michael zaletel
Well-known member
The question I would like to pose for the professional cinematographers, directors, dp's, editors and etc., is whether or not accuracy, consistently and reality is important when cutting between cameras.
Was watching last nights' episode of CSI Miami, which as I've mentioned is my favorite show to watch in HD right now (even more than Lost), and was again amazed by the intro scene (a road rage car chase ending in one car getting sucked into the earth)...that is until I replayed it over and over again trying to dissect what was great about it.
First of all, I counted over 40 different camera views ranging from low drivers' side wheel to macro view of tachometer to overhead as both cars pass underneath and too many more to list. I can't even imagine how much it would cost to set up that many different camera angles, views and shots for a 2 minute piece. But that's for another thread.
The question I would like to pose for the professional cinematographers, directors, dp's, editors and etc., is whether or not accuracy and reality is important. No, I am not talking about whether it is possible for a car moving at high speed to get sucked into a hole caused by a tunnel cave-in, again, that's for a separate thread...but rather how there was almost no rhyme or reason, continuation or flow to the various cuts in terms of where the cars were on the road or bridge or city, what was in the background, or whether the surroundings remained consistent as the editor cut from camera to camera.
Perhaps there is something I am not understanding about the trade at this level but logic would conclude that if you have money to take that many shots with that many camera angles, you could at the very least preserve the realism and consistency of the scene. Worst of all, although throughout the entire scene, they keep cutting to a poorly composited CGI scene of a portion of a bridge road weakening and cracking where the car ultimately gets sucked in, after that happens, the other car is all of the sudden in the city but then looks in his rearview mirror and is somewhere else and then a front view of the car leaving the scene is actually the same exact CGI scene (with the cracks) where the red car just got sucked in, only now there are only cracks. To make matters worse, when Horatio Caine comes on the scene and is standing above the hole, he is in the middle of the city with skysrapers above him and we find out that this hole is across the street from a bank rather than on the bridge where the accident happened.
Again, I must say that I am completely impressed by CSI Miami, love the camera work, love the color, even love the scripts and the sometimes great sometimes cheesy lines at the beginning of each show where Caine puts on his sunglasses. I'm just having a hard time understanding why more attention wouldn't be given to detail at this level and/or why they would choose to switch locations right in the middle of the action.
Please weigh in on this discussion. I would greatly appreciate any insightful feedback. And try not to pick on CSI Miami, I've seen this sort of thing in many other great tv shows and feature films. Of course I am usually one of the small few that notice, but I can't help but think there are subconscious effects on all viewers that ultimately detract from the effectiveness of the storytelling.
Sincerely,
-shooter
Was watching last nights' episode of CSI Miami, which as I've mentioned is my favorite show to watch in HD right now (even more than Lost), and was again amazed by the intro scene (a road rage car chase ending in one car getting sucked into the earth)...that is until I replayed it over and over again trying to dissect what was great about it.
First of all, I counted over 40 different camera views ranging from low drivers' side wheel to macro view of tachometer to overhead as both cars pass underneath and too many more to list. I can't even imagine how much it would cost to set up that many different camera angles, views and shots for a 2 minute piece. But that's for another thread.
The question I would like to pose for the professional cinematographers, directors, dp's, editors and etc., is whether or not accuracy and reality is important. No, I am not talking about whether it is possible for a car moving at high speed to get sucked into a hole caused by a tunnel cave-in, again, that's for a separate thread...but rather how there was almost no rhyme or reason, continuation or flow to the various cuts in terms of where the cars were on the road or bridge or city, what was in the background, or whether the surroundings remained consistent as the editor cut from camera to camera.
Perhaps there is something I am not understanding about the trade at this level but logic would conclude that if you have money to take that many shots with that many camera angles, you could at the very least preserve the realism and consistency of the scene. Worst of all, although throughout the entire scene, they keep cutting to a poorly composited CGI scene of a portion of a bridge road weakening and cracking where the car ultimately gets sucked in, after that happens, the other car is all of the sudden in the city but then looks in his rearview mirror and is somewhere else and then a front view of the car leaving the scene is actually the same exact CGI scene (with the cracks) where the red car just got sucked in, only now there are only cracks. To make matters worse, when Horatio Caine comes on the scene and is standing above the hole, he is in the middle of the city with skysrapers above him and we find out that this hole is across the street from a bank rather than on the bridge where the accident happened.
Again, I must say that I am completely impressed by CSI Miami, love the camera work, love the color, even love the scripts and the sometimes great sometimes cheesy lines at the beginning of each show where Caine puts on his sunglasses. I'm just having a hard time understanding why more attention wouldn't be given to detail at this level and/or why they would choose to switch locations right in the middle of the action.
Please weigh in on this discussion. I would greatly appreciate any insightful feedback. And try not to pick on CSI Miami, I've seen this sort of thing in many other great tv shows and feature films. Of course I am usually one of the small few that notice, but I can't help but think there are subconscious effects on all viewers that ultimately detract from the effectiveness of the storytelling.
Sincerely,
-shooter
