Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

You've also missed up the added horribleness that close in, wide angle AND MOVEMENT makes.

We're taking about compression or expansion - and usually we accept these two processes as distortion. Wide angles expand perspective and telephotos compress it. If the head turns, or the camera rotates around it, the poking out or going in bits change size - so the nose suddenly leaps out and then recedes as the ears enlarge.

We think you do know this, but keep calling it barrel distortion by mistake.


I've been thinking about all this emotional stuff - Maybe this is the part I lack? I'm not an emotional person and when selecting positions, angles, heights and movement all I think about is composition and shot purpose. I don't think I have ever designed a shot by thinking about emotion generation ever. The story generates the emotional content, and any movie that is emotional in intent is one to avoid like the plague for me. I like telling stories and I like images or image sequences to be smooth when required, or 'live' when some kind of excitement/realism is needed.

I can visualise this person looking out, and the camera rotating around them, and in my head the vertical height stays exactly the same, the horizon stays horizontal, and the rotational speed stays constant. The background will probably be sharp, and probably any edits in this sequence would also have identical movement parameters, but narrower angle with blurred background, which would cut together well. The purpose could be the subject seeing things important to the plot, or NOT seeing things he should, or maybe showing him thinking. emotion for me would not be there at all as a drive for the shot, as I don't understand the use of 'emotion' as a shot driver.

Oh okay, I choose I think about composition and shot purpose as well, but I also consider emotion combined with it, when thinking about the shots...

Like for example, there is a scene in a moving car where two people are driving. I could shoot from the front, with the camera going in the window, and I might for some shots. But I also want close up shots from the back seat. Cause it creates a mysterious emotional feel, since you cannot see as much of their faces, like they are being watched, or being followed, which is kind of what is happening.

That is just one example of emotional feel, cause if I were going without emotion, then I might just shoot in through the windshield for a more frontal view of the face, if that makes sense.

But when it comes to how the face is shaped, if I think that the face is bit too narrow and too pointy with a 50mm lens for example, then should I say there is too much 'expansion', in a 50mm?

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

Oh okay, but I feel that the zoom or dolly in, will not have quite the same emotional impact as the circling around in this case. I don't think there is a rule that this kind of camera movement belong in music videos only, I've seen movement just as elaborate than this done in movies, so I think it's okay. When I said impact, I meant emotional impact. I didn't mean to imply I wasn't going for emotion..

Sorry but your shot has zero emotional impact. that comes from a connection with the character. It's just you trying to be clever with a shot, it's film student stuff.

"Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark" is on TV here and the static shots in that film carry has more anxiety than your proposed shot.

A circular shot will only work if it's wider and reveals the cops moving in closer on the character. It's a pointless shot in CU/ .

[Ryan Elder]

Well I have intercutting shots. You see the cops swarm in and you also see the close up him, looking around himself as the camera moves around him as they swarm in. So you have cuts of the cops coming in to fill the gap. The viewers will still know he is being surrounded therefore, wouldn't they?

But I was told before to come up with my own shots, and don't be influenced by others so much. So I am trying to storyboard the movie, my original way, rather than trying to be influenced from what I've seen before. How does one come up with their own shots, without it coming off as 'film student stuff'?

[Brian Drysdale]

I knew what you're cutting to, but the audience isn't going to catch onto his anxiety because of your distracting shot. A static with his eyes moving as he follows the cops moving in around him will convey more anxiety and emotion. .

[Ryan Elder]

Why won't the audience see the anxiety because of the movement in the shot though? What is it about the shot that would be distracting? I've seen movies where the camera moves all the time to convey character emotion, so why would it be distracting?

[Brian Drysdale]

It would work of it's Jason Bourne being surrounded and then takes out the cops, but that's not about anxiety.

[Ryan Elder]

Why won't it work for anxiety though?

[Brian Drysdale]

Because anxiety is an emotion that people register in the eyes of the character and the move spends very little time on the eyes. Also, the move is so unusual, that the audience may not even register any emotions in the character's eyes.

They'll only have one go at picking that up when watching the film, not the ages you've spent thinking about it .

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay I didn't think the move was so unusual, I've seen moves like that before as well. Well when you say the eyes, how close to the eyes are we talking here. You mean like so close that all you see is just the eyes mostly, like an extreme CU? Or would a normal CU suffice?

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Like everyone is saying circular camera motion doesn’t convey any particular emotion in itself. Heck it’s used commonly in wedding videos. Dam your movie making approach is utterly terrible. Undoubtedly you’re copy pasting the shot from a movie you saw.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh well I never watch wedding videos so I cannot comment on that. I didn't say that circular motion does not create emotion on it's own. I thought it would be the best choice for this shot in this scene, in this particular context.

But I was told before to come up with my own shots, and don't do what other movies do. So when I do that now, and try to come up with my own, I am told now it's too different. So should I come up with my own shots then, or not?

[Pete Cofrancesco]

A camera motion to support anxiety or a feeling of being trapped would be a push in cu to the subject face, not a circular motion of the other actors. A circular motion could be used in the scene but its purpose wouldn’t be for what you suggested and wouldn’t be essential. Wide high shot of them surrounding him, followed by the cu push in to reveal his emotion would be the simplest and most direct way.

This has more to do with using shots that are right to support the purpose of the scene. Trying to be original or trying to copy other movies are examples of doing something for the wrong reasons.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, I wanted to do a close up of the character, while the camera was moving around him as you saw his eyes and face, to give the feeling of justice closing in around him and that he is surrounded by a trap.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

You’ve already shown us the scene from the movie you want to copy it from and we’ve already explained its not a gimbal shot. Plan shots you can do don’t try to copy what you can’t do.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh well it was said before to get a dolly, so I will just do that then. What about a shot like following the actors down a hallway. Would that be a dolly shot or gimbal shot?