Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Epic=Master Shots Only

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2AGvj2cdlY

Totally fascinating here, but not for a whole movie...

We actually forgot one reverse shot in my first short (or recorded over it; nobody knows anymore). Almost killed me in the editing room! how about shooting everything infront of greenscreen take stock fotos of the actors from behind and then composite everything later. You could actually probably shoot several movies in one day that way...

:sarcasm:
 
Shawn Booth said:
Heard This On Set:

"I can't wait for the Epic. With it, no more shooting anything other than the master! I can zoom in and pull out the close ups and other coverage just from it!"

This producer works at a major studio and truly believes the future is just shooting the master in 5K and then "moving on"...

I understand how awesome it is that in post we can repo our shots for a variety of reasons but I can't believe this mentality exists...
Click to expand...

I'd pay money to witness a producer make this suggestion to someone like Roger Deakins or Emanuel Lubezki.

"Don't worry Mr. Deakins we'll just punch in for the C/U in post ...".
 
One of the shots in the House premiere needed 5k to push in/resample. They tried to make the picture rotate (I think) in post instead of actually rotating the camera. The shot was WAY softer than any other shot and I'm pretty sure House is still shot on film. But must not have scanned any higher than 1080p.
 
Coppola and Murch used the technique recently in Youth Without Youth. And that was shot with F900s I believe. Neither one thought it would work given the 1080 resolution but in the end it saved some shots for them. Coppola said he could see himself using the technique again in the future.

But I don't think too many people would seriously go into a major production thinking they'd shoot everything in master and then just zoom in for tighter shots. Red has a lot of resolution, but it's not a miracle worker. That strategy in general just seems flawed. You'll end up spending money in post trying to fix shots that are soft, distorted, etc. Just get it right to begin with, and use the technology effectively. The savvy producers know when to cut corners and when not too.
 
Agreed. Just go 1:1 and think whether you would be happy if your entire movie looked like that. I don't think I would!

But I have certainly saved a missing shot by punching in. I have also created dolly shots, but only at 720. But don't think I'd dare shooting that way intentionally.
 
I'm not saying there are 35mm productions who shoot only a master and repo every close up off that. But do mediums get repurposed into close ups once in a while by the editor and turned into visual effects shots because the director didn't think to grab a closeup or didn't have time to- you betcha. That said, of course the concept of shooting everything in a wide and making that work cinematographically is just asinine. :) It has to be used very sparingly because the effect is jarring. Without a change in camera angle, a punch in can have the effect of looking like a jump cut.

But then again think of motion capture. That's the same idea in a way- just a completely different methodology. The camera angles in Avatar for example are worked out shot by shot long after 'production' was completed.

Noah
 
I can see this being a huge way to cut out the B cam on TV shows. They are basically doing the same thing, running two cameras one with the wide, the other a medium. But thinking you can shoot only a master is dumb.

Besides, it won't last long once a few prominent actors and actresses go apeshit after seeing how terrible they look in the zoomed in from the wide shot. cheating the lighting and diffusion in the close up can literally save face.
 
I'd say perspective also plays a huge role. It's that subtle difference you get between zooming in vs. actually moving the camera in closer. That angle shift does make a difference and just cropping the footage wouldn't cut it.

Have I done it? Sure, but only sparingly and usually only if I have to.



*Hooray for first post. New around here but have just been reading for awhile.
 
Shawn Booth said:
Heard This On Set:

"I can't wait for the Epic. With it, no more shooting anything other than the master! I can zoom in and pull out the close ups and other coverage just from it!"
Click to expand...

Someone should put this guy to the test. We'll see if he could explain why the "coverage" is out of focus half the time.
 
In general I don't like the sound of all your "close-ups" having the same deeper depth of field characteristics as your wide shots (I like the shallower depth of close-ups...makes you really concentrate on the performance). This "one-shot-to-rule-them-all" approach could however work as a particular effect/approach for the right script though....I'm not sure what effect this would create...continuity would be very fluid between shots :001_unsure: (don't tell that producer though or he'll do away with the script supervisor next :laugh:)
 
Noah Kadner said:
I'm not saying there are 35mm productions who shoot only a master and repo every close up off that. But do mediums get repurposed into close ups once in a while by the editor and turned into visual effects shots because the director didn't think to grab a closeup or didn't have time to- you betcha.
Click to expand...

I do it from time to time for clients who 'missed a shot'....and it works generally, but I don't like doing it. If it's not done right, the shots can come off looking cheap and cropped.
 
Stronz Vanderploeg said:
I'd say perspective also plays a huge role. It's that subtle difference you get between zooming in vs. actually moving the camera in closer. That angle shift does make a difference and just cropping the footage wouldn't cut it.

Have I done it? Sure, but only sparingly and usually only if I have to.



*Hooray for first post. New around here but have just been reading for awhile.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, that is the main problem with this approach. I have done several pan-n-scans where I've had to crop in on different parts of the image, and some wide angle shots have tremendous amounts of skew at the sides.

Sometimes I've actually had to rotate the cropped shots to compensate for the vertical lines leaning too far to the sides, but there's still distortion in the rotated shots. It's just not quite as noticeable as the entire image skewing to the left or right.

And if we're talking about using a master shot to capture everything in the scene, it is going to have to be pretty wide angle.
 
David Wyatt said:
In general I don't like the sound of all your "close-ups" having the same deeper depth of field characteristics as your wide shots (I like the shallower depth of close-ups...makes you really concentrate on the performance). This "one-shot-to-rule-them-all" approach could however work as a particular effect/approach for the right script though....I'm not sure what effect this would create...continuity would be very fluid between shots :001_unsure: (don't tell that producer though or he'll do away with the script supervisor next :laugh:)
Click to expand...


Isn't it true that, after zooming in and cropping the wide master (with deep DOF), the resulting close ups would actually contain shallow DOF because of image magnification?

Have you seen those tests where the 28mm wide was cropped to produce the same framing/perspective as the 85mm and the DOF looked equally as shallow, with a bit less background magnification
 
No it won't. The FOV will be different but the depth will be identical. You tend to see quite a bit of depth in wider shots, where closer shots are shallow, either because of proximity to the subject or a longer lens being used. If I crop in, anything in the background will not be any more or less in focus.

I get what you're saying, that the magnification plays a part, but the actual depth of what is in focus, stays the same.


DS Williams said:
Isn't it true that, after zooming in and cropping the wide master (with deep DOF), the resulting close ups would actually contain shallow DOF because of image magnification?

Have you seen those tests where the 28mm wide was cropped to produce the same framing/perspective as the 85mm and the DOF looked equally as shallow, with a bit less background magnification
Click to expand...
 
How about hyperfocal distance of the lens?
If you're on a 25mm and focused to infinity that won't make for much pretty close-ups.

Anyway, as absurd as the original statement this thread quoted really is, it's nice to know that sometimes medium becomes close-ups and what not.

Since I never worked with a camera that gave me enough resolution for that, I never considered. And I don't wanna consider now... Technology spoil people in bad ways sometimes :P.

Also agree about the perspective factor, moving the camera will always make it look better.
 
I did this on a 1080p commercial the other day. Shoot all wide (green screen) reposition the 1080 frame in post. Non actors and limited time.
 
Re: "..... I can shoot the whole thing from my hotel room window....." LOL
Wasn't ROPE shot in 8 Master shots? Re: Avatar. James Cameron did reframing on 100% of T-2 using Super-35 but it was not shot in one wide shot. Also I thought on Avatar he had a handheld camera to work out the Mocap with a real time previz view of what the shot would look like on set and was not making it up later after shooting was done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top