Jump to content


Photo

How could i do this shot?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Tom Bays

Tom Bays
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:38 PM

This is not in production at this point, but I am trying to work the shots I would want anyway.

A Native American is in a tree in the early 1800's during a battle with soldiers...He is killed. Moments later he turns into a creature. NOW HERE IS MY QUESTION I want to do a shot (POV) where the creature drops down from the tree onto a soldier. I mean he is up a good ways and will be going through branches and leaves as he falls on to the soldier ...CUT TO another angle.

It is basically a shot where the camera wold be dropping quickly from a high place. I wasn't sure if i could do this without seriously damaging whatever camera I might use. I'm would probably keep a wide focal length for so you can tell what is going on, but I think focus could be a problem as well.

Any comments beyond "Your a nut Kemper?"
  • 0

#2 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 10 February 2006 - 03:19 PM

If you have a camera you can afford to risk, use that. Your setup resembles a "crash cam" setup, where a camera is physically placed in harm's way.

My first choice would be shoot in 16mm; take an old magazine camera such as a B&H 200 or Kodak, or an aircraft GSAP gun camera, and rig it to a bunge cord such that it doesn't impact the ground (or your soldier's head). Then drop it through the tree, lens down, perhaps with a little drag on the line to keep it facing down. Talk to your grips & rigger friends.

I've seen POV shots like this on Masterpiece Theater. Similar execution.

Edited by Robert Hughes, 10 February 2006 - 03:22 PM.

  • 0

#3 Alexandre Lucena

Alexandre Lucena
  • Guests

Posted 10 February 2006 - 03:32 PM

rig it to a bunge cord such that it doesn't impact the ground (or your soldier's head). Then drop it through the tree, lens down, perhaps with a little drag on the line to keep it facing down. Talk to your grips & rigger friends.

How about doing it slowly and then speed it up in post.
  • 0

#4 timHealy

timHealy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1252 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 10 February 2006 - 04:53 PM

Special effects guys use cable off a spool mounted to the ground. You would need a pick point above where you wanted the camera to drop from. Perhaps a large branch or a even a crane. And no reason why you couldn't do it 12 or 18 frames per second and keep it repeatable. I have seen special effects guys jump off a high point or released from a high point and the spool utilzed a dampening device. The Spiderman effects team utilized computer controlled servo motors which fed spools utilzing a kevlar rope. They used it with the stunt guys and the Spidey cam rigs where a remote head was traveling between buildings on location in New York and LA. It was a complex rig where the camera would not just go point to point but also change height. A terrific system. Perhaps overkill for your shot, but you get the idea.


Best


Tim
  • 0

#5 Greg Gross

Greg Gross
  • Sustaining Members
  • 869 posts
  • Harrisburg,PA

Posted 10 February 2006 - 05:08 PM

Is your story based on the native american "skin walker"? Don't laugh as I'm very serious
about this statement,can you have camera operator on bunji with camera? The only other
thing I can thing of is a "Jimmy Jib" raised overhead of the action and you would have to
zoom in with action. Forgive me for saying zoom,its such a dirty word you know. Maybe in
a shot like this is where it belongs,you know politically correct. I've seen photos of Truffaut
where he had camera almost vertical to floor, to photograph people on floor. Maybe also you
could get bucket high enough above action with camera operator and camera. I think would
be best as operator would have direct control of camera. May I come and shoot the shot for
you? I'm willing to work for no pay.

Greg Gross
  • 0

#6 kata

kata
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 February 2006 - 09:17 AM

just a thought. using a pully and shooting it backwards? starting just over the soldier and pulling up? you'd need to reverse the scene backwards and adjust the timing, but you would not damage the camera...
  • 0

#7 Michael Most

Michael Most
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 February 2006 - 03:49 PM

just a thought. using a pully and shooting it backwards? starting just over the soldier and pulling up? you'd need to reverse the scene backwards and adjust the timing, but you would not damage the camera...


Except that the motion blur will all be in the wrong direction.
  • 0

#8 Ryan Bajornas

Ryan Bajornas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Student

Posted 11 February 2006 - 04:46 PM

in a half-second shot like this, that could be hardly detectable if done right. if you keep the shot steady and play with a time-warp in post, the shot being reversed would probably fool most audiences. and would be much safer to climb a camera up a tree rather than drop it down.
  • 0

#9 Matt Butler

Matt Butler
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney,Australia

Posted 11 February 2006 - 10:21 PM

Given that you are shooting a POV and quickly cutting to another ANGLE, there is a technique that was used effectively in one of the earlier STAR WARS films.To shoot hyper speed background plates of Speeders,
(I think that's what they were called) the FX team stretched a very thin green string line along the designated trajectory path through the forest.

A very patient Steadicam operator followed this line, shooting at 1fps or so to create rapid moving B/G plates. So I guess you could rig and balance a cine-camera to drop down slowly through the tree branches, to "land" on your talents' shoulder,providing the soldier kept very still in his position.
Of course you wouldn't need the string guide, as you would be doing a gravity-drop,but you would need some method to stop the camera rotating on the way down! ie. triangulate it with 3 drop wires for stability.

cheers
  • 0

#10 Greg Gross

Greg Gross
  • Sustaining Members
  • 869 posts
  • Harrisburg,PA

Posted 11 February 2006 - 10:46 PM

Whats the budget for this shot?

Greg Gross
  • 0

#11 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 February 2006 - 10:52 PM

A very patient Steadicam operator followed this line, shooting at 1fps or so to create rapid moving B/G plates. So I guess you could rig and balance a cine-camera to drop down slowly through the tree branches, to "land" on your talents' shoulder,providing the soldier kept very still in his position.
Of course you wouldn't need the string guide, as you would be doing a gravity-drop,but you would need some method to stop the camera rotating on the way down! ie. triangulate it with 3 drop wires for stability.

cheers

That Steadicam Operator was Garrett Brown FYI.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just shoot at 24fps, lower the camera slowly as you suggessted, and then extract frames in post to make the shot happen at whatever speed you want? It could even accelerate or slow down as needed. I'm no post expert, so maybe this is harder than it sounds.
  • 0

#12 Greg Gross

Greg Gross
  • Sustaining Members
  • 869 posts
  • Harrisburg,PA

Posted 11 February 2006 - 10:53 PM

Gravity drop would be fantastic. Can you do a gravity drop from a "Jimmy Jib" and
still stabilize camera adequately? I like Mr. Butler's idea here.

Greg Gross
  • 0

#13 Tom Bays

Tom Bays
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 12 February 2006 - 09:36 AM

Whats the budget for this shot?

Greg Gross



I don't think the whole production when this whole thing frigging ever gets started will be over $500,000. But, you never Know. Let me say and I appreciate the efforts of thoses involved in this thread. I hope this happens, but I'm not sure...i just want to prepare myself like it will happen. It would be mostly private investment. I've got some shots I really like (like this one) and I'm trying to figure out where i can cut corners.

Edited by Kemper, 12 February 2006 - 09:42 AM.

  • 0

#14 fstop

fstop
  • Guests

Posted 12 February 2006 - 10:45 AM

Like others here, I say shoot at a low frame rate, get your artists to act in slow-mo and lower the camera down as slowly as possible.
  • 0

#15 Phil Connolly

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

Posted 13 February 2006 - 12:47 PM

That Steadicam Operator was Garrett Brown FYI.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just shoot at 24fps, lower the camera slowly as you suggessted, and then extract frames in post to make the shot happen at whatever speed you want? It could even accelerate or slow down as needed. I'm no post expert, so maybe this is harder than it sounds.


There would be less motion blur if a shot at 24fps is sped up in post rather than just shooting at a lower frame rate. Stuff shot at 24 fps then sped up, by dropping frames tends to look, well sped up and can look a bit juddery, rather than an object actually moving at that speed.

For the most accurate motion blur feel, the frame rate should match the speed of the motion - so if the camera drop is done at 10% of actual speed - then the frame rate should be around 2.4 fps, this not only gives the correct speed - but the right amount of blur to sell the move - otherwise you would be into adding blur in post, doable but extra hassle.

Also, remember that the camera has to accelerate as it falls, ideally at 9.81 metres per second, per second - that?s if my knowledge of physics hasn?t disserted me

Phil
  • 0

#16 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 14 February 2006 - 03:17 PM

I say undercrank it and lower the camera down, or do it in reverse as mentioned above.

Shooting it at 24fps and extracting the frames in post wouldn't make sense from a financial standpoing; why pay for all that extra film stock & processing if you're just going to extract later/

The reverse motion blur actually might be better - it's a monster POV, after all. You might want it to look unnatural.
Look at the Alien POV in Predator - totally screwed up video looking crap, but it worked for the story.

MP
  • 0

#17 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 February 2006 - 03:54 PM

Shooting it at 24fps and extracting the frames in post wouldn't make sense from a financial standpoing; why pay for all that extra film stock & processing if you're just going to extract later/

Point taken. But it doesn't sound like a long shot, so it's not like you're going to burn through mag after mag doing this shot. My main thought was that if you shoot it at a slow frame rate you may find out in post that it would be nice to be able to slow the shot down at the end, or at the beginning. I guess that's a decision that will need to be made by the director and editor. Everyone would probably make a slightly different decision about exactly how to do it.
  • 0


Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Opal

CineTape

Glidecam

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc