Real Camera Shake Question

[Jon Schellenger]

Hey guys- I have an interesting question for you. David, you as well-

We are getting ready to shoot an indie film in March using our Red Camera. We will be on board a WWII Sub and we want to simulate depth charges going off.

In the movie U571, how do they get the real camera shake. It comes off as very believable and I am wondering if they had some kind of a shake device that the camera was attached to.

I can always simulate it over the shoulder, however, I am wondering what they do in the big budget films. Is there a better way that you guys can recommend? What would be safe for the camera as well?

 

[Brent J. Craig]

You're looking for the Clairmont Camera Image Shaker.

Cool unit. Has electronic controls for everything from rocky road to earthquake.

 

[Paris Remillard]

On Saving Private Ryan, I think that Janusz Kaminski attached drill with a lopsided weight in the chuck to the side of the camera to simulate the machine guns firing. Something similar might work and would be cheaper than the Image Shaker, though less precise.

Based on the rolling shutter artifacts of the RED, the image could get pretty squishy depending on how much the camera is vibrating. Just something to look out for.

 

[Mike Prevette]

Well if it's on a sub, and your trying to simulate depth charges it makes sense that the actors get shooken as well. It's hard just to simulate camera shake in a situation where everything would be shaking. Visual clues like books falling off shelves, cups getting knocked over, lights swinging will help a lot.

 

[Jon Schellenger]

Guys!

Outstanding info- very good points from all of you. I agree that we need visual clues as well like what you were talking about Mike.

Parisrem, and everyone- I agree about the rolling shutter artifacts, and I do need to watch out for that.

Let me ask you guys this: I have been watching the threads on the rolling shutter issue. My background has been 100 percent with video. I do not have any 16 or 35mm experience. It seems like everyone claims the rolling shutter on the Red is no worse then any other video camera out there. Do you guys agree for the most part? Say compared to the Sony F900 or any other digital cinema camera?

To be honest, I was so blown away with Peter Jackson's CTL that I would have been happy with the one of the two prototypes.. he he..

I have seen the outstanding test done on the rolling shutter that was posted, and I felt like it was acceptable. I agree, however, to avoid real quick "whip pans".

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

On Saving Private Ryan, I think that Janusz Kaminski attached drill with a lopsided weight in the chuck to the side of the camera to simulate the machine guns firing. Something similar might work and would be cheaper than the Image Shaker, though less precise.

Based on the rolling shutter artifacts of the RED, the image could get pretty squishy depending on how much the camera is vibrating. Just something to look out for.

I worked with one of the cameramen a few years ago who shot some of the beach stuff on SPR - he said they used an image shaker...

 

[Finner]

I've used a 4 point bungee cord rig that works very well and can be fabricated for cheap.

 

[LighthouseMEdia]

F900 and other cameras use CCDs rather than CMOS, rolling shutter artifacts are inherent in CMOS cameras . CCDs do have there own set of DIFFERENT artifacts but they aren't the same IMHO CCD artifacts are easier to prevent and work around than skew, or strobing from fast lights etc that are exhibited in CMOS chips.

 

[Gregor Hagey]

mirror

mirror

I can always simulate it over the shoulder, however, I am wondering what they do in the big budget films. Is there a better way that you guys can recommend? What would be safe for the camera as well?

A low budget alternative is to shoot into a mirror which is very easy to shake/vibrate and flip the image in post. But like Mike said you need the actors and especially the set to be moving/reacting to the explosion too.

 

[David Birdy]

Live amo always gets the crew going... you need a good Pyro guy... PM me I may have someone.

Dave

 

[Mike Prevette]

Put the whole sub on a gimbal in a studio and shake the shit out of it.

 

[A. Bastaki]

another cheaper way of doing it is using the wiggler. after effects has it. i know avid has it.

you shoot clear footage. then you use the wiggler effect from after effects. lots and lots of movies are doing it in post these days. people don't want their equipment getting messed up with rocks falling and all that... they pretty much stay away.

to me the peter jackson footage seems wiggled in post. so do the lousy gun fires.

Here.. check this page out. and click on watch.. to watch the tutorial of doing it. i know it's a lousy example.. but if you play with the magnitude and the frequency.. you can get what you want.

hope this helps.
________
Design host