Shooting Boxing at DVinfo.net

James McColgan · October 13th, 2009, 04:22 AM

Hi guys,

I'm doing a bit of shooting this weekend for my local Muay Thai (Thai Boxing) club. Have two cameras already and hopefully will have a third on the night (all with individual operators). I was hoping that someone might have experience shooting boxing and be able to give some pointers, like where to position the cameras, what to look out for, frame rates/focus issues, ect. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks very much,
James.

Tripp Woelfel · October 13th, 2009, 06:52 AM

Your choices will be determined largely by the venue. The volume of lighting, or lack thereof may minimize shutter speed options. Camera locations may be limited too so you'll have to work within those constraints.

I think you'll want to start shooting at 1/50 because it will look similar to what people see with the naked eye. There may be stylistic reasons to shoot faster, but that's a personal preference. Whatever you do, set both cameras to the same shutter speed.

I'd place the two cameras at least 45 degrees to about 65 degrees opposite each other to give two significantly different perspectives. I can't really say why you shouldn't go wider except that I think it would look funny with only two cameras. If the option presents itself, place one camera low and another high. Again, this offers different perspectives.

In the end, what matters is what looks good to you. If you are a fan of the sport, you'll know what you want to see. If you can, get there very early and try some different placements. It will help you make good decisions.

BTW... I don't shoot boxing but I have shot a lot of motorsport. Despite the obvious differences, the goal common to both is to capture the action. Focus on that and you shouldn't go far wrong.

Chris McMahon · October 13th, 2009, 11:36 AM

I'd have the two cameras shooting roughly perpendicular to each other, so that if one camera is blocked by a boxer moving around, the other should capture it.

Shaun Roemich · October 13th, 2009, 12:00 PM

As someone who has operated handheld camera as well as directed and switched live WWF/WWE wrestling inhouse (not for broadcast) at an arena, let me offer the following:

Whether or not you have the third camera makes ALL the difference in the world in my humble opinion. Let's first assume you do.
-I'd place two cameras on tripods only a couple of feet apart (5 to 10 feet SHOULD make all the difference in the world)
-One camera would be tasked with "context"; head to toe framing so that one can see all the motion leading into and out of striking.
-The second camera would be tasked with more intimate framing; try to stay on torso for strikes and to watch the fighters faces.
-The third camera would be handheld at ringside; this operator MUST assume they are always live and move back and forth with the action to get the gorgeous shots that can only be achieved by "being there". They also need to be careful not to block the shots of the hard cameras and the view of the spectators. Just like fighting, this position is get-in/get-out, always kinetic. I LOVED shooting this position.

If you only have two cameras, I'd be torn as to two hard cameras tasked as above or have one hard camera shoot a BIT tighter (a hybrid of the first two above) and have a ringside camera shoot a hybrid of the the latter two above.

Your strongest contextual shooter gets the handheld, next strongest gets what I will call the ISO camera for the tight work and the "wide" shot can be manned by a monkey, although it will benefit you if this camera is operated by a competent team player who doesn't keep zooming in because he's bored shooting wide shots. Don't laugh - this is the single biggest issue I have with camera ops: if I give you a task, I EXPECT you to give me what I asked for, not what you thought looked cool. I already have someone else giving me that.

James McColgan · October 14th, 2009, 06:28 PM

Thanks for all the help lads. that was my first post as i'm new to the site, great to see that people here are up for sharing their wisdom. i've gotten my hands on a sony z1 so we've the three cameras now. Gonna try a setup like Shaun Roemich suggests.

thanks again,

James.

Nathan Moody · October 14th, 2009, 09:02 PM

I'm surprised that no one explicitly recommended overcranking (if y'all did, apologies). Shooting at 60i or 60p would let you play the footage back normally, or to slow it down for either impact or cool time-ramping effects, depending on the style you're shooting in. Knowing nothing about the style you want to engender, thought I'd throw that out, esp. since you have a small arsenal of filming tools for this event! Good luck!

Dean Sensui · October 14th, 2009, 09:19 PM

I did some boxing coverage and Shaun pretty much nailed it.

As for overcranking -- good idea. But get a fourth camera to do that. Otherwise you sacrifice one of the primary cameras. Unless you have one shooting at 60 fps all the time and you convert the frame rate to match the others in post.

James McColgan · October 15th, 2009, 05:04 AM

Ok guys, i'm very interested in gettin some nice slo-mo in the edit. i have only the three cameras though and i dont want to set one specifically for this purpose. So the footage will have to be slowed in down in post.

shooting on a sony z1, canon xl h1 and sony pd150. The z1 will be picking up the wider shots so the slow motion will be coming from the other two cameras with tighter shots.

in pal-land so what should i be shooting at? from readin other threads i think i'll be shooting on 50i but i'm comfused about the shutter speed. should i use 1/120? if so should i use this on all the cameras? what will be the knock on effects of this action?

i'll be editing in Final Cut.

bit confused, never did this before.
thanks.

Tripp Woelfel · October 15th, 2009, 06:30 AM

You'll want to shoot 50i. Slo-mo will benefit from faster shutter speeds. 1/120 or 1/250 are good but you may be limited by your light. If you can only do 1/50, you can still get good slo-mo. It just won't be as crisp.

You can shoot with all cameras at 1/120 but it will look different than 1/50. I personally like shooting sports at faster shutter speeds, but others don't. It's all a matter of creating the "look" that you like. I haven't watched American football on TV in years, but it was clear back then that at least some of the cameras were using faster shutter speeds. It made for some impressive slo-mo shots. I know of no down side to faster shutter speeds as long as you like the look it gives you.

Shaun Roemich · October 15th, 2009, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripp Woelfel

I know of no down side to faster shutter speeds as long as you like the look it gives you.

Only one - if you're lighting is anything ballasted (pretty much anything OTHER THAN TUNGSTEN), you'll have colour shift issues if you don't use a shutter speed that is a factor of the inverse of your power cycles - in PAL land, you'll need to use 1/50, 1/100, 1/150, 1/200, 1/250... or else you'll see your colour slowly shift from greenish tinge to purplish tinge.

Adam Gold · October 15th, 2009, 02:56 PM

Something else to consider, unrelated to slomo: Your PD150 won't match the other two cams, even if you shoot in DV mode on the HDV cams. The 150's widescreen mode is horrible (only 360 lines) and will make you cry. Many threads and passionate argument on this over in the PD/VX forum, but at the very least you should experiment with this and see if you can tolerate how it looks.

James McColgan · October 15th, 2009, 06:13 PM

thanks for all the feedback.. i think i'll try shootin at 1/100 shutter speed. should be safe enough with a nice slo-mo i'm thinkin. thanks for the heads up about the pd150's aspect ratio aswell. from readin other threads i'm thinkin that it's probably better to shoot in 4:3 and convert later.

Adam Gold · October 15th, 2009, 08:45 PM

You won't gain anything by doing that... it'll still be 360 lines. Whether you crop in the cam or in your NLE it's pretty much the same. Compared to the 1080 lines on the two HDV cams, even if you then downconvert, the difference will be shocking on a widescreen TV. Not too bad on an old 4:3 TV.

Edit: Ah, just noticed you were across the pond, so the exact numbers will vary, but the principle is the same: The PD fakes widescreen by simply cropping the top and bottom of your picture, so you lose 25% of the resolution and you can never get it back.

Unless you're planning on doing the whole project in DV 4:3.

James McColgan · October 16th, 2009, 03:14 PM

ok thanks adam. looks like that could be a problem alright then. no way i can get another camera to replace it at this stage so i'll just have to go with what i got. that'll probably mean not usin the pd footage in the edit. its a real shame cause i thought i had the setup covered but at least i'll know now for future shoots. i'm gonna shoot with it anyway just to see what i get, should be a good learnin experience if nothing else. thanks for the info.

James McColgan · October 18th, 2009, 09:17 AM

Did the shoot last night. It went really well, very happy with the footage. Big thanks to everyone who took the time to give advice.

October 13th, 2009, 04:22 AM	#1
James McColgan New Boot Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: London Posts: 12	Shooting Boxing Hi guys, I'm doing a bit of shooting this weekend for my local Muay Thai (Thai Boxing) club. Have two cameras already and hopefully will have a third on the night (all with individual operators). I was hoping that someone might have experience shooting boxing and be able to give some pointers, like where to position the cameras, what to look out for, frame rates/focus issues, ect. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much, James.

October 13th, 2009, 12:00 PM	#4
Shaun Roemich Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada Posts: 4,088	As someone who has operated handheld camera as well as directed and switched live WWF/WWE wrestling inhouse (not for broadcast) at an arena, let me offer the following: Whether or not you have the third camera makes ALL the difference in the world in my humble opinion. Let's first assume you do. -I'd place two cameras on tripods only a couple of feet apart (5 to 10 feet SHOULD make all the difference in the world) -One camera would be tasked with "context"; head to toe framing so that one can see all the motion leading into and out of striking. -The second camera would be tasked with more intimate framing; try to stay on torso for strikes and to watch the fighters faces. -The third camera would be handheld at ringside; this operator MUST assume they are always live and move back and forth with the action to get the gorgeous shots that can only be achieved by "being there". They also need to be careful not to block the shots of the hard cameras and the view of the spectators. Just like fighting, this position is get-in/get-out, always kinetic. I LOVED shooting this position. If you only have two cameras, I'd be torn as to two hard cameras tasked as above or have one hard camera shoot a BIT tighter (a hybrid of the first two above) and have a ringside camera shoot a hybrid of the the latter two above. Your strongest contextual shooter gets the handheld, next strongest gets what I will call the ISO camera for the tight work and the "wide" shot can be manned by a monkey, although it will benefit you if this camera is operated by a competent team player who doesn't keep zooming in because he's bored shooting wide shots. Don't laugh - this is the single biggest issue I have with camera ops: if I give you a task, I EXPECT you to give me what I asked for, not what you thought looked cool. I already have someone else giving me that. __________________ Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/

October 14th, 2009, 09:02 PM	#6
Nathan Moody Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: SF Bay Area, CA, USA Posts: 78	I'm surprised that no one explicitly recommended overcranking (if y'all did, apologies). Shooting at 60i or 60p would let you play the footage back normally, or to slow it down for either impact or cool time-ramping effects, depending on the style you're shooting in. Knowing nothing about the style you want to engender, thought I'd throw that out, esp. since you have a small arsenal of filming tools for this event! Good luck! __________________ designer of media for eyes and ears sound design and field recording at http://www.noisejockey.net/blog

October 14th, 2009, 09:19 PM	#7
Dean Sensui Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 2,054	I did some boxing coverage and Shaun pretty much nailed it. As for overcranking -- good idea. But get a fourth camera to do that. Otherwise you sacrifice one of the primary cameras. Unless you have one shooting at 60 fps all the time and you convert the frame rate to match the others in post. __________________ Dean Sensui Exec Producer, Hawaii Goes Fishing

October 15th, 2009, 05:04 AM	#8
James McColgan New Boot Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: London Posts: 12	Ok guys, i'm very interested in gettin some nice slo-mo in the edit. i have only the three cameras though and i dont want to set one specifically for this purpose. So the footage will have to be slowed in down in post. shooting on a sony z1, canon xl h1 and sony pd150. The z1 will be picking up the wider shots so the slow motion will be coming from the other two cameras with tighter shots. in pal-land so what should i be shooting at? from readin other threads i think i'll be shooting on 50i but i'm comfused about the shutter speed. should i use 1/120? if so should i use this on all the cameras? what will be the knock on effects of this action? i'll be editing in Final Cut. bit confused, never did this before. thanks. Last edited by James McColgan; October 15th, 2009 at 05:08 AM. Reason: forgot some info

October 13th, 2009, 06:52 AM	#2
Tripp Woelfel Trustee Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: North Conway, NH Posts: 1,745	Your choices will be determined largely by the venue. The volume of lighting, or lack thereof may minimize shutter speed options. Camera locations may be limited too so you'll have to work within those constraints. I think you'll want to start shooting at 1/50 because it will look similar to what people see with the naked eye. There may be stylistic reasons to shoot faster, but that's a personal preference. Whatever you do, set both cameras to the same shutter speed. I'd place the two cameras at least 45 degrees to about 65 degrees opposite each other to give two significantly different perspectives. I can't really say why you shouldn't go wider except that I think it would look funny with only two cameras. If the option presents itself, place one camera low and another high. Again, this offers different perspectives. In the end, what matters is what looks good to you. If you are a fan of the sport, you'll know what you want to see. If you can, get there very early and try some different placements. It will help you make good decisions. BTW... I don't shoot boxing but I have shot a lot of motorsport. Despite the obvious differences, the goal common to both is to capture the action. Focus on that and you shouldn't go far wrong.

October 13th, 2009, 11:36 AM	#3
Chris McMahon Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: San Jose, CA,, USA Posts: 144	I'd have the two cameras shooting roughly perpendicular to each other, so that if one camera is blocked by a boxer moving around, the other should capture it.

October 14th, 2009, 06:28 PM	#5
James McColgan New Boot Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: London Posts: 12	Thanks for all the help lads. that was my first post as i'm new to the site, great to see that people here are up for sharing their wisdom. i've gotten my hands on a sony z1 so we've the three cameras now. Gonna try a setup like Shaun Roemich suggests. thanks again, James.

October 15th, 2009, 06:30 AM	#9
Tripp Woelfel Trustee Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: North Conway, NH Posts: 1,745	You'll want to shoot 50i. Slo-mo will benefit from faster shutter speeds. 1/120 or 1/250 are good but you may be limited by your light. If you can only do 1/50, you can still get good slo-mo. It just won't be as crisp. You can shoot with all cameras at 1/120 but it will look different than 1/50. I personally like shooting sports at faster shutter speeds, but others don't. It's all a matter of creating the "look" that you like. I haven't watched American football on TV in years, but it was clear back then that at least some of the cameras were using faster shutter speeds. It made for some impressive slo-mo shots. I know of no down side to faster shutter speeds as long as you like the look it gives you.

October 15th, 2009, 02:56 PM	#11
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	Something else to consider, unrelated to slomo: Your PD150 won't match the other two cams, even if you shoot in DV mode on the HDV cams. The 150's widescreen mode is horrible (only 360 lines) and will make you cry. Many threads and passionate argument on this over in the PD/VX forum, but at the very least you should experiment with this and see if you can tolerate how it looks.

October 15th, 2009, 06:13 PM	#12
James McColgan New Boot Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: London Posts: 12	thanks for all the feedback.. i think i'll try shootin at 1/100 shutter speed. should be safe enough with a nice slo-mo i'm thinkin. thanks for the heads up about the pd150's aspect ratio aswell. from readin other threads i'm thinkin that it's probably better to shoot in 4:3 and convert later.

October 15th, 2009, 08:45 PM	#13
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	You won't gain anything by doing that... it'll still be 360 lines. Whether you crop in the cam or in your NLE it's pretty much the same. Compared to the 1080 lines on the two HDV cams, even if you then downconvert, the difference will be shocking on a widescreen TV. Not too bad on an old 4:3 TV. Edit: Ah, just noticed you were across the pond, so the exact numbers will vary, but the principle is the same: The PD fakes widescreen by simply cropping the top and bottom of your picture, so you lose 25% of the resolution and you can never get it back. Unless you're planning on doing the whole project in DV 4:3.

October 16th, 2009, 03:14 PM	#14
James McColgan New Boot Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: London Posts: 12	ok thanks adam. looks like that could be a problem alright then. no way i can get another camera to replace it at this stage so i'll just have to go with what i got. that'll probably mean not usin the pd footage in the edit. its a real shame cause i thought i had the setup covered but at least i'll know now for future shoots. i'm gonna shoot with it anyway just to see what i get, should be a good learnin experience if nothing else. thanks for the info.

October 18th, 2009, 09:17 AM	#15
James McColgan New Boot Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: London Posts: 12	Did the shoot last night. It went really well, very happy with the footage. Big thanks to everyone who took the time to give advice.