Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?

[Josh Bass]

eye level means in relation to the SUBJECT. THEIR eye level.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh yes I see. Well the instructor in the red shirt is taller than me, and I'm 6'1' where is he about 6'4'' I would say'. So if he is taller than me, how low should I have the camera? i had the camera at my lower chest, which would be at his lower chest than as well if not a little lower. So should I go even lower then?

[Josh Bass]

Eye level can be a somewhat loose term. The further you are from the subject, the less difference small height changes make visually, so "eye level" can be shorthand for something that appears to be a "neutral" height...not looking noticeably up or down at the subject. Approximately eye level might be a more precise way to put it...wider shots, this might well mean lens is at their chest height or thereabouts.

As for how low or high that's pretty subjective and depends on what looks good (backgrounds can change dramatically with camera height, more so than the way the subject looks in the shot. Sometimes we want to see more floor or more ceiling or change the perspective lines to be more pleasing) and, as was said above, what you need to show in a particular shot.

[Brian Drysdale]

Eye line height is always that of the subject. The audience don't know or care about your height, if you want the camera at an eye line height, it;s not a your lower chest (or lower) unless that's where the eyes of the subject are.

If you want the subject to be be imposing you go lower than their eye line height. However, as Josh points out with wide shots it becomes less noticeable if you're within a certain range of their eye height The camera height can vary depending on what you're showing at the time, e.g. if it's a move with a foot in close up, you could be down at floor level. I thought you were planning to direct a feature film, this is basic stuff.

Have a look at other martial arts videos to see how they're doing it, steal a few ideas.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. The lens was zoomed into about 70-80mm, on an APS-C sensor, as I thought during the fighting this would look good while panning along with it. Do you think I should go wider then, so the eye level may be better then?

[Brian Drysdale]

Since you can't see the moves and seeing the full figure was discussed earlier I would've thought there was only one way to go.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh yes, I can pull back and reveal all of their feet like it was mentioned to. But should I go lower than my chest if the eye level is too high?

[Brian Drysdale]

Please go back and read the whole thread again.

[Ryan Elder]

Yes the thread said to go back and reveal their feet right? Are you saying get more B roll?

[Brian Drysdale]

You're the director.

[Paul R Johnson]

That's the problem. Ryan clearly is NOT directing, he's letting the talent direct him as a fly on the wall. He's never going to produce what they want, because they don't understand any of this, and are wrapped up in the activity. If they are paying, then they probably won't because you won't have captured what they thought you were capturing. Clearly there's no audience for this. They may be very skilled in the martial art, but are totally awful at teaching. None of what you are shooting will work in my humble view. There are no production values at all, and it's a totally misaligned product. Who are the customers/consumers? What do they NEED to see and hear? Can anyone watch the video and replicate any of the moves?

Really obvious stuff even for a non-expert viewer. I've shot a few dance tutorials. You capture the feet, and start slow, then it builds up, then it goes to normal speed and I as the cameraman could not do it. I was told this was just because I didn't understand dance. No it was because they assumed people's level and achievement and progression speed - and messed up badly. They forgot the communications aspect. Training a room of martial arts students is easy, and it's two-way communications. The teacher KNOWS if the students have got it by their expressions, and can go back or repeat as necessary. In this video they assume the audience is with them, and make no allowances for what will happen if they cannot keep up, or see where a foot went, or how the arms got from A to B. They are just not good teachers for distance learning. They're clearly good at the martial art, but have never done any teacher training in one-way comms. Your job is to make sure communication is successful. If they cannot do it, then your framing and angles need to answer EVERY question a viewer has. If you are in the wrong position, they cannot learn because they cannot see it. You need to look at edits very carefully - a weight on the left foot move that in the edit shifts to right foot is bad. Can they repeat moves identically to even allow editing? Continuity will be very, very difficult.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

and SCENE!

(thread fades to black)

lol

Originally Posted by John Nantz

Edit: #386, Pete - that was so Ba.a.a.ad !

Trying to lighten the mood on a Friday

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

That's the problem. Ryan clearly is NOT directing, he's letting the talent direct him as a fly on the wall...

I agree they don’t appear to be good teachers. What they need most of all is direction, which unfortunately isn’t Ryan strength. Fix all the technical problems and you still have two guys sparring with each other. Many of the martial arts videos I’ve seen on Youtube seem to work because we are simply observing an instructor who knows how to teach.

Do you think we’ve given Ryan enough feedback?

[Ryan Elder]

oh okay, I thought I was just a videographer which they wanted on this one, and not a director.

[Brian Drysdale]

On these types of productions you are director/camera/editor. The people you're making it for obliviously know very little about the process, so you're the person making the video.

[Josh Bass]

Another way to think of it is that you are basically a full service production company on this project.