Okay thank you for the advice.

Well I tried doing voice over, over the video, and my fear turned out to be correct, that it take him longer to explain how do to the moves, compared to him pausing to talk while explaining them in camera. So now I have to slow down the moves to make them long enough so he can explain them. But do I use twixtor for that? Also would the slow motion appear forced, since I am only doing it to give him enough time to explain the moves? What do you think?

The slow motion you ruled out earlier? Sigh.

Are you in charge or not Ryan.

A voice over that is longer than the real action is simply too long - so cut it down. You are letting these two idiots tell you how to do everything. They are just no good at story telling. Everything they do is random, unreleased and uncontrolled. You are their lap dog trying to recover a decent product from a poorly planned and managed idea that seems to flow badly.

We've told you over and over again to stop this. Training videos when well done are formulaic. Usually show, then explain, then show again. Slow motion can be good for things that cannot be seen in normal speed. I did a magicians one years ago, where they were making things appear and disappear, and we used slomo to show how the magician put five thimbles on his fingers in a very quick movement. In real time it was not seen at all. In yours, you have a full body to watch, so if something cannot be seen, it's probably shot from the wrong angle. Does slomo help, or hinder? You NEVER use slomo in this way because the voice over is too long. If the words are critical so you cannot fir the movement, then video the voice over, so it's a talking head that then cuts to the movement and back to the talking head. First semester stuff!

Take control, or give up - you really are at this decision point.

Oh okay, we never learned to do a martial arts training video and then explain the moves, semester wise.

I think for the rest of the video I am going to have to do everything in one take, and no cutting cause every time I try to do a cut, it doesn't match. So I think it all has be done in one take.

I will do the talking interview head, explaining it, then cut back but I hope his words match up enough to what was shot though. I guess it's just hard for me to take control of something, where I don't even know what they want or what it's about. It's their field so if I take control and try to script the whole thing myself, I think they will disagree with it though.

It's a matter of first principles, there are loads of subjects that you won't have been taught, so you need to work them out in the real world. There appears to be quite a few martial arts videos online, so you can use them to work out the best methods.

If matching action is an issue without multi cameras, don't try, make it very obvious that you're not trying. Get the guys to repeat the key part of action again (slowly if need be), so the viewers can see it (I assume they would do this in a class).. This is an instructional video, not a kung fu movie

Oh okay thanks. Well a lot of the martial arts videos online appear to be handheld which makes for a lot more movement without being restricted. A lot of them are done in one take too. Should I perhaps just go handheld then with one take only for the editing? As for matching, I don't have multiple cameras, just the one still, so I can't match the different takes, cause they do them too differently each time.

It seems like the more I cut, the more mismatches there will be. So I think for the rest of them they have to be shot in one take. One video I saw will do crash zooms from close to wide, to wide to close, etc. But how does one know when to do the crash zooms, unless those videos, the martial artists were able to rehearse the same moves down to the T, unlike mine?

But I think after this, this will be the last non-scripted project I do. I think I am just better off doing scripted projects, with actors, who do not mind doing a lot more takes in comparison, and who are use to hitting marks better, and don't mind redoing the same blocking over and over again, if that makes sense. I think this is going to be my last non-fictional project.

I'm not sure why you object to shooting hand held, good handheld is no worse than some of the gimbal shots you've used in your films. It's also used by many of the top feature film directors.

This is a simple film. if you can't manage something like this, you're going to be very limited in what you can direct in the drama world.

This is just wrong Ryan. If you cannot think on your feet to be able to do this simple project, maybe you need to just stop. You don't have the kit or the skills for something quite basic, so your scripted stuff will be even harder. This is madness. I think most of us learned with one camera and developed our hand-held ability that grew gradually. You want to use tools but are not willing to spend time developing even basic skills.

I fear we are wasting our time now. You reject all our advice if it differs from your already set in stone plan.

You must perhaps start to consider if you have the right career in mind? Frankly, I think many people have dropped away from trying to help you because it is clear its pointless. We are getting nowhere.

Oh well, I was told not to do handheld before, because in past projects, I was told it looked bad, and not to use it.

Well so far I find these projects that are less scripted with the shots less planned out to be more difficult. But when working with actors before, they were far better at taking direction in comparison. Plus when I think on my feet it presents other problems.

The martial artists, need their full bodies to be shown, so I cannot set any markers for them, without them being seen then. I am not sure what to do then, to try to keep them from going out of frame. Also I don't know how they are going to move, since they keep moving differently when responding to each other. I guess I just feel that scripted projects with actors are more predictable in my experience so far.

You must perhaps start to consider if you have the right career in mind? Frankly, I think many people have dropped away from trying to help you because it is clear its pointless. We are getting nowhere.

I think many decided that weeks ago and have just given up trying to help.

Roger

Sorry for making it sound like I am rejecting advice. I don't mean to to do that. I really appreciate all the advice. I just find that some of the suggestions have other potential problems in them, that need to be addressed before proceeding that's all. Is that bad of me?

Alright, well if I need to take my own initiative, from now on, I am going to make sure I have the perfect master shot of them, and they have to get everything right in one take. Because I cannot get any matches in closer up shots. So I am going to get them to do perfect masters. They will be further away in the masters to stay in frame, but hopefully that's okay.

There are no problems in this video that an average director can't solve

To expect a precise match on every take in something like this is naive, however, given the replay resources that even the average amateur has these days it's not insurmountable.

We used to do this kind of stuff on film, where there was no replay.

You must've been using poor hand held shots or using it inappropriately, because it's pretty standard tool in film making.

Oh okay thanks. Well it's not that they have to match it precisely, but I find that a lot of the differences are quite obvious.

For example a few times, in the missmatches they are literally on opposite sides all of a sudden, cause they turn themselves around sometimes.

And they do not want to do more than two takes if I ask. I try to really push for it, but they say no, and want to see the footage played back, and then they say it's fine after. I don't think they realize it may not turn out that way in the editing. Unless they seem perfectly happy with one shot takes. I also really think I could do a lot more if they and the location, were more available than 90 minutes per shoot day.

It's your job as the director to tell them you need more, if they refuse, since they're not paying you, tell them there's no point in continuing, pack your gear and walk out. If they're serious about the video they call you back, if not, you're better leaving.

Some clients would not recognise a terrible take as long as the people in it did not fall over!

People have never told you not to do handheld - they tell you that it needs practice. Until I bought a gimbal I have been handholding for years and years. I'm really unimpressed with what the gimbal can do for me. Tripod 1st, shoulder mount 2nd and hand holding 3rd. Stick it on wide angle, then move in closer if wobble and shake happens because of longer focal lengths.

You are making excuses over and over again. Working with actors has driven you mad in all your topics, now this is suddenly easier than working with two martial arts people? The common denominator in all this is you Ryan. You seem to have no affinity with making movies at all. Everything goes wrong, nothing goes right and everyone else is to blame. This is just silly.

Regarding walking away from this project, whats in it for Ryan at this point?

Money? Nope.

Reel material? Nope.

Experience? he doesnt want to do more of this type of work so experience for what?

Fun? Doesnt sound like it.

If he walks away mid project and his rep suffers, does it matter? Hes not looking to do more anyway so who is badmouthing him going to affect?

Some clients would not recognise a terrible take as long as the people in it did not fall over!

People have never told you not to do handheld - they tell you that it needs practice. Until I bought a gimbal I have been handholding for years and years. I'm really unimpressed with what the gimbal can do for me. Tripod 1st, shoulder mount 2nd and hand holding 3rd. Stick it on wide angle, then move in closer if wobble and shake happens because of longer focal lengths.

You are making excuses over and over again. Working with actors has driven you mad in all your topics, now this is suddenly easier than working with two martial arts people? The common denominator in all this is you Ryan. You seem to have no affinity with making movies at all. Everything goes wrong, nothing goes right and everyone else is to blame. This is just silly.

Sorry I don't mean to blame others, it's just they tell me it's good and want to move on. But I will do my best to make it better for the next shoots.

But as far as no affinity goes, I was told that the one short film I made Battle Damaged Souls was much better than all my other work. So I feel I made some progress based on what people were saying there.

However, best be aware that "Battle Damaged Souls" is a monologue, that's very different to actors interacting with each other and complex relationships on screen.

If you want to get this martial arts video finished, just shoot a wide shot for every set up, cut them together and leave it there. That's the client is always right, even if they're totally wrong approach that you sometimes have to take.

Okay thanks. Another thing that is different is that with the martial arts video, they want to show off the moves, which means trying to cut to close up for parts that are not as well seen.

Where as a fictional story, audiences don't care to see how the moves are done, so I don't have to show everything, which I am not use to. I think for the next shoot I am going to go in without storyboards, and whatever they do, try to come up with new shots on the fly. It's just I fear that will not turn out well without a plan. But maybe it might be better.

Tell them that unless you do the close shots they want so the viewers can see the moves, there's no point in just doing the wide, Again, be prepared to walk away, there's no point in being gentle about things,

You're wasting people's time here because you're not doing what a director or even the camera operator will do when shooting these things.

Okay thanks. I will do that.

The thing about doing the fights in one take though, is that I want to cut out the fluff, or the parts that are not as good. So that is why I want something to cut to from different angles of course. However, before I was told the cuts are awkward. How do you cut out a section of fluff, without the cut being awkward?

If it's not a good one take action order them to do it again, be totally ruthless, don't allow them thinking time. Treat them like dancers and you're after a certain move.

At this point we’re beating a dead horse. Most of your problems are about your lack of your ability to come up with a good approach, incorporate some of the clients ideas, and make winning video.

I would have sat them down come up a good plan, film them talking about themselves and why someone would want to take classes. Then go back and film footage that supports the sections you want to highlight. Could be them sparing or teaching. This is a promo video, every thing you do should be done with that goal in mind. Instead you’re Aimlessly filming them and letting them tell you what to do which leads to a purposeless mess.

We can’t help to try to fix what is so painful wrong. But we can’t expect you to do what should come natural.

Were both of those supposed to say “cant” or was one supposed to be a “can”?

If any of you had been in this situation with Ryan’s constraints (no pay, difficult client, almost no time to film) what would you have done?

Would you have simply turned the whole thing down and said “I dont think I can help you?”

Were both of those supposed to say “cant” or was one supposed to be a “can”?

If any of you had been in this situation with Ryan’s constraints (no pay, difficult client, almost no time to film) what would you have done?

Would you have simply turned the whole thing down and said “I dont think I can help you?”
I’m saying we can’t resist the temptation of giving him advice despite the fact he is unable implement it. Ryan has issues of perception, communication, seeing the large picture, thinking on his feet..

Even though all of us would approach the situation differently we would still be able evaluate it and come to a sensible decision. I don’t believe this is a client issue because this sort of scenario has played out multiple times with different clients. The only constant is Ryan.

Okay thanks for all the advice. Sorry if I had trouble taking it.

Actually I think tonights shoot went a lot better. I tried out some different approaches and thought of some as I went along rather than trying to stick to the original plan. I did cross the 180 degree line for a couple of shots, but it's not so far over that it's really bad I don't think. I think it was more important to show the moves rather than stay fully behind the line.

But that is just my perception of it. But I think tonight's went better so far from what I could tell so far. I went hand held for some of the shots, and that helped I think, hoping it's not too sloppy. Thanks for the suggestion to do that. One thing I noticed is that of the two martial artists one of them seems better so far at doing the same thing over and over again compared to the other one. Before it was just the other one taking the lead with the moves. So maybe I can try to push for him to do most of the moves and the other just follows his lead, but not sure if they will be happy with that.

Here ya go, Ryan. The decision tree to the main problems:

Problem #1: The client talks too much and there isn’t enough media to provide for the voice over.
Solution 1A: Do a cut then insert a slo-mo clip that repeats the part they’re talking about so the viewer can get a second chance to see the detail.
Solution 1B: Do a cut then insert a clip that repeats in regular time, and maybe repeats as many times as it takes to catch up with the voice-over (VO).

Problem #2: It’s difficult to keep their whole body, the two of them, in frame.
Solution 2A: Move back far enough with the cam so they will always be in frame. Your problem here, and I emphasize the word “your”, is part of the take is not clearly viewable, nor not viewable at all, and that, apparently, is, and has been, a constant deal breaker.
Solution 2B: If they complain one can see the detail because they’re too far back then … there are a number of pretty much deal-breaker options:
2B1: Tell them that’s it, can’t be fixed (because you have only one cam)
2B2: Ask them if they want another take. (Note: They already used two takes)
2B3: If they “leave it” then that works. Session and shoot ends.
2B4: None of the above: [ fill in the blank. ]

Problem #3: They say the take is good, or good enough.
3A: What’s the problem?
3B: Good enough, BUT …
3B1: The take wasn’t long enough for the VO
3B2: Is this a promo, sales pitch, or an instructional video? (Guess I don’t get it … again)

Problem #4: The director/DP does not want to use his, or their, smart phone as a second cam.
4A: Director/DP says it doesn’t look professional. Note: the only 3 people that know are in the room. Nobody …. but NOBODY, watching will know what the video was shot with. Well, maybe we might but that would be hearsay. Anyway, Dir/DP refuses and kills the gig.
4B: Dir/DP caves in and decides to do a hat trick, saving this gig by using his smart phone. Everybody here breaths a sigh of relief that it finally in the edit room and will be finished. *sigh*, or *SIGH*?

Problem #5: Which cam is fixed, and which is handheld?
5A: With the cam on the tripod set on wide, use the phone to catch a B-roll angle
5B: With the smart phone set on the tripod, use the cam to catch a B-roll angle
Note: the B-roll angle doesn’t have to be right up close, plan to use zoom in post. Ditto the tripod cam on wide.
5C: It is possible, in edit, to remove someone who gets in frame if the tripod cam is on a tripod. Believe it or not. Another editing trick.

Disclaimer: All these other guys are way more professional than I am so consider the source. But, I would sure use that phone and I would sure do a hand-held shot. The “stage” and the actors are not conducive to doing it the way you want. It’s time to quit asking questions, give it your (and their) best shot, and get to the editing room.

Another thing that is different is that with the martial arts video, they want to show off the moves, which means trying to cut to close up for parts that are not as well seen.
That's a given, so yes.

I think for the next shoot I am going to go in without storyboards, and whatever they do, try to come up with new shots on the fly. It's just I fear that will not turn out well without a plan. But maybe it might be better.
Would be interesting to find out and I hope there is a pleasant surprise and it is better.

The thing about doing the fights in one take though, is that I want to cut out the fluff, or the parts that are not as good. So that is why I want something to cut to from different angles of course. However, before I was told the cuts are awkward. How do you cut out a section of fluff, without the cut being awkward?
Ever watch televised golf? They find ways to fill in the "fluff" by talking about stuff. Are those who said the cuts were awkward the same ones who said the takes were good?
Different angles ... take a B-roll cam. Yes!

Edit:
Note: "A good video today is better than a perfect video tomorrow"

Gotta get this sucker out the door!!!

Okay thanks for all the advice. Sorry if I had trouble taking it.

Actually I think tonights shoot went a lot better. I tried out some different approaches and thought of some as I went along rather than trying to stick to the original plan. I did cross the 180 degree line for a couple of shots, but it's not so far over that it's really bad I don't think. I think it was more important to show the moves rather than stay fully behind the line.

But that is just my perception of it. But I think tonight's went better so far from what I could tell so far.
Very good to hear that!!!
By the way, your new post came while I was writing mine but I didn't want to start all over so posted it anyway. It's a good feeling when you feel the shoot went well, and let's hope it did.

I went hand held for some of the shots, and that helped I think, hoping it's not too sloppy.
It's an action video so it'll be okay, not to worry. We're interested in the story and not how Hollywood it is. Actually, as been said before, Hollywood does do hand-held so not to worry. Probably not so much back in the Ben Hur CinemaScope days with the big 35mm cams though.

Oh okay thanks. I did break the 180 degree rule, so you can see more of the moves, since the martial artists keep constantly turning around. However, what in order not to confuse the audience what if I actually flip the video to the next shot in the editing, with the narration saying "Let's flip to the opposite side", or something like that?

no no no. If it's confusing after the edit, the edit was wrong - flipping a shot can cause a subconscious confusion - a visual spasm. The 180 rule is NOT about measuring angles, 179 is not good, and 181 is OK is not how it works. At what point does left become right? It's just reversal. If your reverse angle shot reveals something the viewer needs to see, it's fine. TV frequently 'break' the rule on big shows with no issue whatsoever. Good examples being things like the ..... got talent shows, or x-factor, where you see stage end shots out into the audience, cut with audience to stage. Seeing the reverse angle when dancers are dancing or people suspended over crazy dangerous obstacles - their right suddenly becomes left and it doesn't matter because left right is not important - the audience at home understand the swap without knowing. Doing it badly grates on the teeth. Doing it appropriately works fine. Don't use these guidelines as laws, as in thou shalt not cross the line.

With training videos, it doesn't have to look beautiful, it isn't Lawrence of Arabia. People watch to service a question.

I watch youtube videos to solve problems. How do I do X, Y and Z in Premiere, or photoshop. I usually discover somebody with no people skills at all boring me to death, so I skip over what I already know and find that section where they show me the hidden menu, or the drop down I didnt know was there. Then I never even get to the end. I'm back into my edit, the video forgotten.

What do your clients want? What quality standards do they have, if any, and who are the audience. Shoot the video, edit it and present it to them. I'd also tell them that as a free/low cost video, you delete footage after two weeks to make space. This will either generate a request not to with the possibility of money as compensation, or they'll say nothing and you can forget them.

"Lets see that move" or "lets have a closer look at that" or similar will probably do the job. The viewers aren't interested in the film making mechanics. As Paul says, don't change the geography of the scene by flipping.

This thread has become so convoluted I can’t follow what are truly “problems” and what type of video you’re trying to shoot. Maybe you should just upload the next installment of this video and we can make comments based on something concrete. Please stop banging on about the 180 rule and your compulsion to break it. How much more time do you plan spending on this free commercial?

even training videos 'cheat' - you give the client what they want and they go away happy. My second one for a commercial laundry company 'needed' shots from inside a tunnel washing machine they'd spent half a million on - a 6m continuous drum where dirty washing goes in one end and clean washing comes out the other. Trouble was, inside it was dark and popping in the gopro one end and collecting it the other revealed nothing at all. I popped it in my own washing machine at home and got fragments of light through suds, and loads of spinning. I never mentioned it, they didn't ask - everyone happy. Ryan consults his ever growing rule book then explains it to the clients, who in traditional client manner don't understand, don't want to understand and just want it sorted, with no time delay. I just don't see why this wasn't a one session project.

Wouldn’t putting a gopro inside a spinning washer break the 180 rule? ;-p

If he was getting paid then it would have made more sense doing what the client wants and moving on. This project makes no sense on so many levels. No money, not reel worthy, and experience doing things the wrong way.

The experts have read the question ....
Oh okay thanks. I did break the 180 degree rule, so you can see more of the moves, since the martial artists keep constantly turning around. However, what in order not to confuse the audience what if I actually flip the video to the next shot in the editing, with the narration saying "Let's flip to the opposite side", or something like that?
.... and the reply is unanimous and the answer is ....: "NO!"

What to do now?
How far into the original take did the problem occur?

Question to Ryan:
Can everybody dress up the same way as when the shot went awry, put the cam and audio on the same settings, get the actors positioned in the same area they were in, then do another take taking it from just before where the problem was, or from the other side, or whatever it takes to fix the problem?

One good part is there are only two actors, the lighting and set is exactly the same, and they know what they intended to do. With your video record one can position them at some point so there isn't a big jump and with an angle change of some sort that should help.

I like Paul's creative washing machine trick. See, we have to think creatively. A lot of really good replies above.

Normally you get away with intercutting different take material. I did fail recently though. I ended up doing a multitrack audio recording in a church, WITH 3 cameras and because of a last minute date change, no cameramen. Just me, running around and trying to react to things that unexpectedly happened - like all of a sudden a soloist appearing somewhere unmentioned. So I'd run to the camera best suited and reframe - two hours of this kind of thing. One section however gave me 5 seconds of totally unusable material, and everything C-roll, forget B just didn't work bar one very wide distant shot. I used this and the damn conductor noticed her hands were out of sync, so I had to re-sync that cutaway to match the music down beats. Nobody would ever have noticed - but they did.

I'd imagine in martial arts that there would be lots of perfectly useful cutaway shots - closeups of hands, feet, rear views that are not move specific. The public and most specialists are too into the subject to look critically at the techniques. In an instructional video there is no narrative, no real story, no cinematographic cleverness, no need for shallow DoF, no real need for people to even know the participants. The focus is on techniques and as long as the critical sequences are recorded in sufficient detail, all is well.

The experts have read the question ....

.... and the reply is unanimous and the answer is ....: "NO!"

What to do now?
How far into the original take did the problem occur?

Question to Ryan:
Can everybody dress up the same way as when the shot went awry, put the cam and audio on the same settings, get the actors positioned in the same area they were in, then do another take taking it from just before where the problem was, or from the other side, or whatever it takes to fix the problem?

One good part is there are only two actors, the lighting and set is exactly the same, and they know what they intended to do. With your video record one can position them at some point so there isn't a big jump and with an angle change of some sort that should help.

I like Paul's creative washing machine trick. See, we have to think creatively. A lot of really good replies above.

Well it's just reshooting will not help because here is the thing. The martial artist wants to show off a hand and arm placement technigue that is a longer move that results in throwing the guy down to the ground and getting on top of him and locking him.

But in order to do the move he has to start out in one position, do half the move, and then spin 180 degrees in order to take him down and do the lock. So for this part of the move, where he spins around 180 degrees and does the lock, his back is now turned towards the camera, and you cannot see how he does the lock now.

So how do I show the lock part, without breaking the 180 degree rule and going on the other side, since that is where the lock is? I tried going over head and pointing down, but you still can't see it. It's too obscured still.

So how do I show it, without moving to the other side? Reshooting won't help, cause the move will still be the same, with his back turned to the camera, for the last half of the move, if I choose not to break the rule, and stay on one side.

So my quick thinking and instincts told me, that the only way to show the last half of it, was to break the 180 rule. Unless there is a better way?

What good is to have a 180 degree rule, if the fighters change 180 degrees in direction? If their backs are all of a sudden to the camera, wouldn't the audience expect the filmmaker to cross the line at that point to the other side to see what is happening?

If a key part of a throw is going to be on the other side of their bodies, reverse the fighters positions, so that it's on the camera side when you're shooting it. Ask them which is the important part, so that's always on the camera side.

This is an instruction video, as explained earlier, with suitable VO you can switch sides. This isn't a drama, so you can do the move in wide shot and then cut to show action that couldn't be seen from the original camera position and explain it.

Oh okay, but so you mean I can cross the 180 degree line then for this one?

Also, I asked them if it's possible not to spin 180 degrees when doing the move so they are on the same side of the camera, if that is what you mean, but they said that is physically impossible cause in this move, to take someone down, you have to spin them around.

I'm not sure why this is causing a problem, you can switch to demonstrate after the the fact, regard this as a flashback. Do it after the whole move has finished, i.e cut to the move that couldn't be seen from the first camera position and let him voice over it.

They don't need to twist, just reverse the way they are facing at the start, so that you can see what I assume this the most important part of this fighting move. If other parts of the action are more important and this part less so, kept them in their current positions and do the above,

Brian to the rescue. Doing this as a separate detail shot is a good idea because it provides a good escape from the realtime action.

In this backside shot (whatever it is called), if the guy doing “the move” is also the narrator then perhaps he can describe to himself what he is doing at the time he is doing it so when it comes time to doing VO, and he remembers what he said to himself, there won’t be so much work on your part to coordinate the VO with the video.

I'm not sure why this is causing a problem, you can switch to demonstrate after the the fact, regard this as a flashback. Do it after the whole move has finished, i.e cut to the move that couldn't be seen from the first camera position and let him voice over it.

They don't need to twist, just reverse the way they are facing at the start, so that you can see what I assume this the most important part of this fighting move. If other parts of the action are more important and this part less so, kept them in their current positions and do the above,

Oh so you are saying have them do the twist in the opposite direction then after? Like have them do it one way than the other way facing the camera?

i believe that is not what they are saying. I think they are saying do the whole thing where when they turn to do the most important part of the move, they are facing cam. This means starting with their backs to you

The rule you are fixated on is simply to prevent confusion. Reverse angles, and the very common over the shoulder shot are common shooting solutions that reverse sides, but because they are obvious they cause no confusion, so work perfectly well. Surely you can shoot from one angle and then when they turn complete the shot . If you actually cut from first setup to second setup on the turn, the viewer sees immediately what has happened. There is NO problem here Ryan. You just get them to to the thing from the start. Then you reset and shoot the same thing again from the end angle. People will be in slightly different positions but unless they are completely rubbish at doing the same move twice it will be fine.

Oh so you are saying have them do the twist in the opposite direction then after? Like have them do it one way than the other way facing the camera?

I was giving another option, take the first sentence and use that. "you can switch (EDIT to the other side of the line) - demonstrate (EDIT the unseen) after the the fact, regard this as a flashback. Do it after the whole move has finished, i.e cut to the move that couldn't be seen from the first camera position and let him voice over it."

There are several ways you can shoot and edit this demo.

Oh okay, thanks, I can consider that option for sure. So far I took the suggestion of the talking interview route and the fight shots will be placed over that, if that works.

The rule you are fixated on is simply to prevent confusion. Reverse angles, and the very common over the shoulder shot are common shooting solutions that reverse sides, but because they are obvious they cause no confusion, so work perfectly well. Surely you can shoot from one angle and then when they turn complete the shot . If you actually cut from first setup to second setup on the turn, the viewer sees immediately what has happened. There is NO problem here Ryan. You just get them to to the thing from the start. Then you reset and shoot the same thing again from the end angle. People will be in slightly different positions but unless they are completely rubbish at doing the same move twice it will be fine.

Okay thanks, this is what I thought. I thought if both fighters now have their backs turned to the camera, than I can cut, and if the audience doesn't get it and is confused, then are they dumb? But I thought they should get it, if that's what you mean.

I know you guys have longed moved off the original question asked in this thread, but just to be frisky I'm bringing it back!

I used a four point star filter on a commercial this week, along with an old Cooke 20-60 zoom for a parody hiphop music video look. We played a lot of intentional flares from Aperture AX3's positioned in the frame creating point sources to another one handheld just off frame to create moving style flares, but we also got some occasional momentary kicks in glasses that were pretty great as well.

Oh okay. I'm starting to rethink the start filter cause maybe it may look a little too "dream sequence-ish" for a project that is suppose to be a horror thriller. Unless it would work for that kind of narrative maybe?

Dream sequence look? Never really thought of star filters like this. Charles's example once explained, clicks - the key feature I suspect being a parody - so it's not reality, it an exageration of the features of those hiphop videos. Those little features that set a genre into it's own niche. Probably a tool that goes back to the 70s pop videos where the lights started to be a feature and the stars were a good match. In your horror example they could work used on vehicle headlights, in the rain, or on a porch light. It would only look weird if used badly.

Ryan, you should really think about what you're trying to achieve when using a filter., Charles gave the reasoning behind the use of the star filter in the commercial. If you can't come with reasons to use a filter in a particular film, don't use it, otherwise, it can become distracting.

On a horror film, I wouldn't go beyond a 2 star streak filter, which simulates the flare in an anamorphic ken. There are also star filers which give an irregular star, which could work if used with care at appropriate moments involving a bright light, these look less like the standard star filters that you see in 1970s and 1980s pop shows and a few romantic films of that period.

Oh okay thanks for the suggestion. Yeah I was thinking about a filter for flare as well that might look more like anamorphic, if those ones look good as well.