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

Maybe documentaries are a good direction to go Ryan - the bio thing is probably the most interesting thing you've posted. The guy is likeable and his voice, to a Brit, is fine. I'm sure you will sort it, but when you cut to the other shots, NONE need sound. Even the one with the bird calling - use an well recorded spot sound effect, not the real noise because the wind become a hiss and of course abruptly changes every cut. One shot has vertical objects in it that are NOT vertical. More care in the camerawork. Horrible pans - full of speed changes and jerks. They really stand out. Pick the framing for the presenter and stick with it. Some moved. The only real question unanswered. What is a bioblitz? Never heard the term before.

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

It may be worth doing a film without any dialogue, lots of talking heads can make a film appear like TV, rather than cinematic.

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

Yeah I could try to do one that is not dialogue driven, I just mostly tend to do dialogue cause of lack of budget, to tell a story.

I find documentaries to be more of a challenge to make than fictional narrative stories. I've helped others on their documentaries, and they take a lot longer to make than fiction, but are also more complicated, cause since they are not scripted from beginning to end, you don't know what people are going to say, or where it is going to go. So I would rather just stick to fictional narratives.

As for the camerawork, that's another reason why I do no like documentaries, as there is no planned blocking with where people are moving around, and especially if it's animals in this case, so the camera work constantly has to be adjusted with no plan. Perhaps I just need to get use to the sensitivity of the telephoto lenses as well. But I would still like to stick to fiction where all the movement is planned and blocked out.

When you say pick the framing for the presenter and stick with it, what do you mean? Do you mean cut out all the animal shots?

The reason why I have the real sound of the hawk, is cause the people who hired me wanted the real sound, not a sound effect. They also wanted all that wind breezing over the shots as well, so I was just following their requests, but I see what you mean that it is not needed. I think I can get rid of the wind changing with the hawk sound with some room tome adjustments though, if they want the real sound.

As for what a bioblitz is, there is more narration to be done, and more footage to be shot and edited, and once it's finished it should explain everything. A bioblitz is a gathering of biologists to study things in the landscape, as far as I could tell.

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

You don't need a big budget to make non dialogue driven films, it's one of the best ways to learn and it impresses more at film festivals than something that feels like a daytime TV soap opera.

Sounds like you should be doing documentaries because it's a chance to address a major weakness that you have.

You will spend longer writing a drama script than you will spend in making a documentary.

Keep to the same steady framing of the presenter or, at the most, a closer shot used at the key moment and cut in the animals as required. They are what the people want to see, not the presenter.

Regarding the hawk, you will be using real sound of a hawk, just not when recorded live. It's done all the time of high end natural history documentaries and done properly it will sound and look like it was regarded live.You can record this yourself if you've got the right sound gear on the high end productions, they've got a sound recordist who will spend hours trying to get the highest quality audio.

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

Oh okay, but there are a lot of movies that are dialogue driven though, without feeling like a soap opera though, i.e. 12 Angry Men? But I can try do less dialogue driven then.

As for taking more time to write a script instead of making a documentary, the documentaries are more complicated to make, cause there is no script though. Or that is just how it is for me so far.

When you say use the sound of a real hawk but not recorded live, do you mean a hawk that is captured, as oppose to flying around to avoid wind? No one I know has a captured hawk. There are sounds of ones online but they are recorded with worse quality than mine, so I didn't use them. Or do you mean something else?

As for recording myself compared to someone else, well the people that hired me, wanted to do shoot the footage, as well as record the sound, without having to hire any more people.

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

Thinking out of the box for subjects to video:
Since there is a preference for PLANNED scenes and stories, what about talking to a drama teacher in high school, a prof in the university, or a local drama theater, and ask them if they can use a video of a part of their play? Actors and musicians can be their own worst critics and after they see their performance on film (okay, we know it’s digital), they can see where improvements can be made so a video can be really useful for them. The video will help the actors, the director, lighting grips, and … the videographer.

Not talking about the whole play, just a scene or two, or whatever you or someone else wants. Given the script you can storyboard it and share it with the director and maybe even the actors.

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

What we mean is that the wind noise and background vs hawk sound were bad. So you get a sound effect library with a properly recorded and controlled recording of a hawk and use that. That's what everyone does. I worked for a TV station in the UK famous for their wildlife programmes, and hardly anything we shot had usable sound. Some of the sounds we used were very old recordings, others were artificial and we won awards. In the early days, many of the sounds used in British TV and movies for animals were actually made by a man, who made his career being able to mimic real world animals - Percy Edwards if you want to Google. It's no more cheating than planting sounds in a 5:1 mix where they never really were.

How would they know? Don't tell them - just provide visuals with matching audio.

You can download the entire BBC sound effects library for free if you look hard enough. on-line sounds vary so much in quality, but they will be better than anything you have. Wind free days, long shotguns, full wind protection, hours and hours of waiting in the countryside - or a .wav file? Hmmmmmmm

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

Since you say that you can't write, why should making a documentary be more complex? In production terms they're relatively easy and a lot more get made than dramas, which are more complex in every department and usually require a greater range of skills in their production.

As I mentioned, it addresses a weakness that you have and you can only improve if take these head on.

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

Oh okay thanks, I can do that. Thanks! However, I did record the wind separately for 'room tone'. Is the room tone not matching, whenever I put another sound in though? As for how they knew it wasn't the sound of that hawk, they could tell that the species of hawk was different from the sound. I am no species expert, so I just thought well since I recorded the sound with my sound equipment, I will just that, if that is the species they want.

Well, it's just a documentary goes in all kinds of directions, compared to a more focused script where you know how it's going to end. In documentaries, you don't know how they are going to end, cause you don't know what people are going to say, especially if tackling a bigger topic.

I was also told I should stick to the genre I enjoy the most, cause that means I will probably do better in that genre, if I have more of a passion for it. Is that true though?

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

This is really what life is. *Stuff* happens.
Talk to a contractor about a remodel on your house and they will give you an ESTIMATE. Why, because while one has a PLAN, a building permit, (or a Storyboard) once they get into the job there are "unforeseen" things that come up. The contractor figures out a work-around and the owner approves it (or maybe not!), and the job continues until the next unforeseen. At the end of the day you (the owner) gets what you wanted (or, more or less), and the contractor gets paid (original estimate plus the unforeseen extra work).

Same with taking your car in for repair, with you in the hospital on the operating table, etc. That's why when you volunteer to take someone to the airport you PLAN to leave early because there can be an unforeseen accident, road construction, too much traffic, flat tire, or the car wouldn't start. Even with the Plan one might still be late.

It's about being able to "wing it", "roll with the punches", and do something "on the fly". An MC (Master of Ceremonies) who asks questions to someone in the audience and passes the mic to them for the answer, never knows what will happen. One can hope it's an easy answer but sometimes it's a surprise and the MC has to wing it.

In "Dirty Dancing", even though the shooting was only something like two months long (I'm still amazed), there was a problem because the movie was about a summer fling and when it was shot it was late in the season and the leaves started to turn color. What to do??? They went and spray painted the fall foliage green! Impacted the schedule and the skinny budget. Not planned. *Stuff* happens. One has to be "on their toes" and "fast on their feet".

The real Professional makes it look easy and most likely one never notices their problems.

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

Well so far I have just found fictional narratives better, cause since it's scripted I know what's going to happen, and where everything is going.

I could try documentaries, and focus on that, it's just why try the more difficult challenging genre? Shouldn't I tackle the easier one?

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

Because it may not be easier for the audience to watch.

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

So the documentary project so far, was easier for the audience to watch?

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

It depends on how good a film maker you are, but if the audience is into natural history they'll accept quite a lot.

With dramas they tend to be more demanding and there's more to go wrong in making a drama.

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

Oh okay, I can understand that for drama, or fiction. I just thought it would be easier to make since it's scripted and you know what was going to happen and where everything is going.

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

In a documentary you're dealing with real people in the real world. In fiction, you're trying to create characters with actors, who can be miscast or of variable quality, can be emotionally fragile or have an overbearing ego, plus deal with the outside world not matching your fictional world.

The result can be that you get something that doesn't really work and you only think you know where everything is going.

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

Yeah that's true. I guess I am just not cut out for documentary, in the sense of where I would go with one, and what the theme would be, compared to fiction, but I can try. What is it about me that is better at documentary filmmaking though, since I find it more challenging?

There is one filmmaker I worked with not too long ago and she wanted to make a documentary on a true murder crime story that happened where we live. However, she had trouble getting people to want to talk about it, and ended up scrapping it. I told her that she should instead maybe just write it as a drama with actors, and change the names around, but still base it on the true story, just with the names changed around. She took my suggestion. However, if documentaries are easier to make in some ways, do you think I should talk her back into doing it as a documentary and getting the people to want to talk more?

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

Many fiction crime films are based on real life events.

Part of documentary film making is having access, if you don't a major selling point is lost. The TV market has a big demand for documentaries and you're more likely get work as a director in that sector, than directing feature films.

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

Sure I can do that, if the opportunity arises. It's just hard to get people to open up about serious true events it seems, but maybe there are books on how to do that as well. So it's not that if I have more of a knack for making documentaries, based on the footage you saw, it's just I am more likely to get a job there?

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

It's not that hard to get people to open up, just not everyone wants to, but it's surprising how many people will. There are books on all genres of film and TV production.

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

Well it's mostly police and witnesses involved in the case. They say they are not legally compelled to talk about it, but witnesses talk to the media in other cases, all the time, so I don't think they would get into any real trouble though.

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

It's up to the individuals, they're not compelled to talk to you, so a lot of documentary making is building up trust, which can take time.

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

Oh okay thanks. I also have another documentary like short film coming up. I was wondering, if a person in being interviewed studders and stammers, how many takes is it good to to do for interviews?

The project is promoting a martial arts training center. However, they do not want to go over any storyboards of the shots for fighting. They want me to come up with the shots as I go and just sort of wing it. Which I feel I can do it's just the camera movement is tough, if I do not know where they are going in advance... kind of like the birds in the previous project. Is it just a matter of getting use to moving the camera, not knowing where the subjects are going to move, as well as getting use to telephoto lenses to emphasize the movement?

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

Don't stop and do another take, just keep going as if nothing has happened and after a couple more questions and answers come back to the same question, If they have a natural stammer, keep them relaxed and allow them to develop a flow. Use cutaways of what they're talking about to remove any serous studders or pauses.

Interviews can be pretty long, so don't be surprised at 30 minutes to an hour for a documentary interview.

As you become more experienced with camera work you will be able to sense where the movements are going better. They use this aspect of covering fights and battles in feature films. so that they look less staged, Spielberg used it in "Saving Private Ryan". Hand held works for close stuff, that's what they do for cage fighting and boxing, with the cameras positioned just outside in the corners etc. Get plenty of cutaways of people watching, it can be from any fight, not just the one you filmed, the camera is a great at lying.

Since it's not a public bout, you can get close in on the mat with the fighters, just don;t get in their way..

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

Okay thanks. And I would really like if there was a seperate DP/camera operator who covered this department, but I keep finding myself having to do all the camera movement and shots myself. But I will try to get a feel for it.

As for coming back to questions, I can do that, I just don't like having to insert cutaways, cause I feel that I would rather try to get it right, rather have to come back and then cut away in between. There was one documentary project I did before, where I was able to cut out a lot of the studders and stammers, and recut the dialogue to flow better, over B rool though, so that turned out okay I think. So I can try to do that again, as long as it's likely workable. Thanks.

I don't want to do handheld though, cause when I did before, people told me looked unprofessional and to lock the camera down. So if that's the case, then should I lock the camera down, and track the moving subjects, with pans and tilts then? But if I shoot a martial arts practice fight in a wide shot, I should probably get closer OTS shots of it to I am guessing, but would they martial artists want to do so many shot set ups, do you think?

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

Hand held is a standard technique in documentary and even drama, many of the top feature film directors use it. You're probably waving the camera all over the place, it's something you need to practice and you need a camera that's rigged for hand held shooting. DLSRs are pretty useless for this, you need a rig for them,

Small light video cameras often need the image stabiliser on the lens, because they don't have much mass or are poorly balanced or don't have enough support points on your body for good stability.

A documentary DP would be grabbing the shots while you're still thinking about them, 99% of the time, they are very much working without direction on the shots when following the action.

Trying for perfection won't work with documentaries, because you're dealing with real people who usually don't speak in neat sound bites. Let them express themselves and you can find unexpected gold.

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

Okay thanks. Actually before when I tried handheld, I was holding the camera as still as possible. This is my theory though... I think the image stabilization was the thing that causing it to vibrate more, and make it worse though. I think the lens was vibrating to keep the image stable, which caused it to be less stable. Cause I actually had the camera on a gimbal and it's still vibrating like crazy before, and holding it quite still, so I wonder if it was the image stabilization doing that. Does that sound like it could be the problem, I was having with handheld?

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

If shooting hand held you need to be relaxed, with slow breathing and your body balanced.

A gimbal isn't hand held, that's different and limiting in what you can do in a number of respects. If you were getting vibration with it I would check if it was correctly rigged.

Here are some tips for using a DSLR

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

We're not seeing errors from lens stabilisation, we're just seeing real camera movement. The guys is framed niceley, then there's a jerk and he slides across the frame and slowly back. I actually thought it was on a really nasty head, and the friction suddenly gave and the pan bar pressure moved it. The reason shoulder mounted cameras work so well is because your shoulder takes the weight and your torso provides rotational smoothness. Downside is aches and pains, but the fitter you are, the longer you can maintain steadiness. DSLRs have issues with CoG. They are not in alignment with your spine. The camera weight is under muscle control. Add the gizmos to connect it to your shoulders, and the weight creeps up, perhaps making a different camera a better choice.

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

Lots of good tips in that video but there are many situations where handheld dslr shooting is problematic and hard to obtain the same quality of hand held seen on tv by those big shoulder eng cameras. His techniques lend themselves to short broll clips of 5 seconds.

Filming longer shots like interviews is harder. The camera has to be held at eye level away from your body to see the framing and if you need change any settings it messes up the shot. You seldom notice jerky movements while shooting, it’s only when you’re editing you see it. You can build a dslr shoulder rig with a follow focus controller. Although rigs have there own problems: expensive, time consuming setup, and cumbersome to transport.

For documentary like other work it’s about knowing when to use what technique ie tripod for interview, stabilizer for walk n talk, handheld for shorter sound bites or quick broll. Getting smooth hand held shots is one small technical aspect to shooting a successful documentary.

As far as vibrating Ryan is describing this happens with many photography lens with internal stabilization and fly by wire focus. The lens will “chatter” as the internal motors adjust the elements. This can be remedied by turning off stabilization and autofocus.

There are lot more opportunities for doing documentary/short interview format than featured films. It also doesn’t require the money and multitude of things go into making a feature. I’ve suggested this type of work to Ryan but he doesn’t want to do it because of the unpredictable nature of it...

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

Okay thanks, I tried a shoulder rig before, but perhaps the problem is, I need to relax more, in situations where I was a one man band, trying to get all the footage shot in a rapid amount of time.

The problem with a shoulder rig, for me, is that I am quite tall, so I have to walk with my knees quite bent if I want to track with it. I can try to get use to it though.

Another thing is, is that I was told before to keep the stabilization on if going handheld or using a shoulder rig. But now I am advised to leave it off, cause the stabilization may be causing shake. Which is better, when going handheld or shoulder rig then? On or off?

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

You need to simply try both and pick the one that works best for the situation. Remember the long lens on a tripod that resisted smooth pans, because the internal optics fought against the start of the pan, held it then had to release causing big jerks. That's a case for turning it off. Hand held zoomed in means constant small movements so this would probably be best with it turned on. Experiment and learn. hand held groscopic stabilisers try to keep the lens heading fixed, but then those that give you a left and right pan can mean these pans get quite abrupt - you learn how they respond so you can operate them better.

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

Okay thanks. Well I do the tripod shots of the fight first, and then do any handheld shots second with it turned on then I think, as long as they don't mind doing mover coverage shots.

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

1. Shoulder rigs are not a cure all, they're only as good as the operator using them. They're best for holding a shot steady for a couple of minutes and are not meant to be used as gimbals.

2. There are rigs that allow you to position the camera down in front of your chest.

3. Whether you can use stabilization comes down to the design of the lens. I've used Sony G master lenses and they are smooth and silent.

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

Oh okay, but they used the shoulder rig type set up with the camera over the shoulder, in Saving Private Ryan, when the camera operator is doing a lot of walking and running around, right?

And perhaps I could invest in a gimbal, instead of always wanting to direct and have a separate gimbal operator, if that's better...

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

When the incredibly experienced and proficient camera operator is running around would perhaps be more correct. I just don;t get it when you pluck these job roles out as if they are a proper thing - you want a camera person. You want them to do certain things. Somebody skilled needs to decide the most appropriate method to shoot the shot and select the support kit. You cannot micromanage projects like this when you have limited experience in almost every department. It's just a repeating theme.

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

Oh, was I micromanaging the gimbal operator before does it sound like? I just hired a gimbal operator in a previous project, cause I thought that a gimbal was the tool for the job. Or what was I doing that was micromanaging?

But when people ask me to do these types of videos, like the martial arts video or the nature video, they do not want to make for separate camera operator and want me to do that part myself as well.

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

I'm talking about shoulder rigs in the context of doc/interviews not feature films. Rigs in cinema are used for different reasons. What would be acceptable in a war scene wouldn't be ok in a walk n talk. In cinema you are adding hand held motion for effect. We've gone from how not to get shaky footage to how to get shaky footage? We started this thread about star filters and now where are we?

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

When shooting hand held on docs you're not always moving around, often it's a static shot, however, with fast moving action you don't always have time to put up a tripod. A good camera operator, with a well balanced camera and a wider angle lens will be pretty steady on a static shot.

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

What I meant by micromanaging is you as the director deciding what camera technique to use, rather than booking a camera specialist who will listen to you as director and then tell you what is best. Surely the person tasked with visual responsibility would decide if they wanted a certain bit of kit. You want the shot, you don't book a camera expert and tell them how to do their job. you want to do everything and just have lots of assistants. Pick the right people and let them get on with it.

Many of the people will be using you because you are cheap and do what they tell you. If they want the best product, then they also want the best people. Do not confuse being in demand with being good. You are a novice in virtually every role - you get the work for the wrong reasons. You need to find the area where you have real talent, and resist the rest, because you cannot do everything well.