nikkicallaghan Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 I've been watching a few programmes recently of the documentary type. Loosely in the case of anything with Jeremy Kyle in but there you go. I've noticed in a lot of shots on locations where you see camera crew they seem to regularly have a go pro mounted just above the lens and I was trying to work out the reason for this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itiba Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 It's impossible to get playback on film cameras until the film is developed so often camera op's on shots where movement is involved will have a go-pro so they can see instantly what the shot looked like. For instance a stedicam op will be able to see how their speed is, whether they were at the right height etc. Also some focus pullers will install a device above the lens which gives an accurate reading of how far away the actor is to enable sharper focusing - this might look like a lens. ETA: Before go-pro's a video camera would be placed within the view finder of the camera to allow playback (and is still done for the benefit of directors who watch from 'the monitor'). You ight see the credit of 'video assist' which describes the person who presses record and play on this separate camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shez Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 It's not uncommon to have a gopro or similar mounted on the camera looking back at the op - for some documentary style filmmaking where the person behind the camera is also part of the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikkicallaghan Posted February 28, 2016 Author Share Posted February 28, 2016 I see what you mean by all that but these cams are on eng/video cams not film pointing in the same direction as the camera they're attached to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itiba Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Well perhaps to get a wide view along with a close up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikkicallaghan Posted February 29, 2016 Author Share Posted February 29, 2016 1456703922[/url]' post='535430']Well perhaps to get a wide view along with a close up? That's a good thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryNattrass Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 I would imagine it is there to offer a wide angle of the same shot as the main camera, bear in mind on a doco the zoom may be crashing in at he key time, it just gives an option in the edit. It may also be as a back-up camera or to use as a logging wide shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbsy Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 I imagine it's a production decision. On lots of edits these days they use a wide angle shot, sometimes showing the main camera, as a cutaway for edits. Often it's from a side view and desaturated to monochrome or something. It's an effect I don't like but lots of directors do, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 The one I'm on tomorrow will have exactly the same setup. Backup wide angle is always useful - and I tend to just start them running and leave them, but only running the 'real' camera when I need to. Like Gary says, it takes time to zoom and frame, and these small cameras can cover the gaps. I also use mine with the phone app, so I can keep any eye on what is happening when I am away from the camera. Tomorrow I'll be in an empty factory, waiting for a huge machine to be delivered. I can be a bit lazy, and use it to monitor the empty frame from the small room I've got for a quick edit. The wide angle being a kind of security image, giving me time to get to the camera for the real shots. When handheld, the very wide angle images also come in handy for smoother video too. I've not seen real film for a long time now - and to be honest, if you can afford to shoot film nowadays you'd probably not be using a go pro for very much. even Mr Speilberg doesn't use film any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shez Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 It's far from a dead format - Spectre, star wars VII, jurrasic world, the imitation game, amazing spiderman 2, Noah, dark knight rises, Les Mis, Django unchained were all shot on film. Plenty of others too. 16mm also seems to be gaining popularity again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Can't disagree, but it's a bit like those still recording on analogue reel to reels, for the warmth and other emotive stuff. Digitising the rushes at least removes the need to un-skip the Steenbecks. I suspect the movies shot on film might not be the kinds of production's I'll ever be involved with. Time will tell, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikkicallaghan Posted February 29, 2016 Author Share Posted February 29, 2016 How much difference is there really though looks wise between footage shot onto film and shot onto solid state memory?I'm sure the panavision cameras on digital will have the same lens as the analogue ones and anything can be given a film look in post I assume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Much as I'm pro video - film look in post is nearly as effective as those VSTis that put crackle back in to simulate vinyl. It's not just resolution, it's grain, and the way the image is created. The idea of a rotary shutter is very different to turning capture on in a chip, then off again. Scanning instead of one shot, and even the cameras that can simulate different shutter angles and other filmic features only produce a simulation of film. The directors who are still pushing film don't just do it for nostalgic reasons. You can push or retard the processing time, and pull out depth from shadows that video finds hard to do. We've now got hi-res video, in a variety of pixel counts, but video still looks like video. I happen to like it, and don't want the 'special' look real film has. A good friend now shoots 4K, and uses his amazingly expensive glass he bought primarily for stills. These lenses, with decent external controls and add ons to put in all his filters are way, way more expensive than the actual camera he's using. Film just looks different. I'm not sure better, but just different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shez Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 I read that Tarantino really wants people to be able to see his films projected as film, not digitally. Sadly not an option at many cinemas now. Skilled film projectionists will probably soon be a dying breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelgrian Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 I read that Tarantino really wants people to be able to see his films projected as film, not digitally. Sadly not an option at many cinemas now. Skilled film projectionists will probably soon be a dying breed. To be honest wet film can't die fast enough. Having been a projectionist during my student days film handling is a pain in the bum, transparency gets scratched, stuff like hairs get stuck in the gate of the projector, stuff has to be repeatedly spliced and the alignment and focus of the projectors is never perfect. Unfortunately people seem to be trying to recreate the some of the bad aspects of film by shooting at 24p introducing horrible motion judder for 'flim effect'. DCI do specify 48fps at 2K but they don't do more than 24fps at 4k at the moment. There are proposed extensions to get to 4K at 60FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.