Can I do this shot with my EX1?

Buck Forester

Buck Forester

Well-known member
Forgive my inexperience with editing, as this is probably an editing thing, but I don't know how it's done and I'm hoping I can shoot with my EX1 and do this kind of thing?

This is an Austin Stevens snake guy scene tracking anacondas... if you forward click on the video to 4:31, with a series of the same effect at 4:37, 4:39, and 4:42. Used sparingly I like the effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79fND0COYlA
 
I wonder if multiple still cameras were set up for that shot. Multiple stills can make that effect when edited together, from an array of still cameras.
Other thought is you can have the subject try to hold still and then orbit around a few degrees quickly and do it in overcrank then slow it down.
 
basspig said:
I wonder if multiple still cameras were set up for that shot. Multiple stills can make that effect when edited together, from an array of still cameras.
Other thought is you can have the subject try to hold still and then orbit around a few degrees quickly and do it in overcrank then slow it down.
Click to expand...

It's a common technique... and yes it is done with multiple stills fired together with a strobe. Not going to happen with an EX1 alone.
 
I'm surprised they would have multiple stills... this was shot deep in the Amazon in a very remote location as he was looking for anacondas.
 
You're surprised that an Animal Planet level production would have multiple still cameras? I'd rather expect it. Along with 2-3 video cameras as well.
 
I may be wrong, but I'd think a couple cameraman would be the ones with cameras, with maybe some production guys like sound, director, etc. Maybe those guys carry still cameras if needed? I would think all the guys would also have to be snake experts as well, in his case, as the camera is right there with the snakes.

But even if there are 5 guys with still cameras, the motion/composition is so fluid and smooth I'm not sure how they'd piece together something like that? I wonder what the process is? It's almost like they pause the scene and turn the angle. Regardless of how many cameras, I'd like to learn the technique!
 
basspig said:
I wonder if multiple still cameras were set up for that shot. Multiple stills can make that effect when edited together, from an array of still cameras.
Other thought is you can have the subject try to hold still and then orbit around a few degrees quickly and do it in overcrank then slow it down.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but in this case obviously Austin Stevens couldn't hold still as he was coming out of the water holding a huge, dangerous snake and there is exploding water that pauses in motion as well. I wonder how I go about learning this technique?
 
The process works like this:

You arrange an array of still cameras at fixed intervals. You set them all to fire when a certain event is triggered. In this case, likely by the fire of a strobe. Each camera takes a still photo at the correct moment. In editing, you simply load the still from each camera in turn such that you are looking at the same moment in time from cameras placed a foot apart of so.

The frozen water, etc. is nothing more than what a strobe does to motion. Watch the background of the trees. You'll see that the exposure values are completely different to the video values during the moment that strobe fires.

There is a name for this effect, and I need to find it. It's been used forever. And generally you rent a rig to do this. Some have dozens of cameras attached to do it, and I've seen everything from 90 degree coverage to 360 degree movements.

Effect is "Time Slice" and used in the Matrix movies for the "Bullet Time" effect. Here is an image in a studio where you can see a VERY precise camera array for this: http://www.instructables.com/id/Matrix-Bullet-Time-the-REAL-way/step2/Technology/
 
Last edited:
Look up the behind-the-scenes for Crank 2. They rigged up a bunch of little Canon AVCHD camcorders on a half-circle piece of metal tubing, so they could create a portable unit to make this effect. Doesn't have to be still cameras, it could be video cameras if you have a common reference point for them, although if you want the frozen-motion look you'd probably want stills cameras.

Anyway, I don't know what they're using in this show, but I doubt they're setting up a whole bunch of cameras on tripods, I'd wager that instead they have some manner of pre-built rig with small cameras on it, all pointing inwards, that they can trigger simultaneously.
 
Barry_Green said:
Anyway, I don't know what they're using in this show, but I doubt they're setting up a whole bunch of cameras on tripods, I'd wager that instead they have some manner of pre-built rig with small cameras on it, all pointing inwards, that they can trigger simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Agreed Barry. But however they are doing it, you can clearly see they are strobing it to get the freeze-frame look. I saw the half-pipe deal in Crank 2 and that was interesting. I don't think you could get a freeze with that though.
 
Amazing, thanks guys! I'm impressed that they would have that much stuff in such a remote area, and also how to set up such a shot and compose it while chasing a snake, especially popping up out of the water with an anaconda.

Thanks again, and I'll read up on that link. I think the effect is cool, I'm gonna try it (but not while snake hunting, ha!)
 
Buck,

Remember this is TV. I don't think there was a whole lot of "snake chasing" really going on. This whole deal strikes me as "reality TV" more than anything else. There were multiple video cameras there, several still cameras, and even a fully outfitted underwater camera. Which is where the underwater snake wrestling scenes came from.

The guy claims to be near death from drowning, while the guy with the camera on his face just sits idly by? I don't think so.
 
Perhaps you're right and this is more of a big Hollywood-type production and not a Survivor Man or Man vs. Wild (although he has a limited crew) type production.

I figured if he was in real danger of drowning the camera guy would come to the rescue but it wasn't quite to that point yet. I'm sure he embellished but I didn't take him as a big faker like that. If so I've lost some respect for the show, I really like his stuff.

Reading the time-slice stuff, if it were done with still cameras it sounds like you would need dozens of cameras to do it right, all perfectly synchronized, and on a curved platform. I'm not sure that's how they did this one, perhaps the method Barry mentioned was how they did it. I'm still trying to find that one (with video cams) and am still searching.

Who knows, maybe they set up the scene beforehand, found an anaconda somewhere, tired it out, and tossed it into that area where everyone was waiting and then Steve pretended to find and jumped on it and wrestled it underwater although the snake was already wore out. Maybe it was someone's pet and they shot the sequence in the Disneyland lagoon where they have the Jungle Cruise ride. Can't believe anything on these shows these days.
 
Check this video:

http://www.moviemaker.com/on_the_mo...ltage_camera_rigs_behind_the_scenes_20090415/

About :47 in.


Whether this shot was done with stills (probably doubtful) or a video camera rig, it had to be planned, there had to be strobes ready to go, the underwater guy had to get the camera ready and in the water (and that takes some time), the snake had to be found, and they had to get it filmed. This did not all happen by chance.

There is no question he was wrestling in the water with a snake. So there is reality to it. But there is certainly a lot of "production value" here. That makes for compelling TV. That is what most people really want. No one wants to see the hours upon hours it takes to really do something like this.

I don't wrestle snakes, but I do cave video. And have friends who do it at a VERY high level (feature film, DiscoveryHD, HBO, etc.) and NOTHING that happens on those shows in caves happens "by accident". Everything is meticulously planned to look like a happy accident.
 
Ahhh, thanks for the Crank link... achieving that kind of effect is much more involved (and expensive) than I thought, especially for the limited times it would be used.
 
On this video, I'm assuming it's just done at very fast frame speeds with camera movement to get the effect? At 4:56 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPDnluREgks It almost has the time slice look.

They have a Phantom HD high speed camera in their production line up so I'm thinking this is from that. I have so much to learn (and much more to spend, ha!)
 
Buck, I think I might be wrong on this, but do you use Sony Vegas? Because, for some limited stuff and with some planning, you can pull off this type of effect ("Bullet Time") with just one camera, if you have some major cooperation from your subject. You'd never get the shots in this video you linked, but you can do a bogus fake "matrix" type of shot with just one camera. There's a tutorial out on the web about how to get the effect with one camera and some morphing software. I experimented with it for a car commercial I did forever ago, and it sorta worked okay (we ended up cutting the shot but, still, the effect kinda worked).

Here's a link to the tutorial:
http://library.creativecow.net/articles/kumar_satish/vegas_morph.php
 
Barry, I have Final Cut Studio (I say 'have' because I haven't really used it yet). I saw a couple things on YouTube where people were doing this effect to some degree with one camera and it wasn't too bad (I could tell they were done real quick). I'll do more research on that, thanks for the link, I really appreciate your advice here.
 
You guys are right on. Call me cynical, but I sometimes wonder if all the shots we saw were really in the Amazon. The water looked too clear at some points... made me say Hmmmmmm!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top