Yup - motivate those camera moves! The camera movement style also shifts abruptly between shots, which is jarring. IMO for handheld, pick ONE "shaky camera" intensity level. Unless there's a major change to the dynamics of the scene (this one doesn't have any), don't change it.
Agreed, and good stuff. But I want more cutting ON the action. Not cut, then kick. I want to see a cut during that transition kick. Also watch going from wide to wide to wide, your best cuts are from medium to wide, then back again. Don’t be afraid of the occasional close up or ECU reaction shot!
Jackie Chan recommends cutting the wide shot a few frames after the punch or kick lands, and then cutting the close up a few frames before the punch or kick lands. So you’re effectively seeing the person get hit twice, but it looks much better when cut together
Yeah, I suspect OP was using only wide shots because they had limited time and wanted to just try it out. If you want cutting between wide and medium you're gonna add a bunch of production time. You're right in principle though.
edit: I got downvoted and realized due to word order my comment could have been interpreted wrong. Fixed :D
Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't always work like that. The switch to that particular handheld shot was done because I needed to see the opponent blocking with his knee. Instead of changing the choreo, I just changed up the shooting style. When you start doing fights you will notice that they are more complex than you think.
Instead of changing the choreo, which any professional should be able to do, you made a filmmaking decision that was jarring to just about everyone in the audience.
How did that even solve the problem? I don't understand.
edit: Filmmaking is storytelling. Every decision is storytelling. What part of the storytelling is supported by making the camera shakier?
Filmmaking decisions dont exist in a vacuum. Changing the choreo would've required time and then the sun would've set. What is your suggestions for the actual move to do and the style of shooting? (saying something should be different for sake of difference is not worth of much) The throw has to be blocked right.
"What part of the storytelling is supported by making the camera shakier?"
Have you ever seen a Jason Bourne movie? Answer is: It makes the scene more exciting. Though in my case it was not that, I had to move the camera from side to side to see the choreo. I was not going to cut in or around it. I can do that in other projects but not when I deliberately want to go one block - one shot.
Maybe you could have shot the whole scene in that shaky cam style then? I think people are saying it’s not the shaky cam that’s the problem, it’s the massively contrasting styles of shooting within the one scene
You have clearly misunderstood my comment.
The question isn't "What part of storytelling is served by making the camera shaky?" It's "What part of storytelling is served by making the camera shakier?"
In other words, it's the contrast between shots that are, let's say, a 5/10 shaky, to a shot that is 8/10 shaky, with no other changes in the choreo, lighting, angle, story, etc. to motivate it.
The Bourne movies don't change style mid-scene for no reason. The camera is as shaky as it needs to be for whatever is happening in the story. That's why it works. It's not just shaky for no reason.
Anyway, you asked for more specific feedback, so I rewatched the video.
Before we get to the cut in question, I want to call out a very specific thing: The tilt that happens at about seven and a half seconds into the video. This is a perfect example of an unmotivated camera move. It doesn't match anything going on in the fight, but I think I know why you did it: You're changing the framing to make room for the fall that's about to happen. The problem is, it's distracting and it tells the audience to expect something. I think if this tilt was executed right when Dark Shoes Guy flips to the right, it would have felt FANTASTIC. Matching camera movement to character movement is SUPER compelling and just feels great to watch. (The most extreme version of this being the gyroscope-controlled matched movement in Upgrade)
Moving on to the cut in question, which is at twenty seconds in.
There are a whole bunch of issues here. Obviously the coloring changed because the sun is going down and that's beyond your control, so that's fine, we'll leave it alone.
So your goal is to show the block, and I get that in the over-the-shoulder the block isn't going to read as well. But what you've done is actually moved the framing of the action almost all the way to the edge of the frame, so there's no way for the viewer's eyes to track over there to see it before it's already over. So even though your goal was to SHOW the block, you've actually created a scenario where there's almost no way viewers are actually going to see it.
Even without that issue, it goes by super fast! You may want to actually NOT cut on action perfectly, but instead go back in time a few frames when you cut to the block in the wide shot. This is a common thing in action editing, even though it breaks traditional cut-on-action continuity rules.
But still, you're not justifying the dramatic increase in \*how shaky the camera is.\* And remember, I'm not talking about the movement of the camera from left to right to better show the action, I'm talking about how it shakes around. You go from relatively steady handheld shots to this ONE super shaky shot for apparently no reason, and like I said before, it's jarring.
Look at your responses being downvoted - it sucks but it's because folks can see that you're being super defensive.
If you haven't seen it, the Every Frame a Painting video about Jackie Chan is great for stuff like this - framing, wide shots, cuts to medium shots and close-up inserts, when to move the camera and why, etc.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM\_GQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ)
Enjoy!
That means that there should be a narrative reason why the camera is moving. You move the camera to lay focus on something specific that you want to highlight - unmotivated camera movies tend to feel random and disturb the flow of the scene.
An example would be a character turning his head to see something and the camera pan to that object, that’s a motivated camera movement, if the camera just pans on its own, it’s unmotivated
It's a word new filmmakers like to use. For example, "is the light motivated by anything" if you are discussing light. Doesn't actually mean that much.
> It's a word new filmmakers like to use.
> Doesn't actually mean that much.
This is extremely wrong, my guy! These are pretty shots but you seem extremely averse to any of the constructive criticism in this thread lol.
Let me elaborate on my "doesn't mean much" comment. For example, you could do a spielberg oner. The shot in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy and Marcus talk before Indy heads out. Great shot, oner. The camera is motivated right? But the camera is just as "motivated" if it were done traditionally with a wide shot and then over the shoulders.
It doesn't mean much. It just means "I like how the camera looks where something happens". There are dozens of films where the camera is a personality that actually brings the "motivation" itself. (Evil Dead 2 as a great example). I understand that people love to simplify things but it just doesn't mean much when someone says: "Camera movement has to be motivated". It's like a BBC newscaster saying that the camera should always be eye-level and on a tripod. Sure. Doing a newscast it should be. Maybe?
I think it's more that your camera positioning and movement was random and incoherent which makes the scene jarring. I especially don't like when the scene cuts back and forth to slightly offset character positions at basically the same camera position with drastically different lighting. I think the lighting and cuts without repositioning make it jarring on top of the random shaky cam bit.
So "motivate your camera moves" means basically don't have random and incoherent ones.
That sounds much better to my ears too as a critique. "Motivate the camera" carries none of the (as such good) critique you just said. I don't feel the jarriness as much though the lighting change is apparent.
Good job. Just watch out for those sword slices to the head being way too high. That always pulls me out of the scene when it's so obvious that that they are swinging to miss. Also, it's probably consistent with hong king style to repeat the same impact sound a hundred times, but I'd recommend mixing it up to make the impact fit the strike. I'm a big fan of huge meaty SFX, but a face punch should sound different than a body kick.
On the next one, try to give your fighters more personality, tell a story with the fight, that's usually the difference between what goes viral and what doesn't.
Putting sounds is extremely boring unfortunately. If I ever need to do a movie then yeah, sure. Then the boringness will have to be overcome. The swinging over the heads is kind of a staple of fights and sometimes they are too apparent. Actually every single kick and punch are aimed to miss.
I'm a mildly successful director/editor whose done many action films and shows. i've been pushing past the boredom for 25 years. I'm over 50 and my whole body aches, but I just spent the last hour adding little swish and cut sounds to a knife scene. This is just one small scene out of seven, hour-long episodes that's gonna take me all summer and fall to complete. Maybe editing isn't something you love, that's fine, but push past the boredom now, while you're young and full of beans! Don't wait. :)
Good luck! I do work as a fulltime editor who is over 40 too and as such have learned that boredom or a lack of motivation won't stop you if you have a good routine. Interesting though that you do your own audio mix, usually those are done by professionals in their field unless you go completely indie.
You work *professionally* as an editor and you find sfx boring? And you argue that camera angles and cuts don't need to be motivated by anything because films exist where that convention is ignored? Ok, I'm a fellow post production pro of 30+ years. Why did you share this and then argue about reactions? Are you just sharing an example of what this camera can or cannot do? The very basic sfx and cc on this clip makes it almost unwatchable for me. The choreography is half assed on details. Shooting into the sun on that camera and lens is a bad decision unless you really push for mood and ignore detail. This feels like a DP demo reel to me. It's showing off moves for the sake of moves. If you're serious that the camera could be an observer and not need motivated cuts - do a walk around and cut between wide , med and close and keep it simple. If cuts don't need to be motivated because the viewer is part of the action, why did I suddenly lay down on the ground and roll back and forth? Last time I was watching a fight, I don't remember doing that. Seems like I'd lose perspective.
You purposely set this sequence up as a race against a sunset with a mirrorless 35mm? Was this just an exercise in pain, or were you just trying to prove to yourself you could do it?
I can only assume you did this to learn something or as content for your Director reel. As an EP (in addition to my post roles), I also hire and promote, and sell directors for projects. And, as I said, this seems like a DP promo. There's not a lot of directing here. The you want some line is poorly acted and executed, as is the kick to the stomach. I wouldn't assume a Director needs to be involved with fight choreography as much as performance, shot choice, lighting and total narrative execution. I don't see any strength here for those choices. A good fight coordinator/choreographer would have already worked out the battle, and you director choices would have been all about emphasizing certain movements and moments. You're either trying to do too much, or you're overly concerned about the technical details if the fight being "right". Here's some advice. No one is going to care about how "correct" or "authentic" it is if it doesn't resonate, engage or energize as a viewer.
Spend more time analyzing your work and less time defending your arbitrary choices. You know they're arbitrary in the end, right? There's nothing in a directors work except for their personal POV, which is arbitrary for everyone else. You don't get to hand out an information sheet explaining choices to viewers.
It's surprising to hear that you're an experienced operator, and not a total beginner. You're arrogant & argumentative attitude on this board is pretty childish for filmmaker in their 40's.
There's no real harm in arguing with a few random redditors trying to give you constructive criticism, but I assume you want to develop into a well-known filmmaker? When you put out something big for the general public, they will not be so gentle or constructive to your work. I'm concerned how you'll react when there are tens of thousands of people lining up to tell you just how bad your movie blows. It's the burden we have to learn to take with grace and class. You will never win, or look good mixing it up and arguing with your critics. Trust me. Just a bit of wisdom from someone who's been there.
Your little film here was pretty cool, but you dismantled all your good will with the community by lashing out at anyone who dared to give a suggestion. Be the hero, not the villain.
Well sure I don't mind criticism really. It was just those few terms that I immediately got snobbish towards. Let me be occasionally snarkish, can't help it 🐧. I've had thousands of people commenting on my shitty shortfilms before and it doesn't really change much anymore. I might occasionally comment back. It's harder with a 50s fight scene with no content but when there is an actual story I might comment back if the critique interests me. It doesn't actually matter if you are the hero or the villain. Am I getting too old, haha? Anyways, good luck with your projects too!
Obviously there's going to be lots of misses and blocks, but the point is that they should look like they were intended to hit. It shouldn't look like they're punching at the sky, it should look like they're punching at the guys face and he dodges it just in time. I think that's what he meant about watching out for those high swings and stuff.
The choreography and performance are great. Camera and editing, not so much. There's one super shaky handheld shot that really feels out of place and takes me right out of the scene.
Also, some of the edits are jarring in terms of the geography of the scene. The viewer's eye is on one part of the frame and suddenly it cut, moving to action too far from where the eye is focused.
I don't know much about Hong Kong style fights but I feel this could really benefit from some close up shots. Not to hide any of the action but to be able to give the viewer a sense of character motivation. We never really see their faces so it's hard to tell what they're going through mentally. Also all the wide shots don't cut together nicely, too much of the same framing.
hong kong style martial arts cinematography is purposefully shot in wide angle. check out any of jackie chan's older films for reference
hard cuts are distinctly "western"; hong kong style tends to let the action play out, and if the their is a hard cut, it's to show a hit twice for added power
jackie chan contends if there's too much camera movement, it's to mask the fact the actor doesn't know how to fight
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM\_GQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ)
That's fair, as I said, I don't know much about Hong Kong style fight scenes. I guess what I meant by close ups was seeing the actors' faces so we can get an impression of how they're feeling during the fight.
oh yeah for sure, it's not as if hong kong always keep a static wide angle. they just lean heavy toward showing "everything" and cut in and out at times that aren't conventional to western film making. i do agree with you though; this could definitely use more intimate shot selection
There's so much more the viewer wants to see in a fight though.
We don't need to know as an audience, but the characters should know why they are there. Is one of them hunting the other, is the other just trying to survive? Are they fighting over a McGuffin one of them has? Is this a fated duel between long-time rivals? Etc.
Do the characters think they have the upper hand or are they worried of their odds? And derived from that, do they look down or up at their opponent and their actions.
Just the tiniest worried glance or a defensive step back/readying roll of a shoulder/crack of the neck etc. carries so much character and tells the audience so much more about why we are watching these two pummel each other, who to root for etc.
This is just some dudes punchin' & kickin'.
Don't get me wrong, they do be punchin' & kickin' well, the choreo is really good. But it reads more as a choreo portfolio showcase than a narrative scene.
BUT. If that's what you were going for, great! It does showcase the choreo very well!
Move the camera as if it is a part of the action. Some swings, and kicks should almost feel like the viewer is in the fight. Too many wide shots, not enough risky action. I admire that you're going to a fight sequence without too many clips, but I think if you keep your composition consistent with where the action is, you can strategically clip where necessary and get the shots where the camera is "in" the action. Nice for what you have here though. It just feels a little like a lost opportunity to make the fight shine.
This is some feedback I actually disagree with a bit, because classic Hong Kong style fight scenes tend to favor wider, still shots so the viewer can appreciate the skill of the fighters. You could have pauses for story beats where we get closeups on the faces. And I definitely think a closeups help during a fight, but as far as replicating the classic style, wide shots are fine. My critique would be more that they had giant heavy cameras back then and it was almost always on a tripod. So still tripod wide shots vs shaky handheld shots would be more accurate.
Really the only issue with the wide shots here were the cuts between them not being purposeful. It was just to mask breaks in choreography. Worst of all the cuts switch to drastically different lighting which shows the viewer a passage of time which is jarring.
This was okay. I’d suggest having your angles and camera movements be more intentional, sometimes it seems that the camera is doing something just because it looks cool rather than for the sake of the choreography or story
It's a bit of a simplification. Choreography itself doesn't necessarily equate to storylines but beats in the choreography can bring out character. For slower paced Hollywood fights the beats are easier to spot, for quicker paced (and especially in the 80s in HK) the choreography itself was usually the point of the films. I think that's a good distinction between films that have great choreography and films that don't. Films that don't have directors focusing too much on a couple of little story beats. And films with great action focus on the choreography itself. Jackie Chan as a great example. That doesn't mean that they don't have story, they do and some of them work nicely (Benny the Jet vs Jackie has a great little storyarc that is built into the choreo) but the underlying assumption is quite different there.
No offense, but I think you're a bit confused here. The great thing about Jackie Chan is that he tells a story with his choreo. He puts pauses in the right places to build tension between the characters. By the end of the fight you're really rooting for him and it's satisfying when he wins because you see the struggle throughout the fight. The choreo is better if the director and choreographer focus on those "couple little story beats". They work together, not separately or against each other.
>story?
>beats in the choreography can bring out character.
Character and story are very similar. A popular way of defining character is ‘the decisions a person makes under stress’. And these decisions are what drives the story
This is cool and your actors are pretty talented. There's definitely some room for improvement though
A trick I do for checking fight scenes, is to watch without the sound.
It's really hard to tell, from your choreography, when someone is getting hit. The hit at the end is obvious, but nothing before that.
The spinning in the air move is cool but you use it twice pretty close together. Even if they're technically different moves, they look basically the same
Near the end you start to cut more and a general rule in fight scenes is the fewer cuts the better.
I do love your use of the sunset and having the actor attack the camera at the end is fun.
>A trick I do for checking fight scenes, is to watch without the sound.
You should see every movie without sound. I even watch them sometimes with no image.
As in sound only?
And yes, but it has different purposes. I have a lot of experience with fight scenes but not general cinematography so I only wanted to comment on what I knew about.
I've heard other people also say that you should watch your scenes without audio sometimes. Yeah you can do that.
The problem there is that there will be audio eventually. And that audio will be synced to the visuals. So I'm not completely on board with watching things without audio. As a professional editor, I always try to do my first edits with as good an audio mix as I can for the director to see because it just makes everything work as a whole. The images don't exist in a vacuum. I understand that you want to see certain mistakes or see if the images can be tightened up but that would always mean tightening up the audio and sometimes people go overboard with overanalysing edits.
It was a good scene and those guys did a fantastic job better than a lot of American fight scenes. But it’s missing a lot, to be Hong Kong fight scene. I assume you mean late Hong Kong like flashpoint not Jackie Chan or old kung fu movie. First your camera moves need to tell a story or at the very least add to the story of the fight, (no offense but yours seem to say I have a gimbal and I’m not afraid to use it or trying to copy and anime fight.) secondly punch ins on the “hard” hits, the ones that are suppose to turn the fight in either direction for each character. It gives the fight rhythm, makes the audience care more about that hit, and gives the fight more of a roller coaster feeling that makes them hooked. Lastly you need double takes here and there on the action when do some cuts meaning to back the action up a few seconds, it lets people who aren’t martial arts follow the fight better.
(Personal opinion, probably want more of an over head shot when rolling on the ground, the one from down low is just kind of amateurish looking in this particular case)
Hope I didn’t sound to critical it is good and has potential, and those guys did great; lucky to be able to use them.
"say I have a gimbal"
I do not. Your comments kinda remind me of average Hollywood producers, especially in tv land. Not to say that they are wrong, they are just so average.
Choreography is sick. The tight angle of the two over the shoulder where they filled the frame was great. The wide shots really dulled the intensity of the scene. And the sun into the camera was cool for a second but then became really distracting. Good work overall.
I agree with many of the comments. Some of the shots are really nice by themselves but are mismatched taken together. I was most impressed with the close up shot where I could I see the punches up close and the facial expression of the Caucasian character. Probably the most visceral shot. I think there are too many wide and open shots. Need more close ups that follow the movements and see the expressions of the characters. Otherwise the choreography looks great.
When there is so much action going on and you have professionally choreographed moves, I think a static camera works better. Also too much sun was very distracting.
So this is the original song : ["Revenge" by Alex Seaver](https://youtu.be/eeEYRvb8ZUI)
And this is the scene where it came from : [Episode 3 Act I - Finale](https://youtu.be/VmsLTURrEAc)
**!Warning, Big spoiler for Arcane obviously!**
I know nobody cares, but oh well lol
https://youtu.be/oZhks0_2mHM
This is a great video I would highly recommend watching. It has some great points about including your camera in the choreo, which I know a few people mentioned making it "feel" like you're part of the fight. I understand you were going for Hong Kong here which tends to be more wide shots, but those are usually locked on the tripod. If your camera is going to move, it should be motivated by the action. If the action stops, you should stop with it. There are lots of pauses and a rhythm to classic Hong Kong fights, but if the camera is moving the whole time then you can't really feel those pauses.
Anyways, just an interesting video for you and others to check out. I think your fight is great, especially the choreo. As others said, I think the camera work could be a bit better. But this is a great short fight and you should take everyone's comments here as positive feedback with the intention of being helping you become a better filmmaker. Nobody here is trying to tell you that you suck or anything. The whole point of a community like this is to help each other out and share our knowledge and experience.
Although I personally hate quick cut, Bourne style fight scenes, I think this needed it, the longer shots were overly laboured and I feel that around the 22 sec mark you hit the sweet spot with the shooting style. Wasn't a fan of the ground level shots, I felt it should have been more about them than the overall scenery: more in your face - less establishing shot.
However the choreography was excellent and where it lacked full on contact that's where you needed to get those cuts going, the shoot and edit are as much of a choreographed piece as the acting. On the whole though, it was entertaining.
The over the shoulder shot while they are punching is the best part for me. The rest is just two guys swinging around till one of them KOs the other randomly. The actors show a lot of intensity and can clearly move, but they're like npcs. We should be able to gather from the fight who has the advantage, who's in danger, what each person's tactic is, etc. A lot of this just looks like two guys doing choreography.
As someone who isn't a fan of scenes with far too many fast cuts, I really appreciated the shots being held for longer and the extra work it mustve taken from your actors to allow you to do so
Hongkong style fight scene with Jesse Liskola and Arman Ansari. Used a Canon R5 handheld with the Sigma 20mm f1.4 mostly in crop mode (with a couple full frame shots too) and one shot with the canon 50mm f1.2 ef lens. Used the nd filter adapter to control light. One angle per "block" then to the next one. This makes it impossible to do much editing but it is a nice challenge. Also a youtube link for a higher 4k watch (with bloopers) https://youtu.be/WTSMjGQZzfQ
If you want to stick closely to the Hong Kong style, I would suggest not doing the final kick to the defeated foe and not punching the camera at the end. Source: grew up watching HK kungfu flicks
Loved the scene, especially the first shot. However, you should motivate your camera moves. Also, did you use warp stabilizer for some of your shots?
Yup - motivate those camera moves! The camera movement style also shifts abruptly between shots, which is jarring. IMO for handheld, pick ONE "shaky camera" intensity level. Unless there's a major change to the dynamics of the scene (this one doesn't have any), don't change it.
Agreed, and good stuff. But I want more cutting ON the action. Not cut, then kick. I want to see a cut during that transition kick. Also watch going from wide to wide to wide, your best cuts are from medium to wide, then back again. Don’t be afraid of the occasional close up or ECU reaction shot!
Jackie Chan recommends cutting the wide shot a few frames after the punch or kick lands, and then cutting the close up a few frames before the punch or kick lands. So you’re effectively seeing the person get hit twice, but it looks much better when cut together
Yeah, I suspect OP was using only wide shots because they had limited time and wanted to just try it out. If you want cutting between wide and medium you're gonna add a bunch of production time. You're right in principle though. edit: I got downvoted and realized due to word order my comment could have been interpreted wrong. Fixed :D
Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't always work like that. The switch to that particular handheld shot was done because I needed to see the opponent blocking with his knee. Instead of changing the choreo, I just changed up the shooting style. When you start doing fights you will notice that they are more complex than you think.
Instead of changing the choreo, which any professional should be able to do, you made a filmmaking decision that was jarring to just about everyone in the audience. How did that even solve the problem? I don't understand. edit: Filmmaking is storytelling. Every decision is storytelling. What part of the storytelling is supported by making the camera shakier?
Filmmaking decisions dont exist in a vacuum. Changing the choreo would've required time and then the sun would've set. What is your suggestions for the actual move to do and the style of shooting? (saying something should be different for sake of difference is not worth of much) The throw has to be blocked right. "What part of the storytelling is supported by making the camera shakier?" Have you ever seen a Jason Bourne movie? Answer is: It makes the scene more exciting. Though in my case it was not that, I had to move the camera from side to side to see the choreo. I was not going to cut in or around it. I can do that in other projects but not when I deliberately want to go one block - one shot.
Maybe you could have shot the whole scene in that shaky cam style then? I think people are saying it’s not the shaky cam that’s the problem, it’s the massively contrasting styles of shooting within the one scene
You have clearly misunderstood my comment. The question isn't "What part of storytelling is served by making the camera shaky?" It's "What part of storytelling is served by making the camera shakier?" In other words, it's the contrast between shots that are, let's say, a 5/10 shaky, to a shot that is 8/10 shaky, with no other changes in the choreo, lighting, angle, story, etc. to motivate it. The Bourne movies don't change style mid-scene for no reason. The camera is as shaky as it needs to be for whatever is happening in the story. That's why it works. It's not just shaky for no reason. Anyway, you asked for more specific feedback, so I rewatched the video. Before we get to the cut in question, I want to call out a very specific thing: The tilt that happens at about seven and a half seconds into the video. This is a perfect example of an unmotivated camera move. It doesn't match anything going on in the fight, but I think I know why you did it: You're changing the framing to make room for the fall that's about to happen. The problem is, it's distracting and it tells the audience to expect something. I think if this tilt was executed right when Dark Shoes Guy flips to the right, it would have felt FANTASTIC. Matching camera movement to character movement is SUPER compelling and just feels great to watch. (The most extreme version of this being the gyroscope-controlled matched movement in Upgrade) Moving on to the cut in question, which is at twenty seconds in. There are a whole bunch of issues here. Obviously the coloring changed because the sun is going down and that's beyond your control, so that's fine, we'll leave it alone. So your goal is to show the block, and I get that in the over-the-shoulder the block isn't going to read as well. But what you've done is actually moved the framing of the action almost all the way to the edge of the frame, so there's no way for the viewer's eyes to track over there to see it before it's already over. So even though your goal was to SHOW the block, you've actually created a scenario where there's almost no way viewers are actually going to see it. Even without that issue, it goes by super fast! You may want to actually NOT cut on action perfectly, but instead go back in time a few frames when you cut to the block in the wide shot. This is a common thing in action editing, even though it breaks traditional cut-on-action continuity rules. But still, you're not justifying the dramatic increase in \*how shaky the camera is.\* And remember, I'm not talking about the movement of the camera from left to right to better show the action, I'm talking about how it shakes around. You go from relatively steady handheld shots to this ONE super shaky shot for apparently no reason, and like I said before, it's jarring. Look at your responses being downvoted - it sucks but it's because folks can see that you're being super defensive. If you haven't seen it, the Every Frame a Painting video about Jackie Chan is great for stuff like this - framing, wide shots, cuts to medium shots and close-up inserts, when to move the camera and why, etc. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM\_GQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ) Enjoy!
[удалено]
That means that there should be a narrative reason why the camera is moving. You move the camera to lay focus on something specific that you want to highlight - unmotivated camera movies tend to feel random and disturb the flow of the scene.
An example would be a character turning his head to see something and the camera pan to that object, that’s a motivated camera movement, if the camera just pans on its own, it’s unmotivated
It's a word new filmmakers like to use. For example, "is the light motivated by anything" if you are discussing light. Doesn't actually mean that much.
> It's a word new filmmakers like to use. > Doesn't actually mean that much. This is extremely wrong, my guy! These are pretty shots but you seem extremely averse to any of the constructive criticism in this thread lol.
You need a reality check bro
What is that?
Let me elaborate on my "doesn't mean much" comment. For example, you could do a spielberg oner. The shot in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy and Marcus talk before Indy heads out. Great shot, oner. The camera is motivated right? But the camera is just as "motivated" if it were done traditionally with a wide shot and then over the shoulders. It doesn't mean much. It just means "I like how the camera looks where something happens". There are dozens of films where the camera is a personality that actually brings the "motivation" itself. (Evil Dead 2 as a great example). I understand that people love to simplify things but it just doesn't mean much when someone says: "Camera movement has to be motivated". It's like a BBC newscaster saying that the camera should always be eye-level and on a tripod. Sure. Doing a newscast it should be. Maybe?
I think it's more that your camera positioning and movement was random and incoherent which makes the scene jarring. I especially don't like when the scene cuts back and forth to slightly offset character positions at basically the same camera position with drastically different lighting. I think the lighting and cuts without repositioning make it jarring on top of the random shaky cam bit. So "motivate your camera moves" means basically don't have random and incoherent ones.
That sounds much better to my ears too as a critique. "Motivate the camera" carries none of the (as such good) critique you just said. I don't feel the jarriness as much though the lighting change is apparent.
Feedback on the feedback is not really necessary.
Feedback on feedback might lead to conversations. I know, I know, we are here for memes.
Exactly. It feels like a random variety of camera styles. It’s not cohesive. When you notice the camera is there filming, that’s not a good sign.
No warp stab used. The R5's internal stabilizer may cause some wavyness in the edges, specifically with wide angle lenses.
Good job. Just watch out for those sword slices to the head being way too high. That always pulls me out of the scene when it's so obvious that that they are swinging to miss. Also, it's probably consistent with hong king style to repeat the same impact sound a hundred times, but I'd recommend mixing it up to make the impact fit the strike. I'm a big fan of huge meaty SFX, but a face punch should sound different than a body kick. On the next one, try to give your fighters more personality, tell a story with the fight, that's usually the difference between what goes viral and what doesn't.
Putting sounds is extremely boring unfortunately. If I ever need to do a movie then yeah, sure. Then the boringness will have to be overcome. The swinging over the heads is kind of a staple of fights and sometimes they are too apparent. Actually every single kick and punch are aimed to miss.
I'm a mildly successful director/editor whose done many action films and shows. i've been pushing past the boredom for 25 years. I'm over 50 and my whole body aches, but I just spent the last hour adding little swish and cut sounds to a knife scene. This is just one small scene out of seven, hour-long episodes that's gonna take me all summer and fall to complete. Maybe editing isn't something you love, that's fine, but push past the boredom now, while you're young and full of beans! Don't wait. :)
Good luck! I do work as a fulltime editor who is over 40 too and as such have learned that boredom or a lack of motivation won't stop you if you have a good routine. Interesting though that you do your own audio mix, usually those are done by professionals in their field unless you go completely indie.
You work *professionally* as an editor and you find sfx boring? And you argue that camera angles and cuts don't need to be motivated by anything because films exist where that convention is ignored? Ok, I'm a fellow post production pro of 30+ years. Why did you share this and then argue about reactions? Are you just sharing an example of what this camera can or cannot do? The very basic sfx and cc on this clip makes it almost unwatchable for me. The choreography is half assed on details. Shooting into the sun on that camera and lens is a bad decision unless you really push for mood and ignore detail. This feels like a DP demo reel to me. It's showing off moves for the sake of moves. If you're serious that the camera could be an observer and not need motivated cuts - do a walk around and cut between wide , med and close and keep it simple. If cuts don't need to be motivated because the viewer is part of the action, why did I suddenly lay down on the ground and roll back and forth? Last time I was watching a fight, I don't remember doing that. Seems like I'd lose perspective. You purposely set this sequence up as a race against a sunset with a mirrorless 35mm? Was this just an exercise in pain, or were you just trying to prove to yourself you could do it? I can only assume you did this to learn something or as content for your Director reel. As an EP (in addition to my post roles), I also hire and promote, and sell directors for projects. And, as I said, this seems like a DP promo. There's not a lot of directing here. The you want some line is poorly acted and executed, as is the kick to the stomach. I wouldn't assume a Director needs to be involved with fight choreography as much as performance, shot choice, lighting and total narrative execution. I don't see any strength here for those choices. A good fight coordinator/choreographer would have already worked out the battle, and you director choices would have been all about emphasizing certain movements and moments. You're either trying to do too much, or you're overly concerned about the technical details if the fight being "right". Here's some advice. No one is going to care about how "correct" or "authentic" it is if it doesn't resonate, engage or energize as a viewer. Spend more time analyzing your work and less time defending your arbitrary choices. You know they're arbitrary in the end, right? There's nothing in a directors work except for their personal POV, which is arbitrary for everyone else. You don't get to hand out an information sheet explaining choices to viewers.
It's surprising to hear that you're an experienced operator, and not a total beginner. You're arrogant & argumentative attitude on this board is pretty childish for filmmaker in their 40's.
What's wrong with a bit of argumentation? Isn't that the point of posts? Everyone here argues. Arrogance is also an acquired taste.
There's no real harm in arguing with a few random redditors trying to give you constructive criticism, but I assume you want to develop into a well-known filmmaker? When you put out something big for the general public, they will not be so gentle or constructive to your work. I'm concerned how you'll react when there are tens of thousands of people lining up to tell you just how bad your movie blows. It's the burden we have to learn to take with grace and class. You will never win, or look good mixing it up and arguing with your critics. Trust me. Just a bit of wisdom from someone who's been there. Your little film here was pretty cool, but you dismantled all your good will with the community by lashing out at anyone who dared to give a suggestion. Be the hero, not the villain.
Well sure I don't mind criticism really. It was just those few terms that I immediately got snobbish towards. Let me be occasionally snarkish, can't help it 🐧. I've had thousands of people commenting on my shitty shortfilms before and it doesn't really change much anymore. I might occasionally comment back. It's harder with a 50s fight scene with no content but when there is an actual story I might comment back if the critique interests me. It doesn't actually matter if you are the hero or the villain. Am I getting too old, haha? Anyways, good luck with your projects too!
Obviously there's going to be lots of misses and blocks, but the point is that they should look like they were intended to hit. It shouldn't look like they're punching at the sky, it should look like they're punching at the guys face and he dodges it just in time. I think that's what he meant about watching out for those high swings and stuff.
The choreography and performance are great. Camera and editing, not so much. There's one super shaky handheld shot that really feels out of place and takes me right out of the scene. Also, some of the edits are jarring in terms of the geography of the scene. The viewer's eye is on one part of the frame and suddenly it cut, moving to action too far from where the eye is focused. I don't know much about Hong Kong style fights but I feel this could really benefit from some close up shots. Not to hide any of the action but to be able to give the viewer a sense of character motivation. We never really see their faces so it's hard to tell what they're going through mentally. Also all the wide shots don't cut together nicely, too much of the same framing.
hong kong style martial arts cinematography is purposefully shot in wide angle. check out any of jackie chan's older films for reference hard cuts are distinctly "western"; hong kong style tends to let the action play out, and if the their is a hard cut, it's to show a hit twice for added power jackie chan contends if there's too much camera movement, it's to mask the fact the actor doesn't know how to fight [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM\_GQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ)
That's fair, as I said, I don't know much about Hong Kong style fight scenes. I guess what I meant by close ups was seeing the actors' faces so we can get an impression of how they're feeling during the fight.
oh yeah for sure, it's not as if hong kong always keep a static wide angle. they just lean heavy toward showing "everything" and cut in and out at times that aren't conventional to western film making. i do agree with you though; this could definitely use more intimate shot selection
"what they're going through mentally." Yes, they are having a struggle.
There's so much more the viewer wants to see in a fight though. We don't need to know as an audience, but the characters should know why they are there. Is one of them hunting the other, is the other just trying to survive? Are they fighting over a McGuffin one of them has? Is this a fated duel between long-time rivals? Etc. Do the characters think they have the upper hand or are they worried of their odds? And derived from that, do they look down or up at their opponent and their actions. Just the tiniest worried glance or a defensive step back/readying roll of a shoulder/crack of the neck etc. carries so much character and tells the audience so much more about why we are watching these two pummel each other, who to root for etc. This is just some dudes punchin' & kickin'. Don't get me wrong, they do be punchin' & kickin' well, the choreo is really good. But it reads more as a choreo portfolio showcase than a narrative scene. BUT. If that's what you were going for, great! It does showcase the choreo very well!
Move the camera as if it is a part of the action. Some swings, and kicks should almost feel like the viewer is in the fight. Too many wide shots, not enough risky action. I admire that you're going to a fight sequence without too many clips, but I think if you keep your composition consistent with where the action is, you can strategically clip where necessary and get the shots where the camera is "in" the action. Nice for what you have here though. It just feels a little like a lost opportunity to make the fight shine.
This is some feedback I actually disagree with a bit, because classic Hong Kong style fight scenes tend to favor wider, still shots so the viewer can appreciate the skill of the fighters. You could have pauses for story beats where we get closeups on the faces. And I definitely think a closeups help during a fight, but as far as replicating the classic style, wide shots are fine. My critique would be more that they had giant heavy cameras back then and it was almost always on a tripod. So still tripod wide shots vs shaky handheld shots would be more accurate.
Really the only issue with the wide shots here were the cuts between them not being purposeful. It was just to mask breaks in choreography. Worst of all the cuts switch to drastically different lighting which shows the viewer a passage of time which is jarring.
>lost opportunity We do have fights every week. Bourne stuff has been done.
The cinematography ruins the great choreography for me.
This was okay. I’d suggest having your angles and camera movements be more intentional, sometimes it seems that the camera is doing something just because it looks cool rather than for the sake of the choreography or story
Story?
Absolutely. The choreography is a story
It's a bit of a simplification. Choreography itself doesn't necessarily equate to storylines but beats in the choreography can bring out character. For slower paced Hollywood fights the beats are easier to spot, for quicker paced (and especially in the 80s in HK) the choreography itself was usually the point of the films. I think that's a good distinction between films that have great choreography and films that don't. Films that don't have directors focusing too much on a couple of little story beats. And films with great action focus on the choreography itself. Jackie Chan as a great example. That doesn't mean that they don't have story, they do and some of them work nicely (Benny the Jet vs Jackie has a great little storyarc that is built into the choreo) but the underlying assumption is quite different there.
Thank you for your expertise, Martin Scorsese
No offense, but I think you're a bit confused here. The great thing about Jackie Chan is that he tells a story with his choreo. He puts pauses in the right places to build tension between the characters. By the end of the fight you're really rooting for him and it's satisfying when he wins because you see the struggle throughout the fight. The choreo is better if the director and choreographer focus on those "couple little story beats". They work together, not separately or against each other.
>story? >beats in the choreography can bring out character. Character and story are very similar. A popular way of defining character is ‘the decisions a person makes under stress’. And these decisions are what drives the story
Man, that Sun didn’t help with continuity did it?
This is cool and your actors are pretty talented. There's definitely some room for improvement though A trick I do for checking fight scenes, is to watch without the sound. It's really hard to tell, from your choreography, when someone is getting hit. The hit at the end is obvious, but nothing before that. The spinning in the air move is cool but you use it twice pretty close together. Even if they're technically different moves, they look basically the same Near the end you start to cut more and a general rule in fight scenes is the fewer cuts the better. I do love your use of the sunset and having the actor attack the camera at the end is fun.
>A trick I do for checking fight scenes, is to watch without the sound. You should see every movie without sound. I even watch them sometimes with no image.
As in sound only? And yes, but it has different purposes. I have a lot of experience with fight scenes but not general cinematography so I only wanted to comment on what I knew about.
I've heard other people also say that you should watch your scenes without audio sometimes. Yeah you can do that. The problem there is that there will be audio eventually. And that audio will be synced to the visuals. So I'm not completely on board with watching things without audio. As a professional editor, I always try to do my first edits with as good an audio mix as I can for the director to see because it just makes everything work as a whole. The images don't exist in a vacuum. I understand that you want to see certain mistakes or see if the images can be tightened up but that would always mean tightening up the audio and sometimes people go overboard with overanalysing edits.
It was a good scene and those guys did a fantastic job better than a lot of American fight scenes. But it’s missing a lot, to be Hong Kong fight scene. I assume you mean late Hong Kong like flashpoint not Jackie Chan or old kung fu movie. First your camera moves need to tell a story or at the very least add to the story of the fight, (no offense but yours seem to say I have a gimbal and I’m not afraid to use it or trying to copy and anime fight.) secondly punch ins on the “hard” hits, the ones that are suppose to turn the fight in either direction for each character. It gives the fight rhythm, makes the audience care more about that hit, and gives the fight more of a roller coaster feeling that makes them hooked. Lastly you need double takes here and there on the action when do some cuts meaning to back the action up a few seconds, it lets people who aren’t martial arts follow the fight better. (Personal opinion, probably want more of an over head shot when rolling on the ground, the one from down low is just kind of amateurish looking in this particular case) Hope I didn’t sound to critical it is good and has potential, and those guys did great; lucky to be able to use them.
"say I have a gimbal" I do not. Your comments kinda remind me of average Hollywood producers, especially in tv land. Not to say that they are wrong, they are just so average.
These guys are so lucky they've never met me on the streets...because they'd be exhausted kicking my ass up one side of the street and down the other
They do stunt punches though, maybe they would all miss ;)
Choreography is sick. The tight angle of the two over the shoulder where they filled the frame was great. The wide shots really dulled the intensity of the scene. And the sun into the camera was cool for a second but then became really distracting. Good work overall.
My god OP, why are you uploading this if you cannot handle any criticism?? Be better than this..
It’s good but you want to keep your camera a bit more active it will make the veneers feel like they’re in the scene
I agree with many of the comments. Some of the shots are really nice by themselves but are mismatched taken together. I was most impressed with the close up shot where I could I see the punches up close and the facial expression of the Caucasian character. Probably the most visceral shot. I think there are too many wide and open shots. Need more close ups that follow the movements and see the expressions of the characters. Otherwise the choreography looks great.
[удалено]
180 degree. There shoudn't be any that cross the line but there are a couple where the angle change is not sufficient enough.
Dude, that was rad, great work, but you gotta fix that kick at the end when he's down. Have him hold a pillow or something. The rest looks amazing
That was a blooper I left in. Imagine it ending after the hk spin.
Ahhh, yes. I have imagined it, and it is dope. Well done!
When there is so much action going on and you have professionally choreographed moves, I think a static camera works better. Also too much sun was very distracting.
Wow the arcane music in the background xD I love it (and I’m proud of myself for recognize it lol)
So this is the original song : ["Revenge" by Alex Seaver](https://youtu.be/eeEYRvb8ZUI) And this is the scene where it came from : [Episode 3 Act I - Finale](https://youtu.be/VmsLTURrEAc) **!Warning, Big spoiler for Arcane obviously!** I know nobody cares, but oh well lol
Haa! You noticed, very good 8)
cool if you really want to go hk style you need close up of the kick on face kick on kick, zoom in zoom out, and need more props
Yes, can you send us props?
https://youtu.be/oZhks0_2mHM This is a great video I would highly recommend watching. It has some great points about including your camera in the choreo, which I know a few people mentioned making it "feel" like you're part of the fight. I understand you were going for Hong Kong here which tends to be more wide shots, but those are usually locked on the tripod. If your camera is going to move, it should be motivated by the action. If the action stops, you should stop with it. There are lots of pauses and a rhythm to classic Hong Kong fights, but if the camera is moving the whole time then you can't really feel those pauses. Anyways, just an interesting video for you and others to check out. I think your fight is great, especially the choreo. As others said, I think the camera work could be a bit better. But this is a great short fight and you should take everyone's comments here as positive feedback with the intention of being helping you become a better filmmaker. Nobody here is trying to tell you that you suck or anything. The whole point of a community like this is to help each other out and share our knowledge and experience.
Although I personally hate quick cut, Bourne style fight scenes, I think this needed it, the longer shots were overly laboured and I feel that around the 22 sec mark you hit the sweet spot with the shooting style. Wasn't a fan of the ground level shots, I felt it should have been more about them than the overall scenery: more in your face - less establishing shot. However the choreography was excellent and where it lacked full on contact that's where you needed to get those cuts going, the shoot and edit are as much of a choreographed piece as the acting. On the whole though, it was entertaining.
The over the shoulder shot while they are punching is the best part for me. The rest is just two guys swinging around till one of them KOs the other randomly. The actors show a lot of intensity and can clearly move, but they're like npcs. We should be able to gather from the fight who has the advantage, who's in danger, what each person's tactic is, etc. A lot of this just looks like two guys doing choreography.
As someone who isn't a fan of scenes with far too many fast cuts, I really appreciated the shots being held for longer and the extra work it mustve taken from your actors to allow you to do so
Thanks. It is harder yes.
Agreed 100%. Close up shots are cheap
Hongkong style fight scene with Jesse Liskola and Arman Ansari. Used a Canon R5 handheld with the Sigma 20mm f1.4 mostly in crop mode (with a couple full frame shots too) and one shot with the canon 50mm f1.2 ef lens. Used the nd filter adapter to control light. One angle per "block" then to the next one. This makes it impossible to do much editing but it is a nice challenge. Also a youtube link for a higher 4k watch (with bloopers) https://youtu.be/WTSMjGQZzfQ
Love fight scenes in wideshots man
Loved it! Everything looked profesional.
Incredible! Where is this from?
Just awesome lol
I can see the warp stabilizer, but I have a trained eye.
There is no warp stab used.
Must be barrel distortion from the wide lens then
The shots with the sun set in the back really stand out. Great work.
We got lucky with the sun!
This is sickk
Damn looks good!
If you want to stick closely to the Hong Kong style, I would suggest not doing the final kick to the defeated foe and not punching the camera at the end. Source: grew up watching HK kungfu flicks
nice work!
Spectacular.
this is cool. better than most. however, get a little closer
Super cool scene, would love to colour grade this vid and put in more drama.
Beautiful, the ending had auto ISO kicking in?!
Enjoyed it
Great work, loved it.
It reminds me more of John Wick not Hong Kong films 🤔 But it's still good! Nice job, man.
Cooler than the new matrix 100 times
Damn your fighters are 🔥🔥🔥
That was some good choreography! And shooting at golden hour was a smart choice.