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

When you say I don't think beyond the name, what do you mean by 'name'? You mean the name of the product?

As for not giving examples that are astounding or spellbounding, should my shots be that way? Should I aim for that, for all these shots?

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

You don't seem to be aware of what you need to do or the difference between a dolly and a slider. If you need to track the camera more than 3ft to 4ft in any shots a slider won't meet your requirements.

Shots should fit the story and how you're telling it. From memory that shot in "Schindler's List" is used to reveal the venal nature of Göth who can be bought for money, what does your shot reveal? Or is it just a neat shot that you want to use?

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

Oh well for the shot I want to do, I wanted to do an over the head shot, over an actor's head to make the other actor he is facing look weak, and then I wanted to bring the camera around to the actor who is in more power but lower the camera as it comes around to his face to show that power. So it's not the same as the Schindler's List shot, but it has to move horizontally and vertically simultaneously, like the equipment used there.

I thought maybe a slider would be a compromise if I had to, but ideally the dolly would probably be better since you can make curved motions with it and move further.

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

Can't the performance of the two actors combined with a simple cut. possibly with a simple track added into the equation do precisely the same thing?

Sergio Leone would probably do the same thing with a cut.

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

You rang?

(I don't really know what I can contribute to this thread at this point!)

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

I just figured you were a gear and cinematography AND directing expert (I thought you’d directed something) as well as having plenty of experience thinking on your feet, stretching a budget and macguyvering things together when something else wasnt available or too expensive, etc. and might have some insight.

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

Charles - as the person who is a master of moving cameras, I think your advice would rather be something Ryan can really take on board.

I'm not really sure about Ryan's assumption that he can use these techniques to convey the messages he intends? Looking down, and looking up is one thing but getting the camera fluidly and untouched almost from first to second position would seem to be a problem based on current skill levels - if faced with the description of the shot - how would you prefer to shoot it?

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

Thanks for the vote of confidence fellas! Unfortunately I can't take the time to pore through 247 posts (it seems to have veered quickly away from star filters!), if Ryan or someone can concisely sum up the talking points I can offer some thoughts...or at least point me to the crux of the discussion.

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

Sergio Leone has done things like that with camera movements instead of cuts.

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

Sure, I can try to sum them up, do you have any questions on what you need to know? Thanks.

I guess what I want to know is, is there any ways or tools, for moving a camera with longer lenses without tracks if possible, that can produce unmotivated type of vertical and horizontal movement?

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

Yes, but he had more resources than you, what you need is something that works dramatically and is simple and quick to do

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

Yes, and I thought with all the much lower budget technology out there today, that there was probably something available that could do it, if I knew what would be the correct choices.

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

Ryan has written a screen play and over the last year he has been compiling ideas on how to film it from movies he has seen. He then asks us how it was done and then often wants to know if he could film it using another cheaper and easier method. And before you know it he’s moved on to something else.

I for the most part think its not a good idea trying to replicate scenes from Hollywood movies both for creative and monetary reasons. It would be far better to film in a way that tells your story with the tools that one has available.

Many others have suggested he work his way up on a professional set rather than watching the finished product and trying to deduce the manner it was made.

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

Oh okay, well I have worked on sets before it's just I figure I should do my own projects as well too.

As for working with the equipment I have available, I haven't got a lot of equipment. That is why I asked, to what equipment is feasible.

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

If you worked on a set you should know what equipment is needed. Whatever you did on that set hasn't taught you enough to produce and direct your own feature film.

To go back to my building a house analogy. I could buy you the tools needed to make a house and teach you how to use those tools but you still wouldn't know how to build a house.

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

You are asking to do things that the equipment that you've got available on your budget can't do, plus you paint yourself into a corner by wanting to do complex camera moves with long lenses.

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

He has this fixation with close ups. I think he has seen one too many Sergio Leone movie. Cu have their place but his world seems to revolve around them and super telephoto lenses.
https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/open-dv...ml#post1948473

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

Oh well the sets I worked on were very different. They just shot everything with a tripod. One had a large large jib and one had a drone, but I don't want to use those. But perhaps their style of shots is different than mine, and my style requires different equipment.

And no I don't think I have too many close ups in mind. I want a good amount of the shots to be close ups but not all of them.

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

" I want a good amount of the shots to be close ups" that sounds like TV, rather than cinema.

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

Well I think it depends on how you make the close ups look. Lots of movies have a good number of close ups and do not feel like TV, at least I didn't think.

When it comes doing the martial arts video, the martial artists want to show specific moves where I need to show each arm performing the move. So if I have to show both arms, should I break the 180 degree rule then to get on the other side, to show the other arm, do you think?

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

I noticed this years ago but to me the "TV look" has more to do with the use of midrange or telephoto focal lengths for everything...where even the wide shots kind of look compressed. Maybe to a lesser degree less dynamic lighting and less sophisticated grading (I would swear movies tend have grades that really "pop", where as TV shows will often slap a "blue" or "orange" look on everything). Exceptions of course but many shows seem to follow these tropes. In recent years much of the streaming and prestige TV stuff has gotten to where it's indistinguishable from films in terms of production values.

Closeups with a wider lens look really cool..dynamic, with a feeling of depth.

Of course it's all project dependent etc. etc.

I would think for the martial arts you could find a side angle (sounds like that's what you mean) where you could still see both arms...if you have to elevate above the performer and shoot down to see the arm farther from the lens, or from below, etc.

Or just from in front of the person. It would depend on each move and the best way to show it off.

As always, you'll probably have to see the action in person to decide the best way to film it. As we've said...you just can't storyboard and plan everything. Unless they'll let you, and you want to take the time to go there on ANOTHER separate day from the shoot, and have them demo all the moves, and think through your shots then, so on. shoot day you can be ready. That's a lot of trouble...most folks would get there on the day, and talk this stuff through and decide angles at that point. That's how we often do corporate training videos....tell them to demo the action, then decide where camera(s) should be to best cover it.

And also as always...look to see what others have done before you (look up martial arts instruction on youtube or something) and do something similar when applicable. This is one of those time where the copy paste thing is just fine.

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

Oh okay, yeah they want me to just come shoot it, rather than demo first, but I will ask if I can have two shoot days then.

I am thinking I won't break the 180 degree rule and shoot a wide shot, but on a telephoto lens, zoomed in for more movement on the panning, during the fight.

Then use a wider lens for close ups, pointed more diagonally and down at the arms but without crossing the line.

Well when I think of close ups for TV, a lot of older TV shots, looked made for TV, cause the cameras were always in the same spot. It was as if the cameras never moved in a set hardly, so the close ups looked made for TV that way, like soap operas or sitcoms.

Where as if shows nowadays like Breaking Bad for example, they seem to put the camera wherever they want to, compared to a soap opera or sitcom. That show has a lot of close ups but it doesn't look like TV, compared to a movie, does it? Bad as for using wide lenses on close ups, that real close intimate feeling look is just not my style I guess.

The only thing for the martials arts video is I only have a tripod now, so I will have to move fast, where as if I had a gimbal, perhaps I could move faster, without having to lock a tripod down for so many shots...

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

Josh had some good comments and I’d like to throw in some more thoughts..

First off, how far away, or how difficult is it, to drive to the martial arts place? If it’s not very far then I’d go there with mics and cam in hand to make some recordings, preferably with some people in the video. (Is this a wide-open studio or one with small rooms?) With those clips one can see how the color is going to look, skin tones, and hear how the audio is going to sound. Play around with cam settings and profiles.

If it’s possible to get some video with someone actually working out it would be best. As we know, the human ear is good at tuning out sounds that that are undesirable and that the mic will really pick up. Hopefully on the day(s) of the shoot(s) the conditions are the same, especially noise-wise.

Josh’s idea about casing out what others have done before is good and the client should, hopefully, have some links to videos they like.

This will be a really interesting shoot. If they’re paying the actors then that’s probably why they only want one shoot.

Question: Have they ever had a video done before? If so, what did they like and not like about it? Can you see it?

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

It's a few miles but it's not open until the first shootdate though in a few days. This fight scene is trickier for me though, cause if was a movie, people do not care about the specifics of seeing the move from different perspectives. But now that they want to show off the moves, from different perspectives, I want the shots to be 30 percent different each in the editing, so it cuts together better, without looking too much the same, but it's hard to make the shots 30 percent different, when you want everything shot closer up to see how the moves are done.

The space is a long room, narrow room actually, so I was thinking of being all the way on one side with a telephoto, while the martial arts are on the other side, but not too close to the wall of course. Then I can move in for the wider close ups.

Here's one short film I did:



Actually I was doing some tests with my lenses, and maybe as far as barrel distortion goes, a 35mm might not be so bad, but can a gimbal handle a lens like a 35mm, or is that not wide enough for a gimbal?

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

How well a gimbal will handle a 35mm lens will probably depend on the quality of the gimbal, the operator and the type of shot you're trying to do. I've used 35mm lenses when shooting 35mm and 16mm lenses on Super 16 using a Steadicam and it works, although more care is required than when using short focal length l.

BTW I've used a 14.2mm lens on 35mm film which had very little barrel distortion (you had to go looking for it), however, it would have a distortion on faces if you decided to go in for a close up. I suspect you may be using an incorrect term for this effect. A number of directors use wide angle distortion on close ups. This is the effect distance and focal length on the face shape, as you move in closer the perspective changes.


I wouldn't cross the line in the middle of a fight, it causes confusion in the context of sports coverage, as explained by Paul earlier, That's different to the crossing of the line in drama, as explained in the 180 degree video posted earlier in the thread, where a switch occurs at dramatic point in a scene and tends to stay using the new line, with everything having a clear geographical relationship. .

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

Okay thanks, that's a really good video thanks. It seems to me that when it comes to a close up, at that close, it starts to look good around 75mm for me. But for medium close ups, pulled further back, 35mm should be fine I think.

I won't cross the line in the fight. But I think to show some of the moves, I am going to have to be on the line though, to show the move from above, pointed down. So as long as on the line is okay.

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

All this comes down, to personal taste and the characteristics of the lenses you're using and the story you're telling, combined with the action.

I've found 50mm an interesting lens for CUs, going longer tends to make things a bit flat.

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

The 50 looks pretty good too. I suppose anything beyond 75mm looks too flat, and I just rounded it off to 85 mm, since that is what I have, along with a 50mm. It's also possible that the person I tested it on, maybe just looks better, face shape wise on an 85mm, compared to some people that may look better on a 50?

Well for a lot of the wider shots, where I want movement, I can use the wide lenses, just if I want to move on a face close up, on a lens, even around 50mm, I guess I could use a dolly if I have to.

For the martial arts video, which is being shot soon, my main worry is that since I am shooting close ups of all the hand placements, so you can see them well enough, is that I have to show different sides of the placement. So not sure how to show different sides, without crossing the line. I could do it just staying on the line maybe. But they want everything shot close up, so you can see where the fingers should be placed, and if everything is shot closer up, than I feel the shots might be too much the same and not feel different enough to cut differently together, if that makes sense.

However, when it comes to gimbals, I see in videos people are using gimbals for shots, where dollies and jibs would be used, like for the push in and booming shots, in the video:


Do those shots not look good since they are done on a gimbal, instead of a dolly, or jib?

Also for the camera push in move in this video at 0:52, did they use a dolly for it?


Cause the lens doesn't seem long enough, to zoom in past a long track that has to be hidden. So did they use a dolly or a stabilizer for that shot?

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

They probably used a Steadicam, although a crane would do the same job and you wouldn't see the tracks.

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

Oh okay. Well how did they make the steadicam look good though for that unmotivated movement, compared to a dolly or crane? Does it look better cause the lens was wider and less shake?

It's just what I don't understand is, is that sometimes I will see gimbal shots in projects done on longer lens, so how do they make them look good. I found this video on gimbal moves for example, and in 1:40 into the video, he talks about how gimbals can stabilize telephoto lenses, and shows an example of how the gimbal operator is using one. How are they doing this on a gimbal with a telephoto lens then?

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

The person in the Gimbal video is, I gather, one of the top operators in the industry. What he can do and what your local Gimbal operator can do is probably worlds apart, plus he will be using a high end rig, which also has to be factored in.

I can operate a Steadicam, but one of the living masters can do incredible shots that I would struggle with. Although, the move on the shot in the video doesn't look that difficult, a good Steadicam operator likes doing dolly type shots. The mass of the larger camera assists you with the smooth operating.

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

the local operator for the martial arts video and sole crew member is probably Ryan.

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

The Breaking Bad shot is definitely not Steadicam. I would guess Technocrane.

To back up to the clarification you made a page ago:

There are many ways to do this. Some are expensive, some require more technical skill than others.

Starting with the most traditional way to achieve this: a dolly. In most instances it would be preferable for longer lens work to use a dolly on track, but sometimes this can be done with rubber tires on very smooth floor (in the industry the grips create "dance floors" over varying surfaces using 4x8 sheets of birch topped with sheets of smooth wood or plastic). The sheer mass of the dolly helps dampen vibration that would hurt the shot, which is often an issue with lighter weight dollies as one would find in a budget situation. The popular Dana Dolly when used with elevated track is one of the worst tools to use for long lens work for this reason, plus having the operator walk alongside vs riding as on a conventional dolly will tend to introduce jitter.

For the type of overhead shot that you were describing earlier (and the one above from Breaking Bad), crane/jibs are the most popular tool. The telescoping Technocrane has the most flexibility as you are not locked into a specific swing via the arm, but is far more complex and expensive. For most scenarios it is helpful and/or crucial to have a remote head for operation, and again because of potential vibration that will be magnified with longer lenses, that head should be stabilized. This has traditionally been a very expensive proposition but the proliferation of gimbals in recent years now gives the budget filmmaker a much more affordable option. I'm coming off six months of working with the Chapman Miniscope (a 7 foot telescoping arm) with a MoviPro used as a remote head, and it was extremely effective at a fraction of the cost of a typical stabilized head.

With bodymounted or carried platforms, you have gimbal or Steadicam. With gimbals, again vibration is a challenge but for different reasons than the mechanical devices above--here it tends to be more of a software tuning issue plus there is a massive range of quality across various brands. In addition, subtle operating adjustments within a shot are challenging with gimbals, particular in one-person operating mode where the electronic pan may appear jerky on a longer lens shot. A quality gimbal operated in dual mode especially with handwheels vs joysticks will mitigate this.

For Steadicam, just as with gimbals quality gear is a pre-requisite--a cheaper knockoff rig will provide less isolation from the operator which translates into jitter on longer lenses. And here, the operating finesse is a much more critical aspect than with the other methods--it takes considerable skill to manage long lens Steadicam shots without erratic motion in the frame. However, I have seen lenses as long as 150mm in use by solid operators to great effect! In my Steadicam days I got to do quite a few of these, probably the best known was the roundy-round from American History X, here at 2:30: That was a 75mm, with a full 180 degree rotation around the actor. Since my days in the rig, gimbal/brushless motor tech has been incorporated into several devices that augment the classic Steadicam setup and help mitigate some of the operating challenges.

So after all this--which is the best method to attack a long lens moving closeup, but on a budget? I think probably the best solution in this day and age would be gimbal, but with the caveat that it be operated by someone who has a thorough knowledge of tuning the software for a given shot so that the response is just right and chatter or vibration is minimal, and usually best with a bodymounted support that helps mitigate the operator's footsteps to avoid vertical pogo-type artifacts.

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

Yes, there seems to be a bit of a zoom in on the tail end of that shot.

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

Okay thanks, the 75mm close up shot in American History X is what I am looking for for some shots. But I would like the opposite of moving from a close up to a wide, without having to worry about seeing tracks, if possible... or vice versa move from a wide to a close up but on a longer lens like 75 mm, without having to see tracks, and not have to worry about shake either. Or I want to move the camera with the actor in a close up and stay in close up for the whole shot, but not have to worry about a track coming to and end, during.

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

That has a lot of unknown unknowns. Given that you've got hardly any budget for equipment, other than a mental exercise, why are you coming up with complications that you won't have the resources for.?

It also goes against the style of Kurosawa blocking and framing that you spent pages on in another thread.

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

Oh well I wasn't going to just use Kurosawa's style only. I wanted to use Kurosawa's style for some scenes, but for others I wanted to incorporate other styles as well... the more suspense fueled shots that is.

I have some budget for equipment. I could set aside maybe $1500 for equipment to move the camera with, but just wondering if that is enough to get a piece of equipment where I can move it horizontally and some vertically, anywhere I want, without having to worry about track, but also can move it with longer lenses for face close ups.

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

Looking this up on the pCam app, assuming an S35 sensor, on a 75mm you can track back from a closeup to a wide head to toe (approx. 8 feet to 36 feet) and not see tracks, since they start 8 feet away from the subject. Obviously if you have to see more floor, you will start to see tracks at some point. If this had to be done on track, using a jib pointing forward will buy you the length of the jib extra for not seeing tracks. Or depending on
the shot, offsetting the track to the side and arming back into the frame (jib angled 90 degrees to direction of movement).

Track is smooth, but the joins between track are often problematic. Skilled dolly grips work hard to level out track and minimize bumps at the joins. We also use special troughs under the dolly wheels that use multiple smaller rubber wheels to help with this.

Again: a gimbal mounted on the dolly can potentially help with this by acting as a small stabilized head, especially if used in conjunction with an isolator arm.

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

Oh okay thanks. What if it's a curved flex track, would that cause any problems?

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

I should point out that Ryan's questions never have an end answer, they just drift into a maze of more questions, which drift further from the original subject.

The real suspense comes from the audience's involvement with the characters and so emoting with them, not how complex you make the shots with a particular lens focal length. That's the weakness you should be addressing.