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

Yeah. Probably when people tell you they dont want a separate DP or whatever, what they mean is they dont want to PAY for another person

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

Yeah. Since that has been the case, so far, wonder if I should become my own gimbal operator, rather than someone else then.

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

I'm positive that Josh hit the nail on the head.

This is not Hollywood, a full length film, its a form of a commercial. The business wants to sign up clients for their martial arts training programs and being a local population center (assuming this isn't for a national chain), they have a budget in mind and don't want to spend much.

Rather than using a gimbal (I've got a Glidecam so I know the drawbacks), I'd recommend the Sony FDR-AX53 because it has Optical Image Stabilization. It works really well for moving objects and for moving around with action shots it would be easy and with a two-cam Multicam shoot one can have one cam on a tripod wide and use the AX53 for the handheld shots. Edit out the bad parts while using the tripod cam as a backup.

Another option is to use an electronic gimbal but they, too, have a drawback. In this case the AX53 would be a better tool.

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

Oh okay thanks, but I thought that image stabilization was bad, cause in past experience, if I switch it on, it causes the camera to vibrate, while trying to overcompensate or the hand-held movement. Unless optical stabilization is different?

Another thing is, if I am just one person, and doing the camera work, and cannot boom the mic simultaneously, should boom later and get the sound effects of the hits and take downs separately, and then put them in, in post, over the video then? I can also set up the mic on a stand further away, but then the sound will be further away then.

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

Stabilization: In the owners manual it does talk about when not to use the optical stabilization and essentially, what it doesn’t like is being almost still. When the cam is used on a monopod and trying to make like it is on a tripod, that is a situation that can cause the issue you’re concerned about. However, if the monopod with the cam is used in a manner to slow down the movement, like when walking for example, then I haven’t seen it be an issue. With a monopod one can also raise the cam up high, like over a crowd, or for more of a look-down view.

The last couple years I’ve been very sidetracked with construction and haven’t had much opportunity to play with my equipment. Been buying stuff but not using it much. Got a X3000 sport cam to go with the AX53. It’s a Go Pro type of cam with weather protection (to ~ 30 feet under water?) and it also has optical stabilization. I’ve used all three together but only for a little bit. This year I hope everything will be different and I’ll get lots of use out of them primarily for action shots.

One of the few times I used the X3000 was last spring where I caught a newspaper thief! That’s right. Being small I hid it in a bush and shortly after 4 AM got him in the video. All the cams can be operated using the iPhone and the Sony app: The X3000, AX53, and the AX700. Makes for a nice system. With the app you can see what the cam is seeing, control stop, start, and zoom.

One man crew: Many of the wedding guys are one-man shows and they’re awesome. I’ve done two weddings, both very nice ones, but they were for relatives as a freebie. Would not want to do them professionally ‘cuz you really have to be on your toes. The second one was much easier so maybe one gets accustomed to them but there is a lot of files, editing work, and storage. Even so, in the second wedding the photographer twice stood in front of me! The first time was with the bride entry and the cam on the tripod so couldn’t move it. With the second shot the cam was rolling with the audio on so couldn’t say anything and was for the first dance so I raised the cam over her head to get my shot, no room to move sideways due to being crowded by the guests.

For audio, I use the Tascam DR-44WL recorder and for a fixed mic and it can be controlled via a Tascam app on the iPhone; start, stop, gain stuff. This was put to good use when the vows were done. Used the AX700 in conjunction with a JuicedLink pre and XLR cables to mics for wide or unmanned shots. For the AX53 I standardly like the Røde Video Stereo mic, either for regular audio or for syncing. Done some church choir videos where there would be a good mic for the choir with the 44WL recorder and the AX700 wide at the rear of the church. Worked well.

With regard to booming, for the interview type shoot or the martial arts shoot, one might be able to use a boom on a tripod. I’ve used it set it up with a Manfrotto Avenger tripod (which is a heavier duty model) with 3” casters, a K-tek carbon fiber telescoping boom pole, and sandbags. It may not be as perfect as you would like but for a one-man show it’s all about compromise. Frankly, I’ve got more money tied up in audio gear than in camera gear. Mics are to audio like paint brushes are to an artist. As the saying goes, it takes money to make money.

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

A common method for single person shooting is to have an on board microphone and to use radio mics on the participant(s). You can use mic stands (with a boom if needed) or magic arms to mount a mic in appropriate places.

I suspect DSLR image stabilization can vary from lens model to lens model, so you need to select lenses that are suitable for shooting video. Just because a lens has a feature doesn't mean that they're good at all jobs and all circumstances.

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

Brian mentioned something very important. A lens stabiliser system for stills photography constantly works hard to get a single frame steady - usually by physically jiggling the internal lens elements - you are shooting video, so will see this happening. It's not faulty, just unable to do it's job without messing up sequential frames. Gimbals do a steadying function differently - so can work for SOME circumstances. Your problem is not having enough experience to be able to guess the result before you try.

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

It’s hard to decipher what Ryan is talking about but in regards to stabilization most cameras recommended turning stabilization off when on a tripod because it can cause unwanted changes to the image. This is what he is referring as “vibrations”. Whether it will help or hurt while on a gimbal would vary based on the equipment your using. This is another Ryan wanting an absolute rule. Simply run a test and find what works best for you.

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

Oh okay, but in the short film we talked about before, during the gimbal shots, the camera shakes, it was pointed out, at 4:50 around, into the video:


So I am wondering, are those microshakes, do to the stabilization being on, while on the gimbal?

Sorry, youtube is not allowing the video to be played on here for some reason. I am trying to figure it out.

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

Why wasn't this shaking noticed at the time, so you could do another take?

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

We did a few takes but me and the gimbal operator could not figure out what the problem was. Basically we just had to move on.

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

Without seeing the footage the most likely cause for vibrations on a gimbal is the motors are struggling. The motors struggle when the camera is not properly balanced, the camera is too heavy, the lens is too big in particular zoom lenses, gusting winds or the gimbal is of low quality or malfunctioning.

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

Okay thanks. Sorry about the footage, youtube is all changed around now, and I am still trying to figure out the problem, since my videos were working before. If the motor is struggling, would it be struggling if the gimbal is held still as well, or only struggling when you are moving it?

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

The video is now set to private, which means that unless you are included in the people list, you can't see it. Nothing has changed apart from the person who has the video has changed it's status - some people don't want video's shared.

The gimbal is just physics. Kill the power and watch what happens. Does the camera suddenly take a violent nose dive because it's very lens heavy? If so, then the gimbal servos are working very hard simply to keep the lens up, and their ability to react quickly to tiny movements is being paralysed by the imbalance. Gimbal mounts vary so much in their ability to react too. A big setup has inertia and momentum, again, things the servos have to try to deal with.
EDIT - sorry, Peter said all this.

Why do you call the cameraman the 'gimbal operator' = In your neck of the woods do you have such specialisms? I don't know ANY gimbal operators , I know cameramen/women who have gimbal mounts. I'm thinking you've got a little hung up on the terminology applied to people. Surely - if you have a need for a cameraman, the choice of grip kit to stick them on is up to them. I see steadicam as separate because it's a unique role, but I have a gimbal mount, and rarely ever use it. Your choice of words and phrases suggests in our minds divisions, separations and processes we find a bit difficult to attach to the products you produce? Looking at your work, I see tripods and hand held shooting the main two processes. Trouble is, often we see hand held when a tripod would have solved all the issues, and when we see movement of the camera it seems unrehearsed or a bit 'odd' - and a gimbal would not have really helped.

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

I get the impression Ryan thinks thar a gimbal is the answer to everything, however, they have limitations and work better in some circumstances than others. https://nofilmschool.com/2016/07/9-i...use-gimbal-pro

https://www.redsharknews.com/product...he-best-option

From what he's said about his area, buying a dolly would be better for dramas, rather than yet another gimbal.

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

I'd suspect the haphazard looking nature of much of Ryan's work is due to not following a formal film set workflow...

I.e. block, light, rehearse, tweak shoot

1. Figure out blocking of camera and actors for a shot

2. Light according to blocking you've just figured out

3. Rehearse it

4. Make adjustments to whatever based on what you observe during rehearsal

5. Record actual takes

This is how all professional sets flow. If you rehearse those moves enough you or whoever is operating will know when they need to be framed like X and when they need to be framed like Y. After you've done enough rehearsals, you should get it to where everyone knows their parts and it looks smooth and professional, THEN it's time to record, and the sloppy, uncertain, searching quality to the camerawork should be eliminated.

If you want to claim you don't have time for all that because of schedule etc. well, then you get what you get and you can't really complain.

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

I find it odd Ryan’s inability to troubleshoot problems and the misleading way he describes them. He says the lens is vibrating due to stabilization then only later reveals its on a gimbal. It shouldn’t be hard to deduce if it only happens on the gimbal it’s the gimbal. Besides you should feel the vibrations in the gimbal handle. Even if it was due to ois you would simply turn it off.

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

Oh okay thanks, I followed all those steps before, but perhaps I just need to do them better or do more rehearsals and more takes.

As for not knowing if it's the gimbal or the lens, I wasn't operating the gimbal, so I'm not sure.

Perhaps the term gimbal operator is the wrong term. I just called him that cause I posted that I was looking for a gimbal operator for a fair amount of the shots I wanted. I don't think of a gimbal as a fix everything tool, I just wanted it for some shots where I felt it would be the right tool. As for lenses we used mostly an 85mm lens, but it was a light, short one, and not a heavy one for the gimbal.

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

I don't know which camera you're using, but if it has a Super 35 sensor, you may be pushing the skills of your operator, since many gimbal shots tend to use wide angle lenses.

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

We used a Sony A7s II.

I wanted to rotate around someone's face when doing the shots, and also do close up face shots when tracking. The 85mm is better for close ups, since they do not have near as much barrel distortion in faces, compared to wider lenses.

However, I have seen gimbal footage done with non-wide lenses, so are they just really good at doing it then?

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

The more telephoto the lens the harder it is to get smooth shots. 24-50mm is the typical range for gimbal work but most people stay on the wide end. Most commonly used for following someone walking. Where as slider/dolly provide a smoother, gentler, controlled movement. The slider especially suited for close ups. There is an inherent mechanical jerkiness in electric gimbals.

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

Oh okay thanks. I've tried a dolly before too, but I found that it was very difficult to level out the track, and the footage was never good. The dolly footage I got before was worse than gimbal footage.

For a current project, would it be possible to do a shot like this on a gimbal, even though it's a longer lens, as long as the gimbal operator is really good?

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

Your dolly problems are probably pilot/crew error.

Leveling a dolly is quite an operation that usually involves knocking little wedge shaped pieces of wood under just the right points just the right amount, checking, rechecking, and rechecking. Then there have to be no bumps on the track, or issues with the wheels on the dolly having flat spots...maybe some other things I'm forgetting.

But that or a nice slider (a Dana dolly or the kind of slider supported at either end, if tripod mounted) is probably what you're after.

the gimbal is not a magic solution for every type of movement. Sometimes a dolly is better, sometimes a stedicam is better, sometimes handheld is better, sometimes a crane is better, etc..

I think you're trying to do all these fancy shots on what you can afford instead of compromising your expectations based on your limitations, and accepting "no we can't do this with what we have. Let's find something we CAN do that doesn't look like crap".

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

Okay thanks. I tried having the person operating the gimbal to do a similar move at 5:07 into this video:


Does the move look good on a gimbal compare to a dolly? I could get the dolly, it's just I would need a circular track for it, and have to do it on a long lens, which means a longer track as well. Plus I don't think I need to compromise as long as I have the right equipment, right?

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

you’re doing that copy paste thing again. You’re trying to use the wrong equipment to replicate scenes from big budget hollywood movies.
No a gimbal wasn’t used for that shot more likely a bigger more expensive version of a device like this. This is actually something might want to invest in.

These sort of rotating shots are used frequently in hollywood action movies cough michael bay

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

Okay thanks but a slider would not have been able to make that move though, because it needs to around the actor, where as that one cannot make enough of a circular motion to do so though. It looks like in order to do that move, you need to be able to a circular turn close to 180 degrees at least. But it doesn't look like that slider can do that.

Also since we used a gimbal to replicate the shot, is the problem with a gimbal is that that shot is too shaky then?

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

That's when you whip out the circular dolly track. As I said, it's an involved process setting all that up.

You really have to ask yourself if you NEED that shot. Sure, maybe in an ideal world, but let's say it takes half a shooting day to set up and execute...was it worth it? Could there not have been a less time consuming, if less "dazzling" way to shoot that? Do you want to actually make your movie and have it look good or would you rather make your movie but have many shots that fail at trying to do something you weren't equipped for?

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

they probably have circular dolly track combined with a crane like arm I posted. and yes you can attempt use a gimbal to poorly approximate the shot

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

please note and do not ignore the word “poorly”.

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

Okay thanks. Well I was told before not to try to emulate what I have seen before. So what if I used the gimbal to come up with my own original gimbal shots, instead of trying to emulate dolly and slider shots. Would doing my own original shots, be better than trying to emulate shots I've seen before?

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

Just because it's on a gimbal doesn't make a shot original. Chances are all your shots have been done before, what's important that it's being used in a way to serve the story, without distracting from the story. What experienced gimbal operators say is that it allows you to be freeform with your shots, but it can't do everything, it has limitations, which is something you need to be aware of.

What a dolly gives is precision. As mentioned earlier, you need a crew that knows what they're doing and the correct track (straight or circular) etc. Flexible track has limitations, metal rails allow you to level correctly using a spirit level to set up wooden wedges, apple boxes, elephant blocks (these seems to have different names around the world) to build up the track to the correct level. Lightweight dollys have limitations, so if you're getting vibrations etc, you may have exceeded what the one you're using can do.

https://products.msegrip.com/collect...-wood-products

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

There are always two versions of decisions at the least.

If you have lots of clever grip kit, you know the kinds of moves you can do well, and which ones are not good. You then select the best one available when you think up the shots - OR - you go the big budget movie way and you dream up the sequence, then you find a way to do it, and perhaps even find a brand new way to do it. Like those movies where they want impossible movements so do things like leave the camera static and move the entire set!

Let's be very honest. A gimbal in the hands of an inept cameraman will never produce steady and smooth shots. A good cameraman might not even need the gimbal - if they have the fluid skills some people just develop naturally. The most common is a good cameraman with a good gimbal and between them they can do many things a steadicam can do. Have you tried a cheap steadicam or equivalent device to see if they work for you? Gimbal mounts solve one problem, but cannot solve sharp changes in movement - sudden ups or downs in particular. They give a look and often the look is inappropriate.

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

Oh okay thanks. Well most of the shots I want to do with camera movement, which would be about maybe 30 percent of the shots, I try to think of moves I can do on a low budget. Most of them I think would require a gimbal theoretically. Others maybe a dolly or a slider.

So I try to think of moves that can theoretically be done on the budget I have, as oppose to really big moves like a crane, etc.

I thought that going around a person in a circular motion can be done. And since I want to do some walking sequences, and running, with the camera tracking along with, I thought that could be done as well... Things like that, where the movement can work within the budget limitations theoretically. I thought since I want a gimbal for a good portion of the shots so far, like the walking and running ones, then I can come up with any other shots that would involve a gimbal. Dolly or slider, for some, I am not sure yet. But no crane or drone shots for sure.

With the moves I come with though, is there a way of knowing, if you need a dolly, gimbal, or slider for it? Is there a way of calculating that somehow? Some are obvious of course, but is there a way to tell with the not obvious ones when budgeting?

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

When you say a cheap steadicam, do you mean a glidecam, or what do you mean?

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

I think the answer to your question about how to know what gear for what move is to CONSULT YOUR DP. Tell him/her what youre after and if theyre competent theyll know what gear would be required for that shot and its worth it or feasible on your budget.

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

Sure. For my next project, I will try to find a DP that knows a lot more about that. I know that I would need a gimbal for sure, but not sure about the rest. As for a cheap steadicam, I thought a gimbal was better cause it seemed to be able to do some more moves, and has better follow focus options compared to a cheap steadicam, if that's true.

I read comparisons, and watched videos like this on it:


However, I was also told that a glidecam takes years to master, where as a gimbal can take only a few months. And there seems to be more gimbal operators out there, because I know a few, but do not know any filmmakers in my area that own a cheap steadicam. So would a gimbal be a better option then? But again, based on what I have read, the gimbal has better follow focus options, so if that is true, then would the gimbal win on that alone?

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

AGain, why agonize over any of this rather than consult a pro dp?

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

Well it's just I wanted to have as much of it budgeted out on what I need, as much as possible before bringing any crew on board. Plus I wanted to have a preliminary shot list ready to go as much as I can cause once I start bringing crew on board, so much starts happening, that there is less time to do all the shots, so I wanted to have a preliminary one ready to go.

There is one thing though. I was told that in my video I did, that I was using a gimbal to do a dolly's or slider's job more so. However, in the video I posted where the guy did the glidecam vs. gimbal comparison, he does the exact same type of shot I did. So can that type of shot be done on a gimbal instead of a dolly then, if he did it?

But let's say I want to do a shot where the DP says I can't do with with the equipment we have. As director, for certain shots, should I just tell him to think outside the box, and figure it out with the equipment we have, compared to getting more?

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

Steadicam type devices work on a totally different principle. if you jump up and down, the camera stays put. gimbals try to keep the camera pointing the same direction in the same orientation. That's quite a different thing. You seem to want the things a spring loaded device offers. If you hold a gimbal mount at arms length, then your bones and muscles do what they springs do and take out vertical movement. Hold it close to your body and it jerks around like mad - while staying pointing the same direction. Did you not know this?

DSLRs and gimbals became a bit of a fad - buy one and buy the other. Shoulder mount size cameras perform better on spring devices. The gimbal in them being simply low friction vs inertia to keep the pan direction the same(ish)

Picking the right kit needs experience.

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

No I didn't know that cause the comparisons I read or comparison videos I watch do not go into the movement being different if you hold it closer to you for example.

However, I read that there is a feature on the gimbal that can turn off, if you do not want the camera to stay pointed in the same direction. Is that true though, cause I thought they had that option. Plus on the gimbal, if you do not want the camera pointed in the same direction, can't you just hit the pan or tilt button, if you want the direction to change? At least that is what the gimbal operator seemed to do when operating the Moza Air 2 that we used before.

Plus I never saw vertical movement being an issue though. Can't we just embrace the vertical movement, rather than think of it as a flaw?