Smooth Moving Camera

[Patriot Infinity]

I'm curious as to how something like THIS would be done. Was it just one guy holding a camera following the action? At one point the camera goes up pretty high. The whole thing seemed quite smooth, too. If someone was holding the camera wouldn't it be a bit shaky?

Any tips or tuts would be great.

 

[Utopia]

Yeah - Segwaycams are cool.

And they are fast, too. I saw a cop on one in Las Vegas and he was going at least 25.

 

[Dreadylocks]

Yeah - Segwaycams are cool.

And they are fast, too. I saw a cop on one in Las Vegas and he was going at least 25.

Yeah a lot of the cops downtown use them, too. It's a nice juxtaposition with all the other cops on horses.

It's also pretty funny watching the tourists on the segway tours with their ugly bright yellow safety jackets and helmets.

I have seriously only known one person who's ever made legitimate use of a segway, and he had MS and couldn't get around without it.

They do look like a lot of fun though. Did you ever see that docu about the guys trying (and failing) to ride one across the country? I think it was called 10mph.

 

[Utopia]

Yeah when I saw the cop I thought of how humiliating it would be to be run down by one of those after snatching a purse.

Did you ever see that docu about the guys trying (and failing) to ride one across the country? I think it was called 10mph.

No - haha. Sounds funny.

 

[Patriot Infinity]

Thanks for the info everyone. So a steadicam is what I need. Perfect.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Contrary to popular belief, this is all a single shot.

Uhh, no it isn't. I counted quite a few seperate shots. Many of them could've hypothetically been shot as one continuous shot, but they sure as heck aren't edited as one continuous shot, which would mean the director wasted a whole bunch of time and money shooting a very complicated steadicam/crane shot, requiring a shit-ton of choreography, for it to be completely wasted by editing it down with a bunch of jump-cuts. Honestly, I'm not doubting what you are saying; I'm just saying that if what you're saying is true, it's a shame they wasted it by chopping it to pieces.

 

[Brooksy]

Uhh, no it isn't. I counted quite a few seperate shots. Many of them could've hypothetically been shot as one continuous shot, but they sure as heck aren't edited as one continuous shot, which would mean the director wasted a whole bunch of time and money shooting a very complicated steadicam/crane shot, requiring a shit-ton of choreography, for it to be completely wasted by editing it down with a bunch of jump-cuts. Honestly, I'm not doubting what you are saying; I'm just saying that if what you're saying is true, it's a shame they wasted it by chopping it to pieces.

First off it is a single shot, what you are seeing is called editing. Now let me explain why it is cheaper to shoot it as a single shot instead of several. If they did decide to shoot this scene in several different shots and angles that would mean that they would shoot 2 seconds of the scene and then move on to the next shot. Which would mean moving all the equipment, lights, monitors, giving the actors a five minute break and then calling them back after that. This takes lots of time, probably an hour and a half at least to shift all the gear and that would have to be with the gaffer plus at least 4 grips. And since there was about 20-30 different shots in that sequence you are talking about 30 hours to complete. Which would be what 3 full days after all the training, rehearsal and preproduction that goes into all this which would take another few days, at the very least.

Or you can do it in one day. Have a single day to pre-light the set, which would probably be a single gaffer and a single grip. You can have the actors rehearsing the same day off set then bring them in to the set when the lighting is done. Then you have a single day of shooting. Will it take a lot of choreography? Yes. That is going to happen no matter how you choose to shoot it. Will there be a lot of planning and set up? Yes. Again no matter how you choose to shoot it, this is also going to happen. But if you decide to set it up for a single day you can cut way down on crew and time which is really where it cost a lot.

Could you imagine doing 10 takes of a single punch and then moving all the gear? That could take months to shoot this scene. But if you have the option to run through the whole scene in two minutes, how many times do you think you could shoot it in one day?

 

[Cracker Funk]

First off it is a single shot, what you are seeing is called editing.

What is this "editing" thing you speak of? I've never heard of it.

Seriously, though, why are you talking down to me? Are we not allowed to disagree? I just stated the obvious. Perhaps you have inside knowledge on this movie, and I'm not at all doubting you when you say it's one shot. But from watching that clip, there's absolutely no way to discertain as much, because, as we both know, it's been edited.

Also, your explanation of why it's allegedly cheaper to shoot one long take does not really jive with reality. If it were cheaper to shoot in this manner, then all directors would do that, on all movies. But they don't. I think it's common knowledge that the longer (and more complicated) a shot gets, the more difficult it becomes, exponentially, to properly execute it.

If a six-second shot takes x amount of time to rehearse, then a sixty-second shot should take 10x amount of time, right? Nope; that's faulty logic. It takes WAY longer to rehearse.

Furthermore, shooting it takes longer. If you're only shooting a 2-second shot, you only need to get 2 seconds correct. With a really long, complicated shot, you dramatically increase the odds that someone will make a mistake. You got the entire shot perfect, except for that one breif moment, the boom creaped in to the shot, or the bad guy reacted just slightly too late to the punch, or the good guy made an unintentionally funny face when he pulled the trigger, etc.

And what's this you say about having to break everything down, and set everything up for each new 2-second clip? What?! No director in his right mind would even think about doing a new setup for every punch in a fight scene. Saving time on setups is filmmaking 101, so if you can light an entire scene at once, common sense dictates your actions.

In the end, I think we can just look at what the vast majority of directors do, on almost all movies. It's been well-established that breaking a scene down into many shorter shots is faster, more efficient, less expensive.

So why on Earth would you go to all the trouble to get one really long shot, then edit it down to the point that it becomes unrecognizable as such? The only reason you would do that is if you intended it to be one long shot, and shot it that way, but then in editing, it just didn't look the way you had envisioned it, so you cut it down. And then you smack yourself on the forehead for wasting so much time on such a complicated shot that you didn't even use.

 

[2001 Productions]

why on Earth would you go to all the trouble to get one really long shot, then edit it down to the point that it becomes unrecognizable as such? The only reason you would do that is if you intended it to be one long shot, and shot it that way, but then in editing, it just didn't look the way you had envisioned it, so you cut it down.

I think you may both be right, actually.

I agree with Brooksy that this was most likely done in one continuous shot (though the edit may represent clips from different takes). The main clue is the fact that it jump-cuts. Had it been shot in pieces, the director and DP would have taken care to shoot coverage in order to avoid jump-cutting. Doing it that way would, as Brooksy pointed out, entail a lot of re-setting and re-lighting.

But you may be right as well that the shot was originally intended to be screened uncut, but just didn't move fast enough to maintain the momentum of the scene. To experienced filmmakers like those on this board, the edits are obvious. But I'd be willing to bet that the uninitiated might not even be aware of them.

In my most recent project I had a shot of an actor crawling out of a small space and clambering to his feet. He's supposed to be in a panic because he thinks something is coming after him. I did the shot hand-held, moving with the actor, but in the edit it just took too long and diluted the tension. So I made it a series of 5 jump cuts - cut the running time of the shot in half. I didn't try to hide the cuts, just made it feel more erratic.

When I screened the scene for my wife she said it looked good. Then I asked her specifically whether the jump-cuts bothered her, since the rest of the scene wasn't cut that way. She asked, "What jump cuts?" So I played it again and pointed them out. She hadn't even noticed them; thought it was one continuous shot.

 

[Brooksy]

What is this "editing" thing you speak of? I've never heard of it.

Seriously, though, why are you talking down to me? Are we not allowed to disagree? I just stated the obvious. Perhaps you have inside knowledge on this movie, and I'm not at all doubting you when you say it's one shot. But from watching that clip, there's absolutely no way to discertain as much, because, as we both know, it's been edited.

Also, your explanation of why it's allegedly cheaper to shoot one long take does not really jive with reality. If it were cheaper to shoot in this manner, then all directors would do that, on all movies. But they don't. I think it's common knowledge that the longer (and more complicated) a shot gets, the more difficult it becomes, exponentially, to properly execute it.

If a six-second shot takes x amount of time to rehearse, then a sixty-second shot should take 10x amount of time, right? Nope; that's faulty logic. It takes WAY longer to rehearse.

Furthermore, shooting it takes longer. If you're only shooting a 2-second shot, you only need to get 2 seconds correct. With a really long, complicated shot, you dramatically increase the odds that someone will make a mistake. You got the entire shot perfect, except for that one breif moment, the boom creaped in to the shot, or the bad guy reacted just slightly too late to the punch, or the good guy made an unintentionally funny face when he pulled the trigger, etc.

And what's this you say about having to break everything down, and set everything up for each new 2-second clip? What?! No director in his right mind would even think about doing a new setup for every punch in a fight scene. Saving time on setups is filmmaking 101, so if you can light an entire scene at once, common sense dictates your actions.

In the end, I think we can just look at what the vast majority of directors do, on almost all movies. It's been well-established that breaking a scene down into many shorter shots is faster, more efficient, less expensive.

So why on Earth would you go to all the trouble to get one really long shot, then edit it down to the point that it becomes unrecognizable as such? The only reason you would do that is if you intended it to be one long shot, and shot it that way, but then in editing, it just didn't look the way you had envisioned it, so you cut it down. And then you smack yourself on the forehead for wasting so much time on such a complicated shot that you didn't even use.

*Sigh*... I don't want you to take this the wrong way but this is clearly your inexperience in the field talking.

On film and video productions each shot is it's own setup. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that each piece of equipment is going to be moved but the odds of it all staying put is slim to none. Each shot needs to be lit individually. Now whether that means that no lights need to be moved or all lights need to be moved depends on how the shot looks when the camera is positioned. If a two second shot only took two seconds then movies would be made much quicker then they are today. The fact of the matter is when the director yells cut the DP has the AD look at the storyboards to figure out which shot is next on the list. Then the ACs move the camera to the next position, and after a possible lens change the gaffer can start lighting it. Maybe at this point the lighting is fine but odds are that something needs to be changed even if it is a slight change. Grips get on it and when they are ready to go the Director/Producer looks at the shot and agrees that it is good to go. Then they take a two second shot. And the process repeats. Now imagine doing this 20 or 30 times. Trust me, it is going to take a much longer time to do this 20 or 30 times then it is taking one day to setup and light the shot and the next day to shoot the shot. Because it is a single shot, it is a single setup. Make sense?

Now you said that we can take the way most directors do things and find out that it is faster more efficient and less expensive. Well the way most directors do things is they hire a DP who comes up with what the picture is going to look like. This includes lighting/camera movement/and sometimes actor positioning. Directors mostly deal with the actors and how they are delivering lines, facial expressions, body language, as well as pacing of a film and the overall feel. When you hire a DP you are hiring their style and feel to be put into the film. The DP for this was clearly hired for that style and feel of this piece. DP's don't care much about the budget. They sit down during pre-production and say "This is what I want to do and this is my idea." The producer either says it is going to cost to much and then they negotiate or they say "sounds good, let's get started." This is the way production is done, there is a lot more but this gives a really good taste.

Now the next thing I am going to say is going to sound really pompous and make me appear to be a jerk. Trust me I didn't want it to come down to this but here it goes.

I work in the video/film production field as a career. I don't have any day job. This is all I do. I have been on countless shoots. I have seen it done the wrong way and the right way. I have seen it done the way you are talking about and the way I know it was done here. I am by no means an complete expert on everything that is film but I do know what would be cheaper for shooting this specific scene and to setup each shot separate would be far more expensive.

2001 brought up a very good point. It was probably several different takes of that one shot. I don't doubt that. But I am willing to bet if you e-mailed that DP/Producer/Director and ask they would all give you the same answer.

That is all I am going to say. I apologize if I talked down to you. I didn't want to insult you just trying to get my point across. I hope this helps.

 

[Cracker Funk]

That's more like it -- I knew we could play nice. I'm just messin with ya, man. I love a good debate. And no apology is necessary on your part, but thanks. I'm probably the one being the jerk here.

You are correct in your assumption that I lack experience in "the field". Well, the professional field, anyway. But I'm an active guerrilla, and I think that's an expertise that carries worth, as well. I get what you're saying. All of it. But I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree.

My disagreement comes from a purely logical perspective. Yes, I know that technically, every new shot constitues a new setup. But every new shot doesn't have to constitute a new time-consuming setup. Moving a camera ain't shit. Moving lights is what will get ya, time-wise. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that. Here's where your argument about this particular scene doesn't really make sense:

If you can spend some extra time to light a scene so that you can execute a long, complicated, continuous shot, why couldn't you use the EXACT SAME lighting to shoot numerous shorter shots within the same scene? I understand the role of the DP, but on any set, the buck stops with the director, and any director with even half a brain can see the benefit of efficiency in breaking up a scene into smaller parts.

Long continuous tracking shots are cool as shit. People like you and I practically jizz over them. Regular audiences don't know why, but they definitely like them, when done right. You're arguing that they are actually easier and faster to shoot. And yet, they remain so rare. I'm sorry, but on that point, you're just flat-out wrong.

If you worried that you sounded like a douche when you pointed out that you work professionally in film and video, wait till you hear the douche-baggery that I've got in store for you. I think the biggest mistake you make isn't in assuming that your knowledge is valuable. I mean this honestly when I say that based on your writings, I have a deep respect for your opinions, and if we ever met in real life, I would most likely consider myself lucky to work with you.

The biggest mistake you make is in assuming that just because someone has a "day-job" that their opinion is not worth the same as yours. Life's a funny thing. I didn't get where I am because of incompetence. Making movies ain't shit. Try teaching at a high-school, one at which 80% of the student population is living below the national poverty level. That's a job that will test you in ways you can't imagine.

Here's my tit-for-tat comment -- though you work professionally in the field, I'm quite positive that you're not a director. If you've directed anything, your experience in that respect has been quite limited. A director does so much more than work with actors, as you suggest. The directors' most important job takes place in pre-production. Plan, plan, plan, and plan some more. Every little detail. Those decisions that the DP makes on the set -- those decisions can only be made based on the instructions given to them in pre-production.

If a shot is to be a long tracking shot, you better have damned-good reason to justify it, and you better not ruin it, by cutting the shit out of it in post.

 

[Cracker Funk]

BTW - watch every cut closely. Most of them are jump-cuts. But there are a couple that are not, and that fact can simply not be reconciled with your one-shot theory. If you don't know what I'm talking about, that's just further evidence that you don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Elliander Pictures]

This is actually quite a riveting discussion.

And i have my own views on this setup.

1/I agree with Brooksy in that its probably a single long shot that is later cut to speed it up.

2/I agree with Cracker Funk in that if it wasnt a single shot, it wouldnt take any longer to light/setup as not only would they use the same lighting but they'd also be using the same steadicam, requiring no "rigging" and therefore about 10 seconds to say "Lets move over here and get this shot". Having said that, getting all the footage for the scene would take longer with individual setups during the filming (one shot would take longer in practice/choregraphy).

It also seems a bit counter intuitive to setup a long shot only to cut it up - BUT this may have been the look they were going for.

3/Personally i think that it's one setup and that they probably ran through about 3 times and always intended to cut out the transitional movement between enemies in order to speed up the action. They would've also used the "best bits" from all the setups.

Personally that's how i would've done it if looking for this style; seems to be the most efficient and effective way of creating the scene.

So Brooksy is right about the actual set up but Cracker Funk is also right in his argument against individual setups taking longer/costing more.

Good discussion guys, kept me reading anyways!
x

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Thanks for the info everyone. So a steadicam is what I need. Perfect.

And an experienced operator, or 6 months of so of pretty steady practice with it. You don't just pick one up and get flawless shots. It's a challenging tool to learn to use well.