Jump to content


Photo

OOPS!


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 04 July 2006 - 02:54 AM

I just noticed this one in Pearl Harbor:
screenshot3.jpeg screenshot4.jpeg

You can clearly see the remote focus puller on the left.

I know this stuff happens, and I'm not trying to disrespect anyone involved in the production. I guess if anything, I'm surprised that I never noticed it before!
  • 0

#2 Rik Andino

Rik Andino
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 783 posts
  • Electrician
  • New York City

Posted 04 July 2006 - 02:56 AM

I couldn't bear to watch that movie more than once
To ever notice something like that. :D

But it's a good call--you've got good eyes.
  • 0

#3 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 04 July 2006 - 03:12 PM

"I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark,
When he made Pearl Harbor.
I miss you more then that movie missed the point,
And that?s an awful lot girl.
And now, now you've gone away,
And all I'm trying to say,
Is Perl Harbor sucked and I miss you

I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school,
He was terrible in that film.
I need you like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part,
He's way better then Ben Affleck.
And now all I can think about is your smile,
And that sh!tty movie too,
Perl Harbor sucked and I miss you

Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies.
I guess Perl Harbor sucked,
Just a little bit more then I miss you."

--Team America World Police

No better song in the history of film. Well maybe 'I'm so Ronrey'. I can't believe they are such great writters, and at the same time awsome musicians.
  • 0

#4 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 06 July 2006 - 07:33 PM

:D

The great thing about DVD's is that you can chapter skip at will. I get to look at great cinematography without always having to watch a movie that might not measure up.

I viewed Meet Joe Black this way to watch Lubezki's work; I can't imagine actually sitting still through that entire movie...
  • 0

#5 Tim Partridge

Tim Partridge
  • Guests

Posted 06 July 2006 - 08:00 PM

I don't know what's scarier, the fact that Michael Bay is allowed to make movies, or that in that second image the focus puller has pulled for HIMSELF pin sharp in the shot. :blink:
  • 0

#6 Annie Wengenroth

Annie Wengenroth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Brooklyn, NY

Posted 06 July 2006 - 08:52 PM

Could be a good chapter in the next Camera Assistant book....just like Monty Python, "How Not To Be Seen". :lol:
  • 0

#7 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 06 July 2006 - 09:00 PM

I don't know what's scarier, the fact that Michael Bay is allowed to make movies, or that in that second image the focus puller has pulled for HIMSELF pin sharp in the shot. :blink:


I've never seen a font that big here before... :P

The still pictures are a little misleading, they are separate frame grabs from the same shot. By grab #2, the camera starts panning to follow Cuba Gooding Jr., and the focus puller also steps forward. So the background has more motion blur than the focus puller, because he was moving along with the pan (and also pulling to Mr. Gooding who's the same distance from the camera in that frame).
  • 0

#8 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 July 2006 - 09:06 PM

I don't know which is worse...the focus pull itself, or the fact that the puller was in the shot. I wonder what he was trying to pull?
  • 0

#9 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 06 July 2006 - 09:21 PM

I wonder what he was trying to pull?


Was that a pun? :P

The pull is fine. Watch the DVD and you'll see. Again, the still shots are misleading.

Also it's a steadicam shot, and on a steadicam monitor you don't always see detail in the shadows, like a focus puller tucked behind a bulkhead at the edge of frame. Also with steadicam shots, the framing can easily get fudged between rehearsal and multiple takes. Chances are the puller's hiding spot was fine during rehearsal. These things happen.
  • 0

#10 Matti Poutanen

Matti Poutanen
  • Guests

Posted 07 July 2006 - 06:16 AM

Pearl Harbor Director's Cut -dvd set has a total of four commentary tracks, I recall the cinematographer John Schwartzman and Michael Bay himself pointed this thing out in their own commentary tracks. And when you watch the making of features, I'm not surprised that there are mistakes like this in the movie: the had A LOT of cameras in the acting sequences to get as much as coverage as possible.















And yes, I confess that I own Pearl Harbor Director's Cut. The making ofs are great entertainment!
  • 0

#11 Brad Grimmett

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

Posted 07 July 2006 - 02:30 PM

Last week I saw something that I hope makes the outtakes reel for this movie. The movie is Big Stan. Rob Schnieder is directing and starring. Anyway, on the last day of principal we were shooting a fight scene. Two cameras were rolling (my camera was not), both were handheld. Sound rolls and speeds, cameras roll and the 2nd's step in to slate. As the "B" camera 2nd was slating Rob was walking back to his 1st position mark out of frame and in between the two cameras. As he walked back he ducked under the "B" camera slate as the 2nd was hitting the sticks. She quickly and abrutly brought the slate down and out of frame just as Rob was passing under the slate (she didn't see him coming since her back was turned to him), so he got hit squarely and very hard right on the noggin. To his credit, he didn't complain or even cut. He did the take without incident. It was pretty funny, and I couldn't help but think it might be karma coming back around....but that's another story.
Also on the subject of movie goofs.....there is a thread on the url=http://www.steadicamforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13&hl=operator+in+shot]Steadicam Forum[/url] that talks about movies with operators in the shot. There are a couple of cool framegrabs from movies like Titanic and Strange Days where you can clearly see operators, whether in reflection or in the actual shot. Check it out.
  • 0

#12 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 July 2006 - 02:55 PM

The pull is fine. Watch the DVD and you'll see. Again, the still shots are misleading.

Maybe it is...but that isn't made apparent by comparing the two stills. The camera must be in motion, which could also account for the look of the second still. (I'll gladly take your word for it, rather than having to sit through the DVD.)
  • 0

#13 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 07 July 2006 - 03:46 PM

I'll try to grab some other stills when I get around to it.

One that sticks out to me is near the climax of Training Day, there's a crane shot past a window, and you can clearly see the Baby Junior on a stand fill the rooom interior. Again, I chalk this one up to the variances that happen with a moving camera viewed on a small tap monitor, over multiple takes. If I had the DVD I'd post it.
  • 0

#14 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 07 July 2006 - 04:11 PM

Speaking of Steadicam shots, what's up with this one from Less Than Zero? :P
screenshot1.jpeg screenshot2.jpeg

I want to reiterate I'm not criticizing anyone involved in the productions. I'm a camera operator so I naturally look for "bogies" even when simply watching a movie. Maybe this thread will help us all know what to watch out for!

In this sequence, there's a crew member's face reflected in the rear view mirror throughout the whole shot. It's hard to see on a DVD, but I remember spotting it when I saw it in the theater (and I was still in college at the time!).
screenshot3.jpeg
  • 0

#15 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:27 PM

Speaking of Steadicam shots, what's up with this one from Less Than Zero? :P
screenshot1.jpeg screenshot2.jpeg

Obviously, the actors missed their marks, and kept getting in the way of the pole vaulter standing behind them.
  • 0

#16 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:54 PM

Obviously, the actors missed their marks, and kept getting in the way of the pole vaulter standing behind them.


:P

This is another one where the stills don't tell the whole story, sorry about that. It's a fairly ambitious move considering this was still relatively early in steadicam use. The shot starts by tracking backwards with Jamie Gertz through a hallway and into this larger nightclub interior, then pans to follow her to a group of people where the dialogue starts (and where the boom op is waiting), then proceeds into a 360 around the group, while extras cross around to maintain the illusion of a full room. Once the camera goes into 360, the boom op stays well out of the way. It's just then when he is there, it's plainly obvious for like 3 or 4 seconds!
  • 0

#17 Brad Grimmett

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

Posted 10 July 2006 - 04:32 AM

Funny. Did that boom op have to sign a release?
I don't mind the one with the light in frame since it's suppossed to be a construction zone and it looks like a work light.
  • 0

#18 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 26 July 2006 - 06:49 PM

I don't mind the one with the light in frame since it's suppossed to be a construction zone and it looks like a work light.


The light wasn't the problem (you're right, it is a practical). It's hard to see in the still, but there is a crew member's face reflected in the car's rear-view-mirror (center on the dashboard). The reflection is there through the whole shot.
  • 0

#19 Hans Engstrom

Hans Engstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Sweden

Posted 04 August 2006 - 11:37 AM

Funny. Did that boom op have to sign a release?


If I know that the boom op can take it and knows that I´m not trying to be mean, I usually asks him what his character is called.
  • 0


Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Opal

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Opal

Technodolly

CineTape

Glidecam