Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?

[Ryan Elder]

Sure here is one I completed:

Battle Damaged Souls - YouTube

Here is one I am currently editing now, and here is a very rough cut:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x32nSz6pCc&t=79s\

And here is another one:

Timewine H.264 copy - YouTube

[Josh Bass]

We've seen those. I mean the one you said you followed your storyboards to a T and were pleased with the result.

[Ryan Elder]

That was the first one I posted, Battle Damaged Souls.

[Brian Drysdale]

You can have a one or two minute film that tells a story, some commercials are shorter than than that and they tell a story.

https://biteable.com/blog/tips/best-commercials/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/christma...er-elton-john/

There are also 15 second and 30 second film festivals, where you have to tell a story in that time.

[Ryan Elder]

Perhaps but out of all the scripts I have come across, none are that short. I am not a good writer though, and was told by others to no longer do any more of my scripts and choose better ones, written by better writers, if that's true, I should. I could keep looking for shorter ones.

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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

[Ryan Elder]

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.

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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.

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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.

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.

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.

[John Nantz]

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.

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

the people who hired me wanted the real sound, not a sound effect.

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

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

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.

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.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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

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.

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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.

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?

[John Nantz]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

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.

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.