21

G

Gavin Garrison

Active member
Hey I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I was wondering if someone could tell me --

In the film 21 (released 3.28), there is a montage where the characters are sitting in a casino, relatively still, as the world rushes past, mostly blurry people bustling at high speed back and forth. It is a really cool effect and I wonder if anyone knows how to duplicate it?

Gavin
 
How I would shoot it...Shoot the characters at the table normal speed. Lock down the camera down. Take out the characters and shoot the people time lapse with a low shutter. In post, draw a matte around the characters, then put the people going by at high speed underneath, blur them out a bit and you're done.
 
In Garden State where Zach Braff just sits on the plane and the people hustle and bustle around him they merely had Zach sit there as still as possible and sped the footage up. I think the motion blur would be much more evident on film than on video.

If you watch that sequence closely in Garden State you can see Braff's blinking very very fast.
 
I'm sure just having the actor sit very still is the way to go. They did a shot like that in Trainspotting, when Renton is playing bingo with his parents. You can tell he just sat there and it was sped up by looking at his chest. You can see as he breathes hsi chest moves very fast.
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
I'm sure just having the actor sit very still is the way to go. They did a shot like that in Trainspotting, when Renton is playing bingo with his parents. You can tell he just sat there and it was sped up by looking at his chest. You can see as he breathes hsi chest moves very fast.
Click to expand...

That's why I would shoot it my way, as separate elements. Matting two shots together is about the simplest effect you can do.
 
thematthewbone said:
In Garden State where Zach Braff just sits on the plane and the people hustle and bustle around him they merely had Zach sit there as still as possible and sped the footage up.
Click to expand...

Whose "they"? Zach Braff IS "they." He wrote and directed the film. :thumbsup:

I agree with Batutta. I'm not saying it can't be done by having an actor sit very still however that seems to be a primitive approach. It would be more sound, safer and guarantee a better result if you filmed the talent and the fast moving extras as two separate elements.
 
thematthewbone said:
In Garden State where Zach Braff just sits on the plane and the people hustle and bustle around him they merely had Zach sit there as still as possible and sped the footage up. I think the motion blur would be much more evident on film than on video.

If you watch that sequence closely in Garden State you can see Braff's blinking very very fast.
Click to expand...

For 21, I'm sure they matted the two shots togethor, probably using MCR. Also, it wasn't shot on film, it was shot in HD on the Genesis.
 
just to add a fact. The trainspotting scene was shot on the Aaton 35-III at 6fps and the Garden State was on a panavision at 2fps i believe
 
I just saw it yesterday and I enjoyed it somewhat. My main complaint beside kate bosworth (worthless) is the lazy or lack of composition in film. They chose 2.40 to 1, an aspect ratio that Michael mann is obsessed with, but he uses the whole frame. 21 felt like it was safe gridded for tv, I was constantly asking myslef is this an M.O.W. I seriously could be cropped to 4:3 without an panning or scanning and you wouldn't miss a thing. That's just my rant on people wasting badass aspect ratios.
 
renegadewill said:
I just saw it yesterday and I enjoyed it somewhat. My main complaint beside kate bosworth (worthless) is the lazy or lack of composition in film. They chose 2.40 to 1, an aspect ratio that Michael mann is obsessed with, but he uses the whole frame. 21 felt like it was safe gridded for tv, I was constantly asking myslef is this an M.O.W. I seriously could be cropped to 4:3 without an panning or scanning and you wouldn't miss a thing. That's just my rant on people wasting badass aspect ratios.
Click to expand...
I dislike super-wide aspect ratios, because of the limited vertical space. In order to achieve a lot of vertical action, the subjects needs to be tiny within the frame. I prefer 1.85:1, because it is a good mix of width and height.

Now "Lawrence of Arabia" is breathtaking in the natural 65mm film ratio of 2.20:1, but so few films take advantage of anamorphic 35mm that I'm starting to get sick of every single summer blockbuster being filmed at 2.35:1. "Ben-Hur" was just ridiculous at 2.76:1. The certainly used it, but it's still ridiculous.

Back on subject, it depends what you are going for. It is certainly much easier to ask the subject to hold as still as possible, and you might be able to pull off some cool camera moves without needing computer controlled cameras and motion tracking.

Matting will require that you keep the camera perfectly still, or else have access to some very sophisticated camera equipment.
 
I'm just sick of people abusing it and then not even hving the balls to put people way off to the side. Ex. David Fincher's film are a ***** to pan and scan to vhs, you shoudl see what the tech was trying to do with some shot in Se7en. You can witness several digital pans aross the screen, becasue Fincher put pitt on the far end and freeman on the other. Now that's using the frame. Or in PTAs films where the wide aspect ratio is used to show all of the characters interacting together in the same angle. I just can't be leave "College Road Trip" was shot in 2.35. It really could be shot in 4:3 and no one in the entire audience would complain. On the other hand, I'm not completely positive, but I think that Run Lola Run was actually higher vertically than 1.33 to 1. Not positive, but it looked like it to me.
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
I'm sure just having the actor sit very still is the way to go. They did a shot like that in Trainspotting, when Renton is playing bingo with his parents. You can tell he just sat there and it was sped up by looking at his chest. You can see as he breathes hsi chest moves very fast.
Click to expand...

This was the first shot that came to mind. :) Good ole Danny Boyle. Anyway, all of the suggestions so far are correct and would work. But honestly, I think the most simple, technically easier, and less costly method would be the "sit still" method and shoot at a lower frame rate. At least, that's the way that I would do it.
 
agcohn said:
I don't think that's possible.
Click to expand...

Possible, but hasn't been done in a VEEEERRRRYYYYY long time. I believe there was, at one time, a 1.19:1 and a 1.25:1 ratio because of early optical soundtracks. I think Fritz Lang's M is in 1.19:1. I may be wrong though.


Also: Lola rennt (Run Lola Run) is, from my experience, 1.85.
 
Thank you lawsuit boy. American dvds and distribtion I thought was 1.85 to 1 but the euro one was higher than 1.33 to 1. I was watching a euro bootleg when I got slight pilarboxing. Hey lawsuit boy we should sue agcohn for slander of our intellect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top