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

Oh okay, well for the next shot I am not going to move the camera over to a bunch of graves after. I was just going to rotate around the actor only, if that would work?

And if the it's Paul Greengrass's style to use a gimbal instead, then maybe that's his style, but I have never seen him do a shot like that, where it circled around someone. I could use a dolly, it's just int he past, when I tried to use a dolly, there were bumps in the footage here and there, so I decided to throw those shots out and not use them. We ended up getting a gimbal for the shots, and that worked a lot smoother, or so I thought, because the bumps in the dolly track were more obvious. But as far as that gimbal shot looking uncontrolled goes, do gimbals always look uncontrolled in their movements, or can one make a gimbal controlled?

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

You're being literal again, whether or not he does a circular shot on gimbal doesn't matter, it's closer to one of his handheld shots than a circular track on a dolly. It's close up and personal like a handheld shot.

The DSLR cameras you use are so poor for handheld filming you need to use a gimbal

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

Oh okay. I just haven't seen Greengrass do circular type movements, so I thought his style was totally different in comparison. But if it's closer to Greengrass, then it is.

But if it's similar, should I use a gimbal then, since Paul R Johnson pointed out that it looks uncontrolled and doesn't work?

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

Why would you use a shot that doesn't work?

A shot can be uncontrolled and work brilliantly.

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

Oh I am not saying I want to use a shot that doesn't work. What I mean is, can I use a gimbal at all, if it was pointed out that it doesn't work, because it looks uncontrolled. Can I do a rotating shot around someone with a gimbal, and uncontrolled, or will that not work?

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

You're asking a question to which the answer is it depends.

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

I'm painfully aware of what he is saying but not saying so let's do a quick recap:
1. He once tried to do a dolly shot it didn't come out right and it was hard to do so he doesn't want to do it.
2. He has discovered that using a gimbal is far easier, requires very little setup and he has a friend who owns one I think.
3. He is going to use a gimbal despite anything you say and he is asking you to confirm that he will be able to get the shots he saw in a movie using a gimbal despite whether it's the appropriate tool or not.

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

I can get a dolly and use that, if that's better, I just didn't think the shot would turn out well. Plus it was suggested to go for a more Greengrass style, as that might be more do-able, it was said before, if I read that right.

So if I should, does that mean I should use a gimbal instead of a dolly? It was said here, that the Greengrass style is better than what I am planning:

So if that's true, should I use a gimbal then, or is a dolly a better tool for the job?

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

Ryan - it's fine to call me Paul - it's my name after all.

The thing I suspect happens is that you are very reluctant to increase your operating skills. You seem to want to open a box, charge a battery and produce excellent work. I have no doubts that if you practice properly, you will be able to do your circular walk without gaining or losing height, and with perfect framing as you turn and keeping the thing sharp. That probably means serious rehearsal time - perhaps weeks worth of practice till it's second nature.

Are you willing to put the effort in? If you hire in somebody it doesn't guarantee they can do it. I remember doing sound on a video shoot years ago, and the helicopter pilot had declared his hours in command for the insurance company, and it was something like 5000. The cameraman was shooting through the open side door, and asked the pilot if he could fly sideways towards the lighthouse, and the pilot really struggled. Afterwards we discovered he had 5000 hours of taking off, flying the same route and then landing again.Never in his flying career had he ever been asked to fly sideways. So our experienced pilot really wasn't experienced at all in video work.

Maybe if you put the effort in you will master the gimbal?

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

Oh well it's just I thought an experienced gimbal operator or dolly operator could do better than me, especially since they have the equipment. I was advised before, just hire pros rather than trying to do everything myself. So wouldn't a pro who has had more experience be better?

Plus I have to concentrate on the performances and figured I could do that better if someone else is operating the gimbal or dolly.

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

[QUOTE=Ryan Elder;1958825 So if that's true, should I use a gimbal then, or is a dolly a better tool for the job?[/QUOTE]

If you're doing it Paul Greengrass style nearly everything has to be shot using a gimbal. It all depends on the look you're going for, don't expect someone else to give you an answer it's something the director decides.

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

Oh well if I shoot everything on a gimbal I just feel that's very tiring on the operator, especially if I do all the static shots on a gimbal as well. What if I just do the shots where I want the camera to move on a gimbal, and keep the static shots on a tripod. Would that be okay?

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

Shooting all day with a handheld 35mm film camera is also tiring.

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

Yeah true, but why should almost every shot be a gimbal shot though for mine? Why not just some shots? It seems to me that about 30 percent of the shots would require a gimbal for what I had in mind, but should I have more?

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

It's up to you, just bear in mind that your favoured 85mm lens shots on the gimbal tend to look more hand held, rather than classical shots on a dolly, so won't mix as well if you're using a tripod for the rest of the scene.

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

Oh okay. But why is there a rule that if a gimbal is used for a few shots, then it has to be used for every shot? Why can't audiences accept some handheld looking shots, mixed with tripod shots?

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

There's no set rule, because there are circumstances when a calm scene will explode into explosive confrontation and the camera goes handheld. Kubrick has done this in in number of his ilms.

You may want to have a more "intimate" feeling CU than you get with a tripod for part of a scene.

I'm not sure if this applies to you, since you seem to be unaware of the secondary aspects of how you shoot a scene, since you keep asking questions about it and are till struggling with the basics. If you switch between them you can carry a sub conscious message about the relationships within a scene to the audience.

A gimbal gives a different feel to a dolly, it's not a replacement.

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

Oh okay. What feeling does the gimbal give that is different from a dolly if the same type of move is being performed, for the same shot, in the same emotional context? The circular shot around an actor for example, if it's the same move done on both, why would the gimbal feel different, and what would that different feeling be?

Does the gimbal cause a feeling of more anxiety perhaps, or is it more specific than that?

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

Look, if you can't tell that there;s going to be be a difference, why should we waste time explaining it to you?

Just think about the physics involved in using both methods and work out the differences yourself. It's what you need to do with everything when you're directing a film, you can't keep asking, there's a point where you have to decide I wish to use a certain tool for a particular reason.

If you can't work out the differences in your own mind you're going to be limited as a director. You need to sense the reason why you're using it in a particular scene and in a particular way.

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

Oh okay, well I guess I just not seeing why a gimbal will not be do-able for a good portion of the moves, but that's just me. The only thing I can see is that the gimbal may add more anxiety as far as feeling goes.

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

If a gimbal were interchangeable with a dolly, don't you think that the major feature films would just get rid of their dollies? Producers love saving money.

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

Yeah that makes sense, but who says that the moves I want to do are dolly moves? How do you decide what camera movements are dolly moves, compared to gimbal moves?

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

Because your approach is more I can't afford a dolly, so a gimbal will do instead. You use longer lenses on a gimbal, which you seem to be unaware of being less steady,

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

Oh yes, there is that, but when you say the gimbal look is okay for looking handheld, is an 85 mm that bad though, if it just means the look, will look more handheld? Is handheld looking bad for some shots? It was said before that the gimbal looks more handheld, so if it does, than is using a wider lens for smoothness that big of deal, if the gimbal has a more handheld look anyway?

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

A gimbal is supposed to do smooth moves, however. longer lenses are more demanding on the skills of the operator, especially in keeping a constant height over uneven ground,

Given how much dialogue, with (I assume) people sitting around, that you seem to be having in some scenes, a (proper) dolly would probably make more sense for these scenes.

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

Oh okay thanks. But what I mean is, is that if the longer lens, means there is a little more shake is that bad, especially since Greengrass for example, has more shake in his camera movements by comparison?

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

“Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it.”

Honestly Ryan you want to do it how you want to. That’s understandable but stop asking for advice you’re unable/unwilling to take. You must drive everyone including us crazy asking questions about your movie every waking moment.

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

I go away for a bit and the topic grows and grows.

The thing you are missing Ryan is that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between deliberate gimbal moves and sloppy camerawork. These movie clips that appear to be handheld - they're planned to look that way, so the audience accept the images because they do what your brain thinks they should. In the car on a bump road, it's a Star Trek bumpy scene - the camera is not just being 'pointed', it's following the plan.
It's perfectly possible to go from a static tripod shot watching a vehicle coming closer, then cutting to the bumpy internal shot. Then even back again - the solid steady shot works, the busy internal shot works - as the context is right. Convention says that if you don't have a tripod or other camera support for the outside shot, you MUST keep steady. Even tiny movements look like the runner got given the camera and messed up.

Can you hold a camera with a long lens steady in your hand? I can't, not for very long at least. Small moves left, right up or down are very obvious on long lenses. If you stuff the camera on the gimbal it's even heavier!!

I get a bit confused when you ask about doing this or that, and then you say - isn't that the DPs job? I forget if you are talking about Ryan doing things or Ryan getting others to do them?

I've been lucky enough to use lots of weird camera supports over the years, and in every single case, the smoothest shots come from the heaviest equipment - not always the most expensive mind. If you have a mid to heavy weight dolly on a hard studio floor or on track, then all your starts and stops are lovely looking. If you put a tripod on a rolling skid, then your starts and stops can jerk unless you take care. My GoPro gimbal definitely has a 'look' but it's smoothness is at the expense of controllability. If it wasn't for the wide angle lens, I'd never have anything framed properly. with an 85mm or longer lens you're going to need more continuous panning to keep it centred, and your long lens might be outside of its capabilities.

Why not describe the scene properly and give it to the DP and ask what grip kit they think would be best?

I revamped my music studio and I have a thick carpet in now - one of my cameras on a Vinten pnuematic per seems to live in there now - and the one thing it cannot do is move on carpet. Totally the wrong product.

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

It's only bad if it doesn't work in the context of the shot. The problem seems to be that you're apparently unaware of it's affect and if it's appropriate. If you were you'd know if it works or not. so wouldn't be asking.

Kubrick used a long lens on a Steadicam in a battle scene in Full Metal Jacket. It's not as steady as other methods, but I suspect the audience wouldn't be aware, but it visual taps into the hand held long lens shots used by TV news camera people in wars and here he adds the extra element of movement of moving with the action. It's steadier than a hand held shot, yet not the same as dolly or techno crane.

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

Oh okay. I've seen the handheld look done when the camera is following people walking or running. However, when doing moves when the characters are still the camera is often, smooth. So I am wondering, if a longer lens, more handheld look, would be appropriate for camera moves when the character are still. That's what I was worried about.

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

Gimbals work best with wide lenses, so why try to use a more difficult one - n' you use standard/ wide and move in closer? It would be much more stable.

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

Oh it was only for the close up shots, I where I want the camera to move that I would use a longer lens, to avoid barrel distortion.

For example there is a scene where two characters walk down a hallway and are talking. I could use the gimbal to move with them on a wide shot of both of them. But if I want a close up of each character as well, I would want to use a longer lens to avoid the distortion. So I would have to move with them, but maybe without a gimbal therefore, for the close ups...

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

Where is this barrel distortion coming from? I only get it on one of my wide angles lenses, it only starts to look odd when using a wide-wide very close in. Surely you won't be this close. Can you not just use a normal lens?

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

Perhaps barrel distortion is not quite the right term but people's faces look more narrow on a wide lens and I just do not like the narrowness. I've tried both 85mm and 50mm in close ups on past projects and the 85mm shapes the face perfectly, of those two, I would say.

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

I would regard the 85mm as a bit flat looking, especially in a moving shot like this. A 50mm looks better.

This is probably more a music video shot than a drama shot, since the background is usually a part of circular moves, rather than just a CU. It's something that works more often with a singer than a character in a story,

In the end, it all depends on the context of the shot within a scene.

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

Oh okay, there is a specific reason for the shot I wanted to rotate around the actor, it's because he is being surrounded by police officers, and as the camera turns around him to emphasize his world closing in, and anxiety. That was my intention for that shot least. But I thought for a close up that does that, it would look better on an 85 mm I thought, for the shaping of the face. Maybe a 50 could work, but that's still not wide though for a gimbal.

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

It's quite an introverted shot, so I would be careful about using it.

Actors are usually good at anxiety, so you don't need any camera moves, all you need is to see their eyes in a CU. Your shot might imply that they're about to blow their brains out in that situation..

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

Oh okay. I know the actors can act it, I just thought I would have the camera movement as well to add to it.

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

You can over do camera movement, just as you can over cut.

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

Oh okay, but I didn't think this was over doing it though, especially since there are a lot of static shots in the planning already.