re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

The audio is fine although he probably could have worn a lav and just adjust the mix in post to the room mic when needed. Those close ups are not necessary and are too quick. Pay attention to the background they should have signage for their studio behind them. They should also be wearing nice white uniforms because it doesn’t look professional.

This an example of how you should think about the overall look and feel. Research what you think are best way to present them and show them examples. That’s what a director does. You seem to be overly concerned with storyboards and the technicals.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh well the thing about the close ups is is that I wanted to cut in between the different takes from the master shot, cause some takes had some things in that were better than others. There are also points where he paused and had to think of how to explain things. So I didn't want to 'jump cut' ahead. So I put in the quick shots to avoid jump cutting. Isn't that what those other angles are for, to avoid jump cutting if I want to cut ahead?

The problem with adjusting to the room mic if needed, is that the lav and the hypercardioid condenser mic sound too different, so I have to pick one or the other for consistency, don't I? I left how they dress up to them and thought it was there show, and I'm just their to shoot it, but perhaps I can suggest it...

I also asked them about the background but they said it's fine and they'll worry about it.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

While we’re at any time he mentions feet or anything below the waist I’d want to see that, i.e a wider shot.

Agree with signage and uniforms.

Its just about them looking more professional to whoever theyre trying to attract with these videos. Think about it...if youre looking to take lessons, are you going to go with a place where the guys look like martial arts instructors or the one where it looks like two frat guys?

Image is perception or something. Thats a huge part of why we light and art direct etc. Even though the average person doesnt consciously notice this stuff, something in the back of their mind tells them “this is more professional/amateurish and I believe/dont believe in this message/product service”.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay thanks. I can recommend the uniforms then. Thanks.

But if I frame the feet in the shot in the master, then they are far away then. But for next master shots, should I frame the entire body in them, from head to toe?

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

I agree with Josh about the feet. When I was watching it, I was like why is he cutting off their feet. When is he going to pull back?

You can see why eng camcorders with built in servo zoom lens are better for non scripted live events. You can zoom while you’re filming, avoiding jump cuts. There are only two angles of view needed: medium at the beginning and a wide for the action. Close ups are unnecessary.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

I was afraid to show the whole body, cause I thought that if I backed up more, than they would be too far away, when demonstrating the moves. Should I show the whole body, even if they are far away for the whole master then? Cause they would have to be twice as far away as they are now then, with the mic even further away out of frame too then, which lowers the sound quality then.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

lav the main guy mix it in post with a room mic

use a zoom lens that has a wide. The problem with primes indoors there are physically restrictions.

instead of arguing with us look at the framing of the youtube videos

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

But the thing is, is that I cannot mix mics, in post, cause they sound too different and you can hear that it's a different mic. I have to pick one and stick to it for consistency don't I?

The lens I used was a zoom lens, but if I zoom back it looks kind of sloppy since the lenses are not made for zooming during video, unless I should zoom anyway, you are saying? But even if he moves to footwork, sometimes it's not planned so should I go wide and show feet anyway for the entire master then?

Sorry if it came off as arguing, I don't mean it sound that way, I was just mentioning some drawbacks that were concerns. Like mixing mics seems to be a problem if you can hear the different, or them being too far away if their feet or shown.

Just asking about possible drawbacks, that's all.

Also in this video before, the feet are not showing, when they are standing up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Please look up "headroom" and the "rule of thirds." You're cutting off the top of the instructor's head way too much in the two-shot.

I wanted to see the lower body and feet when he talked about the opening stance.

There is no more boring way to present two people interacting than with the camera perpendicular to the line of action between them so you see both figures in profile on opposite sides of the screen. The empty space in the middle just sucks all the interest out of the shot. Your master shot should be from an over the shoulder angle focusing mostly on the instructor, but with the other guy partially visible in the foreground. In other words the camera should be about 45° to the right of where it is in this shot.

The closeups are way, way too short and fast.

Full-body compositions are an absolutely necessary part of covering dance, martial arts and many other athletic forms. Don't be afraid of them, but mind the effect of too much empty space in the frame. Cropping to a widescreen format makes it more difficult to fill the frame with human actors.

The sound is not as godawful as I expected but a wireless lav on the instructor would have been much clearer and more consistent. Since you could then turn the gain down some the HVAC noise would have been less distracting. For videos like this I don't think it's imperative to hide the microphones - we know it's an instructional piece and the participants are casually dressed and not playing a role. The dull composition, not decorating the set, or wearing uniforms of some kind, are far more distracting visual elements than a little lav clipped to the shirt collar would be.

All in all, and I don't mean to be cruel here, this would be a decent product for the second assignment I used to give my high school students in the multimedia production class I taught for many years. ("Produce a 'how to' video that teaches the viewer how to perform some skill or process.") It would have earned about a "B" grade, but that's based on the assumption that the students had NO prior knowledge or experience prior to taking my class. For somebody with a film school degree, it's honestly pretty lame.

Don't even worry about "directing" this or any other piece until you learn how to "shoot" it first.

I hope you'll take this in the constructive tone that is intended.

- Greg

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Why are you shooting 2.39? It just doesn't work. this is like dancing, you need to show the whole body, so the audience can see all of the move. The kit needs changing, currently they look like a couple of characters from "Animal House"

A number of sound recordists use a mix of lav mic and a cardioid, secret is in the mix. . .

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay thanks. I tried doing an over the shoulder shot, of the other person though but I was in his way since he keeps moving back. I need to give him more space so therefore, isn't a master two shot better to give them more space?

Also, as far as dead space goes, don't I need that deadspace, to give them more room to move around in the shot?

I shot in 2.39:1 so they would be closer to the screen, while giving them a lot more room at the sides to move from side to side, without being further away. I also could go with the original 16:9 framing in the video instead of 2;39:1, if this is better:


But as far as doing an OTS shot of the other guy goes, I kept being in the way too much since it's not blocked out and choreographed near as much. Also, you cannot see in the instructor do the full moves and handplacements if you do an OTS shot though.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Greg sounds harsh but he is spot on with every point of his criticism.

I left off mentioning the angle but that’s also true.

I also find that door way behind them distracting. Couldn’t you face them against a plain wall?

Try to look on the bright side, you got another opportunity to fix all that was mentioned.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Sure, no problem with criticism.

The thing about the over the shoulder though, is that you cannot see the full moves, cause the other guy would be blocking some of it though, from that angle.

As for the other shots, being too quick, if I shouldn't put those shots in then, then what should I do to avoid having to jump cut? It was said before to get B roll to cut to, so shouldn't I do that to avoid jump cuts as well?

I don't mean to come off as stubborn and not take suggestions, it's just some of the suggestions mentioned have some drawbacks in them, and feel those needed to be addressed before taking them, that's all.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

If they move, pan the camera, 2.39 is nonsense for this, since people will be viewing on 16:9 screens.

If people are moving away, tell them not to, give them an area to work in, if they move out get them to do it again. As the director, short, snappy, but friendly instructions usually work.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, well I have the original 16:9, and even though they are further away in it, is it better, or no?


As for people moving away, and telling them not to, I did give them those kinds of instructions, but they said they have trouble doing that, cause that is not what Krav Maga is about. So what do I do, if that is the response I get?

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

It's poorly framed, that gray thing in the background is distracting,. go wider so we can see their stance. Think Fred Astaire movies in the 1930's the person interested in this wants to see the stance and the moves.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay thanks, I'll show the whole body from head to toe, even if that means they are twice as far away as long as that's okay. I am just afraid the audience might not see the moves as well then.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Youll have to figure out what parts call for closer shots and go back and get those after the wide. So theyll have to repeat the action. Or use multiple cams. There really arent other options.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Okay thanks. However, when I inserted cutaways before I was told not to use them. So should I let a master play out in it's entirety then?

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Told by who? Your client or folks here?

What I mean is you use the wide when they talk about footwork or anything below the waist, and tighter shots when talking about upper body, arms, head, etc. Think of where your attention would be if you were in the class and use the camera/edit to draw it there at each moment of the video.

Youre worried about jump cuts...valid, but thats where multiple cams would help.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

There are so many things wrong here.
I agree with brian - 16:9, nothing else. Upper body is useless because the legs and feet are required to show complete stance and balance.The hand of the person striking the blow needs to show where it contacts the person. The instructors landing point is hidden.

What concerns me most is that they look like two amateurs pretebding to be experts. Would I take instruction from somebody who dresses and speaks like this? No. In the first clip the guy wears the correct gear. He shows the usual respect and has authority. These two come over as totally unexpert from how they talk, how they stand and how they interact. It's not a training video, more a sparring. It doesn't teach anyone anything. Forget the camera and forget the sound. These two guys are terrible teachers.

The best you can do is go wider so we see both in the frame properly, shot from an angle that shows what they are doing. Audio needs work. They don't have a thick MA wrap around on, and they don't have a little scratchy beard to rub on it, so if both speak, you need two radio packs. Your boom mic could give usable room sound if it's aimed properly, but the hard surfaces make the room lively. From what I see, you and the storyboards are way off the type of shoot these two want to do. As for the furnace - you need to get control and turn it off. I'd also urge them strongly to consider their appearance and the way they speak. Martial arts needs authority of speech, not conversation style. Please shoot full body. Close ups can be useful, but the majority of the time we need the full person.

As for the cutaways you're back to "I was told..." YOU are supposed to be the video expert and they are the martial arts experts, you've gone subservient again. I understand though that they find closeups wrong, and I agree. Unless the close up shows something vital in detail, a full body shot works better.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay thanks. Well I don't have to use the cutaway shots if they are not good then. However, there are times in the master shots, where he has to pause and then we retake it.

So in order to skip over those, should I just do a fade then, to avoid a jump cut?

The thing about only showing the upper half if it's upper half fighting, that was the original plan, upper fighting only for this shoot, and footwork later, but he through in the foot move unexpectedly. So in that case, should I cut around the foot move and take it out?

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

If they go off script, get them to do it again.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Well there is more than one take, but each take has it's good and bad parts. So if I wanted to use sections of different takes, but not jump cutting, should I fade it then?

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

There are a lot of really good comments here and I’d like to make one about the heater noise. The temperature forecast ranges vary from well below freezing to (relative to our area) really cold, like -15ºC on Friday to -33ºC next week so IF turning off the heater is a no-go, here is a thought.

Assume the heater vents are floor or wall registers. If there are only a couple consider this to try and muffle the high-frequency noise. Get a blanket, one of those soft kinda fluffy ones, then thumbtack and/or tape it to the wall and let it hang over a couple chairs, enough so the bottom barely touches the floor so that the warm air can still blow into the room but not without first being being dampened by the blanket.

Since high frequencies from tweeters are more directional than woofers, the thought is that by causing a directional change in the air flow, like having it go into a sound chamber, it will cause a dampening in the high frequencies, hopefully enough to make the effort worthwhile.

Just grasping at straws here. What do you think, too much work for little gain or worth trying?

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Maybe all it needs is a star filter. ;-)

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

and SCENE!

(thread fades to black)

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

One more comment and then I'll stay quiet.

The entire video seems to have been shot from a tripod with the camera at eye level. That's a good instinct for the majority of shots, but it's boring if the point of view never changes. You need to go high, low and everything in between. Brace the camera against the floor or use a stepladder for high shots if you don't have "proper" support equipment for this. Get under, over, around and inside your character's actions, choosing the angle (up and down as well as left and right) that shows each move most clearly and dynamically. Yes, you'll have to repeat parts of the action and possibly even the narration at times, and the talent will need to be able to do this. If they can't, I'd seriously question their competence as practitioners and instructors of the form. Go a little crazy. Strap a GoPro on the instructor's forehead and show things from his point of view. Put the camera on the floor pointing straight up as they spar around it. Some (many) shots may not work, but you might discover something unique or interesting in the process. Don't be bound by the script or storyboard once you're in the middle of the action. Go close, go wide and go dramatic when you have the opportunity. Get the coverage you need, but trust yourself enough to be a little spontaneous and creative as well. Not everything can or should be planned completely in advance.

A gimbal may help get some of these shots, but even old fashioned hand holding has its place here. A little camera shake looks perfectly natural when the camera moves organically with the action, as long as you don't hold the shots too long. Staying at the wide end of the focal length scale and getting close to the subjects helps too.

If I could make just one suggestion about equipment I'd suggest you try to buy, rent or steal (just kidding) a second camera that is a decent match for the one you already have. Lock it down on the master shot while you concentrate on the closeups and interesting angles. A cheap prime lens will do, and you can get by with even a spindly stills tripod if you don't plan to disturb the camera or attempt any pans, tilts or zooms while it's locked down.

The narrative might flow better if you record the instructor separately as a voiceover and just record natural movement and background sounds during the action. This would go a long way toward solving all the audio challenges of that subject and location.

- Greg

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

+1 ... nothing wrong with hand-held B-roll with these action shots if one has any sort of ability to do hand-held shots. With everything moving in the scene it should be easy.

Yes!
This gig is meant for B-roll.

Edit: #386, Pete - that was so Ba.a.a.ad !

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh it's not that because of the weather that we were unable to turn it off, we just couldn't find a switch anymore for it. Perhaps it's in the upper floor of the building, which is locked and we don't have access to.

Okay thanks, it's strange how you say eye level cause the camera was actually at my lower chest area.. I'm 6'1'' so maybe I need to get the camera down below my stomach even then?

I also wanted to do shots from the floor for some other moves, but can do it for an angle for everything from now on just in case. I thought since a lot of it was upper movement, maybe you couldn't see some of the hand placements from the floor. If it were a movie fight I would do it, just wasn't sure about a promotional training video. But I can try!

I want him to narrate, he was just worried that his timing might be off cause he will have to pause when doing the move, and then wait for his narration to be over, but is not sure how long the narration would take. Unless I freeze frame it maybe in post, until it's over. Just not sure how to handle that one, cause he has a point about the timing.

As for how they are dressed, I know what you mean. I did look at them, and think you want to do the promotional video like that? Oh well, it's their show I guess.

But back to the shooting looking like it was at eye level. This is the second project someone said that when it was chest level. If I am 6'1'', and I want a normal type of master shot how low should I have the camera with my height do you think?

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

eye level means in relation to the SUBJECT. THEIR eye level.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh yes I see. Well the instructor in the red shirt is taller than me, and I'm 6'1' where is he about 6'4'' I would say'. So if he is taller than me, how low should I have the camera? i had the camera at my lower chest, which would be at his lower chest than as well if not a little lower. So should I go even lower then?

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Eye level can be a somewhat loose term. The further you are from the subject, the less difference small height changes make visually, so "eye level" can be shorthand for something that appears to be a "neutral" height...not looking noticeably up or down at the subject. Approximately eye level might be a more precise way to put it...wider shots, this might well mean lens is at their chest height or thereabouts.

As for how low or high that's pretty subjective and depends on what looks good (backgrounds can change dramatically with camera height, more so than the way the subject looks in the shot. Sometimes we want to see more floor or more ceiling or change the perspective lines to be more pleasing) and, as was said above, what you need to show in a particular shot.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Eye line height is always that of the subject. The audience don't know or care about your height, if you want the camera at an eye line height, it;s not a your lower chest (or lower) unless that's where the eyes of the subject are.

If you want the subject to be be imposing you go lower than their eye line height. However, as Josh points out with wide shots it becomes less noticeable if you're within a certain range of their eye height The camera height can vary depending on what you're showing at the time, e.g. if it's a move with a foot in close up, you could be down at floor level. I thought you were planning to direct a feature film, this is basic stuff.

Have a look at other martial arts videos to see how they're doing it, steal a few ideas.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay thanks. The lens was zoomed into about 70-80mm, on an APS-C sensor, as I thought during the fighting this would look good while panning along with it. Do you think I should go wider then, so the eye level may be better then?

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Since you can't see the moves and seeing the full figure was discussed earlier I would've thought there was only one way to go.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh yes, I can pull back and reveal all of their feet like it was mentioned to. But should I go lower than my chest if the eye level is too high?

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Please go back and read the whole thread again.

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Yes the thread said to go back and reveal their feet right? Are you saying get more B roll?

re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

You're the director.