Mirror Effect: How can I film a similar scene?

givemefood

givemefood

Well-known member
It's good to be back on the dvxuser forum. This is where I learned everything about indie filmmaking.

Now, the question. Please check out this video (from 0:20 to 0:30): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ6gk1xWl78

My scene: The action is different... and instead of starting from the mirror, my scene will start from the sink, pan over to the mirror, and then back to the sink. While showing the sink, I'll want to show the actor's hands.

How can I film this...? Can someone break it down for me please?

Thanks in advance for your time and help.
 
Did you watch the rest of the video? It is a pretty clever way to do that straight on shot.

The trick is the compositing in editing, and getting the bottom of your top clip in the right location over the bottom clip as you transition between the two.

Shoot the character's point of view of them washing their hands. Pan up to the mirror and shoot yourself, the camera, and your actor who is bent over, washing their hands with you shooting over top of them, then pan back down to the hand washing. This is your bottom clip on the timeline.

Next, put the back of the camera against the mirror shooting towards the actor who is washing their hands. Have it pointed down towards the sink. You will NOT use this footage for the hand washing shot. That shot will be from the first clip you shot. You start with the camera pointing at the hand washing so that you have continuity when you pan upward towards the actor's face; them "looking at themselves in the mirror." You pan your camera upward as they raise their head upward. You stop when they stop, at eye level as they will be looking right at themselves. Then, when your actor looks back down you pan down with them. Doing both of the pans would be best done with a 3 count so that you both move at the same time. Practice a few times so that you two match your speeds to be the same.

That's the shooting.

Now you edit.

Your first clip is the bottom one. You see the hands washing in the sink. Drop your second clip above that one on the timeline.

When your camera pans upward for the POV into the mirror you need to slide the second shot into the frame from top to bottom, and it needs to match the speed that your actor is raising their head in the second shot, as well as match a "seam" between the two. In the example you gave the seam is the bottom of the mirror. This is a good point. Now your frame is taken up by the second shot on the top timeline. Then when your actor looks back down, and the camera pans back down, you need to slide that clip up and out of the shot as the camera pans back to the hands in the first clip on the bottom timeline, making sure to maintain that "seam" between the two. That is how you hide the fact that you used 2 clips.


I have never done this but I will now. I comprehend the explanation in the clip you provided. You may want to do a test first to get the bugs worked out of it since you've never done it before. That's what I would do.

I hope that helps.



Steve
 
Last edited:
Northcoast Studios said:
Did you watch the rest of the video? It is a pretty clever way to do that straight on shot.

The trick is the compositing in editing, and getting the bottom of your top clip in the right location over the bottom clip as you transition between the two.

Shoot the character's point of view of them washing their hands. Pan up to the mirror and shoot yourself, the camera, and your actor who is bent over, washing their hands with you shooting over top of them, then pan back down to the hand washing. This is your bottom clip on the timeline.

Next, put the back of the camera against the mirror shooting towards the actor who is washing their hands. Have it pointed down towards the sink. You will NOT use this footage for the hand washing shot. That shot will be from the first clip you shot. You start with the camera pointing at the hand washing so that you have continuity when you pan upward towards the actor's face; them "looking at themselves in the mirror." You pan your camera upward as they raise their head upward. You stop when they stop, at eye level as they will be looking right at themselves. Then, when your actor looks back down you pan down with them. Doing both of the pans would be best done with a 3 count so that you both move at the same time. Practice a few times so that you two match your speeds to be the same.

That's the shooting.

Now you edit.

Your first clip is the bottom one. You see the hands washing in the sink. Drop your second clip above that one on the timeline.

When your camera pans upward for the POV into the mirror you need to slide the second shot into the frame from top to bottom, and it needs to match the speed that your actor is raising their head in the second shot, as well as match a "seam" between the two. In the example you gave the seam is the bottom of the mirror. This is a good point. Now your frame is taken up by the second shot on the top timeline. Then when your actor looks back down, and the camera pans back down, you need to slide that clip up and out of the shot as the camera pans back to the hands in the first clip on the bottom timeline, making sure to maintain that "seam" between the two. That is how you hide the fact that you used 2 clips.


I have never done this but I will now. I comprehend the explanation in the clip you provided. You may want to do a test first to get the bugs worked out of it since you've never done it before. That's what I would do.

I hope that helps.



Steve
Click to expand...


Thank you. That's a detailed breakdown of how-to. I'll have to prototype it prior to the shoot.
 
Steve: if I understood you correctly, you are suggesting that the mirror element (your second, or top clip) include a tilt up on the actor. I would not recommend this as it will be very hard to match to the background POV plate (your first, or bottom clip). The mirror element should be done as a lockoff, and when it is comped into the mirror it should be tracked to match the movement of the mirror (i.e. lock the bottom of the mirror in the background plate to the bottom of the frame of the mirror element, and track it from there--if you will be tilting up past the bottom of the mirror, you should add some tracking marks onto the mirror to keep a continuous reference). Just make sure when shooting the mirror element that you are wide enough to include everything that you see in the background plate, although you may have to blow up the mirror element to re-size it to the reference image in the background plate.

The point here is that since the shot includes a tilt up and then down, attempting to match that move in the mirror element would have to exactly replicate the speed and timing of the background plate which is all but impossible without motion control. It's the second tilt that predicates that. Tracking it in post means you can make it frame-accurate.

Lastly--hate to be pedantic here but both of you guys are using "pan" when you mean "tilt". It's a common mistake but it can lead to confusion--particularly in the OP's description of "pan over" to the sink, which absolutely refers to a lateral move, not a vertical one.
 
Charles, thanks for the "tilt" correction. It didn't feel right as I was typing it. I had a very busy day.

I was explaining a way to do that with the type of mirror that was in the video clip that was used for reference. It is a public restroom location with big counter top and huge mirror.

What you are describing is more of a home bathroom location. I agree with you completely in that situation. That is an entirely more complex situation in order to have a background of the wall and medicine cabinet with mirror in the POV.

I hope that clears things up.


Steve
 
Got it, Steve! If I get what you are saying, once the camera tilts up it is entirely within the mirror, so you can make a cut in the middle of the plate and time the two halves to the mirror element. So you only have to match the speed of the tilts, which if it's fast has some room for error. Absolutely true and thank you for the clarification. I hadn't noticed that you couldnt see off the sides of the mirror in the reference shot.

No worries on the "pan/tilt" thing! It's a near-losing battle to remain diligent about it, but we must try! Years ago I was operating on a TV series l, we were shooting a restaurant scene. In one setup I brought the waiter up to the table, as he approached I let the shot grow into a tight shot of he dish he was carrying. The director called out from the monitor "pan to his face"! I knew the main character was seated just adjacent to the dish, so I dutifully panned over to him. "No. No. Cut"! In he strode. "Not his face--the waiter's face"! I met his gaze and traced the camera's path with my finger. "Pan to HIS face...tilt to the WAITER'S face...just following orders, sir". He looked around at the now-grinning camera crew and stalked out. I got a few high fives from that. Not a beloved chap.
 
CharlesPapert said:
No worries on the "pan/tilt" thing! It's a near-losing battle to remain diligent about it, but we must try! Years ago I was operating on a TV series l, we were shooting a restaurant scene. In one setup I brought the waiter up to the table, as he approached I let the shot grow into a tight shot of he dish he was carrying. The director called out from the monitor "pan to his face"! I knew the main character was seated just adjacent to the dish, so I dutifully panned over to him. "No. No. Cut"! In he strode. "Not his face--the waiter's face"! I met his gaze and traced the camera's path with my finger. "Pan to HIS face...tilt to the WAITER'S face...just following orders, sir". He looked around at the now-grinning camera crew and stalked out. I got a few high fives from that. Not a beloved chap.
Click to expand...

It's amazing the people in our business that don't know some of the basic terms. I don't know how many times I've heard "pan down" or "pan up" from producers and directors. The directors are the ones that really get me, because they should really know. I wanted to do something similar to what you did so many times with a director we had on a show I shot for, but I didn't have the balls, because we were always LIVE and I did know what he meant. The bad thing though, when you hear it SO much, you actually catch yourself almost saying it out loud sometimes.
 
CharlesPapert said:
Got it, Steve! If I get what you are saying, once the camera tilts up it is entirely within the mirror, so you can make a cut in the middle of the plate and time the two halves to the mirror element. So you only have to match the speed of the tilts, which if it's fast has some room for error. Absolutely true and thank you for the clarification. I hadn't noticed that you couldnt see off the sides of the mirror in the reference shot.

No worries on the "pan/tilt" thing! It's a near-losing battle to remain diligent about it, but we must try! Years ago I was operating on a TV series l, we were shooting a restaurant scene. In one setup I brought the waiter up to the table, as he approached I let the shot grow into a tight shot of he dish he was carrying. The director called out from the monitor "pan to his face"! I knew the main character was seated just adjacent to the dish, so I dutifully panned over to him. "No. No. Cut"! In he strode. "Not his face--the waiter's face"! I met his gaze and traced the camera's path with my finger. "Pan to HIS face...tilt to the WAITER'S face...just following orders, sir". He looked around at the now-grinning camera crew and stalked out. I got a few high fives from that. Not a beloved chap.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's exactly it.


Yeah, like I said, I had a real busy day, and when "pan" was used by the OP my head just went with it.

I like your story about the Director. I am a bit of a grammar nazi myself, so I appreciate holding someone to correctness.


One time while directing a shoot I intentionally gave bad direction. I wanted to see how the actress was going to deal with it, and I figured we could all have fun with it. It was a scene where a man and wife were in bed, late at night. She was sleeping on his chest and he was awake on his back, listening to the noises in the house. I told her to "sleep harder." Her reaction was priceless. She had no idea what I wanted from her and tried to make sense of it. She thought maybe she should snore. LOL, we all had a good laugh after I told her I was just messing with her. That was a long day of shooting and we all needed a laugh.



Steve
 
Well "Pan UP" has the attribute of being clear what is wanted. And, some people consider "tilt" to be an angle rather than a movement.

But since the meaning of words keep changing on me, I'm 73, I sometimes get upset too. Sometimes the only way I can figure out what younger folks mean is to look it up on the internet. Also, sometimes the right word escapes for the moment. Sigh!

GRIN! Sometimes I use sometimes too much...
 
graywolf said:
Well "Pan UP" has the attribute of being clear what is wanted. And, some people consider "tilt" to be an angle rather than a movement.
Click to expand...

There are terms that are subject to intepretation, sure. And there are instances where multiple terms are used to describe an axis of camera movement, such as a lateral movement can be called dolly, truck, crab, or slide; or a vertical one boom, ped, crane. Even in the axial movements, a Z axis rotation may be called a roll, yaw or dutch. However, when it comes to the other two axial movements, a pan is always left to right and a tilt is always up and down. I can't think of a single other term to sub for these (anyone?). It's inscribed right there on the head: pan lock, tilt lock. Why mess with this?! (yes, tilt is both a noun and verb--but neither supercedes the other).

I try VERY hard to be specific with terminology when directing my crew. The times that miscommunication happens is because the wrong term was used, or I wasn't specific enough. I learned long ago to take the time to clarify when I sense a possible misinterpretation. A big one for me was when I was DP and Steadicam operator on a party scene many years ago. The director and I walked through the location as he described that we were to follow the main character through the house, then emerge onto the patio to reveal the party. I set out to light the interior which took some time, making sure that every light was hidden properly before I put the Steadicam on for the first rehearsal. Director called action, I tracked the actor from behind along the path we had walked. Director yelled cut and came up to me, puzzled: why are we shooting him from behind? I said, because we are following him, as discussed. He said, no, I wanted you to follow him from the front! And he put his hands out in front of the actor to represent the camera (if only he had done so during the walkthrough!). Of course I had to re-light the house since it was a 180 degree turnaround, and much time was lost. From that point on in my career, I was always careful when such a shot was discussed to ask "follow, or precede"?

Follow from the front. Can you imagine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top