Professional techniques in video production

I am curious how many of you follow the basic tenets of fimmaking in your underwater video work. I am currently in the midst of a project that started the "common" way (grab camera, go to site, dive, come back with footage, edit, stream), but I have tried to back the project up to do something a bit different.

I am wondering out in the community, how many of you are doing basic scripts, storyboarding, creating shot lists, etc.

I have seen some gorgeous videos online in the past few months. What I have not seen is a lot of "Filmmaking" though I have seen some. So it got me to thinking about whether people follow the process or not.

If you have a process for how you gather your video, and produce, I'd love to hear it.

Thanks,

-Perrone

Perrone

Scripting and shot lists are easy to do and great to have. But depending on the subject, also unrealistic. Unfortunately while some shots can be blocked, many depending on nature to 'perform' cannot. It's a bit of both, scripting and shooting and editing around what you get, which is really a rewrite of a script.

Good luck with your project.

Yea,

I forget that a lot of folk are taking video of life. But it's not so much "blocking" that I am thinking about as it is shot angles, framing, including divers or not in the shot, etc.

I'd just think in basic storytelling you'd want something like:

Prep before trip

Boat ride

Gear check

Pre-dive brief

Subject matter

Ascent

Surface

Post-Dive

Ride home

I am loving this place. I have seen some AWESOME video from you guys and am getting all kinds of ideas. I just wish I had 1/10 the skill of some of operators!

I'd defy anyone to storyboard, script and then go out and film exactly what they want, unless they have a huge amount of time and the budget to do it. Half the time they don't get exactly what they want, or are pleasantly surprised by what they do get which leads them in a totally new direction from what they originally expected.

Wildlife filmmaking of any kind is never predictable, underwater filming is unpredictable to the extreme.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers, Simon

Awww Simon, Porbeagles don't like to play like in the contract? The nerve! Actually one of the easiest sets are fishtank sets. Then of course you have the manipulators who poke and push the subject to do 'something' other than sit still.

Perrone, of course once you are watching the subject you have a bit more choice of angle but it also depends on how FAST the subject is going and how long it stays within shooting distance.

Also the subjects may never want to perform. I remember I spent a whole day and 6 dives and over 9 hours in the water, following a pair of hairy frogfish hoping they'd mate. The male followed the female all over the place and they'd sit for hours. They never did do the deed while I was around.

A lot of times, people just go to the area with a subject in mind and hope to get lucky with it.

Interesting topic. I do both. I have had great success with treatments and storyboarding prior to shooting. I have also let it roll and what happens, happens. Depending on the subject matter and location, one or the other approach is appropriate.

shawn

I didn't mean that it's not worthwhile putting a storyboard and script together, I just meant that you should be fully prepared to completely rewrite whatever you've prepared from the top down once you actually see what you get!

Chances increase of getting exactly what you want in direct proportion to your knowledge of behaviour, the location and the time and the money you have available, but even then nothing is guaranteed. Drew's example of mating hairy frogfish is the perfect example. He spent a long time in the water and had a chance, but if he'd spent a week or more specifically looking for that one shot then his chances would have increased proportionally. Of course there is always the exception when you get exactly what you're looking for within minutes, but it's never happened to me!

This thread has made me think a lot actually. On a trip away to some fantastic diving location I've definitely had the tendency to cram in as much as I possibly could see and film, to the detriment of concentrating on the intricacies of in depth footage of behaviour. When I'm editing I've often looked back and thought, 'dam I wish I'd spent more time with that subject' or 'that shot would have been better from a slightly different angle'. But then that particular subject may not have ever been in the script anyway.

Perrone from you last post you're sort of indicating that your shot list would be based around resort diving DVD's? Perhaps the resort and liveaboard heavyweights on here could jump in with their comments on this, although I bet by now they probably don't even think about what they are doing!

Cheers, Simon

It's funny I did exactly that when I went to Cocos a couple of years ago... I just shot and shot. I came back with so much footage which is great but it was really hard to try and edit it together into something. And even then I still had shots that I hadn't taken.

I think that you definately need to have a plan, if you have a shot list then that is great but obviously you will have to modify it if conditions / species are uncooperative.

The other factor is that if you have never been to a location then you do not fully know what to expect so it can be hard to plan a shoot.

All part of the adventure though...

Great topic!

I'd certainly agree that wildlife filming has its unpredictable aspects, and that one can never know exactly what will happen. And if most of your movie-making is simply to record your vacations for fun, then only a minimum of planning might be warranted.

If you aspire to creating movies for some other purpose, a considerable amount of pre-production work can be rewarding. What are you setting out to do? If it's more than just having a good time, examine your goals carefully and what steps you need to get there.

As SimonSpear points out, time and money are issues. But you don't have to be limited by how much time and money you have. Think instead of how to accomplish your goals -- if you don't have enough money to make your movie, how can you get the $$? Who else would want that movie to be made? What's it worth to them? If you don't have the time for research and visiting the same spot over and over, how can you make the time? Who might want to help you get done what needs to be done?

You can spend 9 hours in the water "hoping" to catch fish mating, then feel defeated that you didn't succeed. Or you can spend 9 hours researching the fish's behavior and learn that your "watch window" is a certain size and organize a bunch of divers to be in the water with cameras all throughout that window. Just depends on how important it is to you. If you have a story inside of you that just needs to be turned into a movie, you can move heaven and earth to do so. And if you're going to be maxing out your credit cards and taking out a 2nd mortgage on your house, a lot of pre-production, including a business plan, is highly recommended! I also recommend making some allies you can trust!

Of course, you need to factor in the fact that you're filming wildlife -- you can create a story, a script, a storyboard and all that, as long as you do it with the understanding that there is more than one way to portray things. If you can't get the shot you want, your story doesn't have to go into the crapper, just figure out another way to say the same thing on film.

FWIW, personally I'd rather see more visual stories about the amazing things going on underwater and fewer "this was my really cool dive" videos.

I'm glad to see my topic has spawned such good conversation. However it's taken a turn I should have expected.

Many of you (if not all) seem to be filming wildlife. When I posted, I had not really intended that to the sole, or primary focus. I am a cave/wreck diver, so my subjects don't move perceptibly during the course of filming. In these environments, it's very much like having a set. I can alter angles, I can determine focal lengths, etc.

However, even those of you who are filming nature, I would have to assume have SOME idea of what you'd like to shoot underwater. Just in terms of selecting a location to dive, you have some idea of what you might encouter barring any special surprises. You know whether an area is known for shark populations, or nudibranchs, or seals, or whatever the subject might be. Given that, I would think there would be some focus on either showing the habitat of the animal, it's behavior to certain stimuli, etc.

Anyway, fascinating discussion thus far. Can't wait to see how it develops.

Perrone

I think this discussion has covered the basics in underwater shooting. As you have noticed, it's all about time spent and to some degree, luck. All the research and planning in the world doesn't mean something planned will happen, and requires the flexibility to change should it not happen.

The best example I can give you is something like the Blue Planet. The Beeb spent 2 years straight in South Africa trying to catch sardine baitball action. The time they spent there, they had bad action, bad viz, bad weather and generally bad luck in the underwater department. They ended up buying much of the underwater sequences. If there weren't any underwater sequences around, I'm sure they'd have presented it with topside stuff.

Or planet earth where several sequences were basically cut and ad-libbed due to the planned behavior or animal doing a no-show. You could see that in the editing of the episodes.

With caves/wrecks, you have decent control of lighting and camera angles. Shot planning is much easier. The problems you mostly face are location dependent (logistics, weather etc).

From what you see on the podcasts of Divefilm, there are quite a few people who write a script and make a story.

Anyone who's been on location shoots can tell you it's a mixed bag of planning, skill and a lot of luck. Then blending the shots together in the editing takes more time and skill to get the finished product.

The 45 day underwater shoot that I just came back from had it's script changed many times while shooting.

You can still start of with a main story line but it will always get changed along the way.

Underwater it's more about luck & time. The more time/budget the better chance/luck you have of getting what you want. We did 33 dives at one spot and got the shot we wanted on the very last dive...

With caves/wrecks, you have decent control of lighting and camera angles. Shot planning is much easier. The problems you mostly face are location dependent (logistics, weather etc).

It depends on the type of wreck diving you do. If you're doing deep virgin wrecks, there is not a lot you can plan shot wise. But the safety planning makes up for that.

It depends on the type of wreck diving you do. If you're doing deep virgin wrecks, there is not a lot you can plan shot wise. But the safety planning makes up for that.

Even if the wrecks are NOT virgin, I would hope that safety planning is still paramount. Getting the shot is one thing. Coming home is quite another!

But that said, For wrecks in recreational range, or just into technical range, I would hope that with 2-3 scout dives you could come up with a game plan for most things. Particularly exterior shots.

I'd think after you do your scout dives, you'd do a dive or two to get master shots with no divers, scenics, some close ups of certain features, etc. Maybe on subsequent dives you can film diver entry from above, diver entry from below, decompression from multiple angles, etc. And devote some time to showing divers swimming on the wreck from various angles. This is where that idea of a shot list comes to mind.

It's certainly interesting in that you can do in the water, what you'd need some major gear to do on a set. Crane shots are expensive out of the water. 180 degree shots require rails and dollies. Steadicam work is expensive. Underwater, you can work in three dimensions without all the gear.

To me, the harder shots are the midwater wide shots. I'd want a scooter or some other large base to work from to get these done cleanly. Handholding a sweeping vista while keeping a perfect horizon is a shot that is well beyond my current talent!

-P

Even if the wrecks are NOT virgin, I would hope that safety planning is still paramount. Getting the shot is one thing. Coming home is quite another!

 

But that said, For wrecks in recreational range, or just into technical range, I would hope that with 2-3 scout dives you could come up with a game plan for most things. Particularly exterior shots.

 

I'd think after you do your scout dives, you'd do a dive or two to get master shots with no divers, scenics, some close ups of certain features, etc. Maybe on subsequent dives you can film diver entry from above, diver entry from below, decompression from multiple angles, etc. And devote some time to showing divers swimming on the wreck from various angles. This is where that idea of a shot list comes to mind.

 

It's certainly interesting in that you can do in the water, what you'd need some major gear to do on a set. Crane shots are expensive out of the water. 180 degree shots require rails and dollies. Steadicam work is expensive. Underwater, you can work in three dimensions without all the gear.

 

To me, the harder shots are the midwater wide shots. I'd want a scooter or some other large base to work from to get these done cleanly. Handholding a sweeping vista while keeping a perfect horizon is a shot that is well beyond my current talent!

 

-P

Deep wrecks certainly create their challenges. It's interesting that you mention a scooter. I had the oportunity to play with some scooters on our last trip in Egypt. I always considered them toys. Now I consider them a "must have" for deep filming. You can cover more distance in a shorter time. Having the camera mounted on top of the scooter makes it even more interesting. It gives you the option to create more dynamic (faster) travelling shots and fly-by shots.

We didn't have a camera plate on the scooters so I couldn't try it out, but finding a suitable mounting solution on the X-scooter will be my next "project". I considered the built-in version (CSI version) but the video quality of that setup is not good enough.

I've always used a "mental" shot list of filming a wreck but have never bothered to write it down. I will probably start doing that.

Peter

Deep wrecks certainly create their challenges. It's interesting that you mention a scooter. I had the oportunity to play with some scooters on our last trip in Egypt. I always considered them toys. Now I consider them a "must have" for deep filming. You can cover more distance in a shorter time. Having the camera mounted on top of the scooter makes it even more interesting. It gives you the option to create more dynamic (faster) travelling shots and fly-by shots.

 

We didn't have a camera plate on the scooters so I couldn't try it out, but finding a suitable mounting solution on the X-scooter will be my next "project". I considered the built-in version (CSI version) but the video quality of that setup is not good enough.

 

I've always used a "mental" shot list of filming a wreck but have never bothered to write it down. I will probably start doing that.

 

Peter

Scooters are an amazing tool. The perspective they give of a subject is much like what the eye would see. It's the "Steadicam of the sea". It has such mass, that it canoperate as a stable platform. I have used the X-Scooter, but not for video. I'd love to do that.

The question for me of the shot list is how else do you know when you're "done"? If you set out to film the behavior of a certain marine mammal, you observe it in many ways. If you set out to shoot a wreck or a "site", clearly you want to show certain things about it, figure out how to "say" what you want to say, then edit it and finish it. But onsite, how do you know you've got what you need if you haven't thought through what you need?

I guess some people can see a finished movie in their head. I am certainly not good enough to do that!