View my minute long battle scene (more than lightsabers!)
Posted: Sun, 15th Feb 2004, 8:37am
Post 1 of 12
Alright, this is a effects reel for a minute long skirmish in my new film. I cant upload the whole movie cause it is 10 minutes long, I just dont have the server upload space-ish stuff.
Feedback is appreciated.
I know the droids look iffy in their movement, but what about the other stuff....
Posted: Sun, 15th Feb 2004, 8:42am
Post 2 of 12
Too bright, then it's goes darker when the real people.
while it's bright shadows would have been good.
the cuts need to be quicker in a battle scene.
GET A TRIPOD. ( and use it
Apart from that it looked good well done.
Posted: Tue, 17th Feb 2004, 2:50am
Post 3 of 12
"GET A TRIPOD. ( and use it "
Well, yea. I guess. I have a tripod, and use it. But I can't stand movies that only have a static camera. I just gotta have the camera movie for many of the scenes, it keeps it interesting.
Posted: Tue, 17th Feb 2004, 2:57am
Post 4 of 12
I don't think a tripod is necessary in battle scenes. That lessens the intensity of the action by a LOT, if you ask me.
Posted: Tue, 17th Feb 2004, 7:55am
Post 5 of 12
"I don't think a tripod is necessary in battle scenes. That lessens the intensity of the action by a LOT, if you ask me."
This is true.
Posted: Tue, 17th Feb 2004, 11:06am
Post 6 of 12
THE TRIPOD WAS FOR THE EFFECTS SHOTS.
Geez i thought you guys would know that.
when I watched your clip I could see you added explosions while the camera was moving, you can see the explosion moves around a bit while you try to keep in where it should be.
I'm shocked at you guys.
Posted: Tue, 17th Feb 2004, 11:55am
Post 7 of 12
at 1:06 of the clip, I like that little pole thingy. It is 3D correct? I must be motion tracked or something, looks nice.
Posted: Tue, 17th Feb 2004, 12:07pm
Post 8 of 12
That lessens the intensity of the action by a LOT, if you ask me.
I don't think this is true at all. The pace of an action scene isn't simply down to how shakey and "real" you make your camera movement. Thats preposterous.
Off the top of my head, i can't think of one Hoth battle scene (ESB) which has moving cameras, except for when in the speeders of course. Similarly Starship Troopers. Were those films crap? hell no. The coolness of that action was purely down to the cutting speed. 10 1-second shots of a group of people in battle, from different angles, at different distances, is just as effective (if not more) than deliberately hurling the camera around and making the viewer feel seasick.
Posted: Tue, 17th Feb 2004, 12:19pm
Post 9 of 12
It all depends on the context of the action scene.
In Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, the graceful camera with slow cuts and long shots complimented the general beauty and fantasy feel of the film. Crazy hectic wobble-cam would have been ugly and out-of-place. This kind of action can also be very 'cool', as when used in the first Matrix movie. It might not be realistic, but cinematically it's great.
On the other hand, shakey-cam was perfect for Saving Private Ryan and the battle of Helm's Deep, giving them both a nasty grittiness that enabled you to really feel the desperation and dirt that the soldiers were having to fight through. Making these kind of action scenes appear to be 'cool' with over-choreographed martial arts action would have been a mistake in these cases, as it was more about the realism.
The way action is shot is vitally important, but it has to be judged on an individual scene-by-scene basis, dependent on the context of the movie.
Posted: Wed, 18th Feb 2004, 7:21am
Post 10 of 12
"I don't think this is true at all. The pace of an action scene isn't simply down to how shakey and "real" you make your camera movement. Thats preposterous. "
Woa woa woa now, settle down lassie. I never said I wanted this action to be "shakey" or "real". I just would like to offer the viewer a constantly changing vantage point. This can be accomplished through rapid cuts, or, it can be accomplished by moving your camera around.
I originally wanted to have the explosions in there without tripod shots to make it seem like they weren't effects. I tried hard to make the effects not "move with the camera". I thought I did good with this, however, it appears that I may have not.
I am just tired of seeing so many "fan" films with static shots used JUST so it will be easy to add effects in post. One thing I really saw that inspired me was a shot from Return of the King. As gandalf is riding back to the white city after fending off the flying beasts, there is a very shakey camera shot that feature the whole city of gondor. It was simply breathtaking cause I have never seen anything like that before. It was different. And I like different.
I agree with what was said about Crouching Tiger. I love that style of filmmaking. Rapid cuts are usually there because it was a low budget production (USUALLY, not always). I loved how the shots were extended in Crouching Tiger and other HK films; it makes the action and setting more believable and doesn't make it seem so much like a movie.
Some movies do great with the rapid cuts (see Kill Bill).
Just my two cents.
Posted: Wed, 18th Feb 2004, 10:55am
Post 11 of 12
Kill Bill had a mixture as I recall.
I'd say rapid cuts have less to do with budget and more to do with either time constraints or the skills of the actors/stuntmen. Martial arts films tend to feature real martial artists, so they can perform extended fight sequences very convincingly. Your average Michael Bay action film just features Hollywood movie stars, however, so the only way to make them look good is to do some nifty cutting.
Posted: Sun, 29th Feb 2004, 3:25pm
Post 12 of 12
I thought the clip was ok. The explosion, I feel, was done very well considering the camera movement, but I hated that green laser muzzle flashe thing. That made me aware that it was an overlayed effect. The pole at the end was very nice, and really well motion tracked. The tank thing looked cool as well. The droids though, didnt fit into the seen great, because they were too bright.