Support NeoGAF

[hteng]

shaky cam in Transformers were the worst shit ever

 

[Boss Doggie]

Do you even understand what immersion is?

The way half the motherfuckers on this board talk about it you'd think it is a relatively new concept invented for videogames or something.

Like I said, I was talking about something else, I guess immersion was a wrong word.

I was talking about how in video games it is mostly "you" who is in control of the character whereas in movies you watch characters much like how you read stories, i.e. you have no direct control. That's why I find stuff like mud or water spilling your vision to be pointless.

 

[Divius]

3D.

^This. I hope this hype ends soon.

 

[Suairyu]

I was talking about how in video games it is mostly "you" who is in control of the character whereas in movies you watch characters much like how you read stories, i.e. you have no direct control. That's why I find stuff like mud or water spilling your vision to be pointless.

Uh, that's called 'transference' and it also was a part of our critical vocabulary for films long before videogames or whatever.

Part of the reason we root for Simba is because we 'become' Simba. We become Ripley in Alien. We become Frodo in the The Lord Of The Rings. It isn't a new or alien concept. You're basically denying a fundamental part of cinema. And, well, any narrative art. Immersion and transference are key concepts of the Western storytelling tradition and exist in theatre, literature, film, television, radio and -yes- videogames.

The only thing unique to videogames (and even then it's present in more 'out there' types of theatre) is 'agency' - the ability to manipulate and control. This is the point I think you're trying to drive at but you're confusing it with other points design to draw the audience further into the film.

 

[zoukka]

I still find it hilarious that people use them despite the technology already available to prevent those from happening though.

That doesn't mean anything. What "tech" do you use to replace shaky cam or tinting scenes with hues? Those are artistic decisions not the lack of money to buy a tripod or colour film.

 

[jarosh]

The handheld camera technique. Invest in a tripod or something, dudes.

Yes. There are few gifted directors and cinematographers out there who know what to do with a handheld camera. It is a legitimate filmmaking device, but is too often used self-indulgently, for binary, showy gimmickry, to add faux grit or some sort of intangible indie cred. I can think of two recent directors who have successfully avoided and suvbverted the typical shaky cam trappings: Andrea Arnold and Lynne Ramsay. They both employ cleverly and artfully integrated handheld shots (sometimes carefully planned) that are intimately tied to imagery and storytelling, instead of trying to uniformly apply broad and misguided ideas which are fundamentally divorced from the potential intricacies of individual shots or scenes.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

I'd rather lens flare everywhere than bad CG overuse

 

[SolsticeZero]

You can put me in the 24fps group. Seriously, it makes panning the camera look like absolute shit.

 

[bengraven]

Every technique in the right director's hand can be and will be fantastic.

I remember the commentary for Natural Born Killers where Oliver Stone says "we basically stole every college film cliche and it works".

 

[karobit]

Not a filming technique, but a storytelling one: Precious didn't really have much going for it at all so it's not like it ruined a great film, but I nearly got up and left when the director had a montage showing sped up clocks flying through the frame to signify that a lot of time had passed. Like, holy shit.

 

[bengraven]

Not a filming technique, but a storytelling one: Precious didn't really have much going for it at all so it's not like it ruined a great film, but I nearly got up and left when the director had a montage showing sped up clocks flying through the frame to signify that a lot of time had passed. Like, holy shit.

Speeding up clocks is as timeless as swirling newspaper headlines.

 

[Arcteryx]

Those moronic zoom-in black cutout circle dealies. Totally takes me out of the film whenever I see it (The Departed springs to mind among others).

 

[jett]

I wouldn't really consider 24fps a filming technique. Once a technological limitation, today it's a limitation of the current marketplace. Thankfully that might change soon, depending I assume on public reception of The Hobbit. Sadly, it's the only movie shot in 48fps that I know of.

Spoiler

avatar 2 is never coming out lol

 

[TONX]

The movie Domino has just about everything i hate in 1 movie. Oversaturated colors, Blasting music during sped up montages, and shaky cam.

 

[jett]

The movie Domino has just about everything i hate in 1 movie. Oversaturated colors, Blasting music during sped up montages, and shaky cam.

I think Tony Scott takes a hit of acid every time he steps behind the camera.

 

[Boken]

Every technique has its place. You may hate a certain set when they're done poorly, but when they're done well, you don't even notice. This particular set tend to be a lot more obnoxious than the usual (e.g. shaky cam, lens flares) hence you pay more attention to it.

 

[msv]

I wouldn't really consider 24fps a filming technique. Once a technological limitation, today it's a limitation of the current marketplace. Thankfully that might change soon, depending I assume on public reception of The Hobbit. Sadly, it's the only movie shot in 48fps that I know of.

How is it a limit of the marketplace? I don't see any limitation with going to higher than 24fps. Pressure/fear from breaking 'convention' isn't a limitation.

 

[Technosteve]

post production 3D can go fuck itself

 

[Kinyou]

Those moronic zoom-in black cutout circle dealies. Totally takes me out of the film whenever I see it (The Departed springs to mind among others).

Those remind me of the slow image cuts in Star Wars, does anyone actually like those?

 

[tak]

Shaky cam. It's a cheap way to make a scene more intense.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

shaky cam and quick cuts are my biggest peeves. quantum of solace's opening is a recent example. so terrible.

To this day, this scene is unwatchable. I can't imagine someone being in the editing room and thinking they did a good job there.

 

[jett]

How is it a limit of the marketplace? I don't see any limitation with going to higher than 24fps. Pressure/fear from breaking 'convention' isn't a limitation.

Most screens around the world only have traditional 35mm projectors, limited to 24fps. And most movies today are still filmed in 35mm. If The Hobbit is a success from a visual standpoint then that might convince more directors to take the plunge into the digital, high-framerate world.

 

[2San]

Put me in the 24 fps group. Panning the camera looks like a slide show.

 

[msv]

Most screens around the world only have traditional 35mm projectors, limited to 24fps. And most movies today are still filmed in 35mm.

Then they convert it to 24fps 35mm, what's the big deal?

 

[The Hermit]

Every technique in the right director's hand can be and will be fantastic.

I remember the commentary for Natural Born Killers where Oliver Stone says "we basically stole every college film cliche and it works".

yes... and in the wrong hands it can be annoying as fuck

also, what's this 24fps slow mode? I can't recall this "effect"

 

[jett]

Then they convert it to 24fps 35mm, what's the big deal?

35mm is only 24fps. You film in 35mm you're stuck with that framerate.

 

[msv]

35mm is only 24fps. You film in 35mm you're stuck with that framerate.

What? I said convert to 35mm, not from.

 

[jett]

What? I said convert to 35mm, not from.

Most movies are filmed in 35mm, the hell is there to convert? Some directors do not want to film digitally, period.

 

[StuBurns]

I've never seen a trombone shot not look moronic.

 

[Phat Michael]

The funny part about JJ Abrams and Lensflare is that he actually has people with flashlights on the set who do nothing but trying to shine into the cameras.

I thought it's pretty cool in Sherlock Holmes for example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltFyEcoGnbQ

The Hurt Locker made good use of the super slow motion as well

Hey at least he got jean reno to.hold the flashlight..

 

[msv]

Most movies are filmed in 35mm, the hell is there to convert? Some directors do not want to film digitally, period.

How is that a limitation of the marketplace? It's obviously a preference and a choice in filming techniques. Smoothness or (more potential down the road) IQ.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Personally I'd say the Bourne movies are the worst offenders of the shaky-cam usage, especially during its action scenes. You can't see shit; it's like the directors don't trust their own action choreography.

I think Paul Greengrass is incredibly adept with shaky cam. See Bourne Ultimatum's roof top chase. Dat close follow shot as he jumps across the alley and through the window.... :O

 

[Window]

I've never seen a trombone shot not look moronic.

Depends on how it's used really (like again with every single film technique). The quicker ones obviosuly draw attention to themselves but the slower ones have a really interesting effect. Recent one I can think of is George Melies standing on the stage about to present his restored films in Hugo (atleast I think it was one).

 

[Suairyu]

To this day, this scene is unwatchable. I can't imagine someone being in the editing room and thinking they did a good job there.

Ask Solo. He'll be happy to tell you that every minor, inconsequential camera movement in that film has incredible artistic intent and worth.

 

[jett]

How is that a limitation of the marketplace? It's obviously a preference and a choice in filming techniques. Smoothness or (more potential down the road) IQ.

People shoot in 24fps(digital or otherwise) because that's what they know, that's what they know people know, that's what everyone is comfortable with. By everyone I mean the movie-going market. There's no need to go into this unknown factor.

The Hobbit will be the testing ground for how receptive audiences are to a high-framerate movie. Not just audiences even, but directors too.

p.s. you're being obtuse.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Along with shakey-cam I'd include "restless/floating/bobbing-cam" -- the camera isn't quite shaking, its just randomly and gratuitously moving up/down left/ right in/out in an irritating way that shouts, "HEY! LOOK! WE'RE FILMING DOCUMENTARY STYLE!!!"

 

[twobear]

The film technique where they let Michael Bay be a director

 

[SunhiLegend]

I hate it when the camera violently shakes and you get very quick cuts during fight scenes. Could hardly tell what Batman was doing in some of the fights scenes in Begins.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

I wouldn't really consider 24fps a filming technique. Once a technological limitation, today it's a limitation of the current marketplace. Thankfully that might change soon, depending I assume on public reception of The Hobbit. Sadly, it's the only movie shot in 48fps that I know of.

Spoiler

avatar 2 is never coming out lol

Is this to facilitate 3D? 24FPS x 2 eyes? If so, how have previous 3D movies been shot?

 

[msv]

People shoot in 24fps(digital or otherwise) because that's what they know, that's what they know people know, that's what everyone is comfortable with. By everyone I mean the movie-going market. There's no need to go into this unknown factor.

Besides your own opinion, and people who discuss it, you have no idea how the movie going market is going to respond. It's a weird thing people came up with though, no one has a problem with 60fps game cutscenes, so it's quite clear that it's the material(shitty soaps), not the framerate that bothers some people.

But now you're saying it yourself - it's what they know and are comfortable with - NOT a limitation. You're repeating what I said, that it's merely pressure/fear from breaking convention.

The Hobbit will be the testing ground for how receptive audiences are to a high-framerate movie. Not just audiences even, but directors too.

Not really. A good movie will be a good movie. 5, 10, 16, 24, 48, 60 or 120fps. This delusion of 24fps magically being the right number of fps for movies is quite weird.

 

[Suairyu]

Is this to facilitate 3D? 24FPS x 2 eyes? If so, how have previous 3D movies been shot?

No.

The 3D version of The Hobbit will be 48fps x 2 eyes.

Not really. Not really. A good movie will be a good movie. 5, 10, 16, 24, 48, 60 or 120fps. This delusion of 24fps magically being the right number of fps for movies is quite weird.

Well no shit, but the problem comes from people now associating 24fps with "film look". Take a trip to any GAF thread on the subject and there will always be a handful of assholes saying "I don't want The Hobbit to look like a soap opera".

 

[Noshino]

Shaky cam. People will look back at movies from this era and wonder what the hell directors were thinking. Lotr, batman begins are two particularly bad offenders in otherwise good movies, but it's all over.

The handheld camera technique. Invest in a tripod or something, dudes.

Children of Men had both techniques, both well executed

 

[jett]

Is this to facilitate 3D? 24FPS x 2 eyes? If so, how have previous 3D movies been shot?

All 3D movies in the past have been shot effectively in 24fps, yeah it's one frame for each eye but the end result to our eyes is 24 frames per second. At 48fpsThe difference to us would be like going from a 30fps game to a 60fps one, the motion would be much smoother and life-like.

One by-product of filming in a higher framerate would be a reduction of ghosting and crosstalk in 3D projection.

 

[msv]

Well no shit, but the problem comes from people now associating 24fps with "film look". Take a trip to any GAF thread on the subject and there will always be a handful of assholes saying "I don't want The Hobbit to look like a soap opera".

The problem is imaginary. The movie-going public won't have any problem with good higher fps movies, a vast majority will even prefer it.

 

[lacinius]

post production 3D can go fuck itself

This ^

 

[Noshino]

The problem is imaginary. The movie-going public won't have any problem with good higher fps movies, a vast majority will even prefer it.

and you are basing this on.......what?

 

[NinjaBoiX]

All 3D movies in the past have been shot effectively in 24fps, yeah it's one frame for each eye but the end result to our eyes is 24 frames per second. At 48fpsThe difference to us would be like going from a 30fps game to a 60fps one, the motion would be much smoother and life-like.

One by-product of filming in a higher framerate would be a reduction of ghosting and crosstalk in 3D projection.

Presumably it's a lot more expensive to film this way. Twice the memory requirements at the very least. And CGI being both animated and rendered with twice the frames must be pretty resource intensive too. I guess it becomes more obvious why it isn't very prevalent!

 

[jett]

Presumably it's a lot more expensive to film this way. Twice the memory requirements at the very least. And CGI being both animated and rendered with twice the frames must be pretty resource intensive too. I guess it becomes more obvious why it isn't very prevalent!

James Cameron once said that filming at 48fps might increase a budget by 10%, and they might lower that to 1%. So it's really not as much of an increase as you might think.

 

[agrajag]

and who the hell watches movies for immersion?

Not sure if serious..

 

[NinjaBoiX]

James Cameron once said that filming at 48fps might increase a budget by 10%, and they might lower that to 1%. So it's really not as much of an increase as you might think.

So Avatar was 48fps?