Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by John Nantz

The experts have read the question ....

.... and the reply is unanimous and the answer is ....: "NO!"

What to do now?
How far into the original take did the problem occur?

Question to Ryan:
Can everybody dress up the same way as when the shot went awry, put the cam and audio on the same settings, get the actors positioned in the same area they were in, then do another take taking it from just before where the problem was, or from the other side, or whatever it takes to fix the problem?

One good part is there are only two actors, the lighting and set is exactly the same, and they know what they intended to do. With your video record one can position them at some point so there isn't a big jump and with an angle change of some sort that should help.

I like Paul's creative washing machine trick. See, we have to think creatively. A lot of really good replies above.

Well it's just reshooting will not help because here is the thing. The martial artist wants to show off a hand and arm placement technigue that is a longer move that results in throwing the guy down to the ground and getting on top of him and locking him.

But in order to do the move he has to start out in one position, do half the move, and then spin 180 degrees in order to take him down and do the lock. So for this part of the move, where he spins around 180 degrees and does the lock, his back is now turned towards the camera, and you cannot see how he does the lock now.

So how do I show the lock part, without breaking the 180 degree rule and going on the other side, since that is where the lock is? I tried going over head and pointing down, but you still can't see it. It's too obscured still.

So how do I show it, without moving to the other side? Reshooting won't help, cause the move will still be the same, with his back turned to the camera, for the last half of the move, if I choose not to break the rule, and stay on one side.

So my quick thinking and instincts told me, that the only way to show the last half of it, was to break the 180 rule. Unless there is a better way?

What good is to have a 180 degree rule, if the fighters change 180 degrees in direction? If their backs are all of a sudden to the camera, wouldn't the audience expect the filmmaker to cross the line at that point to the other side to see what is happening?

[Brian Drysdale]

If a key part of a throw is going to be on the other side of their bodies, reverse the fighters positions, so that it's on the camera side when you're shooting it. Ask them which is the important part, so that's always on the camera side.

This is an instruction video, as explained earlier, with suitable VO you can switch sides. This isn't a drama, so you can do the move in wide shot and then cut to show action that couldn't be seen from the original camera position and explain it.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, but so you mean I can cross the 180 degree line then for this one?

Also, I asked them if it's possible not to spin 180 degrees when doing the move so they are on the same side of the camera, if that is what you mean, but they said that is physically impossible cause in this move, to take someone down, you have to spin them around.

[Brian Drysdale]

I'm not sure why this is causing a problem, you can switch to demonstrate after the the fact, regard this as a flashback. Do it after the whole move has finished, i.e cut to the move that couldn't be seen from the first camera position and let him voice over it.

They don't need to twist, just reverse the way they are facing at the start, so that you can see what I assume this the most important part of this fighting move. If other parts of the action are more important and this part less so, kept them in their current positions and do the above,

[John Nantz]

Brian to the rescue. Doing this as a separate detail shot is a good idea because it provides a good escape from the realtime action.

In this backside shot (whatever it is called), if the guy doing “the move” is also the narrator then perhaps he can describe to himself what he is doing at the time he is doing it so when it comes time to doing VO, and he remembers what he said to himself, there won’t be so much work on your part to coordinate the VO with the video.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

I'm not sure why this is causing a problem, you can switch to demonstrate after the the fact, regard this as a flashback. Do it after the whole move has finished, i.e cut to the move that couldn't be seen from the first camera position and let him voice over it.

They don't need to twist, just reverse the way they are facing at the start, so that you can see what I assume this the most important part of this fighting move. If other parts of the action are more important and this part less so, kept them in their current positions and do the above,

Oh so you are saying have them do the twist in the opposite direction then after? Like have them do it one way than the other way facing the camera?

[Josh Bass]

i believe that is not what they are saying. I think they are saying do the whole thing where when they turn to do the most important part of the move, they are facing cam. This means starting with their backs to you

[Paul R Johnson]

The rule you are fixated on is simply to prevent confusion. Reverse angles, and the very common over the shoulder shot are common shooting solutions that reverse sides, but because they are obvious they cause no confusion, so work perfectly well. Surely you can shoot from one angle and then when they turn complete the shot . If you actually cut from first setup to second setup on the turn, the viewer sees immediately what has happened. There is NO problem here Ryan. You just get them to to the thing from the start. Then you reset and shoot the same thing again from the end angle. People will be in slightly different positions but unless they are completely rubbish at doing the same move twice it will be fine.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

Oh so you are saying have them do the twist in the opposite direction then after? Like have them do it one way than the other way facing the camera?

I was giving another option, take the first sentence and use that. "you can switch (EDIT to the other side of the line) - demonstrate (EDIT the unseen) after the the fact, regard this as a flashback. Do it after the whole move has finished, i.e cut to the move that couldn't be seen from the first camera position and let him voice over it."

There are several ways you can shoot and edit this demo.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, thanks, I can consider that option for sure. So far I took the suggestion of the talking interview route and the fight shots will be placed over that, if that works.

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

The rule you are fixated on is simply to prevent confusion. Reverse angles, and the very common over the shoulder shot are common shooting solutions that reverse sides, but because they are obvious they cause no confusion, so work perfectly well. Surely you can shoot from one angle and then when they turn complete the shot . If you actually cut from first setup to second setup on the turn, the viewer sees immediately what has happened. There is NO problem here Ryan. You just get them to to the thing from the start. Then you reset and shoot the same thing again from the end angle. People will be in slightly different positions but unless they are completely rubbish at doing the same move twice it will be fine.

Okay thanks, this is what I thought. I thought if both fighters now have their backs turned to the camera, than I can cut, and if the audience doesn't get it and is confused, then are they dumb? But I thought they should get it, if that's what you mean.

[Charles Papert]

I know you guys have longed moved off the original question asked in this thread, but just to be frisky I'm bringing it back!

I used a four point star filter on a commercial this week, along with an old Cooke 20-60 zoom for a parody hiphop music video look. We played a lot of intentional flares from Aperture AX3's positioned in the frame creating point sources to another one handheld just off frame to create moving style flares, but we also got some occasional momentary kicks in glasses that were pretty great as well.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. I'm starting to rethink the start filter cause maybe it may look a little too "dream sequence-ish" for a project that is suppose to be a horror thriller. Unless it would work for that kind of narrative maybe?

[Paul R Johnson]

Dream sequence look? Never really thought of star filters like this. Charles's example once explained, clicks - the key feature I suspect being a parody - so it's not reality, it an exageration of the features of those hiphop videos. Those little features that set a genre into it's own niche. Probably a tool that goes back to the 70s pop videos where the lights started to be a feature and the stars were a good match. In your horror example they could work used on vehicle headlights, in the rain, or on a porch light. It would only look weird if used badly.

[Brian Drysdale]

Ryan, you should really think about what you're trying to achieve when using a filter., Charles gave the reasoning behind the use of the star filter in the commercial. If you can't come with reasons to use a filter in a particular film, don't use it, otherwise, it can become distracting.

On a horror film, I wouldn't go beyond a 2 star streak filter, which simulates the flare in an anamorphic ken. There are also star filers which give an irregular star, which could work if used with care at appropriate moments involving a bright light, these look less like the standard star filters that you see in 1970s and 1980s pop shows and a few romantic films of that period.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks for the suggestion. Yeah I was thinking about a filter for flare as well that might look more like anamorphic, if those ones look good as well.