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

Since it's promo, viewers won't be looking at the video to learn moves, they'll be watching to see if these guys are good teachers and if it's worth attending their classes in order to learn the moves.

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

Sure, that's a good point, I can do that then. I think they wanted to show the moves, thinking that will help the promo. But I can explain maybe the types of angles are more important, editing wise, rather than seeing the whole moves.

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

Zeroing in on some really key comments:
And …
As I sit here reading the posts, page after page, I’m really stressing , if only you had another cam! Especially one with optical stabilization. The AX53 would make short work of this problem of getting those close-up shots. I don’t remember what brand your cam is but perhaps they make an OIS model and at the moment I’d put getting one ahead of the stabilizer.

Plan B with a single cam: While in Edit, just zoom in for the close-ups.

This “wide shot” and “closeup shot” has been a real problem area.

Another problem area is … Them!
This is a “people problem”, not a camera problem (except that you have one one cam). Film school or film course probably doesn’t deal with this so a Psych course would have been in order. Too late for that now but Paul, the “been there, done that guy”, has an excellent approach:

Suggest writing his options on a 3” x 5” card (don’t know what it is in millimeters), and put it in your pocket, and add some more of your own.

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

One more thought.

No B-Roll cam? Not to worry.

Another option is to use a cell phone video or picture. Depending on how it can work, use a cell phone (Handi in Continental speak) to take the closeup video, or picture, and import that into the timeline. The late model phones have really good resolution.

If the speaker needs more time to talk, do a Ken Burns with the photo and a gradual zoom in on the frame. The gradual zoom will provide a “video feel” while the explanation is going on.

Slo-mo: Another option for more time to speak is to use a repeat of the section of the clip with the part the instructor wants to talk about but do it in slo-mo during edit. The repeat provides more time to sink in for the viewer.

There’s noting wrong with re-timing in Edit those portions of the shoot to provide clarity to the action. An even very slight slo-mo will make it easier for the viewer to grasp what is happening.

Editorial comment: Not sure who is who here, but if the big guy is the assailant and the little guy is the victim who is supposed to defend himself, then, as a viewer or potential client, the best option as a victim would be to see how fast you can run!

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

I think big guy was the “victim”/defending from little guy in that scenario. He seems to be the one showing how to neutralize various attacks.

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

Oh okay thanks. The problem with using a cellphone though, is that the angle is so wide you have to get a lot more close. So it can be seen in the other camera therefore.

Or even if I use a cellphone to do the mastershot, I would have to move the other camera out of frame and zoom in, but then the angle is compromised that way somewhat though.

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

These things always involve comprise, it usually involves working out the best compromise that works.

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

Okay thanks for all the advice. I also have another question about the 180 degree rule if that's okay. I understand how the rule applies to two people in a shot. However, if I have shots of only one martial artist doing moves for some of the video, how do I interpret where the 180 line is drawn then, if it's just one person?

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

I would think the line is between him and whatever he's facing (even it's a wall). In other words, if he's facing screen right, keeping all your angles so that he's facing screen right (or into camera directly or away from camera, if you're behind him) is staying on the same side of the line. Once he's facing screen left (unless he turns his body to do so) you've crossed the line.

Just imagine a line between him and the wall or whatever. Once you've crossed that, you've crossed the line.

Now if he's facing one way (screen right), then does a 180 and face screen left, that's a new line. Or if he turns 90 degrees. New line. Just imagine a laser shooting out of the front of his body...whatever that beam would be hitting, that's the line at all times. You may have to chase it. This is all covered in "the 5 Cs of Cinematography" book.

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

Totally off topic, but I broke a different 180 degree rule tonight. John said I'm one of those been there and done things people, which is true in a way but leaves me an expert at nothing, but moderately succesful at lots. This afternoon I messed up badly. We have some sophisticated power winches to fly people. Think peter pan. A computer controlled up/down power winch. Variable speed, repeats movements and acceleration. Left right movement is via a rope that drops down from above, through a pulley and back up. To fly diagonally, the winch follows the button press - gently go from 0m to 6m in five seconds and at the same time you pull the left rope and the carriage suspending the person moves left. Marks on the rope tell you when to stop. Safety sign offs mean that operators are trained and we cannot just stick a new person in. We get extra crew trained at the start, and I as the Manager also get signed off, and also have to do the daily safety checks. The member of the crew who has been doing this twice a day has finished her contract a day early to fly off to do another in belgium, so the last two shows it was me.

Instead of a person, for one scene we rig a hot air balloon basket instead of a harness and all I had to do was traverse past the middle by pulling the left rope, then once passed the middle, pull the right rope and the thing would gently land dead centre. I pulled the left rope, but then somebody squeezed past me, so I broke the 180 degree rule by operating from the other side where there was more space, but forgetting left was now right, and right was left. Instead of gently swinging back, the balloon basket and occupant continued across the stage and by the time I'd regained control he missed the scenery by about an inch and nearly landed on a flight of stairs.

I really hope the BBC crew in shooting the show don't use that sequence, I'll never live it down.

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

Oh okay that's interesting!

Well I have an idea for a shot for part of the video, but I would have to cross the line to do it. So not sure if it's crossing the line in a good way, or a bad way. However, the camera is pointed down during, so I could always rotate it 180 degrees in post, and then it will not be crossing the line then, if it turns out it was a bad idea.

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

I love these Ryan questions. The 180 rule isn’t dependent on how many subjects are in the frame. Whether you’re filming a football game, a car chase, a person going for a jog. Of all the concerns and criticisms I don’t remember anyone bringing up this rule. Considering the simplicity of this shoot I can’t believe you need advice on this. You seem to be overly concerned with these rules like you’re afraid the cinema police will ticket you for breaking the rules.

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

Oh it's just I was told I broke it in strange places before, so if I have an idea for one of the shots, but yet it mean crossing the line, just not sure if I should do it or not...

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

You seem to struggle with editing in cuts and understanding the 180 rule. I would stick to one shot or stay on one side. You are perpetually drawn to doing things you shouldn’t.

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

Well basically I just feel that if I come around and show from the martial artists point of view, then it's like the viewer is seeing the arm placement from their own point of view, and can see it better. So I guess it depends on what is more important, the 180 line not being broken or a better point of perspective. I guess when I am drawn into things I shouldn't be, I am just following my instincts on what I think would look best, and say screw the rules, this is the better choice, but maybe I shouldn't be looking at it that way.

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

Flipping a shot in post will also reverse the positions and movement of right and left hands and feet, which for this particular subject matter, is critical to following, understanding and learning to duplicate the techniques you are trying to demonstrate. There might be some limited circumstances in other kinds of films where it would work, but I think it's just about totally out of the question for this one.

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

Ryan has a habit of thinking up camera moves/shots and forcing them in whether or not they are called for. The first time he filmed it completely perpendicular, a flat boring angle, making it difficult to see the three dimensional moves of the subjects. Now he wants to insert a POV shot despite that it’s inappropriate for this type of video.

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

Well it comes to shooting a flat perpendicular angle, I did that way so that each subject would have equal presense. If I shoot from a non flat angle, one of them has more presence than the other. Is that good though?

As for the POV shot, I don't have to show this particular move as a POV shot, but if I don't then people will be seeing the movie upside down then more so. I thought if they saw it from the person's point of view, they will then see it right side up. But is upside down, beter than breaking the 180 degree rule then?

I think the dilemma is is the opinion on here is, I showed go for angles that look cinematic rather than best clearly show the moves they want, so is cinematic more important than move clarity?

But let's say I choose a non- perpendicular angle. I have to have other angle though, so shouldn't one of them be at least perpendicular to change things up, angle wise?

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

You seem to be over thinking on what is probably one of the most basic videos you could make. You don't have any reason to break the 180 degree rule, just keep the "fighters" so that they stay on facing the same direction in each of the shots,

This will only change if they change sides during the fight or during the demonstration and the audience sees them change sides.

There's no need to do POV shots in something like this, you're not showing a POV of a fighter being punched in the face as in fight film.

Keep It Simple Stupid is the policy on this.

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

He's worried (and maybe rightly so?) about what happens when the arm or other limb that is not toward cam is doing something critical, or blocked by the other person. etc. etc. See the video he posted for examples.

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

I'd cheat that angle so that you see it (perhaps by moving the other fighter out of the way), but the direction of the movement remains the same as in the other shots, It's an insert on the hand/foot doing the action.

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

Having rules - or probably just guidelines is a good thing. IF, and only if, you understand why the rule exists and what confusion is created when some get broken or misunderstood. I get so confused by Ryan's belief, because that I think is what it is, that there is something called 'cinematic', which is a crazily misused and misunderstood beast.

What on earth is cinematic about a martial arts instructional video. It's a product intended to instruct, be accurate, be precise, be able to show precise and often small detail. It must reveal technique and enable understanding. Do we really care about the beautiful wooden floor, or perfectly crafted ironing of the clothes they are wearing? It's a cheap how to video that will end up with a few views on Youtube and lots of thumbs down for the reasons we have detailed here. Production values are low, the presenter's expectations are high but their communication skills level rock bottom.

Faced with this dreadful scenario, the best Ryan can do is record as much of what they do as possible. String it together in the edit to mimic real time and walk away.

It's not remotely cinematic. It's visually dreadful, and most of all - it is NEVER going to be more than it is.

Shoot them full body. If the movement they think is critical can be seen, move on. If it cannot. Reshoot from a better angle to catch it.

There is no more Ryan can do. Take the money, if there is any, and move on to something better.

Forget all this crossing the line or 180 degree rule stuff. Forget flipping in post. Just shoot evidentially not aesthetically. You have no rule for dealing with this kind of thing, and don't need one. Number one aim. Shoot what they want, edit and deliver. It will be a poor product, but they are not bothered, so don't stress so much.

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

It’s maddening. You have a group of experienced professionals from different countries and backgrounds coming to the same conclusions, offering essential the same advice. Instead of following it all you can think about it trying to break conventions and inserting angles of view that are not called for. We are telling you to move off of the perpendicular angle of view. If you want to avoid jump cuts, alternate in between shorter action segments filmed wide and medium shots of them introducing the next segment. This is a really simple shoot. What’s next are you going to try to obsess about motivated and unmotivated movement?

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

I've been watching some YouTube videos on motivated and unmotivated camera movement and am convinced this is simply people trying to find pedagogic or university style meaning from natural actions. Somebody has noticed that camera work follows conventions, and drawn these in features that can be observed analysed and discussed in movie circles. Me - the eternal sceptic on accepting this kind of stuff, finds the notion that people are studying this kind of thing and naming it quite funny. In one clip I watched it was from raiders of the lost ark, a movie I watched years ago and rather liked for it's content, style and images. The scene where the camera followed the shot glasses seems to me to just be an excellent way of photographing the scene. The glasses become the focal point, so given a camera, and obvious way to shoot it. However, in the clip, it's described as motivational camera movement, obviously chosen in advance as a way of making the glass itself the centre of the audiences attention. Of course it's the centre, we want to know if it's content gets downed successfully. Wrapping some kind of theory around it is just crazy. if we shoot an airshow, we can follow the aircraft, motivated?? Or, we can ignore the aircraft and decide to pan towards the control tower, leaving the aircraft in a corner, so unmotivated? No - just wrong, or inappropriate.

I've managed a large number of years before discovering common sense in framing shots now has a name and people study it, and worse, with Ryan, even decide in advance the appropriateness. I'm sorry, but I turn up look at what is happening and then pick the spot, then frame the shot and then react to unforeseen events. The nearest I get to this new way of working is when doing sports and you don't know which way a ball will travel when hit - so your choice is to guess the direction and go even if the ball goes the other way. 50% success rate but closer shots, or do I widen to a 'worse' framing, interest wise, and wait for the ball to go, before following and going in with the zoom. Safe, but usually dull!

Watching some of the youtube analysis videos on directors like Kubrick make me wonder if all the visual tricks he used really were produced using this magic, or did the guy just have an unconscious knack for composition that we ascribe rules to now that he didn't then?

I'm in an office Wednesday, with a green screen and some lights, shooting a dull video on industrial washing machines. None of the stuff in this topic will help me whatsoever. If we can get to the bottom of the autocue in one take, I'll be happy - but I suspect, based on the last one, this is going to be impossible. My scheme, or cunning plan is to have two camera positions, one left of central and one right. Every time we have a good take that suddenly ends because of a slip in reading, I reposition the camera to the other side, and the person speaking (who is the telesales coordinator) will turn her head, keeping the seat static. This will, I think mean most edits can be picked up by a turn. So I just get the unskilled person to look where she was looking, then turn to the new camera position and start that section. Hopefully this should be seamless in the edit when I can also zoom in or out a little. It will look like a two camera shoot hopefully. Maybe Ryan could consider something like this? I've not done this before - so it's new to me as a time saver. Probably it has a clever name too!

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

I don't know if Kubrick gave names like motivated or unmotivated camera move to his shots, but he seems to have worked with he had before him, however, there was a huge amount of selection and demands involved in getting to that point that he was satisfied with what was before him.

I suspect there was a lot of instinctive reaction to how he shot scenes, which is not to say he didn't think about them, but he seemed to visualise them in his head and yet was still loose enough to see something on the day. If you're doing that, you don't need to use terms like "motivated or unmotivated", it's more like keep at the same distance, so that he didn't need to pan or tilt the camera, I know he asked the grip on "Barry Lyndon" to do this on one shot.

There's a lot of photographs with Kubrick with a director's viewfinder, so he seems to still be composing/selecting shots as he went along.

They do refer to motivated if following action on dramas, I've never heard the term being used anywhere else, However, it's not on the set, it's more like follow or move with them or "go in with the hand", more when DPs or operators are analyzing what they do when giving talks etc.

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

Ryan has this inexperienced art student mentality, spending his time and energy trying to be different, instead of letting the needs of the project dictate the approach. While there’s always degree of latitude of what could be done, Ryan needs training wheels until he can prove he’s mastered the basics. There’s nothing wrong with film study and theory but he has a misplaced emphasis on these things while struggling with the fundamentals . He wants to be a director but in every project he takes it’s the one thing he consistently avoids.

Talented people like Kubric have the right instincts and convey there vision to the crew who carry it out. It’s academics who analyze their work and come up with terminology and theories to describe it. Whether you need to read a book or learn hands on, all that matters is whether you can put it into practice. The end result is what matters not how you get there.

Ryan seems to emulate end results without understanding the underlying purpose and context behind it. Same thing for these rules and plans he tries to apply.

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

Oh okay thanks for all the advice, I really appreciate it. Sorry if I seem stubborn in taking suggestions, it's just with each suggestion, there are possible problems or disadvantages I see in the shots. So I say to myself, "thanks for the suggestion, but wait a minute, there is possible problem in that suggestion that you didn't address, or that should be addressed". So that is why I point out things and ask about them in the suggestions, cause I feel I need to address such issues before proceeding with them, if that makes sense.

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

You are over complicating something that a high school media student could do as an exercise in one of their lessons.

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

But whenever I try to keep things simple, I am told I didn't put enough thought into it though.

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

This is a simple scene, which doesn't require anything more than mechanical coverage.

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

True I only have three shots planned for the next shoot. It's just if none of them are perpendicular, I am afraid they may not look different enough when cutting from one to the next.

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

Maybe if you could concisely list what suggestions would lead to problems? There are only handful adjustments that need to be made. This job isn’t reel worthy material. Do the best you can for the client, gain some experience filming instructional style video and move on.

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

Well I just feel that shooting a non-perpendicular angle could cause some of the arm placements to be more hidden. I also feel that not using POV shots for some of the moves, can make the moves, more difficult to grasp compared to it looks they are doing them from their own POV.

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

If you’ve ever take a martial arts class students observe the instructor from the audience position much the same way you view any performance. Look at all those Youtube videos they don’t use pov.

This is a promo demo to show their teaching chops. It doesn’t matter if we can’t see everything, they can sign up for classes if they want to fully learn what is being shown.

We are suggesting a more 3/4 view for a better look. No pov is needed. It will only make your job more difficult. You are more likely to get jarring disjointed cuts if you try to re film their demo again from another angle since it’s not tightly choreographed. Further more they don’t have the time or interests doing multiple takes for different camera angles.

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

Since it's a promo, you could shoot it with dutch angles and it wouldn't make any difference.

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

Okay thanks, it's just I am worried about too many angles looking too much the same, that it looks jarring like I was told before. So I felt if every shot is 3/4, then I might have the same problem.

I've take martial arts before, so I thought that if I were to see it from a POV that would help, but just going by my own experiences. And I know it's a promo to get people interested in taking the class, but the instructor really wants the movies to be seen though.

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

You can adjust your position during the shot as long as you can do it smoothly. Each segment could have a different angle but you need medium talking shots or some sort of transition between segments to prevent jump cuts. Even those polished stabilizer review videos by that girl there were jump cuts. I don’t like them but you see them all the time with one camera low budget productions. That’s why people shoot two cameras to avoid the time and hassle concealing jumps.

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

Oh okay thanks. I like jump cuts in movies that skip ahead in time, sometimes, but not for instructional videos per say. But if I change positions, should every position be a 3/4 then?

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

No, you're looking for rules again, Shoot what works for each action and have differing shot sizes that are appropriate for these moves.

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

If you’re not using a middle transition shot, there needs to be a significant difference of angle change or framing. That’s the “30 degree rule” you’ve mentioned before. It doesn’t need to be that precise. You could test this out at home. But I would try to film as much as you can continuously. I noticed on your first video he doing his introduction and 5 seconds in there’s a cut to a different angle. There’s no jump cut but you can tell he made a mistake and you spliced two takes together. The intro should have been re shot until you got one continuous good take. Same thing for the action scenes don’t use 30 degree as a crutch. If it’s 5 minute demo and they mess up at minute 4 they’re not going to want to redo the whole thing over. The more cuts and sub takes the worse it looks.