Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay that's interesting!

Well I have an idea for a shot for part of the video, but I would have to cross the line to do it. So not sure if it's crossing the line in a good way, or a bad way. However, the camera is pointed down during, so I could always rotate it 180 degrees in post, and then it will not be crossing the line then, if it turns out it was a bad idea.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I love these Ryan questions. The 180 rule isn’t dependent on how many subjects are in the frame. Whether you’re filming a football game, a car chase, a person going for a jog. Of all the concerns and criticisms I don’t remember anyone bringing up this rule. Considering the simplicity of this shoot I can’t believe you need advice on this. You seem to be overly concerned with these rules like you’re afraid the cinema police will ticket you for breaking the rules.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh it's just I was told I broke it in strange places before, so if I have an idea for one of the shots, but yet it mean crossing the line, just not sure if I should do it or not...

[Pete Cofrancesco]

You seem to struggle with editing in cuts and understanding the 180 rule. I would stick to one shot or stay on one side. You are perpetually drawn to doing things you shouldn’t.

[Ryan Elder]

Well basically I just feel that if I come around and show from the martial artists point of view, then it's like the viewer is seeing the arm placement from their own point of view, and can see it better. So I guess it depends on what is more important, the 180 line not being broken or a better point of perspective. I guess when I am drawn into things I shouldn't be, I am just following my instincts on what I think would look best, and say screw the rules, this is the better choice, but maybe I shouldn't be looking at it that way.

[Greg Smith]

Flipping a shot in post will also reverse the positions and movement of right and left hands and feet, which for this particular subject matter, is critical to following, understanding and learning to duplicate the techniques you are trying to demonstrate. There might be some limited circumstances in other kinds of films where it would work, but I think it's just about totally out of the question for this one.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Ryan has a habit of thinking up camera moves/shots and forcing them in whether or not they are called for. The first time he filmed it completely perpendicular, a flat boring angle, making it difficult to see the three dimensional moves of the subjects. Now he wants to insert a POV shot despite that it’s inappropriate for this type of video.

[Ryan Elder]

Well it comes to shooting a flat perpendicular angle, I did that way so that each subject would have equal presense. If I shoot from a non flat angle, one of them has more presence than the other. Is that good though?

As for the POV shot, I don't have to show this particular move as a POV shot, but if I don't then people will be seeing the movie upside down then more so. I thought if they saw it from the person's point of view, they will then see it right side up. But is upside down, beter than breaking the 180 degree rule then?

I think the dilemma is is the opinion on here is, I showed go for angles that look cinematic rather than best clearly show the moves they want, so is cinematic more important than move clarity?

But let's say I choose a non- perpendicular angle. I have to have other angle though, so shouldn't one of them be at least perpendicular to change things up, angle wise?

[Brian Drysdale]

You seem to be over thinking on what is probably one of the most basic videos you could make. You don't have any reason to break the 180 degree rule, just keep the "fighters" so that they stay on facing the same direction in each of the shots,

This will only change if they change sides during the fight or during the demonstration and the audience sees them change sides.

There's no need to do POV shots in something like this, you're not showing a POV of a fighter being punched in the face as in fight film.

Keep It Simple Stupid is the policy on this.

[Josh Bass]

He's worried (and maybe rightly so?) about what happens when the arm or other limb that is not toward cam is doing something critical, or blocked by the other person. etc. etc. See the video he posted for examples.

[Brian Drysdale]

I'd cheat that angle so that you see it (perhaps by moving the other fighter out of the way), but the direction of the movement remains the same as in the other shots, It's an insert on the hand/foot doing the action.

[Paul R Johnson]

Having rules - or probably just guidelines is a good thing. IF, and only if, you understand why the rule exists and what confusion is created when some get broken or misunderstood. I get so confused by Ryan's belief, because that I think is what it is, that there is something called 'cinematic', which is a crazily misused and misunderstood beast.

What on earth is cinematic about a martial arts instructional video. It's a product intended to instruct, be accurate, be precise, be able to show precise and often small detail. It must reveal technique and enable understanding. Do we really care about the beautiful wooden floor, or perfectly crafted ironing of the clothes they are wearing? It's a cheap how to video that will end up with a few views on Youtube and lots of thumbs down for the reasons we have detailed here. Production values are low, the presenter's expectations are high but their communication skills level rock bottom.

Faced with this dreadful scenario, the best Ryan can do is record as much of what they do as possible. String it together in the edit to mimic real time and walk away.

It's not remotely cinematic. It's visually dreadful, and most of all - it is NEVER going to be more than it is.

Shoot them full body. If the movement they think is critical can be seen, move on. If it cannot. Reshoot from a better angle to catch it.

There is no more Ryan can do. Take the money, if there is any, and move on to something better.

Forget all this crossing the line or 180 degree rule stuff. Forget flipping in post. Just shoot evidentially not aesthetically. You have no rule for dealing with this kind of thing, and don't need one. Number one aim. Shoot what they want, edit and deliver. It will be a poor product, but they are not bothered, so don't stress so much.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

It’s maddening. You have a group of experienced professionals from different countries and backgrounds coming to the same conclusions, offering essential the same advice. Instead of following it all you can think about it trying to break conventions and inserting angles of view that are not called for. We are telling you to move off of the perpendicular angle of view. If you want to avoid jump cuts, alternate in between shorter action segments filmed wide and medium shots of them introducing the next segment. This is a really simple shoot. What’s next are you going to try to obsess about motivated and unmotivated movement?

[Paul R Johnson]

I've been watching some YouTube videos on motivated and unmotivated camera movement and am convinced this is simply people trying to find pedagogic or university style meaning from natural actions. Somebody has noticed that camera work follows conventions, and drawn these in features that can be observed analysed and discussed in movie circles. Me - the eternal sceptic on accepting this kind of stuff, finds the notion that people are studying this kind of thing and naming it quite funny. In one clip I watched it was from raiders of the lost ark, a movie I watched years ago and rather liked for it's content, style and images. The scene where the camera followed the shot glasses seems to me to just be an excellent way of photographing the scene. The glasses become the focal point, so given a camera, and obvious way to shoot it. However, in the clip, it's described as motivational camera movement, obviously chosen in advance as a way of making the glass itself the centre of the audiences attention. Of course it's the centre, we want to know if it's content gets downed successfully. Wrapping some kind of theory around it is just crazy. if we shoot an airshow, we can follow the aircraft, motivated?? Or, we can ignore the aircraft and decide to pan towards the control tower, leaving the aircraft in a corner, so unmotivated? No - just wrong, or inappropriate.

I've managed a large number of years before discovering common sense in framing shots now has a name and people study it, and worse, with Ryan, even decide in advance the appropriateness. I'm sorry, but I turn up look at what is happening and then pick the spot, then frame the shot and then react to unforeseen events. The nearest I get to this new way of working is when doing sports and you don't know which way a ball will travel when hit - so your choice is to guess the direction and go even if the ball goes the other way. 50% success rate but closer shots, or do I widen to a 'worse' framing, interest wise, and wait for the ball to go, before following and going in with the zoom. Safe, but usually dull!

Watching some of the youtube analysis videos on directors like Kubrick make me wonder if all the visual tricks he used really were produced using this magic, or did the guy just have an unconscious knack for composition that we ascribe rules to now that he didn't then?

I'm in an office Wednesday, with a green screen and some lights, shooting a dull video on industrial washing machines. None of the stuff in this topic will help me whatsoever. If we can get to the bottom of the autocue in one take, I'll be happy - but I suspect, based on the last one, this is going to be impossible. My scheme, or cunning plan is to have two camera positions, one left of central and one right. Every time we have a good take that suddenly ends because of a slip in reading, I reposition the camera to the other side, and the person speaking (who is the telesales coordinator) will turn her head, keeping the seat static. This will, I think mean most edits can be picked up by a turn. So I just get the unskilled person to look where she was looking, then turn to the new camera position and start that section. Hopefully this should be seamless in the edit when I can also zoom in or out a little. It will look like a two camera shoot hopefully. Maybe Ryan could consider something like this? I've not done this before - so it's new to me as a time saver. Probably it has a clever name too!

[Brian Drysdale]

I don't know if Kubrick gave names like motivated or unmotivated camera move to his shots, but he seems to have worked with he had before him, however, there was a huge amount of selection and demands involved in getting to that point that he was satisfied with what was before him.

I suspect there was a lot of instinctive reaction to how he shot scenes, which is not to say he didn't think about them, but he seemed to visualise them in his head and yet was still loose enough to see something on the day. If you're doing that, you don't need to use terms like "motivated or unmotivated", it's more like keep at the same distance, so that he didn't need to pan or tilt the camera, I know he asked the grip on "Barry Lyndon" to do this on one shot.

There's a lot of photographs with Kubrick with a director's viewfinder, so he seems to still be composing/selecting shots as he went along.

They do refer to motivated if following action on dramas, I've never heard the term being used anywhere else, However, it's not on the set, it's more like follow or move with them or "go in with the hand", more when DPs or operators are analyzing what they do when giving talks etc.