I like the look of the star filter, when used on still photos, and thought I would use it for cinematography, or have the DP do it. But would it be too weird for video? It's just I don't recall seeing any movies, where it's used, so is there a reason for that?

Perhaps during some flashback moment (maybe together with some RGB split and shift).

Oh ok i meant for the look of night scenes but no flashbacks.

You're thinking street lights, car headlights/brakelights that kind of thing?

The results can be unpredictable. get out there and try it out.

Many types of star filter have been used on films over the years. However, I would tend to be careful with star filters if they're being used on dramas, they can look kitsch if used inappropriately.

Some cross weave net filters can also produce a star on point highlights like lights.

Streak effect filters are sometimes used to simulate the horizontal flares found on anamorphic lens, which tend to be the ones employed on dramas.

Again, you need to run tests on any filter effect.

Oh okay thanks. It's just it's the DP who does these things, so if I tell him I want it and he says okay, then I would have to rely on that it is a good decision without testing it, if he is the one who has all the equipment. Or perhaps I could get him to run some tests, see what it looks like.

https://youtu.be/WOLZMr52Wcc

RYAN - A very interesting documentary on how Kubrick worked - very interesting.

As the director, you can watch the tests.

On the set you should have a monitor where you can see the effect. it's not like film. Although, even there, you can see how a star filter looks though the film camera's optical viewfinder. There shouldn't be any surprises with a star filter.

Okay thanks, that video is very interesting. I won't be able to use all the same types of approaches obviously, but it is very interesting and inspirational :).

As for watching the tests, I shouldn't be doing this on the day of shooting though, and do these tests in pre-production though, with the DP, right?

https://youtu.be/WOLZMr52Wcc
These behind the scenes videos are more informative than simply watching the finished movie. A few take a ways that as a viewer you are seldom aware of all that challenges that go into a production. You can also see the amount to money put into customizing the lens, the knowledge, expertise, production staff...

Good examples of how every director works differently especially how Kubric doesn't like to write camera shooting directions into the storyboard because it lock you into one way of thinking. Rather see the scene live and react accordingly that supports the story. Reminds me of how Ryan tries to plan too much and isn't good making adjusting on set.

On topic, star filter. Really?

Yeah I thought a star filter may give a certain cinematic look but haven't seen it used too often that I can recall, so I wasn't sure.

Well as for storyboards, usually once production happens, I am so busy with all these other tasks, that I do not have much time to come up with new shots, so I liked to get as much done before shooting as I can, including storyboards.

But if I tried this approach, of doing new blocking in rehearsals, do try different rehearsal takes with different blocking and do it through trial and error to see what is best? Or when you say, see scene live, and act accordingly, are we talking about during rehearsals, or actual shooting?

I’m merely suggesting that there’s downside to over planning and being too specific and detailed in your storyboard. Once you’ve become too attached to these details it becomes difficult to make changes that suit the situation found on location.

Yeah that makes sense. So in the film school course I took as well as tutorials, when they say to go through the script and write in the shots, for the the pieces of dialogue and action, like how it's done in this video, at 5:10 into the video:

Film Riot - How to Storyboard & Schedule Your Film - Pre-Production in Filmmaking! - YouTube

Is this not a good way of doing it, even for a preliminary storyboard to get your feet wet?

As for doing it Kubrick's way, are you saying that the actors block the scenes, themselves during shooting, as they go? Wouldn't this cause other problems though, if that is how he does it?

I didn’t get that impression at all? They hardly touched on the acting direction just making pictures. I’m intrigued as to what you understand as ‘blocking’?

Star filters vary, the standard 4 and 6 star filters tended to be used on 1970s TV programmes, there are more irregular ones which aren't obvious. The latter would tend to hide the star effect. You would need to ensure that the DP has the correct star filter, because there's a range available.

You block the scene out with actors before you start shooting, once it's blocked out the scene doesn't change. Drawings won't make much sense to actors, there's no sense of space or time in them. The coverage mentioned in the video using lines in the script has nothing to do with blocking the action with the actors.

In reality, you should shoot more than just the two lines mentioned in the video to allow some overlap for the editor. You might do this when shooting film with a low shooting ratio, when you need to save film stock, but there's no reason to do so when shooting digitally. It also gives the actors a run up to the dialogue.

Okay you say that the storyboards have nothing to do with blocking and that the blocking is planned out before shooting. But why isn't the blocking part of the storyboards? Would the blocking being on the storyboards, help the director and the DP be on the same page for the shots, rather than deciding apart from the storyboards?

As for actors not understanding drawings, well wouldn't it still be for the DP to understand the blocking since DPs go by storyboards?

For example, if the storyboard shots an actor and describes he is suppose to walk from the table to the window, and the camera moves with him, then why would you want to change that just before shooting? Why not stick to the storyboard blocking?

Even if we have to make changes later on the location, we still need some sort of frame of reference for all the shots that do not have be changed and can remain the same, can't we?

Plus blocking also determines the number of shots I will need in some ways. So if I decide the blocking right before shooting, then how I am suppose to know how many shots, to cover such blocking? I need to know the number of shots in advance, so I do not go overboard, and over time. So how I am suppose to know the number of shots going in, if I do not know the blocking for those shots ahead of time, since changing the blocking, can change the number of shots?

The blocking is where the actors go and where they say the lines. The storyboard shows the shots, for many dialogue heavy scenes, with little visual content a storyboard is probably overkill. A floor plan with the actors (with big noses to show how they're facing) positions marked out and the camera positions and shot sizes beside them will do the job. combined with the shot lines in the script.

You can quickly spot if you gone over the line because you're in plan view and you don't waste time drawing out basic dialogue scenes.

This is how they did it in the TV drama in the multi camera studios and they had some complex camera coverage.

You're trying to do the rule thing again Ryan.

If you are micro-directing the actors, no wonder their performance suffers? If you have two actors and they mover from camera right to new positions to the left, you decide as the director when they walk, and at what point in the travel or the end, they perhaps say things. You also determine who crosses whom. Does the female stay closest to the camera, or do they swap at some point. If these things don't matter - you just need them to perhaps cross to look at something - then you set their end move and they get there on their own. In complex sequences, like the Kubrik clip where people are being shot while the camera tracks, you just need to sort out their sequence of being shot. If the odd one messes up, it doesn't matter.

If the actors got the blocking wrong, but did a perfect take that worked brilliantly, I get the impression you'd shoot two more because the blocking was wrong and the storyboards and paperwork called for more takes?

This just makes us positive you just don't understand directing. Your preoccupation with process and paperwork is really messing you up. Does your co-director do all this planning, or just look at the set, the location, the cast and the rest and just instinctively know how to shoot it? If so - just follow their lead if you can. Most people cannot read plans, cannot understand drawings in 2D or 3D and make sense of storyboards. Many actors cannot multitask. Hitting a mark is hard enough. Getting them to hit the mark on a specific work in the script may just be impossible. In the real world it's so hard to micro-manage ordinary people - they just hate it. I remember working on location where a house had been built in a dry dock, which at a certain point would be flooded. A one-shot, one-time take. The director got the cast together they did a run through a few times, shouting words for visual events like windows blowing in, doors opening etc and then the Director distanced himself to the dry, leaving the actors and the cameraman in wetsuits in the ankle deep water. Shot on film too - so no way to review what had been shot. He had to trust everyone to do what had been rehearsed and they did a great job. The storyboards were just guides as to what was going to happen. Everyone concerned did their job. When they emerged from the flooded house, the director called cut. Everyone thumbed up and the cast and crew broke. Just how it had to be. 3 minutes in the final production - 24 hours to set up. One shot and it worked.

Oh okay thanks. Before when I first started doing projects, I didn't have the blocking all planned out in the shots, and we just came up with it before shooting. But I was told by others that the blocking was off and I didn't like the results, and it seemed that the camera movement, was not prepared enough for it also.

So I thought it was better to plan the blocking in advance therefore. David Cronenberg, I remember said an interview that too many directors are too specific with blocking, and to just let the actors do it as they go, as it gives a more natural performance.

But if you do not have the actors hit specific marks though, how is the focus puller suppose to pull focus properly, or how is the gimbal or steadicam operator, suppose to know where the camera is going to move, since they told me they need to know in advance where the camera is going to move, if that's true?

That's what the first run though is for - to get the components to gel. The camera op needs to know where they are going, but usually only when they see the action. It's often a choreography that's needed and you can't do that until you are there, seeing what will work and what won't.

I'm all in favour of planning - but after a certain depth, it starts to become pointless. You strive to meet the preset positions, actions or effects and you start to concentrate on that rather than the 'whole'. You need that happy point where it just works.

Okay thanks. What about style consistency though? Different movies have different types of blocking styles, and if I keep deciding on the set, without a prior plan, what if the style is not consistent from scene to scene though as a result?

Eh? I doubt many directors would change their style during the production process? Your style is well, your style. If you try to emulate other scenes from movies you like you could mess up, so you don't do that - you do your version.

You're still doing painting by numbers Ryan. Trust your inner feelings, and go with the force!

Okay sure, it's just when I do my own shots, I was told before that's not how things are done, such as cutting to a shot that is too similar to the previous shot, or breaking the 180 rule for example. So I am reluctant to just do any shots I want based on my own originality therefore, as people may not accept a new form of filmmaking.

In most skilled professions when you master your craft you simply know what to do. It’s just comes naturally. Just like a doctor wouldn’t pull out a medical text book in the middle of surgery.

Oh yeah for sure, I know a doctor wouldn't pull out a text book in the middle, but I thought he would follow the trends of the surgery and come in with a prior plan, rather than re-inventing the wheel with his own surgery procedure.

] But if you do not have the actors hit specific marks though, how is the focus puller suppose to pull focus properly, or how is the gimbal or steadicam operator, suppose to know where the camera is going to move, since they told me they need to know in advance where the camera is going to move, if that's true?

Good focus pullers and camera operators can go with the flow of the performance. It's not that unusual for actors to miss their marks, however, I don't thing Cronenberg means that the scene blocking changes with every take, more that the actors are able to discover their own blocking, rather than the director imposing the blocking.

Once the actors have found their blocking, the camera people can do their stuff.

Okay as long as the actors blocking doesn't bring down their performance though. I don't want an actor to just lean against a wall as a background and not move at all for example. I want the blocking to be good. So as long as they can do good blocking...

But by having a consistent style in the blocking I am talking about how in other movies, the blocking all seems like it's the same style. 12 Angry Men has lots of blocking but there is something about it that feels all of the same style and decided in advance, rather than having the actors decide on each of their own styles of blocking, if that makes sense?

] But if you do not have the actors hit specific marks though, how is the focus puller suppose to pull focus properly, or how is the gimbal or steadicam operator, suppose to know where the camera is going to move, since they told me they need to know in advance where the camera is going to move, if that's true?

Good focus pullers and camera operators can go with the flow of the performance. It's not that unusual for actors to miss their marks, however, I don't thing Cronenberg means that the scene blocking changes with every take, more that the actors are able to discover their own blocking, rather than the director imposing the blocking.

Once the actors have found their blocking, the camera people can do their stuff.

General practice doctors these days do sometime check on line to confirm details during a consultation. During a complex operation, surgeons can plan in advance more than they used to, but they're still going to come across the unexpected and have to work around the issues that suddenly arise, There's a team of people working together, so they can confer with the other specialists during the operation (assuming egos don't get in the way). Some operations are cutting edge, so the surgeon needs to come up with their plan in each case.

With a film. the director should have a vision about how they're going to tell the story. Some directors have a strong personal style, elements of which gets carried over into each of their films. However, one Hollywood director has said that you don't really know what's best for the film until about two weeks into the shoot, unfortunately, they added you can't go back and redo the first two weeks filming.

Unless you're doing a TV drama series (although they can evolve over time), each feature film is a one off, even within franchises they differ to some degree.

Ryan - you certain you actually understand blocking? It's got nothing to do with standing or leaning on a wall, or if they have their arms crossed or not. That's acting and needs direction. Blocking is simply where and when at its crudest. If you try to micro manage this then their acting suffers. Who is behind who - angles, heights, gaps, direction they face.
So as long as they can do good blocking...

Actors do NOT do blocking, the director does this. Once they know the blocking, they start to act. You MUST get a handle on this, or the actors will do their thing despite your input.

Here's David Cronenberg on working with actors, which is is similar to the way a number of directors work, although this doesn't mean that the blocking changes with every take.

Director David Cronenberg on Working with Actors - YouTube

How well this works will depend on the quality of your actors and if they've been out partying every night of the shoot.

Ryan - you certain you actually understand blocking? It's got nothing to do with standing or leaning on a wall, or if they have their arms crossed or not. That's acting and needs direction. Blocking is simply where and when at its crudest. If you try to micro manage this then their acting suffers. Who is behind who - angles, heights, gaps, direction they face.

Actors do NOT do blocking, the director does this. Once they know the blocking, they start to act. You MUST get a handle on this, or the actors will do their thing despite your input.

Okay thanks, I understand that the director does the blocking, but what I don't understand is why it should be decided on set, just before the shoot, when I can decide it in advance. Why do I have to wait to the last minute to decide it, when I have all these other things I have to do then as well? Isn't it good to decide what I can in advance, instead of having just another thing waited, till the last minute, if that makes sense? It was said before so I don't get locked into a certain type of thinking, but is that bad, to know what you want in advance?

Two actors walk left to right - one is acting with a limp. He gets to the other side later. Crossing in front of the actor who has the critical line. So the director changes the limping man's destination, having him stop short, giving the camera a clear line off sight to the key actor. However, the knock on is that he needs to be able to turn the light switch on, but is now too far away. The director arranges a new move, the lead actor crossing in front of the limping man, who then can reach the switch and light it. The lead actor is now reversed compared to the way it was written. The director can then devise a realistic way to get them back, or leaves them in the new blocking position. However, the delivery man knocks at the door, but now the wrong actor might have to look through the spy hole in the door, and may have to take the line explaining who is outside.

It goes on and on. Very normal and on the day, once the actors try things, a better way. Of course, the heavy limp could have been made a light limp and the original plan would have worked - but maybe the director liked how the actor was playing it?

Surely you can dream up a million and one scenarios for changing a distance block - where you do it from the storyboard and then have to make changes to cope with more/less space, or just plain unexpected things. I did one once where the doorway was too narrow for the camera to go through it. maybe ½" but nobody thought to check the doorway was wide enough. These things need sorting on set.

Plans are always flexible to a degree, because if they are not, you are stuck!

Part of my job is to listen to everyone's plans and estimate their success chances, and without them knowing, formulate plan B's. Most of which are not required, but when they are I have one!

Oh okay thanks. That makes sense as to why to change blocking on set. Should I still have preliminary blocking on the storyboards as a guide though, and it can be changed later if need be?

If I do not have preliminary blocking on the storyboards, then how do I make up the storyboards then if there is no blocking on them?

Storyboards don't really do blocking well, do they - unless there is a clump of actors in them, and one has a big arrow, showing where they go? If you use storyboards as snapshots in time, then if something complex happens, then a start and end, and maybe mid-point could work? Personally, I'd rather see a storyboard and then read where the actors go? "John exits through the centre door, leaving Jane and Fred to one side, looking at each other in surprise" How you'd show that clearly in a storyboard, I don't know.

As Paul says, a storyboard has nothing to with blocking the actors, that requires more detail. They are good for the visual effects people, but it indicates nothing about the overall performance from the actors..

It's like a still photograph of a play, you can't tell anything about action before or after it was taken. It may tell where the camera is pointing at a certain movement in the scene, but unless it's an extremely short bit of action, you know nothing more about the content. Perhaps more useful in commercials than longer form productions.

I would use the plan with the actor's movements on it, together with the camera positions. Even then you need to be open to some changes on the day, it's more a starting point to cover yourself if you can't come up with anything better on the day and you know where the camera should possibility be (although subject to change).

The version that you have in your head will never match what you manage to get on the day. There are too many variables.

Oh okay, but don't do you still have to block in the storyboards, otherwise it will lead to continuity errors possibly? Like let's say you have all the storyboards, but then on set, you decide, let's have the actor get up out of his chair and walk over to the window.

Well now there is a continuity inconsistency, cause none of the other storyboarded shots, you want to do for the day, have the actor over by the window now. So if you do not have the blocking in the storyboards, how do you avoid lack of continuity like this example then, if that makes sense?

YOU'RE GETTING EFFECT AND CAUSE REVERSED!

You are quite correct, on set changes can lead to continuity problems but somebody is supposed to sort these things out. You don't use storyboards for this kind if thing, because if you tried, you'd have too have somebody constantly monitoring them to check compliance, and if you have that person, then they just do it on what's shot, not what was supposed to be shot. Storyboards have a purpose, so does blocking actors and they are both flexible. The storyboard is the visual guide too what we will see. How it is implemented is the director's version. I like to think some of the director's cut movies are more like directors original plan, that got changed in shooting. Storyboards are guides - that's all. After all, not every location gets a visit - like yours when you discovered the body road with cars in the background. You followed the storyboard but then had to dump it in a hasty script re-write. That's just how it is - especially in low budget productions.

Okay thanks. I can try to just use them as guides only then, I am just fearful of continuity being compromised if I do. Sure I will make changes if I have to do, I just don't know if it's a good habit to get in, cause I don't want to risk continuity too much.

Let's say I have a storyboard of a master shot, and two actors are sitting. Then during shooting, I decide to have one of them stand. But the actor is sitting in all the other storyboards. Does this mean I still do the same type of shot coverage, but have them continue standing, instead?

Continuity is a job on the crew, there is a person who notes all the actions and when they happen. If you don't have one, usually the camera operator has an eye on it or the director. Usually both are aware of continuity as the scene is played.

A storyboard doesn't note any of this, all it says is the framing of two people in the master shot, You might indicate with an arrow that one of them is going to stand up, but you have no indiction of when this happens or any action by the other actor that might motivate the actor to stand up.

The shot coverage could be the same, just the camera operator may have to compensate for the new situation with an alteration in the framing.

I'm surprised that someone who has done a film course doesn't know these things.

Well in the film course, they didn't go into the storyboarding part of it as much, and I tried to learn a lot more of it on my own. We mainly learned as a director, how to work with producers, but also how to produce and get funding, working with funders, etc. A lot of the business side really. We learned a lot of the filmmaking side as well, but not a lot of what I ask about on here.

From the sounds of it, "a lot" is more "somethings" about film making, the questions you're asking are basic stuff that you should be aware of, especially since there are now so many books on most aspects of film making.

Well it's just that before when being told I have done the basics wrong, I want to know every variable of the basics too, if that will help.

You can't expect people on the forum to go through every variable in film making in infinite detail. .

On Amazon there's 75 pages of books listed as being about film directing, that's where you should be looking. A forum can't go through all the details involved in the subject, especially since there can be more than one answer.

Oh okay sure, it's just from the books I have read, I feel details are left out so far, which is why I want to ask about such details, if the books do not address all the hidden catches either.

Each book fills in holes, and they will often contradict. I started out with lighting, and learned a huge amount from one author, who later I got to know quite well, and he was amazed I'd used what he called his ramblings, as the foundation. He'd never meant what he said to be taken as the 'method', just how he did it. I suspect you have not read enough versions of how its done.

How we got here from star filters, I'll never know. I actually bought one back in the 80s - never used it after the first day!

which is why I want to ask about such details, if the books do not address all the hidden catches either.

The difficulty is that you don't seem to be able to take on board the information you're being given.Your questions just keep repeating themselves and you end up going around in circles.

You need to read quite a few books in order to get an overall pattern. There are probably books to cover nearly every job on a feature film set.

Sounds like you’re trying to over plan to avoid mistakes you made in the past. Storyboarding them out isn’t the answer. When you do free movies and don’t have the funds, staff or the experience, cut corners and use unorthodox methods you’re going to get unprofessional results. Maybe all you need is a short reminder list you bring with you on set, much like a speaker doesn’t read his speech word for word he has an outline that he glances at. Film making is collaborative effort between a team of people.

Ok thanks. are you saying cutting corners, isn't the answer then and that can yield bad results?

You seem surprised that this could cause you problems?

Well it's just as far as unorthodox methods go, I was told before I need to think outside the box more. Doesn't thinking outside the box, mean having to do unorthodox things?