That's not what they mean. They mean find a way to do it with permission/legally, but in a way that guarantees you won't get booted. AGAIN, this will probably mean spending money.

Oh okay. I wanted to shoot outside a courthouse for example, and perhaps we can do it in a way, that it won't bother anyone, but it's still legal.

It depends on the regulations in your area for filming in public places (if you need a permit) and where precisely you wish to film. Contacting the court house would be a starting point. You will probably be restricted from filming people going in and out of the court house.

If you can't get permission, it may be more guerrilla film making, which could involve shooting hand held in order not to attract attention.It's easier if you don't go onto the court precincts and stay on the public areas.

Oh okay. Well I wanted to shoot on the courthouse steps on a weekend, when it is closed, but some say it's even open on the weekend. But others say it's not because they have to wait till Monday morning for judges to look at cases, so I am still trying to find that out.

I am reluctant to go handheld though, because the rest of the project will not be handheld, so if only one scene is handheld, I thought it would stick out as inconsistent with the others therefore, stylistically.

Given the location, you should clear it, at the very least, with the local police. If you don't they'll be stopping every few minutes to check up on you. The steps are likely to be on the court precincts.

When filming these low budget films, you sometimes need to get shots as you can. Using a gimbal for the static shots would be another approach. In some cities, it's using a tripod that creates the difficulty.

Okay thanks, I considered the gimbal just a few minutes ago, thanks. I can clear it with police then. I thought a gimbal would still attract attention. I only have a boom to record audio with though, unless I try to arange for other accomodations.

It's less attention grabbing than a tripod,

That's true, but would the boom pole still attract attention, or be a problem compared to a gimbal though?

It depends on your local police and their attitude to filming. It seems to be more about about causing an obstruction, which is why you can get away with hand held filming.

Here in the UK, you don't need to get permission to shoot from the public land, but as a courtesy, the police can be very grateful for the tip-off. Shooting in Bristol, they helped us get access to pedestrianised areas in a vehicle and it was worth a couple of emails and then a quick visit to the Police station when we arrived. We found they had briefed the traffic wardens and community support officers and they actually kept the public out of our shots.We were using a national chain of chemists as our location, using their doors and they were very happy to have us opening and closing their doors with a bowler hat wearing butler!

I gather London can be a bit of a nightmare in parts. We had a permit when filming in New York and it made life easier with the parking, although we sneaked in and did undercover filming in the subway.

I hate it! Quite a bit of London is actually privately owned but the public use it 'as public' but this allows the security people to get very heavy. Shooting on Drury Lane, from the public Pavement is perfectly legal - it really is public land, but being in theatre land, it's very busy, and lots of the businesses believe that you cannot point a camera at their property (which legally you can) and you cannot shoot people entering or leaving (which again, you can). Arguing this over and over again is tedious, and stops the process. Doing some pieces to camera for the organisation on the second floor of one building took ten takes because the security people for the theatre over the road did not like being in the background of the shot and ruined the quite short sequences on purpose. The other way included the Theatre Royal and it had huge advertising banners which we did not want in the shot. Perfectly legal but awful. Courts, even when they are closed can be risky. The threat of terrorism makes people really jumpy - so even if what you are doing is quick, it's still risky and prone to interruption.

Why does Ryan ask us about the rules and regulations for filming in public in his area? Feels like he’s asked this same question before.

Paul -
... Doing some pieces to camera for the organisation on the second floor of one building took ten takes because the security people for the theatre over the road did not like being in the background of the shot and ruined the quite short sequences on purpose. ...

A while back Noa Put had a thread about how to make the photographer disappear. Is that something that could have been used to make the security guy disappear?

If so, I'd like to be able to see their faces when they're showed the edited clip with them missing!

[Uh ... "What did you put on your time sheet? Working when???]
Falsifying one's time sheet isn't a good idea. And the video shows you weren't there!
"We *might* be able to make a deal to put you back in." Everything has it's price.

Speaking of Noa, anyone know what happened to him?

There's a Facebook film making community in Saskatoon, who would seem to be able to assist in advice regarding local locations and if permits are required.

If Ryan isn't already a part of that, I'm going to facepalm so hard I shatter my hand.

I shouldn't comment because this has become really silly, but just in case it's not a comedy, If I needed a court building, for example, all low-no budget:
i) least preferred option: greenscreen the set, which of course I wouldn't, tacky
ii) It's drama, a court is just a building with pillars and an After Effects sign on the pediment and brass sign near the entrance saying "Court". The School of Arts building in my town looks more like a cliché court than the actual court anyway.
iii) I could use an actual court building in a country town where the one-time court has been converted into a local art gallery. Might have to buy a painting.
iv) preferred option, I could film the local court from the outside, but not from the steps without permission, which I'm pretty sure the court clerk would give if I explained what I wanted and was only going to be filming at weekends.
(Then there's stock footage *** idea***might get and post some. ***Idea*** Write a script: "a dysfunctional filmmaker explores options for a courtroom drama". Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.)

Rainer those are all good suggestions. Some thing Ryan should have come up with on his own. Ask for permission. If it’s something as simple as the main character entering the court house then film him with dslr, wide shot of facade, climbing the stairs, reach to open the door, then cut to another building interior... Any official government building with columns would do if you weren’t allowed to film outside. Honestly it be easier if we flew out there and filmed and directed his movie for him.

Perhaps Ryan is hoping to publish a book "Film Making For Dummies" and has figured out how to get us to write it for him.

As I implied earlier, when I gave him a multiple choice question, I think he is more interested in talking about making a film, than he is in making a film.

Possible future questions:

What to do if the cast starts cursing at me and all walk off the set?

What to do if my alarm clock doesn't ring, and I sleep through the shoot?

What to do if it rains?

What to do if a terrorist throttles me and smashes my camera with a baseball bat?

What to do if there's an earthquake in California?

What to do if a large fly lands on one of the cast's head while he's delivering his lines (oh, wait, that happened this past Wednesday night) ....

While it is always fun (and very human) to gently mock others I am pretty sure all of this stems from him being on the spectrum, being a person who practically needs hard and rules in everything he does, and trying to do something (filmmaking) where a) there are no real rules, only guidelines and b) the unexpected pops up all the time and has to be dealt with quickly and often creatively.

Well the only reason I feel there are rules, is because everyone else acts like their are rules. If someone says I did something incorrect in filmmaking, than that implies to me that there must be rules. Because if there are no rules, then there would be no incorrectness. Unless I am wrong?

The only rule in filmmaking is that there are no rules.

Ryan, it seems to me that's a rather binary view: right or wrong. There is a range of possibilities that are less than perfect. In fact there may be no "perfect" that works in every case. People are simply suggesting things that have worked for them in various circumstances. If you find that a lot of the suggestions are similar, they probably indicate good advice to try. I don't know whether that's the same as "rules"; I guess that's a matter of definition. You might not get arrested if you don't follow the suggestions. But if you do follow them, you might have less frustration and more success than you seem to have had in the past.

As I've suggested before, it's a shame you can't find someone in your area who has been somewhat successful, and in some way work on their crew, or apprentice with them, for a year. Perhaps you'd see a lot of this practical way of dealing with common situations, and it would become more intuitive to you.

Oh okay. Well I have helped people out on there productions, but I feel I cannot do things the way they do them. For example, one filmmaker I helped out on two features so far, he shoots all his scenes multicamera, and gets things done a lot faster that way.

But I don't feel I could shoot that way for example. There is also another filmmaker I helped out but her way of working is very different than what I think would work for me. So I feel I may have to come up with my own way of working, compared to others, unless I should try things like the multicam style for example...

He also shot a whole scene guerilla style in a public place without permission but he used telephoto lenses, so people wouldn't know he was shooting a scene because the scene was much further away. But he used lav mics, which would cost more than my boom mic I already have, which I was hoping to work with instead, since I payed for it...

Actually one filmmaker I am helping with on his first feature film was funded by investors, and given over 2 million dollars so far to make it. And that got me thinking maybe I should apply for funding as well, because I didn't think someone who has only made a couple of short of films could get 2 million. He has to co-direct as a result of the funding, but trying to see funding from investors a good idea, even if it means you have to co-direct?

I think you're failing to understand WHY he got funding. It was probably because his body of work prior to that film showed that he knew what he was doing to the extent that others were willing to invest in him, betting on making more money out of it. He may also have shown them a "prospectus" (look it up).

Unfortunately, all of your work so far has demonstrated exactly the opposite and I highly doubt you would be able to get funding in any amount that way.

I only saw one of his short films before, I didn't think the acting in it was any better than mine, same with the camera and lighting work, which is why I was surprised. However, I only saw that one short of his so far. But maybe they were willing to fund him in spite of just the one short because they liked the script enough. And maybe they thought that the director would do a much better job, if the funding gives him and us more actors to choose from a more DPs to choose from, on a bigger budget.

But I was also wondering, is it worth it to get funding, if it means you are co-directing with someone else, they give you?

Part of getting funding is selling yourself and the script, also having the right contacts within your network. They will also like the script and believe that there's a market for a film from that script.

They will ignore the acting in a short and the technical aspects to a certain extent if they like they way the director told the stroy. The technical aspects will be overcome because there will be a professional crew working on the film and the funders will have their executive producer(s) having oversight.

You may find the the people who worked on their shorts won't get the same jobs on the feature film. That's often the case when a proper funding falls into place. From the sounds of it they didn't believe he had enough experience, so they got a co director.

I know someone who got to write and direct a feature film (through Working Title) after one short and they didn't have to co-direct, However, they had the support of a producer who os now an A list executive producer in LA.

If you want to have a career as a film director you may have to play the politics and have a co-director for a first feature.

All you've shown in your above messages are your limitations. I don't understand why you can't shoot multi camera, since that makes a lot of sense if you've got a limited schedule, It's not more complicated than shooting single camera and isn't unusual on major feature films.

People get funding when they complete a package of documents that convince a panel it's a worthy project. The ingredients of a project are not considered because the budget buys these in. The idea, the purposes and the individual at looked at very very closely.

Why would a successful application need you? If he has the budget, he gets the best people, the best technical package and the best support to make it. What would you bring to the table? That skills audit you refuse to do comes up again.

You sadly have raised your expectations so high your abilities cannot keep up. You refuse to even consider anything negative. We constantly try to reign back your crazy ideas and ground you into getting the basic right, but you sweep these suggestions away and move on to the next idea, well outside your competence. Have you got any film making roles left to misunderstand?

You see another film maker getting funding but cannot understand why? We can! Until you can see it yourself, we really cannot help. I thought you realised your limitations and merely didn't wish to talk about them. Now I realise that sadly, you have still not realised that your quest to be a film-maker is limited by your ability and most importantly, your understanding of the entire business.

People get funding when they complete a package of documents that convince a panel it's a worthy project. The ingredients of a project are not considered because the budget buys these in. The idea, the purposes and the individual at looked at very very closely.

Why would a successful application need you? If he has the budget, he gets the best people, the best technical package and the best support to make it. What would you bring to the table? That skills audit you refuse to do comes up again.

You sadly have raised your expectations so high your abilities cannot keep up. You refuse to even consider anything negative. We constantly try to reign back your crazy ideas and ground you into getting the basic right, but you sweep these suggestions away and move on to the next idea, well outside your competence. Have you got any film making roles left to misunderstand?

You see another film maker getting funding but cannot understand why? We can! Until you can see it yourself, we really cannot help. I thought you realised your limitations and merely didn't wish to talk about them. Now I realise that sadly, you have still not realised that your quest to be a film-maker is limited by your ability and most importantly, your understanding of the entire business.

Oh okay, I thought investors would most likely go by past work, rather than how you fill out the documents, so to speak. I am guessing he wants to still work with me because of our prior working relationship perhaps.


Part of getting funding is selling yourself and the script, also having the right contacts within your network. They will also like the script and believe that there's a market for a film from that script.

They will ignore the acting in a short and the technical aspects to a certain extent if they like they way the director told the stroy. The technical aspects will be overcome because there will be a professional crew working on the film and the funders will have their executive producer(s) having oversight.

You may find the the people who worked on their shorts won't get the same jobs on the feature film. That's often the case when a proper funding falls into place. From the sounds of it they didn't believe he had enough experience, so they got a co director.

I know someone who got to write and direct a feature film (through Working Title) after one short and they didn't have to co-direct, However, they had the support of a producer who os now an A list executive producer in LA.

If you want to have a career as a film director you may have to play the politics and have a co-director for a first feature.

All you've shown in your above messages are your limitations. I don't understand why you can't shoot multi camera, since that makes a lot of sense if you've got a limited schedule, It's not more complicated than shooting single camera and isn't unusual on major feature films.

I have no problem working with a co-director if I was asking for funding, it's just I was told on here before, working with a co-director is a bad idea. I also thought I could not shoot multi-camera, because it would cost more money for more camera operators, and I was told on here before that it would cost more money, unless it would not?

When costing you need to include the cost of the whole crew during the extra days you're filming if using a single camera.

Co-director relationships vary, they may not in practice be covering the same aspects of the job. Given your messages in the forums, it would probably end up with the other person doing the directing.

I can not do any 'co' role with my wife. It is impossible. We do things so differently, by different methods, and very different routes that whenever we try to do almost anything together it causes conflict - I either end up doing 100% or she does, because that's how for us it works. We split things, and in 40 yrs marriage, it's worked brilliantly. If we had to work together it would be disaster!

When costing you need to include the cost of the whole crew during the extra days you're filming if using a single camera.

Co-director relationships vary, they may not in practice be covering the same aspects of the job. Given your messages in the forums, it would probably end up with the other person doing the directing.

Yeah that's what I thought, it's just others said it more cameras and operators would cost more, so I thought that was true, if that's what others filmmakers with that experience said. And I am open to co-directing, it's just I thought it wouldn't work out based on what others said before, when I suggested the idea. I don't think it would be the other person doing all the directing if that was the case.

But I can try to apply for funding, if that's more do-able than I thought it may have been, based on this other filmmaker's experience with it so far.

As for multicameras, I may only be ablet use two though, because the third one will be seen in a lot of the shots, if I were to use three. Unless I really change the shots around, but I feel a lot of them may be compromised if I do that, to fit a third camera in.

Of course two more cameras and operators will cost more, assuming you're actually paying them, Your filmmakers seem to have limited experience, but to get the same coverage with one camera is going to take more time than shooting with one camera, In professional film making time is money.

There is a compromise in using more than one camera, in that one camera may be in a less ideal position.. However, from what I've seen in your films, it won't make that much difference, since they're more TV than cinema.

Ryan your movies suffer from more fundamental problems that multi cameras wouldn't fix.

Given the right situation it can be viable approach. Even with a small cast and crew of 6 people paid at paltry sum of $100 day ($600 x 10 days = $6,000). Renting a second camera would quickly pay for itself by reducing your film time. Even if it didn't save you money it be easier on your cast and might be the difference between being able to film a scene before getting kicked out of a location or before the light changed.

In your case I don't think you could handle the added complexity, additional camera operator, syncing, framing, matching exposure/white balance, etc.

Oh okay. Well I would have to try to make sure that both camera operators have the cameras on the same white balance and exposure settings. As for syncing, wouldn't the syncing be the same, but just with one more camera? Why would syncing be more difficult? I would just be syncing two cameras to sound instead of one, but is that much more difficult?

Looking at my shots, though, I would have to move the second camera over in some shots not to be seen, so it would be not as ideal but maybe it would be worth it...

However, with two cameras, the actors are doing less takes. Say for example, an actor does five takes in the master shot, and then 5 takes in an MCU. That's 10 takes. But if we have two cameras, and the goal is to save time, then they are only doing the same five takes for both the master and the MCU. So by saving time that way, they would only be doing half the takes, and I wonder, if the performances would suffer from multicamera therefore?

We've been over this before. In some situations multi camera have more benefits. For example car chase or fight you can capture two views without re doing it. With a conversation you could have each camera over the shoulder of each person, or cu over the shoulder of one and medium 3/4 shot of both. When you get the best performance/take you don't need to redo it to get the medium or close up shot if you were filming with one camera. Just because you have two cameras doesn't mean you always use them. You can pick your places where it makes sense.

Under changing lighting brightness and color temp outdoors you have to pay particular attention that the cameras are of similar exposure/white balance. Often it can be fixed in post but it's more work you'll have twice the footage to sort through that needs to be labeled and organized.

Oh okay, I didn't think I would have twice the footage to go through in post, because if I were to use one camera for all the shots, then it would still be the same amount of footage, just all taken with one camera, instead of 2 or 3, wouldn't it?

I am thinking about the OTS shots, but wouldn't the camera be seen in the shots though, if you use two? The other filmmaker I worked with who used multicameras, never did OTS shots, that I recall, so I don't have any experience there. But I thought you would still see the cameras in the OTS shots. For example, in this scene, with two OTS shots, wouldn't you see the camera in the shots, if they used two cameras simultaneously?

Public Enemies (2/10) Movie CLIP - I Rob Banks (2009) HD - YouTube

I'm not sure why you would think that. Think about where the cameras would be for those opposing OTSes: same side of "the line", one pointing toward him, one toward her. Think of what each cam's field of view looks like. Draw a diagram if you have to...no problem keeping out of each other's shots.

Oh okay, because even if I draw the diagram, one camera is behind one actors shoulder, and the outher is behind the other's shoulder. Therefore in the opposite shots, you would see the camera behind them, wouldn't you? Looks that way to me anyway, even if I draw it out. But this also depends on what kind of OTS shot too perhaps.

I think in ones like these you would see the camera behind the actor, wouldn't you?

Public Enemies (2/10) Movie CLIP - I Rob Banks (2009) HD - YouTube

Where as in ones like this, you wouldn't it?

Skyfall - Bond and Severine's Conversation (1080p) - YouTube

It's not literally right over the shoulder, it's off to one side enough to stay out of the shot. It may not work in all situations...the more looking toward the lens axis, the closer in (closer the "shoulder" actor) the cam has to be. So yes, if you want opposing OTSs with multicam then you're going to compromise the eyelines some, making it more "profile-y" than what you can get away with using a single cam. However, with focal length, camera position, framing and even cheating the actors (they may appear in each shot to be directly across from each other and in reality be diagonal), you can probably get away with it.

You don't always have to have wide lenses and have cameras in close Ryan. Do you watch TV? You can shoot drama with maybe 6 cameras and keep them all out of shot. If you got cameras in shot, you put them in the wrong places. PS - you're also VERY keen on your over the shoulder shots, but yours never seem to look like these ones?

Oh okay. And I do like using shots where actors are looking close to the lens, I am not a fan of profile shots for the most part. But maybe it can still work. One idea is, you won't see the cameras if they are farther enough back which means using telephoto lenses, or longer lenses at least, but those would cost more, and I think the locations might not always have enough room for that, but may still work the cameras may not be seen, if I am willing to not have the actors look so close to the lens perhaps.

As for watching TV and how they keep the cameras out of the shots, the problem with that is, is that the shots are very compromised. When you watch a show like Seinfeld for example, they are very limited to where they can put the camera, or so it seems, as they constantly re-use the same shots over and over. Isn't that because it would mean seeing a camera in another shot, if they do not stick to those same shots, over and over?

As for why my over the shoulder shots do not look like the ones in Public Enemies, I will have to pay closer to attention to Public Enemies when designing the shots now.

It’s hard to believe that OTS has to be explained to you. You over think everything and make problems where none exist. You asked where you could use multiple cameras and then you proceed to find problems at every turn.

A reoccurring issue with all your movies is that your actors don’t act natural. In an OTS setup they interact as they normally would instead of talking to a camera. Like always you fail to identify what’s important and instead get stuck on rules or copying scenes from other movies.

Well why does it have to be explained? I thought that the cameras would be in each others shots, and I used that Public Enemies example. Are you sure they would not be in those shots, in that example, or what am I not understanding that has to be explained?

Another thing is, when it comes to wider shots, it seems like it will be more challenging for the cameras not to show. There is one scene I storyboarded so that it's two wide shots, where one actor is behind a desk, and he is talking to three other characters, on the other side of the desk. For one shot, the camera will be behind his head, facing the three actors, and the other shot is the opposite, where it's behind the three actors, facing him. But I think that both cameras are going to be seen if I use two, because they are wide shots.

You would simply frame tighter to avoid the other camera from getting in the shot. It’s commonly used in interviews, tv and movies and it doesn’t seem to be a problem. I’m not here to walk through every scene in your movie and tell you when and if it’s appropriate. Likewise it’s immaterial what big budget movies do. Base your decisions on the factors of your own situation.

Yeah it's just that I don't like framing tighter, because it may not make the shot look as good. However, maybe I should do it to shoot multicamera and save time. So I guess it depends on what is more important, the shots looking better, without it, or saving time.

Shooting multi camera purely to save money isn’t a good idea. You have to be comfortable with it. Maybe you should use it to film a short to explore it rather than talking about it. Closer framing isn’t good or bad it’s just different.

Big budget films use a wider aspect ratio for a theater screen and that width needs to be filled with something. The Skyfall scene you posted the location has depth and complexity that adds interest, therefore a wider shot is used. So that’s why you shouldn’t base your framing decisions on feature films when your circumstances are the opposite. If your location lacks complexity, if you have barebones cast, you should be filming to hide those deficits.

Oh okay, well I was using those examples, as to where the camera position would be. Those two examples, Skyfall and Public Enemies, the movies were shot in 2.39:1 though, where as I plan on shooting in 1.85:1, I was thinking, but the camera positions would still have a same issue possibly, than if I want to go more in front of the face, it risks the camera being seen in the other shot I thought.

When you've got time limitations you're often forced into making compromises in order to get the shots you require. You don't always get your wish list.