I'm just starting out and I find myself often having to pick between two of the best takes for a lot of takes. Usually the best acted one is near the beginning. But it's not shot as well, cause the actors often improve a little and their faces go off camera. The camera operator, is therefore late in following them as they move. Then there is the other best take of the same shot. This take is not as well acted but the camera stays on the actor, since we discussed after the improve what to do. But we still couldn't get it as well acted. So that's the choice I find myself having to make often. What would you guys often choose? So far I'm more confident choosing the better acted ones, even though the cam was a little off.

Have your blocking staged out, and your composition set up beforehand and you will not have to deal with this problem :P

'believable' vs. 'beautiful'

That's the question.
And your decision to make.

Or edit it both ways to see what works best :P

Yeah I can always edit both ways. Sometimes I like to do a whole scene in real time from all one angle without any editing to different angles or takes though. Those scenes are the more pickier ones in this case.

There's no reason you can't get well acted, well shot takes, if you can already get one or the other.

This is what blocking is all about - getting the director, DP, boom-op and actors all cognizant of the frame, placing marks, and practicing any camera movements.

If it is not BAD acting, use the take that works/looks best out of the two.

If it's clip with bad acting, not even Jesus' appearance in it can save it.

A lot of my actors best performances ended up on the cutting room floor because it didn't work with the rest of the film. Don't be afraid to cut and use what feels best for the film.

Rehearse blocking.

I can't wait to see this movie. :)

Go with the best balance...if you need to choose between the two, go with the well-acted one. If the acting is super-bad...try to fix it with ADR. :) Typically a last resort. Ha ha!

As mentioned above...set up your shots and rehearse blocking and camera until you can nail it...then have the actors rehearse a few times while acting (you can shoot these if you want)...then shoot it fo rizzle. If for some reason your focus pulling is muddy a lot (a wave sweeping our nation), get a new puller or hire amazingly patience cast and crew. :) Nothing is worse than take after take of emotionally charged scenes because camera can't hit it right...

My personal preference would be to select the best performance, but only if the shot flaws are slight. Try to evaluate the degree of the performance on a scale (like 1 to 10) and the severity of the shot flaw (1 to 10) and do some math to figure out which shot should win out. Then be prepared to throw that away and go with your gut.

audio form the good takes and visuals from the good shots? Make them match through creative editing.

audio form the good takes and visuals from the good shots? Make them match through creative editing.
Good idea it is worth a try with some great editing you could make it work.

audio form the good takes and visuals from the good shots? Make them match through creative editing.

I've actually done this! In Adam Funn I have a shot where the first half of a line is from one take, the second half of the line from another take, and the video from a third. Our actor's performance was consistent enough that it fit together perfectly.

Currently exporting my second episode of my tutorials on audio post pro work... deals with editing dialog and pacing/ restructuring which I'll post as soon as it's up on the 'tube... specifically germane to this conversation about rearranging what you've shot to get a stronger product at the end.

audio form the good takes and visuals from the good shots? Make them match through creative editing.

I've actually done this! In Adam Funn I have a shot where the first half of a line is from one take, the second half of the line from another take, and the video from a third. Our actor's performance was consistent enough that it fit together perfectly.

I just saw the documentary, The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing. Listening to the Hollywood professionals in that film talk about, it's par for the course to mix and match a bit from an actor's performance here and a bit from his or her perfomance there and to construct from those bits the best performance for the film. One interviewee even muses that it's typical for actors to not realize what's been done in the editing room and to imagine that it's some very fine, unaltered performance/take that they delivered but that they do not recall delivering. But there was no magic take in which all the elements came together just right. The magic take was constructed from bits of multiple takes by the editors. :)

The magic take was constructed from bits of multiple takes by the editors. :)

Yes, siree!

Sometimes with a great editing sequence, actors stare at the screen and don't recall that particular performance.

Remember, you can't make this magic if you don't take multiple takes, or better yet, move the camera often between takes.

That's true, but in order to do that I will have to cut to something else in between takes. Sometimes it's bad to cut to something else and it doesn't fit the moment of the scene if you do. I was referring to situations more like that I guess, where cutting to a different thing, will not make the moment work right.

Just added the dialog editing and pacing episode to this thread: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=35911

It shows how I go about editing a dialog scene tegether... and covers some topics that are being specifically asked about here (and other threads -- I'll just post in the one, but know that the techniques are the same for the last 3 or 4 threads) by H44.

...

Remember, you can't make this magic if you don't take multiple takes, or better yet, move the camera often between takes.

Or if you're crazy good you move it during takes. I love watching a comfortable DP work...they just go there even mid-take. Move the entire rig, sticks and all. You have to get used to it...it's slightly jarring at first as an actor. I think DP/Director combos are best at this...they have the ultimate freedom.

If it's at all an option, I would think re-shooting would be the best solution.

Tricks and work-arounds are great but in my experience NOTHING will ever come close to getting it right in the first place. (or in the case of re-shoots, in the second place.)

I can't reshoot it cause the location looks different, and too Christmas-ish now, but if I can find a different location then sure. The thing is is that I want to do the whole take in one shot and that's hard. Would it be possible to do it in two takes and make it look like one? Cause the area of the location I screwed up on still is not Christmas-ish, and if I can make two takes look like one in real time, then that's definitely do-able and can do it this week even. I might be able to if I put the data back onto the datacard, put in the camera, and try to match up the footage exactly with the position of the camera. It's a scene like in Halloween where the camera moves throughout a house, with no actors on screen most of the time. So I'll cut it on a second with no actors and try to match it up and make it look like all one take.

Don't know.. I know it CAN be done, but I don't think it's something that can be done cheaply or easily.

If it were me,
I'd either find a way to do a reshoot now,
Do a reshoot in a few months,
change the scene and reshoot, or
give up on the single shot idea, shoot some coverage, and make it work.

But that's what it's all about right? Weighing the things you'd like to have against the things you NEED to have. Good luck, at any rate. :)

Out of curiosity - is this the cop conspiracy film you were talking about several months ago?
(I haven't been around and I may be remembering wrong, but I'm fairly sure it was you talking about it..)

No this is just an experimental short film. The cop conspiracy is a feature I wrote. I will have to wait till after Christmas to reshoot cause every location I've asked to borrow is filled with Christmas decor, that the owners don't want me to remove. If only the person behind the camera told me that the actor was out of frame too much in all the shots. All they had to do was say it, instead of doing a bunch of takes for the day, with it happening in each, and not saying anything.

Or if you're crazy good you move it during takes. I love watching a comfortable DP work...they just go there even mid-take. Move the entire rig, sticks and all. You have to get used to it...it's slightly jarring at first as an actor. I think DP/Director combos are best at this...they have the ultimate freedom.

LOL! I've done this A LOT! Yes, jarring for the actors, but the payoff is fantastic. This is where low budget filmmakers can shine.

I can't say I agree. For me, I really want all camera movement to be planned and rehearsed. I suppose it would be different if we were doing straight improv, but for scripted stuff I want to know what my camera is going to do, and I want my actors (and boom-op) to know what my camera is going to do.

You're right I'll redo what I can. And for one scene, which would be very hard to redo, I can just use a take where the camera is in the right place, if the performance is good enough. I'll intercut and see.

I know that you want this to be the best that you can get it, but you have to write this one off as a learning experience. Don't belabor it; finish it off as best you can and move on to the next project. Remember about 1,500 posts ago when we told you your first couple of projects would suck? The most important thing is to remember all those lessons learned.

I know that you want this to be the best that you can get it, but you have to write this one off as a learning experience. Don't belabor it; finish it off as best you can and move on to the next project. Remember about 1,500 posts ago when we told you your first couple of projects would suck? The most important thing is to remember all those lessons learned.

Words of wisdom to live by.

I'm actually rather proud of my first short, and I had a heck of a lot of fun making it. But I'd be rather embarrassed if I were still making movies of the same quality (or lack thereof). It's a learning experience, and something to grow on.

I'm pretty sure Jimi Hendrix didn't melt people's faces off with crazy-awesome guitar licks, the very first time he picked up a guitar. It takes practice. Lots of it. Same is true of filmmaking.

I'm pretty sure Jimi Hendrix didn't melt people's faces off with crazy-awesome guitar licks, the very first time he picked up a guitar. It takes practice. Lots of it. Same is true of filmmaking.

Jimi Hendrix and the Lost Guitar of the Covenant? Indiana Jimi perhaps? 'scuse me while I kill this guy....

Okay, I'm done now.

Yeah it's not like I want to redo the whole thing. There are a dozen things I would do different. There are more scenes in the script with the same problem where the person behind the camera could not follow the actor. However in this one I feel I can re-shoot it no problem, and it won't take much. The rest I accept the losses.

Awesome! Can't wait to see the results :)

If I had to choose between best camera take and acting take, I'd choose actors if the camera wasn't too bad. You might be able to save it in editing though and make a great take overall. I'd try everything if I had the time definitely

You might be able to save it in editing though

This is true. A superb performance on a flawed take often can be saved in post.

True, there are some takes where I think I can do that. There is one scene I want all shot in one take which I think I will try to fix once I get the location back. But I'll tell the friend behind the camera exactly when to move it and what signs the actor can give to indicate when.

Do yo filmmakers often feel it's best to choose by the actors performance in a take, if the quality of that take isn't as good? If it's a little of out of focus and needs to be sharpened, or if the shot is just too far away and has to be zoomed in, but thereby loosing some resolution, or if the audio is somewhat distorted but the line was delivered much better than any other takes. There is focus sharpening and ADR of course, but you still have to choose between the two. What's best for the audiences and critics who will look at your work and want to get absorbed in the story?

There are so many variables to the question, I have experienced what you just wrote hundreds if not in thousands of takes from different movies of mine. And it so happened to be almost 50/50 each time where I almost couldnt choose, great adting, but bad camera, and vise versa.

The only way I decided is I ran a risk factor in my head. Which was, will the audience be more distracted by the acting or the camera, then I choose.

Lots of this decision will have to come from the mind of the editor, if you, then its up to you.

I hope this helped

I was apprentice editor for a pro way back in the day (1987) who had a mantra, which I adopted: "performance dictates the cut".

Having said that, you don't want to take the audience out of the movie because of some egregiously shoddy camera work. I will very often take an actor's line delivery out of one take and try to sync all or part of it with a take that looks better.

As an editor, you will be amazed at what you can get away with.

True but there are times when the audio does not match. Even if you sync it up syllable by syllable, the actor's facial acting, does not match his or her tone of the line at all. Those instances are tough.

Out of focus is an automatic cut, but save the dialogue track. Use cutaways if no other take works.

Okay thanks but in the action shots, the camera goes out of focus in some, where I have no extra coverage of. I will have to use one of them. I could sharpen it, but does that mean I have to sharpen the whole movie just to match?

Okay thanks but in the action shots, the camera goes out of focus in some, where I have no extra coverage of. I will have to use one of them. I could sharpen it, but does that mean I have to sharpen the whole movie just to match?

Without seeing the clips we can't make that call. But with all the editing tools available to you, you should be able to edit together some kind of illusion of a fight with that out-of-focus clip gone . . . you're not trying to fool yourself, only others. How about a quick freeze frame or two to skim a few seconds off the action. Be creative. Turn your mistake into something new and bold!

Good luck.

yea it would be so great if we could see some footage

You mean just freeze the frame, like in The Matrix or something? I am editing it the best I can but it's hard to get the characters from here to there, without it feeling like it skipped ahead, since their positions move so much in between possible angle switches. I will go through it and post what's out of focus after some more editing. I can make the actors look like they haven't moved so far, and maintain continuity in some shots, with some rotoscoping maybe. I will try once I figure out how to do it better.

Harmonica. You have already made this exact same thread.

Next time, remember to shoot your master wide, also known as a safety shot, first. Get it in the can so that when all of your other shots don't work, you at least have it.

Also, you should have a lot of cutaways. In a fist fight in a small space, I'd probably shoot their feet go through frame, some abstract shadow movement on a wall, find something cool on the wall or dresser, shake the dresser so it looks like impact, maybe even the outside of the house. Those are ideas I'd plan for, then on set I'm sure a lot of other stuff would pop up. Now you have some random insert shots if needed.

Threads merged.

I tried exporting some footage and uploading as an example but have had some format problems in the process which I'm figuring out. Okay basically for one example there is a shot out of focus, during the best performance at that part of the scene. In order to get the focus back I turned up the sharpness almost all the way, till it was good enough. Then next shot comes of the other person talking, then it goes back to the other guy, all of sudden in perfect focus. Will this change from artificial sharpness, to natural sharpness, be distracting to audiences?

Yikes. Probably? But what's more distracting, and how much better is the out of focus take than what you're cutting? Again, impossible to answer without seeing it.

I've never had success sharpening an out of focus image. I've gotten a few stills marginally better, but not what I'd consider passable. I'm interested to see your "artificially sharp" footage and how it holds up.

Okay here's the out of focus shot, sharpened. Thanks.

http://youtu.be/SrOLepihQh4

It looks fine.

Really, I thought it looked bad blown up. But maybe I'm just too picky. What about having to crop? There are at least two images where I have to crop, but what size TV or projector do I need to get an idea, of how much cropping you can do before it makes too big of a difference? If I zoom in one third of the way at least, and crop it looks exactly the same and can't tell the difference, in quality, but maybe it's just my computer.

I'm just starting out and I find myself often having to pick between two of the best takes for a lot of takes. Usually the best acted one is near the beginning. But it's not shot as well, cause the actors often improve a little and their faces go off camera. The camera operator, is therefore late in following them as they move. Then there is the other best take of the same shot. This take is not as well acted but the camera stays on the actor, since we discussed after the improve what to do. But we still couldn't get it as well acted. So that's the choice I find myself having to make often. What would you guys often choose? So far I'm more confident choosing the better acted ones, even though the cam was a little off.

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news (yeah I know everyone's saying WHAT?) But, chances are if your actors are getting worse as the takes go on, then they probably aren't as good as you think they are.

Actors should improve with each take. Actors getting worse is 180 degrees of the norm. With good actors it's usually 4 - 5 takes before the ball starts rolling. Since you shoot the wide shot first, by the time you get to medium and CUs they should be God Like. With great actors (like this past Sunday) They were spot on by the 3rd take.

Maybe. A lot of times the takes are good on the last couple for sure as well. Okay a while ago, I mentioned how my footage looks somewhat fuzzy after I export it out of Premiere Pro. It still looks that way, regardless of if it's zoomed in or not, or if the shots are in focus or not. It all comes out fuzzy. Is this normal, or what I am doing wrong on the exporting/importing? On the plus side, the footage isn't near as dark when it comes out. Basically the footage always comes out brighter, but with very little tiny lines going across the screen, than when compared to going in. And if I edit a scene, export it, than re-import it, the lines seem to have doubled, but that's only with one scene so far. What's going on?

That lines story sounds weird: I have no clue.
How can we say what you are doing wrong, when you obviously don't know what you are doing? :P

Well GuerillaAngel said that that one shot looked fine. I dunno, maybe it's normal for Canon T2i footage, to look about as low quality as VHS tape blown up, even though it's 1080p.

Well, a first step to solve the fuzzy&linesproblem would be to quote your export settings.
Maybe it's the compression you use or some other setting that changes the imagequality.

(I was talking about your story about lines appearing in your exported footage, not about the Youtube-link you posted. About that video: you can tell the focus is on the window, but you can get away it. Just because you are just starting, otherwise it would be a mortal sin ;). )

Well GuerillaAngel said that that one shot looked fine. I dunno, maybe it's normal for Canon T2i footage, to look about as low quality as VHS tape blown up, even though it's 1080p.

The shot doesn't look great because it was out of focus and you tried to sharpen it. That back wall that was originally in focus is nice and crisp.

High resolution cameras and good sensors are still junk when it's not lit, framed, and the scene decorated in a way that makes for a good image. Your shot isn't bad considering the skill level of people involved, shooting schedule and budget. It's unrealistic to expect it to look as good as a copy of Jurassic Park, even if that copy is on VHS.

Not saying this to dog you or anything, just to let you know (again) that you're expecting too much from your first project. It's not going to be a cinematic masterpiece in any way, shape or form, and that's ok! You have to learn this most of this stuff by first hand experience. So finish editing, make all the hard choices (this shot that's framed bad or this shot where the actor's shirt is on backwards) and slap it together, get it uploaded, move on to project number 2.

lighting has alot to do with it in this shot. Focus is part of it, import settings probably account for the rest of it.

It still looks fine! Finish your movie H-44!

I agree... the corrections to be done here should be done on your next project, this one is ready to be finished... get it done, learn from it, move on.

Okay thanks people. I think some of the quality is how I am importing it and exporting, and before I move onto the final edits, I need to play around to see which settings look the best, and do some more research on that.

I have other takes to go on besides that out of focus shot. I just like the way he says his lines best in that section of the edit. I could use the audio from those lines, and have the camera on the actor he is talking to, I just thought the camera might be on him a little too long for that whole time. There are other out of focus takes, which I have no other takes of that are in focus. At least one I came across so far, that I need to have in order for the continuity to not skip ahead. Plus I need it, so the movie cuts back and forth, and so it doesn't look like too much was shot from angle.

So if I have to sharpen that one, do I have to sharpen the whole movie to match the look of that, to maintain the same look?

If you have a take that you don't like the delivery on, but the camera is in focus, you can use it for a moment to cut back to, then out of and just make sure the lips match the line of dialog from the good audio at that point. Movie magic.

Thanks I tried that, but it feels like the cut was just too quick, since it was only two words, before I wanted to cut back. I'll play around more. I have other shots, that go out of focus too. The actors lean forward or lean back, and then go out of focus, but it's not near as noticeable while shooting. I guess until I can find a more experienced DP to work with I will try to remember to tell me actors to try to avoid that.

I told her to do that thing where you zoom with the lens all the way, focus it, then zoom back, but she says that that doesn't work on all the shots, and gave me this huge physics explanation which I did not get. But I'll try to figure it out for next time.

I told her to do that thing where you zoom with the lens all the way, focus it, then zoom back, but she says that that doesn't work on all the shots, and gave me this huge physics explanation which I did not get. But I'll try to figure it out for next time.

That works will with traditional video cameras where you can set the back focus of the lens, but not on photo cameras. DSLRs should all have a button that digitally magnifies the image on the LCD viewfinder. On my 7D it gives you 5x then 10x then press it again to go back to normal. It is hard to focus sometimes on that screen, that magnification makes it easy without physically affecting the focal length of your lens.

Yeah I kind of wish I got a camcorder like the HV30 or something like that, where I could have it in focus the whole shot if I wanted. So is it possible to shoot things like chase scenes on DSLRS and still keep it in focus, or things where the camera is going to move fast with the actors? I will remember using the digital zoom for next time. Isn't that the same as using the zoom on the lens though, then zooming back? I mean why does it work for digital zoom but not lens zoom?

Yeah I kind of wish I got a camcorder like the HV30 or something like that, where I could have it in focus. So is it possible to shoot things like chase scenes on DSLRS and still keep it in focus, or things where the camera is going to move fast with the actors? I tried using the digital zoom on my Canon T2i just now, but it still has a limit and you move the camera close enough it still goes out of focus. If I wanted to do a shot where an actor is close to the camera, and someone is quite a ways away in the background, could I still have them both in focus?

The digital scaling is only to check focus, it doesn't actually record that way.

It's not the same as using a zoom on a lens becaus the focal length of the lens doesn't change. If you're set at 37mm instead of changing to 50 to focus then going back to 37, it stays 37mm and makes the pixels bigger on your viewfinder. Again, temporarily, as soon as you start recording it should switch back to normal.

It's absolutely possible to keep focus on a moving object, just takes practice and skill. Or more light and a wider lens. We talked about that a few weeks ago I think when you asked the same question.

Yeah I just meant is it possible to set a focus length without having to constantly focus pull on a subject. Like one a focus setting where I have more range. If constant focus pulling is a must, I will consider switching to a more traditional video camera, during action scenes. There are no lenses for DSLR that can stay in focus all the time like a traditional video camera, but is it possible to attach one of those lenses to Canon T2i with a lens adapter?

There is one scene I wanted to shoot in one take, where the actor is about 30 feet away, and the camera moves closer towards him, while staying in focus the whole time. My DP was able to do this shot, but for some reason did not apply this same method, when it came to other scenes, and couldn't keep a guy in focus, just from leaning back in a chair. Not sure why she wouldn't use the same method for even the little shots.

The reason you're using a big lens and sensor on a DSLR is for shallow depth of field. If you use a 35mm on a video camera, again you're going to have shallow DOF.

Even traditional video cameras with smaller sensors and slower lenses have a certain DOF. Focus pulling is a normal part of using a camera. If you try it with a traditional camera and don't use manual focus, you're going to get crazy autofocus happenings where everything goes out of focuse for a second while your camera tries to follow the motion.

The solution here isn't to jimmy your way into using a camera without focusing, the solution is to learn how to focus. It's not that hard, just practice the take until you have it.

More light = smaller aperture, smaller aperture = longer DoF, longer DoF = easier time focussing.

Wider lens = less magnification of the "circles of confusion" (feel free to google that, it's real) = easier time focussing

camera farther from subject = longer DoF (past a certain point, it's functionally infinite) = easier time focussing.

wider lens, smaller aperture (more light), camera farther away... these are the magic combo you're looking for... other than that, repeated takes with an external monitor and many eyes on the screen watching for focus to keep your DP honest with your takes... she should be telling you on set when you can still do something about it if the take is any good. If she's watching performances rather than purely technical considerations, she's doing someone else's job... and it's too much to do while trying to cam op... especially if you're pulling focus at the same time (which is a different person's job on bigger sets for a reason).

Without access to more people or more funding (which would get you access to more people)... deal with what you've got and move forward. Focus pulling is the HARDEST job on a camera... everything else is simple in comparison. It's a dance/performance in and of itself.

Okay thanks. It's not that I don't mind learning, it's just I'll probably have to act in the movie for future shorts, since actors can be hard to find, or keep. Which I don't mind doing at all. I was thinking light helps focus, cause a lot of the shots, that went out of focus, had not as much light in, and most that stay in have plenty.

More light forces you to a smaller aperture and that yields a deeper depth of field.
This has been explained a few times now.

Shooting at night forces you to open the aperture and this results in the shallowest depth of field your lens can produce. Harder to keep focussed.
I you would just shoot action scenes in broad daylight you can set ISO as high as possible (as long it doesn't get too noisy) with an aperture of 13 or higher, it's easier to stay in focus.

Oh you're talking about opening the aperture. Yes that was explained to me before. I thought you meant the amount of light going into the camera, just from light in the room, not from changing aperture.

I you would just shoot action scenes in broad daylight you can set ISO as high as possible (as long it doesn't get too noisy) with an aperture of 13 or higher, it's easier to stay in focus.

If you stop down past f/8 - f/11 or so on a camera with an APS-C sensor, you'll start to see the effects of diffraction. You may be gaining depth of field, but you'll be losing sharpness and introducing all sorts of chromatic aberrations to the image.

The smaller the sensor, the larger the minimum recommended f-stop. This is why lots of point and shoot cameras with tiny sensors won't stop down any further than f/4 - f/5.6 or so.

Oh you're talking about opening the aperture. Yes that was explained to me before. I thought you meant the amount of light going into the camera, just from light in the room, not from changing aperture.

Well, that too - the brighter your set is lit, the more you can close down the aperture without having to raise the ISO.

Okay thanks. That's what's happening when I play the footage back in the darkly lit seen, diffraction effects. Anything on AE that can tweak that? I have one image where everything is clear in a shot, but I would photoshop one actor in out of one take, and have him make contact with the other actor from the take where she is in complete clarity. By making contact I mean a punch. I would have to line them both up, then you have two actors in perfect clarity.

Oh you're talking about opening the aperture. Yes that was explained to me before. I thought you meant the amount of light going into the camera, just from light in the room, not from changing aperture.

The aperture controls how much of the available light is going into the camera.
Adding lights to a scene without changing aperture increases the amount of light, but not the depth of field.

The ISO controls the sensitivity of the sensor and thus defining how much light needs to go into the camera. The amount of light is defined by lightsources and aperture.
(And shutterspeed, but most of the time you want the shutterspeed to stay fixed at 1/(2xFramerate).

It's all connected: always!

Your choices will be defined by the available light, the depth of field you want and the amount of noise that is acceptable.
If there is little light, your choices are forced by the light, so you have to settle for a shallow depth of field.

(I hardly ever go beyond f8.... the max for APC-S is noted. Thanks!)

Okay thanks. That's what's happening when I play the footage back in the darkly lit seen, diffraction effects. Anything on AE that can tweak that? I have one image where everything is clear in a shot, but I would photoshop one actor in out of one take, and have him make contact with the other actor from the take where she is in complete clarity. By making contact I mean a punch. I would have to line them both up, then you have two actors in perfect clarity.

Diffraction or Barrel distortion? Diffraction is a function of physics and differing wavelengths of light being affected by the thickness of the glass in the lens as you get farther away from the center of the frame... more evident at the extremes of zoom and aperture... always try to avoid these extremes, all the way zoomed in or out, and all the way open or closed on the iris (aperture). Your best image will come from putting the settings all dead center on the image, diminishing returns that you have to make quality judgements on from there outward in both directions.

Barrel distortion is also based on the effects of the distance from the center of the image on said image, but have to do more with the "FISH EYE" type of effect. As an extreme, it can be quite cool for action sports vids and whatnot, but just a little bit can look very disconcerting.

ISO in canon DLSRs also seem to prefer multiples of 160 to minimize noise... so if you have to crank it up, prefer 320 over 300... there are youtube vids that illustrate all of these effects, look them up and learn this stuff.

LIFE IS PHYSICS learn them and love them and you'll fall down less painfully (gravity joke).

Okay thanks. Well I want to not use the out of focus shots. There are also some shots of the same thing from the previous shoot but those shots are too dark. I tried bringing up the brightness in After Effects, but you still can't see the actors clothes, and they are just shadows basically. Is it possible with AE to reanimate the details of their clothes and faces from previous takes? Since they are wearing ski masks, there won't be much face to reanimate but what about the materials of their clothes, as oppose to just all black shadow figure?