Would festivals have a problem with this type of short film?

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thanks, i want to figure out how to do it better.
We did a few takes and i chose what i thought were the best ones of course. Do all the gimbal moves look odd or just certain ones? When you suggest to zoom instead in the one shot, which shot is that exactly?

[Paul R Johnson]

Blimey Ryan. Have you no analysis skills at all? If you cannot find these things in your own video, ask yourself if this is why you have trouble?
Let's set this like a college course. look at the supplied video. Comment critically on the success of the clips at t he following times.
4:54 the camera rises - identify an unusual feature of this change of position.
4:58 comment on the camera movement
5:09 The sequence here suffers from some movement issues - describe elements that could have been improved. Describe how the shot could have been managed more effectively.
5:17 Static shot - how could this shot have been simply stabilised?
5:22 and 5:25 Describe how the shot would look if zoom had been used rather than camera movement in terms of perspective and stability.
5:36 How does this shot work in terms of effectiveness? Is the background blur to prevent the names being visible or is it an artistic feature - how do the stability issues support the intention or work against it.
5:43 The very similar framing at this edit seems unusual - analyse the impact of the jarring viewer experience. Does it produce intentional tension, or a change of mood, or is it an error.
5:45 The pink section. evaluate the choice of colour chosen. There is also a territory implication. How would this clip be understood by non-US citizens who may not be aware of the significance of the clip, or what it actually is?
5:55 The talking head near it's conclusion - comment on how a stable camera platform would have enhanced the shot, compared to the image movement visible.

See if you can produce a response to each question. I'm not picking, but they are comments and questions that I can see, and maybe you should have considered. You have the credit as Director and editor, so these decisions were yours, else you weren't the editor or director, but the assistant to the guy who's idea it was.

What do you think?

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

Blimey Ryan. Have you no analysis skills at all? If you cannot find these things in your own video, ask yourself if this is why you have trouble?
Let's set this like a college course. look at the supplied video. Comment critically on the success of the clips at t he following times.
4:54 the camera rises - identify an unusual feature of this change of position.
4:58 comment on the camera movement
5:09 The sequence here suffers from some movement issues - describe elements that could have been improved. Describe how the shot could have been managed more effectively.
5:17 Static shot - how could this shot have been simply stabilised?
5:22 and 5:25 Describe how the shot would look if zoom had been used rather than camera movement in terms of perspective and stability.
5:36 How does this shot work in terms of effectiveness? Is the background blur to prevent the names being visible or is it an artistic feature - how do the stability issues support the intention or work against it.
5:43 The very similar framing at this edit seems unusual - analyse the impact of the jarring viewer experience. Does it produce intentional tension, or a change of mood, or is it an error.
5:45 The pink section. evaluate the choice of colour chosen. There is also a territory implication. How would this clip be understood by non-US citizens who may not be aware of the significance of the clip, or what it actually is?
5:55 The talking head near it's conclusion - comment on how a stable camera platform would have enhanced the shot, compared to the image movement visible.

See if you can produce a response to each question. I'm not picking, but they are comments and questions that I can see, and maybe you should have considered. You have the credit as Director and editor, so these decisions were yours, else you weren't the editor or director, but the assistant to the guy who's idea it was.

What do you think?

at 4:54, do you mean the wobble you were speaking of?

At 5:48, the camera is moving horizontally along with the person, as he walks. Is that bad?

At 5:09, when the camera comes into focus on the gravestones, it looks jittery. I'm still trying to figure ou what is causing that, but I think it might be the camera's stabilization system.

5:17, We could have put it on the tripod to stabilize it, and should have since the camera wasn't moving.

At 5:22 and 5:25, we could have zoomed to have less shake, but the camera operator did not have a zoom lens in his arsenal, and only primes. So I thought it was best to work with what he had and keep things simple, but perhaps I should have gotten a zoom lens for him?

At 5:36, the shot is to show what he is looking at and then come around to his face more to show a different perspective. The names are out of focus intentionally because I did not want to show the names on them, and just have the viewer concentrate on him looking at them more.

At 5:43, my intention was too go for a closer up shot, to show his eyes more at that moment. What am I looking for that is jarring? Did I not go close enough, to the point where it looks too similar to the previous shot?

At 5:45, I left it pink cause other filmmakers said I should do that to respect the previous footage I am using. As for whether or not a non-U.S. citizen would understand it, I was just following the writer's script. In the script it says to cut to footage of the KKK abusing African-Americans. So I was just following what was in the script.

At 5:55 I agree on the talking head and the camera not being stable. The tripod moved somehow, perhaps the tilt was not fully locked. I have other takes, but I decided to go for that take because I felt the delivery of the man was the best. When choosing takes, was is more important? Camera stabilization/movement, or subject performance delivery?

For the pink footage, I could color it to black and white then if that's better.

At 5:43, I could cut to the close up of his face sooner, if that helps. I could start out at the back of his head, looking at the names, and then cut to the side of his face right after, if that's better?

Also, for the next project, should I hire a different gimbal operator perhaps then, if the footage isn't smooth enough?

[Paul R Johnson]

Ryan, pretend it's an exam paper, you can't ask questions, you have to make the decisions, and stand by them. I think most people will see exactly what the problems are, so it's time for you to analyse and produce conclusions, not questions.

Ps re the pink. The clip was shot in pink? Or was the version of the clip you shot recoloured to pink, as an artistic decision, and potentially a copyright issue? If it's so important your person thought itched to stay pink, that rather qualifies as something created to do some specific purpose, which is an intellectual component and protected. The old black and white clip may well be out of copyright, but the new modified version? Not an expert at US copyright interpretation.

[Ryan Elder]

The footage was shot in black and white, back then, and then color tinted to pink afterwards. I will switch it to black and white.

But I thought it was okay to ask questions when learning. I thought that if others see something wrong with it, then it's good to ask for the specific details, isn't it, in order to learn the craft more, in order to see the mistakes more clearly?

It's just everything I've done, I've seen in other movies though, so I am not sure what I am doing differently. Camera that looks handheld has been done several times before. Cutting from a MCU shot to a CU has been done before. So I just want to know what is it that I do incorrectly, compared to other movies?

[Brian Drysdale]

If it's your film the quality control is your responsibility and if there's a problem it should be discussed with the crew, ideally at the time, so that something can be done about it. It's not as if you're shooting on film, with video you have instant feedback, so you can see if another take is required.

The DP/camera operator usually brings up wobbly shots at the time, especially if using jibs etc.

If spotted later in the rushes, you should be discussing possible reshoots with the crew.

If you're going to try a new technique test it in advance, not on the set or at least have a plan B you can fall back on.

It's OK to ask questions, but if you're at the stage of wanting to direct a feature film, many of the things you're asking about should be second nature by now. You should be able to analysis your own shots and know if they're working.

If you're doing hand held shots there must be a reason within the context of the story/characters of YOUR film why you're using this technique. Because you've seen it in movies isn't good enough, it has to work in the story you're telling in your film.

A wobbly shot isn't the same as a handheld shot, especially if it's siting on its own in the middle of steady shots.

In films show, don't say is the usual rule.

If it's an interview or testimony with someone. keep things simple, so that the camerawork doesn't distract from what they're saying and their body language.

Regarding festivals, check out what type of films they're interested in. Expect more refusals than acceptances into festivals, local ones may be a good stating point rather than the bigger ones.

[Paul R Johnson]

I thought I'd link to this short film.

YouTube (Short URL)

The guy who is the DoP is actually a senior sound supervisor in broadcast, but he has his own camera and this was made on a very tight budget, with very little equipment. In essence, it's a similar type of production but the technical production values are pretty high. It's also shot on a ⅓" sensor camera (A Panasonic 371) and is cropped. Doesn't seem to have impacted at all on image quality.

[Brian Drysdale]

From the point of view of image quality, Ryan's DSLR camera wouldn't be one that would come high in that regard, it was more about being compared to the 35mm lens adapters around at the period, for the shallower DOF. These tended to have a bit of a ProMist effect to them, which was a filter commonly used to reduced the video look at the time, but the DSLR didn't have that effect.

However, in cameras tests they didn't hold up to 1/3" cameras in image quality terms, although people liked the look, despite the flaws especially the moire patterning.

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thanks. For future projects, and the feature, I will definitely make more time to have the camera operator playback the footage in between takes, to see if it looks good, rather than trying to get as many takes as possible.

I will also see what I can do about cutting from a medium close up to a close up, in a way, that won't be so jarring. Is there a certain distance to measure as to how much space should be in between an MCU and a CU? I tried looking it up before, but couldn't find if there is. But is there a safe margin do you think?

I actually saw that short film before a long time ago. It has good production values, yes.

[Brian Drysdale]

There are no set rules regarding distances for MCU and CU, although moving closer to the eyeline makes sense for the tighter shot.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, but you said that it was jarring how I cut from one to the other, so I thought it was because there was not enough distance between the two, is that right? If that's the reason, than doesn't that mean there should be some sort of rule or guideline, to prevent those cuts from being jarring?

[Brian Drysdale]

I didn't mention the cut, there can be a number of reasons why a cut can be jarring, assuming that it's not an intentional jar. It's the editor's job to avoid this by ensuring that the character's position in the frame, their facial and body actions, plus the dramatic motivation and timing are coming together for a smooth cut.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh ok, you said before at 5:43, that the similar framing seems unusual, so i thought maybe you meant the distance between the shots wasn't enough.

[Brian Drysdale]

That's Paul. not me.

[Paul R Johnson]

You had a moving shot with out of focus background then cut to what is almost he same framing, but different looking. For me, just too similar to work.