Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

You can discuss the look of the film, a good DP will do that, they'll also tell you what isn't going to work once you've established the look. Gordon Willis did this with Francis Ford Coppola on The Godfather during the filming..

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

How exactly will they do this, if the room doesn't allow it? Finding experts often just produces a simple answer "no, we can't do that"

EDIT

I spotted this video in another topic Ryan.
I've no idea of the thought process or technical aspects, but just nicely shot video, nicely edited video, with a sort of story. I suspect it was made because it could be made, with little real need, just a good idea - which was the kids.

Shot and edited then published. Why you don't do things like this is a mystery - you'd learn so much about telling stories.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

If the DP says no we cannot do that, then we can do something else instead. We would still try to get the look as best we could within the location available, wouldn't we? It's not going to look as good as a studio, but the DP would still try to get it as best they could, no?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

I’ve been addicted to Tiktok lately so many funny interesting videos shot with a phone. This is one of my recent favorites tells a story in like 30 seconds. And then we have Ryan planning years at home...

https://vm.tiktok.com/tC1nWh/

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

When working with a DP, is it bad to give them examples from other movies though, just to help? What about when it comes to working with other department heads... When I worked with a composer before, I would give him examples of how I want the music to feel from other movies, but is it bad to do that, and I should describe the music I would like all verbally? I just thought that giving examples were good, but is that copying too much from other movies then, just by showing examples alone?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

You can use examples from other films, but it's best to keep it general. For example, the director of a short I was DP on wanted to have it looking like Amélie and I managed to set up the camera for that look. However, you don't need to go through it shot by shot. You can also use paintings or other visuals as a general visual reference.

For music, putting in temp tracks is common during the edit, however, some composers don't want to hear them. There it's comes down to discussion, plus there's a wide range of music other than film music that can be used as a reference.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, I don't have temp tracks in my edits, but I just feel I can explain what I want better through visual or audio references from other examples.

There is another thing I was wondering about. Since I have had trouble controlling the colors of locations, not being able to repaint walls, or not being able to control colors of cars, outdoors, and people say they find colors of things in the background distracting... what if I colored a movie in monochrome color, like old silent films? Every scene is just one color tint then, so it doesn't matter if there are uncontrolled colors in the background because the audience will not see them then? Would monochrome color be a good idea therefore?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

All this depends on if you're trying to make a pastiche of a silent film or a contemporary film. You just can't throw in a tinted look unless it's part of the overall telling of the story. Like "The Lighthouse" uses black and white.


Who are these "some people"? They seem to reoccur in all your threads.

If a location has an inappropriate colour, don't use it, you go around various locations to find the right one. I know that here the same farm house has been used on a number of films and it looks different in each film because of the art direction.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay. It's a crime thriller set in a modern times city.

They are just people I have shown my work to, to get opinions. Sometimes I am forced to use a location that may not have something ideal about it though. But then again I could try to change the distracting color only in post, if a color grading program can do it, without creating much noise issues.

Or maybe better, what we could do is light the locations so there is light on the actors, but try to avoid lighting the background a lot, if that's best.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

You should be aware of the background when you're filming, if it's distracting you should be aware of it at the time, you shouldn't need other people to tell you.

You can rearrange the furniture and/or bring your own furnishings to avoid an inappropriate background.

Lighting can be used to reduce the viewer's eye being attracted to the background and/or you can use a shallower DOF to reduce the background detail. However, the method used must fit in with the overall look of the film.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Okay thanks. I don't think that shallower DOF is an option for the master shots, unless it's okay to rack focus a lot between a group of actors, but not sure if the viewer will mind that or not.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

It's done all the time. I think this has already been covered in another thread.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Okay thanks, it's just when I see the master shot in a movie, everyone is in focus, and I don't ever recall seeing a movie with rack focusing in a master shot. So as long as it's acceptable, or I am not doing something too weird.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

I saw this bhs from a movie. Look all the equipment and they even have big blue screen bkgd.
https://vm.tiktok.com/tpuNMe/

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

If it's a shorter focal length lens you may not be aware of any focus adjustments, especially if you're not looking for them.

If you're worried about the background, you'd be using a slightly longer focal length and this is where a dolly comes in for your camera moves.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, but what does a dolly have to do with the focus pulling in a master though?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

You don't need a static master shot, so you can use a bit longer focal length lenses if you really don''t like the background if using shorter focal length lenses, but still follow the action.

However, in the end, you've got to select the right location and that can take weeks to find.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, but why don't I need to a static master shot? Are you saying to move the camera during the master? How does moving the camera help though? Wouldn't I still be pulling focus if the camera was moving or not moving?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

The master shot just covers all of the action in the scene, who says the cameras has to be static?

You will always need to pull the focus unless it's a very simple shot.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh it's just before I was told maybe make the cameras static in order to save on dolly set ups, that's all. So I was now having static shots in mind more, or panning and tilting on a tripod more than a dolly.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

All this depends on the scene, some may only consist of a single dolly shot, so a static is a waste of time, Others could be a mixture of dolly shots and static shots.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, it's just I wasn't going to budget for a dolly though. Just a tripod and a gimbal, I was thinking. Should I go for a dolly as well?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

If you're being serious about making a feature film or anything attempting to be cinematic a dolly is something you want to have for many films. The look is different to a gimbal.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, but it was said before that I was getting too carried away with camera movement, and to not concentrate so much on it. So I thought I would just stick with the gimbal shots for some of the shots, and not have movement in the rest, if I was getting too carried away?

Or should I really get the dolly to look cinematic now?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

You're more likely to get carried away with camera movement with a gimbal than a camera dolly.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh why is that? I have the shots laid out where I want a tripod, and the ones where I want a gimbal. Not sure if the amount would change if I was using a dolly. What if I got the one of the proaim tripod dollies, like this one:

https://www.proaim.com/collections/v...portable-dolly

With a flex track perhaps?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

If shooting a feature film I would hire a more serious dolly. A number of the short films here have used a Doorway dolly, you can run it on tracks if you want, but it's surprisingly smooth just on the pneumatic tyres. It's also handy for moving the gear around,

It's something that rental companies may carry in their inventory.

https://www.msegrip.com/collections/.../doorway-dolly

There are other manufacturers, you could also make one,


I notice that by joining the Filmpool in your state you can hire kit at a cheap price. Although, I suspect there may be demand for their kit. The dolly they have isn't too expansive to buy.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Master shots can be static or not - surely it depends on the purpose of the shot. They set up the location so closeups make sense. If you can do that and add interest it's a win. I always tend to find that a master shot that gets wiped out with the closer shots, was a waste of time. If the master shot is a genuinely useful one, surely that's better? If movement and even height changes makes the shot better - use it!

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, well I could use a dolly of some sort, maybe something like that. I was going to use a gimbal for the walking and running shots. And maybe I would use a dolly for push ins, and push outs, since those might look better on a dolly, than a gimbal.

There is also another shot where I wanted the camera to circle around someone on a long lens, which a dolly is probably better for than a gimbal, as mentioned before.

But as for shots that change height, I was planning on using the gimbal to change might, just by moving it up or down. That way I don't have to invest in a jib. So is that good, or no?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

You can be more precise with a jib.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

I can, but I don't want to get carried away with all this equipment. Can't I just use a gimbal for the vertical movements, to save money and do a few takes if necessary, or is a gimbal not accurate enough?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Ryan, I'm wondering if you actually watch movies thoroughly enough? You seem to locate scenes you want to copy, but don't appreciate how they were actually shot at all. If a movie has a steady cam operator then ask the question why they also had dolly shots.

I'm confused as to why you cannot determine the correct tool for the job? Hand-held, gimballed hand-held, stabilised, jib mounted, dolly mounted, cable flown, remote headed.

The rotate around the subject shot we did to death ages ago, didn't realise you still had it planned. We said dolly and track back then. I don't think we changed our mind, but of course you still want to do it your own way. we thought it was unlikely to work with a long lens, but did you ever try?

As for your gimbal accuracy. It's down to the gimbal and importantly the operator. Can you do the movement with it. My own limited experience with the things is that controlled panning is a weak link - fine on wider angles, but on a long lens, less controlled i.e. jerky!

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

This isn't all this equipment, it's pretty basic stuff. Many of the short films made here have this type of kit.

You can do without it, but you need to stop pretending you're making a 1960s Hollywood thriller. You could make an edgy Paul Greengrass style thriller, which could be better than the one you're planning.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh well I didn't think that I was copying scenes, if I am using a different tool, am I? I thought that all my movements, had purpose, rather than copying.

I can use a dolly to rotate around the subject, if that's better. I thought that I could save money if the gimbal operator was skilled enough, but I could get a dolly for it. I did a similar shot with a long lens before, and it worked, but just need more practice.

Oh okay, but who says I am making a 1960s Hollywood thriller though? I never thought of it that way. I don't want to use Paul Greengrasses style though. I mean his style has several lens zooms and it was said on here before not to use lens zooms because they look cheesy. I only wanted to zoom in one shot so far, for something, but Greengrass's style has zooms all over the place. So wouldn't those zooms look cheesy, as it was said on here before? Plus I would have to get a zoom lens then.

Greengrass's shots are also all handheld all the time it seems, and I would really like to use a tripod for a lot of the shots, and a gimbal and/or dolly for smooth movement, rather than go all handheld. Plus I am trying to come up with my own style rather than duplicate Greengrass. But am I taking a bad approach by coming up with my own?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

A lot of the references you've used has been from the 1960s, with back lights, deeper focus etc. Even thinking about using black and white.

The use of the zoom isn't something that springs to mind with a Paul Greengrass films, since a lot of it is handheld, although he does cut in the middle of the zooms at times. However, you don't need to cut on zooms




The stony itself comes up with its style. driving what you need to do. Given the very basic way you're thinking, getting something that's watchable over the length of a feature film may be the real issue, rather having your own style. ,

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, the were a lot of zooms in The Bourne Ultimatum and Green Zone. It's been a while since I've seen Bourne Supremacy, so I can watch it.

I don't remember saying I would want to shoot in black and white. I said monochrome color before, as in scenes being tinted one color. I never saw that in a 60s movie before.

I thought a lot of movies after the 60s have had backlight as well. But I don't want to copy Greengrasses style, and thought I would use my own more. Plus that kind of style Greengrass use I find to be limiting. For example, the rotating dolly shot I talked about doing, you would never see in a Greengrass movie. So some of the things I want to do, he wouldn't do, but is that okay, to use my own ideas?

Plus I don't like the way Greengrass composes a lot of his shots, because a lot of his shots, are shot from the side more of characters, and there is less intimacy that way, with the characters, at least for me. Not all of his shots, but a lot of them. I also find the shaky cam during fight scenes and action scenes to be really annoying, and want to reduce that, if possible.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Ryan - we often forget you can't process figures of speech - it's hard to remember you take everything literally. When I say copy - I mean you see a scene in a movie, like it and want to replicate the components indoor movie, not copy a complete scene - just steal the important bits, and Brian (if he'll forgive me) doesn't mean you really are trying to make a 60s movie, just that much of what you say and do would fit that genre rather accurately.

You also have started to constantly mention budget as if it's a killer factor when you told us money was fine. Saving money is a sensible thing to do - but thinking you can avoid essential hires by doing things with a gimbal is not saving money - probably wasting it.

Let's go over your circular camera move (despite having done it to death) with a dolly on a track the camera points to the centre of the circle where the actors are, so panning will be gentle, only needing to keep the subjects in frame if they're not dead on centre. If you are doing it with a gimbal then the gimbal's normal mode keeps the camera locked to the compass direction by default. If you want to keep it centred on the actors, you will need to add in control movement that is effectively a continuous pan in one direction. My modest one would struggle with this. My basic gimbal seems to be able to do this smoothly only if the circular movement speed matches the gimbals speed. I tried to do your shot walking in a circle in the garden, and it was pretty horrible. I can almost do it on wide angle with a hand held camera. I cannot do it on a standard lens setting and it's no use at all on telephoto. Have you tried this shot with a gimbal yet?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, sorry if I wasn't understanding. I just didn't think of this project as a 60s style, aside from a lighting reference from a movie, and a blocking reference from another. But yes, I should have taken it as a figure of speech :).

We did a similar circular move around a subject in the one short film I did. It's at 5:09 into the movie:


That was done on a gimbal on an 85mm lens. I thought you could unlock that mode though, unless I am wrong. But is that shot good enough? If not I can get the dolly. For this current project, I want to do a shot going around the actor, but don't want a wide lens, to avoid barrel distortion. The shot is in a completely different context though of course, but with a similar move of going around the actor.

As for money being fine, well it depends. I am trying to save in a lot of areas, so camera movement wise, I thought I would just go for a pan and tilt tripod, a gimbal, and a car mount, for the car shots, but not anything more like a jib, etc. Unless I really could use more?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

The circular shot doesn't look the same as one on a dolly, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve and the nature of the scene. It's more in the Paul Greengrass style than a classical circular track.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

I didn't find it worked, to be honest - it started good with the rotating around the subject but then the pull away to wobblycam of the graves spoiled it for me - looked uncontrolled. When it finishes there's that awful edit from similar shot to similar shot - and that one wrenches - and of course all those war graves that aren't vertical - that's weird. A dolly would have sorted that out wouldn't it?