[Todd Terry]

There’s nothing to say you can try it… but Steadicams and other stabilizers are best with wider lenses. You can certainly shoot with an 85mm but don’t expect the frame to stay really locked on to a running actor’s face in a tight shot… it just won’t happen, not with the best and most experienced Steadicam operator in the world.

I understand what you are wanting, but just trying to be realistic.

Whenever I give directorial classes or talks I point out to one great thing Robert Rodriguez said in his book “Rebel with a Crew”… I’m not a huge RR fan, but I think this is very smart… he says “Make the movie you can make, not the movie you want to make.” I think that can apply to a particular camera or shot setup as well. Know the limitations of your gear, your actors, crew, time, energy, even physics… and weigh the need for exactly what you want versus its real value in telling the story. Often there are alternate ways of doing something that’s not exactly what you originally saw in your head, but is infinitely more “doable” and accomplishes the same thing in the end. I’m all for art, but there’s no need to kill yourself and spend huge amounts of time, energy, manpower and brainpower on trying to figure out how to do something that really only has a special meaning for you, and would probably be meaningless or even unnoticed by the audience. Tell the story and don’t get bogged down in mechanics.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

That’s a classic arcing dolly shot. I don’t know any camera operator alive who could pull that off handheld, with or without a stabilizer.

Also of note, that shot uses a much longer lens than you’d ever want to attempt handheld… stabilized or not. It’s hard to tell, it could be anywhere from 50 to 80mm… but it’s definitely a lot longer than the 18-35mm range you’d want to stick with for handheld.

Also also… while that shot is a classic dolly arc, the camera also pulls away from Hanks after the shot begins, and pushes back in to him as the dolly move resolves (and it is not a zoom in… it’s an actual push in). That could be done in a number of ways… there could be a slider on top of the dolly arm for the push in, or a scissor-jib on the dolly to allow the straight push in. Or it simply could be that Hanks was not sitting dead-center in the circular track… if he was a bit to one side that would create the apparent elliptical camera path. It stayed sharp with a shallow DoF so Don Burgess definitely had a good focus-puller on the shot.

Knowing how Zemeckis works, there’s also the possibility that there is a motion-control rig of some kind creating the camera move. There are a few jitters in there that make it look like a live human operator, so that might nix the motion control idea… then again it is not unlike Zemeckis to introduce such little effects to make it look more organic.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

[Ferguson MacDougal] “How does it look good and normal if at 30fps 1/120 if it should look janky when not slowing down 60fps?”

I don’t know, I’ve never seen action footage where the same exact footage looked great/perfect both at normal speed and slow-mo. Usually (or rather always, in my case) it’s either one or the other.

Very often you’ll see those action plays at normal speed that suddenly slow mo… in the majority of the cases the edit only lets you see a second or so at normal speed before it speed ramps down to slow-mo… not really enough time to notice the narrow-shutter artifacts in the normal-speed footage. You could try to introduce some artificial motion blur in the normal-speed stuff, but that would be a lot of work (tons of layers and masking, etc.), very tedious.

If you are shooting a lot of footage and you know that a significant portion of it (but not sure what parts) will be slow-mo’d, then the only choice really is to shoot at a higher fps and just deal with and live with the narrow shutter look with the normal-speed footage. That’s a lot better than slowing normal-speed footage for fake slow-mo, unless that’s the look you want. Personally I hate the narrow shutter look with a passion (except in rare cases where it is an intended effect) so I always try to shoot at the appropriate frame rate… but maybe it bothers me more than most people, though.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

[ryan elder] “I didn’t want to shoot in 16:9 is I don’t really like the look of it, and feel that it’s not quite wide enough, which is why I thought 1.85:1….”
“

You do realize there there is virtually no noticeable difference in 16:9 and 1.85:1, right?

A 1.85:1 image on a 16×9 screen has only the thinnest thinnest little letterboxing bars… almost nonexistent. On an HD screen it’s only a 21-pixel difference top and bottom.

I would almost defy anyone to look at a rectangle with no other frame of reference and easily be able to tell if it was 16:9 or 1.85:1.

Yes, 2.20:1 is a substantial difference… but 1.85:1…. nah.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

Well I like hearing that.

Probably because it is so rare.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

[Bouke Vahl] “stay off the pink bordered heart wipes.”

As long as Star Wipes are still ok….

https://youtu.be/72bUheqRE5o

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Todd Terry]

[ryan elder] “a lot of people do not care about the difference between that and 24, at least I don’t think most do.
“

Noooo no no. It’s a subtle but very important difference.

You should only shoot true 24fps if you are planning to do a real film-out, strike a real celluloid film print (if anyone actually does that anymore), are editing in an existing true 24fps project, or are mixing with other film that has been scanned at true 24fps.

For virtually ALL electronic applications, editing, delivery, whatever… use 23.976fps.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

Yep, Blaise beat me to the same exact suggestion. Throw a clip on a timeline and look at its properties. I II will bet anything that it’s 23.976. You’re typically only going to find true 24 fps on higher-end real cinema cameras, so I’m betting that’s the case with what they’re calling 24p.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

I have never had that be an issue.

You said it yourself, setting a color balance whether manually or automatically, does set a flat profile, not taking into account spikes etc.

So, for example, if the light in a room has a bit of a green spike (maybe from old low CRI LED instruments), setting a white balance automatically will no more correct that than setting the tempetature manually (like I do) would. Neither method will correct that one bit.

Have you seen issues with this?… seen with your own peepers? If you have, then by all means white balance if that seems to work better for you. The only two test instruments that really matter are your two eyeballs.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

To be honest, I have not “white balanced” a camera in many years. I always dial in the exact color temperature that I want. Also sometimes I want it a little cooler than it really is, or a little warmer. Most of my primes are matched, but a couple aren’t… and I know that I have some lenses that skew a little warmer than others, so I’ll shoot those with a lower temperature. I think it’s more or less the norm not to actually push the old “white balance” button anymore. Heck, I don’t even know where it is on my current camera.

But… That’s just the way I do it. Your mileage may vary.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com