Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?

[Paul R Johnson]

Could you not cover some of this with extra static cameras? Borrow some that can be set to cover the range of angles you need, and use your camera as the one able to move, cutting to the others when your main camera gets masked by them turning unexpectedly?

My system of dealing with clients who haven't a clue is simple. Always offer them options with explanations.

Right then, we can do this next sequence with detailed closeups if you can be sure you can repeat them exactly, or we go with a wider shot, that won't need quite some much accuracy? Have we got the time to do the reshoots when it goes wrong? Whatever they choose you run with. The problems they find are then on their head, not yours - in the end, they will start to realise it's them holding things up, and if they see money attached to longer shooting sessions, they'll start to ask what you think will work best.

[Josh Bass]

I have a feeling he’s doing this for free or so cheap that if it turns out poorly they wont be too put out. Clients paying a reasonable amount would try harder to get a good product.

[Brian Drysdale]

With limited time, multi camera would be the way to go. Rehearsing before you go to the location will save some time, with a warning that they can't change things. If they do and it's a freebie just dump the project there and then, throwing a strop can be quite effective at getting attention again. Some actors can switch them on.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

The problem with your first video was you approached it as if you were filming a fight scene from a movie. Drawing up storyboards and filming too close. So there are sections where they talk about their lower body and you’re filming their upper body. This is more of a free form instructional/promotional video and should be treated as such.

I would film it wider, head to toe. Concentrate on what they are saying and doing. It may very well be all that is needed is one wide shot. Don’t force shots that aren’t needed. This goes back to being able to think on your feet and making the proper adjustments on location. Bring a laptop so you can review what you filmed. If they broke these demos into smaller chunks 1-2 minutes it would be easier to film. That way they could do a quick run through so you understand what’s going to happen in the demo..

Honestly less is more people have very short attention spans. If these videos are just to add content to their web site, I can’t see people wanting to watch more than a minute or two. The whole point should be to leave a favorable impression of their teaching technique. Thats why their appearance and air of professionalism is more important. Once both you and the client understand the goal it’s easier to focus in on what matters.

This is what I consider a content driven video. If the content is bad the results will be limited, but that doesn’t excuse your role as a filmmaker to make the best of what you’ve been given. Sitting back and leaving the decision to client who doesn’t know what they’re doing reflects poorly on you.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. Well with a laptop I would have to take the card out of the camera and dump the footage each time, which can take time, but I will try it.

I will also film head to toe, as long as it's not too far away for them to show the moves then, which is what I was afraid of. I can tell them not to do footwork, if it's an upper body shot, but I can shoot head to toe, just in case they throw in something.

[Brian Drysdale]

Since it's promo, viewers won't be looking at the video to learn moves, they'll be watching to see if these guys are good teachers and if it's worth attending their classes in order to learn the moves.

[Ryan Elder]

Sure, that's a good point, I can do that then. I think they wanted to show the moves, thinking that will help the promo. But I can explain maybe the types of angles are more important, editing wise, rather than seeing the whole moves.

[John Nantz]

Zeroing in on some really key comments:

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

Could you not cover some of this with extra static cameras? Borrow some that can be set to cover the range of angles you need, and use your camera as the one able to move, cutting to the others when your main camera gets masked by them turning unexpectedly?

And …

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

With limited time, multi camera would be the way to go.

As I sit here reading the posts, page after page, I’m really stressing , if only you had another cam! Especially one with optical stabilization. The AX53 would make short work of this problem of getting those close-up shots. I don’t remember what brand your cam is but perhaps they make an OIS model and at the moment I’d put getting one ahead of the stabilizer.

Plan B with a single cam: While in Edit, just zoom in for the close-ups.

This “wide shot” and “closeup shot” has been a real problem area.

Another problem area is … Them!
This is a “people problem”, not a camera problem (except that you have one one cam). Film school or film course probably doesn’t deal with this so a Psych course would have been in order. Too late for that now but Paul, the “been there, done that guy”, has an excellent approach:

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

My system of dealing with clients who haven't a clue is simple. Always offer them options with explanations.

Right then, we can do this next sequence with detailed closeups if you can be sure you can repeat them exactly, or we go with a wider shot, that won't need quite some much accuracy? Have we got the time to do the reshoots when it goes wrong? Whatever they choose you run with. The problems they find are then on their head, not yours - in the end, they will start to realise it's them holding things up, and if they see money attached to longer shooting sessions, they'll start to ask what you think will work best.

Suggest writing his options on a 3” x 5” card (don’t know what it is in millimeters), and put it in your pocket, and add some more of your own.

[John Nantz]

One more thought.

No B-Roll cam? Not to worry.

Another option is to use a cell phone video or picture. Depending on how it can work, use a cell phone (Handi in Continental speak) to take the closeup video, or picture, and import that into the timeline. The late model phones have really good resolution.

If the speaker needs more time to talk, do a Ken Burns with the photo and a gradual zoom in on the frame. The gradual zoom will provide a “video feel” while the explanation is going on.

Slo-mo: Another option for more time to speak is to use a repeat of the section of the clip with the part the instructor wants to talk about but do it in slo-mo during edit. The repeat provides more time to sink in for the viewer.

There’s noting wrong with re-timing in Edit those portions of the shoot to provide clarity to the action. An even very slight slo-mo will make it easier for the viewer to grasp what is happening.

Editorial comment: Not sure who is who here, but if the big guy is the assailant and the little guy is the victim who is supposed to defend himself, then, as a viewer or potential client, the best option as a victim would be to see how fast you can run!

[Josh Bass]

I think big guy was the “victim”/defending from little guy in that scenario. He seems to be the one showing how to neutralize various attacks.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. The problem with using a cellphone though, is that the angle is so wide you have to get a lot more close. So it can be seen in the other camera therefore.

Or even if I use a cellphone to do the mastershot, I would have to move the other camera out of frame and zoom in, but then the angle is compromised that way somewhat though.

[Brian Drysdale]

These things always involve comprise, it usually involves working out the best compromise that works.

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thanks for all the advice. I also have another question about the 180 degree rule if that's okay. I understand how the rule applies to two people in a shot. However, if I have shots of only one martial artist doing moves for some of the video, how do I interpret where the 180 line is drawn then, if it's just one person?

[Josh Bass]

I would think the line is between him and whatever he's facing (even it's a wall). In other words, if he's facing screen right, keeping all your angles so that he's facing screen right (or into camera directly or away from camera, if you're behind him) is staying on the same side of the line. Once he's facing screen left (unless he turns his body to do so) you've crossed the line.

Just imagine a line between him and the wall or whatever. Once you've crossed that, you've crossed the line.

Now if he's facing one way (screen right), then does a 180 and face screen left, that's a new line. Or if he turns 90 degrees. New line. Just imagine a laser shooting out of the front of his body...whatever that beam would be hitting, that's the line at all times. You may have to chase it. This is all covered in "the 5 Cs of Cinematography" book.

[Paul R Johnson]

Totally off topic, but I broke a different 180 degree rule tonight. John said I'm one of those been there and done things people, which is true in a way but leaves me an expert at nothing, but moderately succesful at lots. This afternoon I messed up badly. We have some sophisticated power winches to fly people. Think peter pan. A computer controlled up/down power winch. Variable speed, repeats movements and acceleration. Left right movement is via a rope that drops down from above, through a pulley and back up. To fly diagonally, the winch follows the button press - gently go from 0m to 6m in five seconds and at the same time you pull the left rope and the carriage suspending the person moves left. Marks on the rope tell you when to stop. Safety sign offs mean that operators are trained and we cannot just stick a new person in. We get extra crew trained at the start, and I as the Manager also get signed off, and also have to do the daily safety checks. The member of the crew who has been doing this twice a day has finished her contract a day early to fly off to do another in belgium, so the last two shows it was me.

Instead of a person, for one scene we rig a hot air balloon basket instead of a harness and all I had to do was traverse past the middle by pulling the left rope, then once passed the middle, pull the right rope and the thing would gently land dead centre. I pulled the left rope, but then somebody squeezed past me, so I broke the 180 degree rule by operating from the other side where there was more space, but forgetting left was now right, and right was left. Instead of gently swinging back, the balloon basket and occupant continued across the stage and by the time I'd regained control he missed the scenery by about an inch and nearly landed on a flight of stairs.

I really hope the BBC crew in shooting the show don't use that sequence, I'll never live it down.