Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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'

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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:


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?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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




More equipment options,

https://www.cameragrip.com/camera-ca...-suction-pads/

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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/sti...ebsite-update/

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.


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

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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...ic-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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

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.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Had a chance to talk to and watch some footage from a DOP working on a (for Australia) big budget feature with lots of driving. They mainly used a process rig (car on trailer with lots of camera mounts all over) but for night scenes used simtrav (black outside with moving LED lights, someone rocking the back bumper). What I thought was also interesting, for a few forward shots they mounted a drone to the bonnet (note it was a $150,000 drone with an FS5, still, nice image, and a Mavic Pro or similar should also work).

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Paul - that was a good vid. Did the pace car had any four-wheel drifts? Bet everybody was having fun.

Ryan - For me, at least, one thing that kinda turns me off when watching a movie is to see something that is fake. (Exception: for example, when watching Antiques Road Show and they find a counterfeit.)

Back in post #793 there were a car clip example of people talking. In the clip example, I think the second one, there was one spot where the driver was looking at the passenger for ~4 seconds. This is a very long time while driving and he's lucky he didn't have an accident. When looking sideways it is natural to turn the steering wheel toward the direction one is looking.

The "devil is in the details". An option might be to have the driver stop for a traffic light or something. In fact, there could be a lot of conversation at that point. Locally there is a major intersection can provide a couple minutes!!!! As a director one can pick an intersection that fits the need in the script.

Another challenge: how to do a stop and go without being a distraction in itself?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Oh okay, it's just I will have to purchase the Selens first, before I am able to test it, unless some buyers allow tests first of course, and give you the option of returning it, if you don't like the tests. And I will be most likely shooting with a camera that has a sensor around CMOS size... If the background is moving fast, will the audience notice, as long as they are looking at the actor, and not the fast moving background?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

CMOS is a sensor type, not a size. Regarding rolling shutter artifacts, it depends on how much vibration etc is occurring and how prone your camera is to them. They can cover the whole image. it may not be an issue, but worth testing before shooting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter

Test equipment like car mounts before using them on a feature film. Reshoots cost more in the end.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Oh okay, I was told that full frame sensors are worse for rolling shutter, if that's true, and that CMOS was better for it, unless it's still bad?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Let's not drift into rolling shutter. It's covered in depth elsewhere and like everything, is a thing that should simply be considered in your preproduction planning. If a shot is needed that means it's a problem, sort it. We do this whenever we consider what we're shooting. Telegraph poles, street lights and passing buildings offer snags to be solved, but that's one of the DPs roles.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Yes, rolling shutter is open to much "I was told" in this particular case, get your DP to test the production camera when testing your camera mount.

CMOS sensors are very common these days, even the Arri Alexa has one, as do full frame stills cameras. However, rolling shutter varies with each camera model and if it's been reduced as part of the design of the camera and its sensor.

So, "and that CMOS was better for it" is nonsense, it's a characteristic of all CMOS sensors, it's how well it's controlled in a particular camera that matters.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Oh okay, I was told that the larger the sensor, the more noticeable the rolling shutter is, if that's true.

Since so many filmmakers and DPs have blackmagic cameras now, are those ones good for rolling shutter?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

If we really MUST discuss rolling shutter, maybe a new topic would be best Ryan - this one has already changed direction quite a few times.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Yes, rolling shutter is a whole new area of discussion.

Note that there are full frame high end digital cinema cameras, so the sensor size itself isn't the deciding factor, it's the read out speed that matters.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Oh okay thanks for the advice. Well, trying to keep on topic, I could do the shallow DOF instead of deep if shallow is better in some ways, it's just it would be shot like High and Low, but with a shallow DOF, which means if I have say four characters in a wide shot, then I would have the camera team, racking focus between them in the wide, as oppose to them all being in focus at once. Would that look worse?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

It's personal taste, although with shorter focal length lenses you either need to be shooting at wide apertures or using full frame cameras to have a noticeable;shallow DOF effect. There are no rules, you have decide before you start filming, that's what the camera tests are for.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Lots of lenses on wide have noticeable shift when focus is changed - In a wide, I personally hate pulling focus with a shallow image. I'm probably alone in this, but in a wide shot, I want too be able to choose what I look at, and out of focus just doesn't work for me.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Yeah I think I see what you mean, are you saying you prefer the out of focus background on CU and OTS shots, rather than a wide, where it's racking focus between multiple characters?

I asked a couple of other filmmakers about it, and they said that deep focus works in movies like in Citizen Kan, cause it's in black and white and they have total control over what the background looks like. Where as in my situation, I am going to be shooting in real locations that I am not allowed to paint. So an out of focus background is key, cause you don't want the audience to be distracted by colors you are not allowed to paint over or change. Is that true do you think? For example, one short I worked on way before, a couple of viewers pointed out how they were distracted by a green car in the background, which I couldn't control whoever parked there. They said maybe it should have been out of focus more to hide it. So therefore, maybe shallow focus in wide shots is better, when dealing with uncontrolled colors?

Even that short I posted on here, before, the wide shots looked like a home video camera to me, and I think it was because of the deep focus, so maybe deep focus looks like home video with color, but looks cinematic in black and white more so? Come to think of it, in color movies, the background is almost always more out of focus, compared to older black and white movies, so is that the reason?

Or is it better to shoot with a deep focus wide, so you can choose who to look at, but then recolor the uncontrolled background in post, which would take more time, cause you have to rotoscope out the background from the actors in Da Vinci, or something like that?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Surely you mean deep depth-of-field?

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Yes sorry deep depth of field.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Black and white doesn't enter into it, but lighting is a key part of shooting deep focus or even shallow DOF. There are colour feature films that have pretty deep focus, the reason why your films look like video is probably because you're shooting video using REC 709, which always tends to look like video. Even with a shallow DOF it still looks like video.

The background colours will still be there with a shallow DOF and not many dramas can afford to repaint their locations. If the colours are distracting find another location with better decor, since the most you can generally do in practice is move the furniture around or hang a few drapes in real locations.

A shallow DOF isn't the answer to poor art direction.

If shooting dramas either shoot log or RAW, which allows you more colour correction in post, if you wish to avoid a video look.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

Oh ok but the short film was shot in log and it still looked like home video though.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

You also need to add all the other elements. 16mm film looks like home movies if you don't do all the other stuff. Of course, some high end films intentionally make themselves look like home movies.

Re: Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?
 

So because you can't remove a green car, you should have blurred it? You really must get better friends because this is complete tripe Ryan. Why is green annoying? No idea but a blurry green blob would surely be even more of a problem because people will want to know what it is. Where on earth has this uncontrolled colour thing come from? Monochrome works because of the mood it creates - the lack of colour has an impact on the viewer. The impact is very variable, depending on content. Old black and white war films do NOT look like Citizen Kane! It isn't the lack of colour, it's the creative look. If your frame has eye drawing elements in it then fix it - don't try to treat it to do a repair. I really cannot imagine doing all the prep, then getting to a location and having a shot where something in it means an entire rethink of the style.

This is just wrong Ryan. Where are these silly ideas coming from, and why don't you reject them as complete poppycock when these people come up with such stupid ideas.

There's rather a good youtube clip about Doctor Who - a very popular long running series over here and in the clips you see things going wrong because people cut corners and didn't think about the problems. Really obvious stuff. Mistakes in the shoot that wrecked the story in the edit, special effects that got a bit out of hand, and even leaving critical story wrecking bits of set in the back of the shot that when they came to edit it, ruined everything. They even forgot to close off a street and in the background you can see members of the public walking past the set, stopping and looking at the actors and Daleks. They even had an explosion and then expected the Dalek operators to try to manoeuvre the, over the top of all the debris on the floor.

If the BBC can get things so wrong - then you can be forgiven to. Here's the clip link - quite long, but so full of mistakes that really should have been thought of before they shot.