Jump to content

Acceleration vs. constant movement


Alan Greene

Recommended Posts

This thread is very thought provoking.

 

  • At what point does a shot feel like it's moving?- The moments in which the camera accelerates in respect to a subject is when it feels like it moves. This is because of how human beings feel like we move. What Einstein's theory suggests holds true for all observers, even camera sensors. (Technically, observation is an incredibly simple process but that's more science I don't think this thread needs).
  • Could many Steadicam shots be described in this way, as a series of constant, "fixed" segments connected by moments of acceleration?- Yes. There will be moments in time during the duration of the shot in which the camera and the subject do not accelerate in respect to one another. If one were so inclined, you could attempt to control this to adjust the pace and feel of the shot through it's duration, alternating from perceived motion to perceived motionlessness by manipulating your relative acceleration. This would be a prime example of why a human operator would strive for such perfection.
  • Does acceleration break the observer out of a static frame of reference permanently, or would a return to constant relative motion invite the sensation of standing still to also return?- The second one.
  • To what degree does the pursuit of making the frame "invisible" require the operator and subjects to entertain this idea of acceleration-free movement?- Depends on how badly you want the frame to be invisible, how badly you want the world to move around the subject instead of the subject through the world. The more you want it to feel like that, the more you would have to entertain this notion.

My question now is: Can we move closer and closer to acceleration free, invisible framing, like a limit? A percentage? Or is it a binary dichotomy between perceived motion and perceived motionlessness?

Thank you for this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

Most camera work ist trying to let the audience immerse into the emotion/the mood of a scene or

into the way the character(s) is/are feeling/experiencing a situation in a subtle way.

The tool/the camera becomes almost invisible. A lot of steadycam work does just that.

In my optinion, some of the most interesting work that has been done, included introducing

the camera itself to the audience. Ed Lachman is giving a good example in this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhJvnN83HaY

It starts with someting like that, just a subtle restlessness of the camera, a little movement. I also remember

a particular moment in the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a static shot, Kerry wakes

up in his bed but there is a subtle movement in the shot that does something to us, makes us

observers, as if we were standing there in that room.

Especially in movies or documentaries faithfull to the cinema vérité the camera becomes

a hole character by itself almost, exposes the filmmaker (as in documentaries) or introduces

a hole new outside-perspective.

If steadycam, a tool that was originally designed to make any traces of the cameramen's movement

disappear is used that way it gets really interesting. The huge range of options is one of the reasons I got interested in that tool:

A camera which can be "knowing" or having a mind of it's own, able to move flawlessly, almost godlike, being able

to shift its attention and level of autonomy seemlessly. Thats just gread. Thank you for that Garret!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, a few more questions I was thinking about in the shower:

 

- Does this visual phenomenon rely on a certain angle relative to the subject? Does it only work if you are in front of them, behind them, or to the side? Does it work from all angles?

 

- Does the framing of the subject matter? For instance, if we can see the subject's feet moving, but we are motionless relative to their hips, do we experience the same phenomenon?

 

- Does the size of the subject in the frame matter? Is bigger better? Can it work even if the subject is very far away and very small?

 

 

I think someone should pull out a 10 foot slider and do some controlled tests, see if we can't get some science up in here. what we learn might just end up being incredibly useful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be more of a psychological study, if anything. Show different scenarios to test audiences and get an established baseline for how people feel about it.

 

So it would be "at what points do most people feel what way" sort of thing, not a "this scenario directly equals this result every time" sort of thing.

 

For instance, do most people feel the sense of a motionless frame and subject when we are able to see their feet moving across the environment? Or does that unilaterally give away the illusion?

 

Stuff like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

Ian,

 

You are trying to apply science (and a tenuous science at that) to art. You can't, every scene, every shot, every take is different. case in point, I have the privilege of day playing on Shameless and I've gotten to work quite a bit with William H. Macy. Bill changes up his takes each one is different and sometime it works to go "off the page" and change up the operating. We shot a scene a few weeks ago and I spontaneously did a slow 70mm Hand zoom that was paced off Bill's delivery.

 

Same thing can be said for the way that Micheal C. Hall and I approached shooting the iconic Kill rooms in Dexter. MCH and I quit rehearsing them in season 4. Neither one of us knew what the other was going to do, but we knew each other well enough that we were in each others heads during the shot. In an interview MCH graciously referred to me as a third actor and character in the kill room and that we were Fred and Ginger. Sometimes He was Fred and sometimes he was Ginger.

 

Can that be quantified? Can you score it? Get a "baseline" for it? What happens when the operator leads? This is everything that operating is about. It's about "The Dance" It's about hearing the "music". That's what operating is, not some study and scores.

 

I'll leave you with this Andy Warhol Quote:

 

“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.”
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, at this point it's as if you are deliberately misunderstanding what I'm talking about. Psychology, though not as "hard" as the other sciences, is still a science, which means we can still do tests and repeat procedures to learn about our environment; in this instance, how human beings feel about and perceive visual phenomena.

 

Your immediate counter would be something like "You don't understand art", to which I'd say "You don't understand science".

 

So either you accept that psychology is a discipline of science, or you don't. But I don't know why you wouldn't because it's right there in the word.

 

Perhaps you'd go so far as to suggest that psychology cannot learn about how humans perceive films, but then I'd ask you "Why do low angles near-unilaterally give the impression of "power" of the subject to the viewer?"

 

That's psychology. In Film. at this point it's basically known film theory!

 

that's what I want to do with this motionless thing: establish film theory through science.

 

EDIT: For instance, we can establish the fact "When a camera and subject move with each other without accelerating relative to one another, the world seems to move around the subject instead of the subject through the world" as film theory, now. It happens every time we do that!

 

OR DOES IT????!!! That's what I'm trying to learn. At what point, when the camera and subject do not accelerate relative to one another, but are still moving, does the audience NOT FEEL that way? At what point is the illusion dispelled?

That's where doing tests comes in. That's science.

Edited by Ian Collishaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

I understand what you are talking about. I have a minor in psychology. Operating is ART once it becomes mechanical which is what you are asking it to be is no longer operating.

 

As for your question of operator and actor moving relative to each other but in an environment that doesn't allow you to see the motion I ask, what's the point? Why do the move?

 

What is your experience and what do you plan to do with this info? Itight help is to understand you and what you are trying to achieve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you are talking about. I have a minor in psychology. Operating is ART once it becomes mechanical which is what you are asking it to be is no longer operating.

 

As for your question of operator and actor moving relative to each other but in an environment that doesn't allow you to see the motion I ask, what's the point? Why do the move?

 

What is your experience and what do you plan to do with this info? Itight help is to understand you and what you are trying to achieve?

Your first paragraph is a weird version of a No True Scotsman fallacy it seems. I can't even believe we're getting into this. What I'm suggesting is completely uncontroversial.

 

Your second paragraph betrays the fact that you have no idea what I'm talking about. You're right: why would you move the camera and actor if you can't tell they move at all? That's not what I'm suggesting and I never have.

 

What I'm suggesting is we explore the phenomenon humans perceive when the situation in the OP happens, and see in what other situations the same phenomena happens, or explore when the situation in the OP does NOT yield the OP phenomena.

 

If you can detail a better method to explore natural phenomena than science, maybe you should get a Nobel prize for your insights?

 

What do I wasn't too do with this information? Create more appropriate camera movements when the situation calls for it. To do this, I need to know what camera movements have what effect on the audience.

 

Basically: I want too learn about the natural world. Do you have a better method for learning about the natural world than the scientific method? Because you could make a lot of money doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TL;DR- What are the limits of the perceived phenomena as identified and described by the OP?

 

Science don't real only feels.

 

Before we go any further what is your camera operating and film making experience. What brought you here to ask these questions?

This has literally nothing to do with it, and I feel like, for whatever reason, you're going to try and leverage your experience against mine.

 

I think that's an argument from authority... Which is actually another fallacy.

 

But! This is completely beside the point of this thread, and absolutely has nothing to do with my line of rational questioning.

 

TL;DR- What are the limits of the perceived phenomena as identified and described in the OP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

TL;DR- What are the limits of the perceived phenomena as identified and described by the OP?

 

Science don't real only feels.

 

Before we go any further what is your camera operating and film making experience. What brought you here to ask these questions?

This has literally nothing to do with it, and I feel like, for whatever reason, you're going to try and leverage your experience against mine.

 

I think that's an argument from authority... Which is actually another fallacy.

 

But! This is completely beside the point of this thread, and absolutely has nothing to do with my line of rational questioning.

 

TL;DR- What are the limits of the perceived phenomena as identified and described in the OP?

 

 

 

Sorry, but experience has EVERYTHING to do with it. I remember you now. You got upset when we disagreed about your reel, and you seem to be reverting to that behavior again.

 

"Science don't real only feels." What does that mean?

 

You continue to argue but you don't have the experience to understand the question or the answers.

 

I'm sure you will post something stating that you do understand and that experience isn't needed and shouldn't be brought into this, and while you are making that posting and thinking that you do know better I'll be working, I'll be operating, and while I'm operating I certainly won't be thinking about what a room of researchers might score the shot, I go with what my instincts tell me what to do, I go with what the "Music" wants. Those skills are one of the reasons I'm hired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Members

I'll play ball, but I refuse to engage in all the other hyperbole and obfuscation that took place, here's my take on your questions below:

 

Actually, a few more questions I was thinking about in the shower:

 

- Does this visual phenomenon rely on a certain angle relative to the subject? Does it only work if you are in front of them, behind them, or to the side? Does it work from all angles?

 

There are too many variables to give an accurate response to this question, the shot might work from any one of those angles assuming your background is neutral and looks aesthetically pleasing, but what if there is an ugly bright billboard in the background or some awkward shop signs that ruin the mood you are trying to create within the shot, or what if you need to capture a certain part of the background for the shot to be relevant to the narrative, then you have to find a better angle that allows you to "make the shot work". Or you might be forced into capturing the talent from a particular angle for the sake of continuity within the scene so that your shot cuts well with the previous/next shot, you can exert your own will to a degree but not to the extent of dissatisfying your HOD's (Director, DOP, Script Supervisor etc) all these things must be constantly considered as an operator, your shots have to work within the context of the scene, not just look good on their own.

 

- Does the framing of the subject matter? For instance, if we can see the subject's feet moving, but we are motionless relative to their hips, do we experience the same phenomenon?

 

Of course the framing matters, framing always matters and always effects our perception of a shot, for instance if I was tracking a dog on a wide shot at an even pace in normal mode with maybe a slight tilt down, what do i see? The dog, the landscape, an overview of the scene.

If I am now in super low mode at head height tracking with the dogs leg, it is much more immersive, I am experiencing the dogs POV, the view of the world from the Dogs perspective, the two shots can both work in a different context and could maybe even work well within the same scene. It depends on what the narrative/script requires

 

- Does the size of the subject in the frame matter? Is bigger better? Can it work even if the subject is very far away and very small?

 

I refer to my response above, there are so many variables here to take into account that the narrow parameters you have offered don't even begin to come close to covering an accurate potential answer, anything could potentially work, It depends on what the narrative/script requires. This is probably one of the most important factors when composing a shot yet you don't seem to be considering it at all, you are not offering any actual working scenarios within which to discuss your concepts, which to an operator is what really matters, creating great shots that serve the narrative effectively.

 

 

I think someone should pull out a 10 foot slider and do some controlled tests, see if we can't get some science up in here. what we learn might just end up being incredibly useful!

 

Sounds like a complete waste of time, unless you can come up with some way to introduce every single variable that we encounter on set, then you're better off just testing these theories in an actual working environment, or just operating a lot.

If you are interested in becoming a better operator that would serve to improve your skills more than fooling around with completely inaccurate science experiements that have no relevance to actual operating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...