a dead on front shot through the windshield. We can shoot it on a road with not much traffic around, but would this be a bad idea, if we mount it to a car and he actually drives? Or perhaps we can pull the car with a pick up truck, rather than a low loader?

Can the actor act and drive? Probably, but if you stick two people in a car and you're not in it as the director, have you got a video/audio link so you can monitor what theyre doing and how well they are doing it? On a trailer, you can be in the towing vehicle with cables between. No point towing them, he still has to steer = and I guess you've never been towed like this, because it's more stressful the driving!

rear screen projection is no laughing matter

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MrktxWUgcyA

Can the actor act and drive? Probably, but if you stick two people in a car and you're not in it as the director, have you got a video/audio link so you can monitor what theyre doing and how well they are doing it? On a trailer, you can be in the towing vehicle with cables between. No point towing them, he still has to steer = and I guess you've never been towed like this, because it's more stressful the driving!

Yeah that was the plan just monitor it from the outside. But for the close up shots, I can be in the back seat I think, as long as I am not in the close up shot. No, I've never been towed in a car, I have just seen them be towed. Another thing, is is that if the car is not being towed, you don't hear the truck towing it, so sound is more easier to record, if you don't hear that as well.

It's nice and quiet with the engine off, but being towed is not for novices. The problem returns to your directing. You NEED a monitor and as you won't have a dedicated sound op, you will need to hear everything too. If you are outside the vehicle watching a monitor and listening to the audio, you also need walkie talkies or talkback so you can direct, and stop things and do re-shoots. You're running, not walking again. I have only done this kind of thing once, and a three minute scene took me all day, and wasn't perfect by any means. Driving around the streets of Cardiff took planning, and the involvement of the Police to ensure it went smoothly.

I also wanted thought maybe I don't need to have this conversation take place in the car, and I can just skip ahead to after they have parked and exited the car. But I was told by readers, that there is no way they are going to drive through the city and not have this really important conversation that whole time, which they need to have, so I have to execute it in the driving, they said.

Surely this is in the script? Why go to the effort of the car, if all you need is people getting in and driving off and then cutting to them getting out?

Oh they need to have a conversation but the conversation is of the utmost urgency, which means they wouldn't wait till a car drive was over, in to have it.

Shoot it mostly hand held from the back. Keep your camera on wide. Dub the dialog. Helps if they're in a camper. Shoot the driver from the passenger side.

Doing video is a balancing act. Balancing that shot or scene that is wanted against limited resources (gear, talent, oh yes, and even money).

Reading this thread back in page 5, the posts were a lot about different ways to capture a scene with people talking while driving a car. Every option presents problems and costs. One option not mentioned was the use of smaller cams, recorders, and gimbals that can be controlled via Wi-Fi.

The kit I’ve been using this year includes the Sony AX700, AX53, X3000 (sport cam), Tascam DR44-WL recorder, and an electronic gimbal, all of which can be controlled via Wi-Fi. Each piece of gear has it’s own capability but they can be mixed according to the need. The gimbal ($190 US), has the capability to keep a horizontal horizon automatically, with horizontal and vertical motion controlled via Wi-Fi. All the cams have Wi-Fi capability for record Start, Stop, Zoom, etc., and the recorder also has Start, Stop, Gain, and a few other functions. The AX53, X3000 (both with optical steady shot), and the gimbal have stabilization, the X3000 being a sport cam has really good weather protection (something to consider when filming this winter). [Edit: With all the cams one can see the actual image on a smart phone and the gimbal also has weather protection]

There are tradeoffs but the capability for capture of reasonably steady action images is there for not much money. With an action scene like driving across town at night, how important is it that the image matches the adjacent scenes on either side? It’s a balancing act … the feeling of the viewer getting the inside scoop about what the two are discussing while in a car and feeling like the viewer is there vs the look of the video.

Anyway, Wi-Fi can be your friend. Just thought the mention of Wi-Fi capability might help in such a situation.

As an aside, last spring I caught a newspaper thief (at ~4:30 AM) with the action cam by using the small form factor to hide the cam (in a potted plant) and Wi-Fi to record it. Lots of new possibilities!

Edit:
Another thought:
Taking video from the back seat, set up two cams on each side in the back of the vehicle, and someone can control them with the remote (wired or wireless), by laying down on the back seat in the event there is a cam looking toward the windshield from the front. The passenger would do well to face toward the driver while speaking the lines, and the driver to periodically glance toward the passenger while still being a responsible driver.

Multicam is good.

Better get moving on this because the snow is going to be flying shortly (if it isn’t already!). Some forecasted for Saturday!
Check the temperature operating range for the cams!!! Overnight low of 26ºF!!! (not good!). Thats one reason why they make movies in Hollywood. No noisy tire chains to mess up the audio.

Oh okay. Some angles from the passenger side are good, but I would also like angles from more of the front of the faces as well, to get more emotional reactions during certain beats if possible. I thought about using the Selens car mount, as one filmmaker told me it was the most stable car mount for it's price, if that's true. If I don't go with rear project or greenscreen that is.

Another problem with shooting in, or from a car are how to deal with bumps in the road. Manhole covers not level, road repairs, potholes, and other uneven surfaces, and even sudden car breaking. If one is actually viewing the take via Wi-Fi it then it can, or might, be able to be redone.

If it is raining, are the wiper blades squeaky clean? (I have one that needs changing that's why I thought of it)

A dry practice run with a car while shooting a video can determine sections of the road where, or where not, shooting can take place. Coming to a stop at a traffic light could add realism with the lights reflected on the glass or elsewhere. Stoplights are every where. Could be a good place where an important part of the conversation takes place. Just thinkin'

I made a film which was about 50% shot in a car, mostly using an Arri 16 BL with an Angénieux 9.5 to 95mm zoom. The camera was pretty much mounted nearly everywhere you could put a camera on a car. We made our own car mounts from timber and there was never a problem with vibration, The designs were pretty much based on those used in the film industry at the time. One was a beam mount that went across the front of the car over the bonnet (hood in yank speak), once fitted you could get a wide range of front shots. Get an engineer on your crew if you want to do this type of stuff, if you're not employing a grip.

With your small DSLR cameras it should be pretty easy to get frontal shots, although Go Pros are used in nearly every car program these days.

Oh okay. I was thinking of using a gimbal attached to a Stelens car mount, but that is probably not enough to smoothen out any bumps enough, I'm guessing?

As for the gopro, I really don't like the look of it, cause every time I've seen it used, the focal length is way, way too wide, unless that's avoidable?

Tie a cushion to the bonnet (hood) and mount your camera on that with bungee cord. Absorbs the bumps. Avoid wet weather and traffic cops. If you go GoPro and suction cups, make sure you have a safety tether on the GoPro. Later GoPros can shoot shoot rectilinear.

Just adding - green screen is easy, but to me always looked like green screen. You can cover a lot of action with B roll of passing scenery while dialog continues.

There is also a video I saw on a car mount that is hugely expensive and has absorbing shock mechanisms to it, compared to the Stelens. However, I thought the footage was too smooth as if it felt like the movement of a helicopter rather than a car. Here's a couple of examples of car scenes. In the first one, there is a bit of shake in the road, making it feel like it's a real car:

car examples - YouTube

In the second example in the video, the car is much smoother, but one thing I noticed, is that while the car is moving, the camera is inside the car, and while the car, is stopped, the camera is outside. It's as if the filmmakers could only shoot outside if the car was stopped perhaps?

Well being that there is SUPPOSED be a psychological component to each and every aspect of a film, that is, the director trying to convey something, perhaps the smoothness of the footage represents something (who knows what). So you could think about that...what is the subtext (if any) in your scenes (remember the blocking examples video). Maybe that informs how smooth/bumpy you allow things to be. I mean, within reason...too much bumpity bumpity and it goes from nuance to an annoying thing that people will hate you for.

Well the conversation in my car scenes, are more dramatic and anxious so I would say a little car shake could work with it, but not too much of course. How do you get that right amount with a car mount?

Wrong. You shoot as stable as you can, and introduce shake for dramatic effect if it's needed, and it won't be. Never accept technical errors and disguise them and justify them by calling it art or realism. Steady is rarely the worst choice

You seem to be obsessed by gimbal mounts, like the Steadicam these will "lock" more onto the horizon rather than the the object your following.

The car scenes in features you show could be using different methods for filming in a car. The second looks like it was shot in a studio, while the first could either have a car mount on the doors (most likely) or the car mounted on a low loader.

On your budget, you want to be looking at how they shot car scenes in the 1970s, although you have the advantage of much lighter cameras. .However, since your technical knowledge seems to be generally poor, get someone who knows what they're doing for this.

Use the car's suspension to best effect and lower the tyre pressure a bit to reduce vibration. Low profile tyres won't help with the ride for filming,

The cameras today are so light that there's a range of options available, you can also hire them in if needed. Don't just rely on your local camera rental company, rent from a grip company

The Power is in the Mount! DSLR Suction Cup Camera Car Mount Camtree Power Gripper|View test shots - YouTube

$135 PRO Camera Car Mount! - YouTube


More equipment options,

https://www.cameragrip.com/camera-car-mounts-suction-pads/

I've had quite a few items from stickypod.com over the years and have given safe and solid results.
https://stickypod.com/2013/03/30/sticky-pod-website-update/

Oh okay thanks. I've seen those videos before, thanks. I was thinking of getting the camtree, but other filmmakers told me they felt it wasn't stable enough in their experience, and that the Selens was much better they said, if that's true as well... If cameras today are too light, what if I added weight to it?

If your camera is hard mounted to the car, assuming you're not going cross country, you don't need a stabilising device. I've mounted a camera in a racing car without needing stabilising, if anything it was too stable, because you lost the sense of speed and the G forces.

The brand one you mentioned seems to be another suction cup device, there are other makes around, this type of design has been around since the 1970s. It should do the job for what you need, just don't start adding gimbals etc to it.

Selens SK-1 Professional Car Suction Cup Mount Review - YouTube

Okay thanks, I can do that. In the video though, he says make sure you have camera stabilization on the lens or the body. But if am using a lens without stabilization, and a camera without stabilization in the body, should I not use a gimbal then?

The idea of a gopro was also mentioned before, I'm guessing so you don't have to mount a more expensive camera to your car while driving.

But whenever I see gopro footage mixed in, in a low budget feature, I can usually tell when it's a gopro, cause the camera footage looks so different that it sticks out like a sore thumb. Is it possible to make the gopro footage look exactly like the other camera footage?

Ryan, you're getting confused again. Stabilisation in a lens means that minute up down, or left right movements of the camera or the subject within the frame are tracked and mechanically adjusted so that while the lens might be pointing in one direction, the internal components can move the axis a small amount to remove (usually) handheld 'wobbles'. if you are using a mid to long focal length lens, keeping the subject in the same place handheld is hard enough, sitting in a vehicle travelling along a bumpy road, it's far, far worse.

a gimbal mount - on a small servo hand held unit can keep the camera heading and the tilt, when you move - but it does NOT take out vertical or horizontal bumps and thumps. If a camera physically moves up and down, a gimbal mount will actually let you do this happily. It will not tilt, or pan left or right, but it certainly cannot stop a bump moving the lens suddenly up two inches. In a full size Steadicam things work differently because of the arm. It has inertia and momentum. Your school science reminds you that it resists movement, which is why the operator can go up and over obstacles and the camera lens height tries to remain the same. A handheld gimbal mount can be held at arms length, horizontally and then your arm provides the momentum /inertia to try to remain at the same height. Remember the topic when we spoke about slow pans at maximum zoom and the stabilisers works against you? it is looking for movement and a very slow movement in frame gets mistaken for 'shake'.

You need to decide if your circumstance benefits from lens stabilisation or will suffer?

On the subject of car mounts, wide angles are normally the most appropriate, so Gopro works, but watch for the fish-eye effect creeping in. These mounts are usually perfectly reliable with DSLR size cameras, and handicaps. I used one happily with a Sony PD150 camera for years, and that's pretty big. The car type is important. Soft suspension and good dampers is a decent result - a car that has a dreadful ride and worn shocks won't be any good.

Okay thanks. But the guy in the video said you need to have either lens or body stabilization, so if she said you need then, is it true?

As for wide focal lengths, I want a single shot of the driver, pointing in through the front of the windshield, like this shot in in The French Connection. It's the shot that's in the thumbnail shot for the video.

The French Connection (4/5) Movie CLIP - Chasing the Train (1971) HD - YouTube

I'm guessing that was taken with a 50mm or 85mm lens around? Would that be too wobbly, on the Selens car mount?

They would've have hard mounted the camera onto the car body on "French Connection". No, you don't need lens or camera stabilization for car shots if you've got good car mounts. However, the rolling shutter on some CMOS sensors may not take kindly to all this if you've got excessive vibration on the roads and fast moving backgrounds.

https://cinephiliabeyond.org/william-friedkins-the-french-connection-the-seventies-peak-of-cinematic-excitement/

You'll have to test the Selens car mount to see how well it handles various focal lengths, that's part of the pre-production on a film.

I went back in youtube to 11 years ago with SD camcorders, no DSLRs no stabilisation and found quite a few that will show you that clever technology isn't remotely essential. The guy in the video has an opinion. As a camera operator, you need to accept it or not, based on your own judgement. I did a very successful camera shoot with a big ENG sized camera, on a bonnet (hood?) mount, that was so heavy we strapped it down, and the vehicle suspension was the only real isolation. I'll try to dig up a photo.

https://youtu.be/Xa1mD7vGkrw