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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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?
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.

Oh okay, so you think I should not have any cuts then and maybe have the entire thing in one shot? I do actually have one take of the entire thing, it's I felt that certain parts of other takes were better so I wanted to borrow from all three takes, rather than use just one. But is it better to use just one of the entire thing?

You can do that if you've got closer shots of the actions that can be put between the selected parts of each take. However, they need to be fairly consistent in their moves and positioning, depending how much you can see of these actions in the wider shots.

Since you're planning to direct a feature film with action scenes, you should know all this stuff.

Oh okay, well I find this to be very different than directing a feature with action scenes, cause for the feature, you are setting up the shots for emotion, where as here, you they are being done out of fighting move techniques specifically, rather than emotion, if that makes sense. In a feature I don't need to see everything about the fighting moves, I want to see the emotion. So I feel it's a whole new ball game for me, compared to the action scene of a movie.

The emotion is the difficult part, this is just the mechanics of a stunt.

Be careful, you may be misjudging the emotion that you're creating,

Oh okay thanks. But I feel that story narrative action is easier for me to decide on that martial arts promotional video action. I think it's because I have thought about fictional narrative more probably.

This is mostly illustrative, so it's a matter of getting the participants delivering their lines in a natural manner, that's usually the difficult part o these videos, All the rest should be relatively easy.

Download the selected take onto a laptop and use that as a reference video player., so that the continuity can be matched for the action shots. You can use the angle that makes it look at it's best, if you wish. slow the move down in post and use some of the lines as VO.

Oh okay. I was thinking of slowing the move down in post for VO before though. However, my camera only shoots at 30 frames per second which sucks for slow motion. Should I use try using twixtor maybe then?

Use whatever works for you.

Straight slowing down 30 fps in post is the same as step printing in film. it has a look of its own, which been used in a number of films.

I wouldn't do slow motion. It feels like you just can't help yourself from meddling with these sorts of things.

Honestly you should be using these jobs to work on your directing. Not to get you off on tangents there are many aspects of this project you could have used your energies on. Like scripting a fun snappy intro. A lot of the better Youtube videos have a format, style, branding leaves you with an impression that its professional production. From what we have seen so far this is an uninspired video where you show up to a room with your camera and press record. If they came to you and said we want you to come up with a plan to create a great promo video for our business tell us what to do.

Oh I only mentioned slow motion cause it was suggested on here that I slow the movements down if he talks about the possibly. Unless I read that wrong?

Slow motion should only be a snappy sting thing, not a Sam Peckinpah job, however, it wouldn't work with the video that you have at the moment, which needs working on style.

Oh okay. Well the instructor says he wants to narrate a lot of it with voice over, rather than talk and having do the moves, especially in a location with problematic sound.

So if he does that, I am afraid of perhaps the moves being too quick. So I could slow them down if he needs more time to explain them or I could just free frame them on certain beats that he is talking about, if that's good.

Are you making a promo video or an instructional video? It sounds like you're doing the latter.

I am doing what they are asking me to do. He wants to narrate the moves to show off his knowledge and what he can offer, and that is what he wants to do. I know I get to pick the shots and how many takes and all, but he still gets to pick the moves and what he wants to talk about, doesn't he?

From the very beginning this sounded like a moving target project where Ryan is letting a client who doesn’t know what he wants take the lead. First he films him free form sparring, then he shows him the footage and he sees it’s not good, and now he told Ryan to try something else. This is what you get when you’re passive.

Well I tried being more aggressive but it wasn't working. I asked him if we can do takes from this many angles, and he said it was too many takes for him to keep track of, for example. He also gave me ideas of what he wants to do next for the video, but should I just reject them and say no?

I guess I am more comfortable being the one making all the decisions, if it's a project where I am the one spending the money and producing. Plus I don't think he sees me as the director but more of a camera operator. But even if he is going to promote himself, doesn't he still have to explain some moves, in order to sell himself on what he is talking about?

How does the client expect to distribute and promote this video? Is it intended as a piece for YouTube, a local broadcast commercial, late night public access channel, playing in a booth at a trade show, something prospective clients are handed on a DVD when visiting the studio, what? Will the potential viewers see this video BEFORE or AFTER they have first met the instructors in person? If it's intended to be BEFORE, how will they find this particular production among, say, the thousands of martial arts videos on YouTube? What makes it stand out? Is it part of a broader marketing effort that includes other media, public demonstrations, etc.?

These questions make a big difference in deciding what the emphasis in the piece should be, how long it should be, and how it should be packaged with "extras" like graphics, music and B-roll footage.

I realize that what we saw originally is not a finished, edited package. But the whole product kind of feels as though one of the guys said, "Hey, dude, we should make a video," and the other said, "Sure, sounds like fun," without thinking much at all about how, where and why it would be used.

Youtube and facebook page for them, as well as their own website. Yeah I get that same feeling from them so far. I'm not sure how they planned to get noticed more.

This is where you have to give the video some structure on paper and agree to it before you start filming. If you don't they will just start changing things as they go along.

These are shots, not takes if it's from different angles, if he can't remember more than a minute or so, break the video down, so that he doesn't need to remember 5 minutes. You are the one who needs to now where everything goes, not him.

I assume this video lasts about 5 minutes at the most. If it's a promo being shorter would be better, viewers sense within the first 30 seconds or a minute at the most if the guy is a good teacher and knows his stuff, the rest just confirms the first impression,

Is this a series of instructional videos? it sounds rather like that's what he wants.

Okay thanks, he said he would rather do a lot of it in one take though, rather than break it down into sections. Unless that's not good?

It feels like a promo video to me. He describes some of his moves, and then talks about the promo stuff of what he has to offfer in his teachings. At least that is how it reads on paper, with what he wants.