New Stu Maschwitz short - Chapter 12: After the Subway (Shot on the 5DMKII)

Would look so much better if not handheld.

But shakey camera seems to be pretty en voughe those days.
I personaly hate it, even if it is motivated.

Frank
 
Handheld is okay. There's just a disconnect often between camera operation and how to cover action content. If not handled a certain way it may not come off as strong or immediate.
 
I think the stunt dudes were hot, but all of the hub-a-bub leading up to the film was a let down. I don't even like the color grade from the dude that created magic bullet. The best part of this video is the dvd menu at the beginning.
 
I love it, I understand the limitations you were dealing with and you still delivered a engaging and credible action sequence. I've seen many indie action movies far less convincing. As far as I am concern, thanks for posting and please give me more.
:happy:
 
As far as dynamic handheld shooting styles go go, Stu's is much more subdued than today's popular shaky cam techniques seen in Bourne and the new Bonds. While Stu's handheld operation was still wobblier than I prefer, it is all aggravated by that 1/30 shutter.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with handheld, unless it being used in a way that purposefully obscures the action :)

I prefer to use 1/40 and 1/60 while shooting 24p on the DVX/HVX, to communicate motion with a slight blur, without strobing all over the place ala Crank 2.

Sirocco said:
I love it, I understand the limitations you were dealing with and you still delivered a engaging and credible action sequence. I've seen many indie action movies far less convincing. As far as I am concern, thanks for posting and please give me more.
:happy:
Click to expand...

Thanks! More you say?

My demo reel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU15ohhLCbo&fmt=18

Eric's demo reel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXR6ETwfOLI&fmt=18

And feel free to check out our channels for more martial arts goodness of varying levels of quality and silliness.
 
Shauntron said:
As far as dynamic handheld shooting styles go go, Stu's is much more subdued than today's popular shaky cam techniques seen in Bourne and the new Bonds. While Stu's handheld operation was still wobblier than I prefer, it is all aggravated by that 1/30 shutter.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with handheld, unless it being used in a way that purposefully obscures the action :)

I prefer to use 1/40 and 1/60 while shooting 24p on the DVX/HVX, to communicate motion with a slight blur, without strobing all over the place ala Crank 2.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. At the same time, Bourne and Bond's compositions aren't so destructive to the action. They may implore more shaky cam, but it's a certain science that they've boiled it down to, and it works because the hits, stacks and falls sell well. As a stunt guy, I think you can appreciate every fall you do counting on camera!

In Stu's short, the compositions are distracting when dealing with the action going on in the scene. It honestly is NOT the 30P and slow shutter taking me out of it, nor the action... I just wonder what the motivation behind using longer lenses or "tights" for action work is aside from throwing backgrounds out of focus, you know?

Shutter has less impact on action content than composition and the story of the fight created by the physical interaction of its players. If I had to choose one or the other, naturally, composition would come first.
 
After 3 pages I can't tell you how happy I am to actually talk to someone about the freaking short itself, haha.

Fair enough. At the same time, Bourne and Bond's compositions aren't so destructive to the action. They may implore more shaky cam, but it's a certain science that they've boiled it down to, and it works because the hits, stacks and falls sell well. As a stunt guy, I think you can appreciate every fall you do counting on camera!
Click to expand...
I would say that as far as the third Bourne film and Quantum of Solace are concerned, these are by far the most refined examples of dynamic camera motion and fast editing for the reason you stated: they emphasize hits and stunt falls quite well. I'd consider myself lucky to work on that team. However with continuous motion and changes in perspective from the edits, there's one thing that bugs me. An overall feeling of the placement and movements of people in relation to their environment and each other is lost. If I can preserve this and exemplify my reactions and stunt falls at the same time, why not?

In Stu's short, the compositions are distracting when dealing with the action going on in the scene. It honestly is NOT the 30P and slow shutter taking me out of it, nor the action... I just wonder what the motivation behind using longer lenses or "tights" for action work is aside from throwing backgrounds out of focus, you know?
Click to expand...
Noted! I would imagine it's just Stu's preference, and it doesn't bug me, but I can understand how it seems arbitrary. More on that in a sec...

Shutter has less impact on action content than composition and the story of the fight created by the physical interaction of its players. If I had to choose one or the other, naturally, composition would come first.
Click to expand...
I agree. And ideally, there would be no picking and choosing when all or most of the cinematic components are working to compliment one another.

My current favorite example of this is the Flashpoint endfight, which I think (and you may not agree) offers a pretty sublime mix of good sound work, camera motion, shutter angles, lens types, editing, acting, stunt performance, and an overall sense of danger. Lucid's the word I'd use, though there are one or two weird cuts :)

(edit: found a link with better audio)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q99i8qqctSY
 
Last edited:
Shauntron said:
After 3 pages I can't tell you how happy I am to actually talk to someone about the freaking short itself, haha.
Click to expand...

LoL SURPRISE!!!


I would say that as far as the third Bourne film and Quantum of Solace are concerned, these are by far the most refined examples of dynamic camera motion and fast editing for the reason you stated: they emphasize hits and stunt falls quite well. I'd consider myself lucky to work on that team. However with continuous motion and changes in perspective from the edits, there's one thing that bugs me. An overall feeling of the placement and movements of people in relation to their environment and each other is lost. If I can preserve this and exemplify my reactions and stunt falls at the same time, why not?
Click to expand...

This is true. It's forgiven by the actual intensity created by the "dance" itself. Where normally it wouldn't be okay to totally lose these dudes in an apartment or alleyway, because they're constantly using props to dictate the next step also gets them around breaking lines, or just going flat out crazy. Like you said, they are very refined and well done, especially considering that they break a certain convention in cinematography altogether.

I still take a moment or two out to check it, and honestly (you may agree as a stunt guy) it's because they understand how to cover action at it's core that they can begin to refine and break those lines.

Noted! I would imagine it's just Stu's preference, and it doesn't bug me, but I can understand how it seems arbitrary. More on that in a sec...

I agree. And ideally, there would be no picking and choosing when all or most of the cinematic components are working to compliment one another.

My current favorite example of this is the Flashpoint endfight, which I think (and you may not agree) offers a pretty sublime mix of good sound work, camera motion, shutter angles, lens types, editing, acting, stunt performance, and an overall sense of danger. Lucid's the word I'd use, though there are one or two weird cuts :)

(edit: found a link with better audio)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q99i8qqctSY
Click to expand...

And it's not fault of Stu's either! It not only takes time to get action right on set but off as well. And this obviously didn't have the proper time to really do the stunts justice. By nobody's fault, just circumstance.

Nothing worse than seeing happen is a guy taking a fall, hurting himself, and the camera totally missing it. I've had it happen more than once due to a lack of understanding how action works, none of those times with me in charge.

But with you guys on it, Stu will be good to go
 
My whole thing is that the short seems thrown together, like hey "I got Vinecnt's 5d mk II lets shoot some ****" and in that vain, imho there is really not much to discuss. Its like shooting moving flowers with Stu's name on it. Its obvious at the time he did not know much about the camera becuse locking the aperture takes a jackass like me 3 seconds to get the exposure I want (manual focus nikons of course), two the redrock rig is cute but i've really enjoyed my newly un-retired dvrig for "hand held". These cameras need some weight and true stability so the redorock for me is too awkward on a hand held joint, let alone with that much action. So with that said I didn't care for the short...it wasn't a short it was an action sequence that a million youtubers and vmeoers have approximated with out the stunt guys expertise and that's cool, but I waited like a lot of people after the screen shots and the belly aching about 30p, and the after effects time line with the nested dv rebel tools and expected something more from the camera side. A lot of build up for some experimental clips using a camera someone had limited knowledge of. Sorry if this did not fit the discussion of the short..
 
After 4 months of updates and waiting that's a perfectly valid response to a camera test/test-fight. I don't think it was Stu's intention to generate hype for the project with his blog posts, although that was definitely the result (and each time he posted, I felt more and more sheepish :P). Maybe there will be more for you to chew on next time.
 
To me the 30p looks impeccable on this film !!
Amazing job bro,Don't get caught up in that 24p mess...lol
do you think most people who go to the movies
sit there and say hay this look like it was shot in 24p.or 30p,no I don't think so''
they are looking for a good movie with good story board ,and plot.
the people here are just saying that because they know it don't shoot 24p,and they are want to be film makers as well !!
other then that good job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top