Jump to content



Photo

So when did overuse of slow motion become a thing?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1229 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 19 February 2018 - 11:34 AM

The two things you can't escape from in film nowadays are shallow DOF and gratuitous slow-motion shots. Slow motion shots used to be something occasionally used when the popular girls in High school walked down the hallway or when the Six Million Dollar Man was running (so that we knew he was running FAST -- go figure.) Now it's everywhere all the time.

 

When this thing becoming a thing? There are even entire shots where the whole thing was done in slow-motion. Just trying to figure out a timeframe.


  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7502 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 February 2018 - 11:36 AM

Pretty much happened as it began to be included in every camera out there. I'd go with the same period as the DSLR revolution when they first started to be able to film 60p, and then have that conformed to 24 in post.


  • 1

#3 Maxwell Sims

Maxwell Sims

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 February 2018 - 12:12 PM

^^ What Adrian said. There's been a correlation between trending camera techniques/aesthetics and how accessible that technology is.

 

What I think is also very important is if influential filmmakers are using said technique. When a director or director of photography utilizes a method really well it's influence tends to trickle throughout other filmmakers. Like Terrence Malick's love use of magic hour, or Lubezki's use of wide angle lenses. So I think trying to understand where trending methods came from is one part looking at accessibility to camera tech, and one part looking at when those methods were beginning to be used on influential pieces. 

 

Wax - Southern California 


Edited by Maxwell Sims, 19 February 2018 - 12:20 PM.

  • 0

#4 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1593 posts
  • Other
  • Near Basel, Switzerland

Posted 19 February 2018 - 12:30 PM

It began in 1931.


  • 0

#5 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1581 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 19 February 2018 - 01:18 PM

If you think it's bad in narrative movies, try watching any music video...


  • 0

#6 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7502 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 February 2018 - 05:58 PM

Years from now they'll ask when the insane color theme of Music Videos started, and we'll answer that it started when Arri upgraded their skypanels firmware.


  • 0

#7 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2457 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 19 February 2018 - 07:58 PM

In defense of slo mo..for corp shoots anyway.. it can just add a bit of something to otherwise pretty mundane shots.. but agree ..it has taken over from the time lapse shot :)


  • 0

#8 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7502 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 February 2018 - 10:17 PM

Oh I'm not above doing it either. We had some fun on a corp with the FS700 when that was a new thing lol. The client enjoyed it greatly. I think we only had 1 "real time" shot, of a watch in macro, everything else was slow-mo or sped up a bit.


  • 0

#9 Brenton Lee

Brenton Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Student
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:12 AM

Well after time lapse on a camera slider.

 

Sometime just a little before awkward gimble work but after millennial neon pink and blue lighting. 

 

But also before gratuitous overhead car shots with a drone. 


Edited by Brenton Lee, 20 February 2018 - 02:14 AM.

  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20349 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:26 AM

Slow-motion dates back to Melies at the dawn of the Silent Era, but for when it became over-used, thats a subjective opinion. Kurosawa used slow-motion effectively in parts of Seven Samurai and it was famously used in The Wild Bunch and Bonnie and Clyde. Kubrick did some slow-motion shots in 2001 and Clockwork Orange, so Id have say it was the late 1960s when it became a popular device.
  • 1

#11 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2457 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:40 AM

Legend has it Bruce Lee would be shot slightly over cranked .. for normal speed as he was actually too fast for 24 fps..  fight scenes that is !


Edited by Robin R Probyn, 20 February 2018 - 02:49 AM.

  • 0

#12 Ryan Constantino

Ryan Constantino
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 February 2018 - 03:02 AM

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I believe that the use of slow motion is one of the easiest ways to make a shot look cooler/better. So I believe it has in some instances been used as a substitution where something is lacking. Subject matter/lighting etc. 

 

However, I'd like to comment about the other half of your (OP) statement; that shallow depth of field is inescapable. I have been lecturing people for many years now that shallow depth of field is an epidemic. This of course is caused by many factors, but I feel there are a few major violators worth mentioning. Budgets seem to be getting smaller and shoot schedules seem to be getting shorter, which in turn causes DOPs to have less access to lighting equipment and thus, the need to shoot at wider apertures causing shallower depths of field. And secondly, I feel that not as much money is being put into the production design as it used to, and the easiest way to hide that is to hide the background. Fill the frame with a face. Do another close up. We don't have time to dress the set behind them! Just shoot it and blur it out back there! (focus puller rolls eyes) It gives me such a headache to watch an entirely blurry scene where I have no idea where the characters are in relationship to their environment. I thought that was cinematography 101!  Sensors are getting larger causing shallower depth of field at equal apertures, making things worse.

 

Newer filmmakers are constantly chasing after the "cinematic look" and when they watch their favorite blockbusters, they see shallow DOF and think to themselves, hey I can do that! And end up choosing shallow DOF for most of their movie because it will make it look more like a movie movie. It turns out that what really makes a cinematic look is the opposite. 

 

If you watch older movies, the close ups and the shallow depth of field were used sparingly to emphasize key moments. Deep focus allowed the audience to soak in the movie and get a lot of detail and information out of the frame. Now a days people just want to shove the camera into an A-list celebrities face. Look!! we have Morgan Freeman in our movie! 

 

And of course there's a part of me that is ranting about this whole thing, but I always feel the need to stress the importance of not getting sucked into that filmmaking style, because it does a disservice to the audience. As creators our job is to take the audience to another world, another place or time so they can enjoy that 2 hours without distractions. If all they see is close ups and shallow depth of field, it's going to feel like running around while looking through a paper towel tube the whole time. 

 

Filmmaker IQ did a good video about deep focus and hyperfocal lengths which explains a lot too:


  • 1

#13 rob spence

rob spence
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Other
  • Beaconsfield

Posted 20 February 2018 - 07:52 AM

Every technique has it's day when it becomes easily available...look at 'zooming in' shots when parfocal cine zoom lenses became affordable in the 70's.


  • 0

#14 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5315 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 20 February 2018 - 09:16 AM

These were around in the 1960s, from memory, "The Train" uses the technique on a number of shots.


  • 0

#15 rob spence

rob spence
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Other
  • Beaconsfield

Posted 20 February 2018 - 09:19 AM

I stand corrected.

"The first modern film zoom lens, the Pan-Cinor, was designed around 1950 by Roger Cuvillier, a French engineer working for SOM-Berthiot. It had an optical compensation zoom system. In 1956, Pierre Angénieux introduced the mechanical compensation system, enabling precise focus while zooming, in his 17-68mm lens for 16mm released in 1958. The same year a prototype of the 35mm version of the Angénieux 4x zoom, the 35-140mm was first used by cinematographer Roger Fellous for the production of Julie La Rousse. Angénieux received a 1964 technical award from the academy of motion pictures for the design of the 10 to 1 zoom lenses, including the 12-120mm for 16mm film cameras and the 25-250mm for 35mm film cameras."


Edited by rob spence, 20 February 2018 - 09:20 AM.

  • 0

#16 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1593 posts
  • Other
  • Near Basel, Switzerland

Posted 20 February 2018 - 09:49 AM

http://www.zoomlensh...-the-zoom-lens/

 

I said 1931 because of Der weiße Rausch. Lots of shots out of the Grande Vitesse camera by Debrie


  • 0

#17 Phil Connolly

Phil Connolly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Director
  • London

Posted 20 February 2018 - 01:39 PM

The only rule I have with slow-mo, is to try not to use it too much on dialogue


  • 0

#18 Phil Connolly

Phil Connolly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Director
  • London

Posted 20 February 2018 - 05:58 PM

Unless the dialogue is "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!", in that case slow-mo is fine


  • 0

#19 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2053 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:40 AM

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I believe that the use of slow motion is one of the easiest ways to make a shot look cooler/better. So I believe it has in some instances been used as a substitution where something is lacking. Subject matter/lighting etc. 

 

However, I'd like to comment about the other half of your (OP) statement; that shallow depth of field is inescapable. I have been lecturing people for many years now that shallow depth of field is an epidemic. This of course is caused by many factors, but I feel there are a few major violators worth mentioning. Budgets seem to be getting smaller and shoot schedules seem to be getting shorter, which in turn causes DOPs to have less access to lighting equipment and thus, the need to shoot at wider apertures causing shallower depths of field. And secondly, I feel that not as much money is being put into the production design as it used to, and the easiest way to hide that is to hide the background. Fill the frame with a face. Do another close up. We don't have time to dress the set behind them! Just shoot it and blur it out back there! (focus puller rolls eyes) It gives me such a headache to watch an entirely blurry scene where I have no idea where the characters are in relationship to their environment. I thought that was cinematography 101!  Sensors are getting larger causing shallower depth of field at equal apertures, making things worse.

 

Newer filmmakers are constantly chasing after the "cinematic look" and when they watch their favorite blockbusters, they see shallow DOF and think to themselves, hey I can do that! And end up choosing shallow DOF for most of their movie because it will make it look more like a movie movie. It turns out that what really makes a cinematic look is the opposite. 

 

If you watch older movies, the close ups and the shallow depth of field were used sparingly to emphasize key moments. Deep focus allowed the audience to soak in the movie and get a lot of detail and information out of the frame. Now a days people just want to shove the camera into an A-list celebrities face. Look!! we have Morgan Freeman in our movie! 

 

And of course there's a part of me that is ranting about this whole thing, but I always feel the need to stress the importance of not getting sucked into that filmmaking style, because it does a disservice to the audience. As creators our job is to take the audience to another world, another place or time so they can enjoy that 2 hours without distractions. If all they see is close ups and shallow depth of field, it's going to feel like running around while looking through a paper towel tube the whole time. 

 

Filmmaker IQ did a good video about deep focus and hyperfocal lengths which explains a lot too:

 

I am totally with you on the overuse of the CU. Look at the masters of cinema, and you'll see it used quite sparingly. Not only that, it's used only when necessary - to emphasize drama or a turning in the story. Not like now, where a whole show can cut from one CU to the next without ever showing the geography and the blocking. It's lazy filmmaking and lacks craft.

 

However, I can't agree with shallow DoF. This world is so ugly in most public spaces it's an assault on your senses; architecture, ugly signs, ugly colors, dayglo high viz vests, traffic cones, road works, cracked asphalt, bushy brushes etc. Very very rarely do you find a location, exterior or interior, where everything looks good or it has a restrained palette. And with budgets these days, you can't change shit. You might be able to stick a desk lamp into the ugly interior location, a chair, some plants, but thats about it. It's still the same ugly interior. 99 times out of a 100, the wall on location will be white. How on earth do you create magic when the subject you're about to shoot is 4ft away from a white wall? I've asked "can we repaint the walls darker?" on every job since 2008, still hasn't happened. "We can't afford to, because then we need to rent location for 2 extra days and pay scenics or PA's". So that's the reality of todays shooting, even on supposedly big commercials. Building on set - yes, it happens sometimes for very special things or riggy stuff, but never for just a basic interior. Too expensive. In those scenarios, stuck in reality, shallow DoF is your only friend. It's a way of pushing all the detritus and crap out of sight.

 

This is why Frisch's Law of Photography will always be in effect: "Any cinematographer/photographer will inherently seek out the format with the least apparent depth of field as his preferred choice."

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=75036&hl=%2Bfrisch%26%2339%3Bs+%2Blaw

 

Watch and see now with Monstro VV sensor and new Alexa LF cameras - they will rule everything in less than a year. Nobody will be shooting standard 35mm format video in a years time professionally. Nobody.


  • 0

#20 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7502 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 22 February 2018 - 11:36 AM

Adam; you should write a book on your Law of Photography and make millions. DO it with some fun photos, and just one page quotes! (and if you do, I request 10% net.)


  • 0


Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera