tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post4117406765285891166..comments2024-03-22T05:13:51.657-07:00Comments on FXRant: Visual Effects Camera Work: "A Fish Called Wanda" and "Mission: Impossible III"Todd Vazirihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09098040041978835594noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-46638574367171676672009-06-03T22:23:36.164-07:002009-06-03T22:23:36.164-07:00This is such a great, really rich read. Stumbled ...This is such a great, really rich read. Stumbled on your blog while looking for information on realistic "hand-held" camera moves in After Effects.<br /><br />Firefly, BSG ... really wonderful how they make the vfx a natural extension of the camera work ... just as you have described here.<br /><br />If you ever have time to delve into the mechanics of a crash zoom, that would be fantastic. The movement and blur is so subtle it is difficult to tell when and in what manner a "real" camera blurs on that moment of spinning the zoom ring.<br /><br />Many thanks for the excellent work.ScottNYnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-10429518540804289982009-02-07T20:44:00.000-08:002009-02-07T20:44:00.000-08:00Ian said... In terms of Cruise being pushed sidew...<I>Ian said... In terms of Cruise being pushed sideways (rather than forwards) by the missile explosion, I wonder also whether that was to differentiate it from the shot in the first MI film of Cruise being shot forward in the train tunnel with the helicopter exploding behind him?</I><BR/><BR/>You know, I don't think that shot from the first MI even entered anyone's mind. (Only after I finalled the shot did I realize there was a thematic similarity.)Todd Vazirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09098040041978835594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-49760077206498428032008-12-10T19:12:00.000-08:002008-12-10T19:12:00.000-08:00Great article Todd! You always tie vfx back to it'...Great article Todd! You always tie vfx back to it's context, film making. Ever think about writing a book? :)<BR/><BR/>I have to agree with ArchCarrier though, the physical dynamic of this shot never worked for me either. It's unfortunate as it is so well done otherwise.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11853219360185307808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-90048347184413067512008-12-10T15:23:00.000-08:002008-12-10T15:23:00.000-08:00tacky said...Rule of thirds.... i can understand h...<I>tacky said...<BR/>Rule of thirds.... i can understand how it works horizontally, that seems obvious and natural, but what about vertically? Do the rule of thirds apply vertically? How would that work?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes! The rule of thirds also has a vertical component as well, which also relates to how the frame is pleasantly weighted and composed. It will be the subject of an upcoming article.Todd Vazirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09098040041978835594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-9444518384844510992008-12-03T16:41:00.000-08:002008-12-03T16:41:00.000-08:00In terms of Cruise being pushed sideways (rather t...In terms of Cruise being pushed sideways (rather than forwards) by the missile explosion, I wonder also whether that was to differentiate it from the shot in the first MI film of Cruise being shot forward in the train tunnel with the helicopter exploding behind him?<BR/><BR/>Or maybe not.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16030030130413286287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-58633421452933155482008-12-03T15:27:00.000-08:002008-12-03T15:27:00.000-08:00ArchCarrier wrote: Great article, but I must conf...ArchCarrier wrote: <I>Great article, but I must confess I always had problems with the shot, ever since I saw it in the trailer. I mean, how can an explosion behind someone launch him to the left?</I><BR/><BR/>You know, that was my first question to Roger when I was turned over the shot. When they arrived on the set to actually photograph the stuntwork, a certain amount of improvisation occurred - JJ, Cruise, and stunt coordinator Vic Armstrong adapted to the physical realities of the set, rather than adhering strictly to the previsualization (which had Hunt flying prominently forward). Certain realities existed--the original placement of the flipped-over truck, the ultimate destruction of the bridge, and the amount of airborne space required for Cruise to fly through the air and safely hit the parked car. Add to this, the complex nature of the stereo camera rig, the not-trivial explosion of the truck, the dolly backwards, and the synchronization of multiple passes, and you've got some serious hurdles. Are these excuses? Perhaps. But with all of these challenges, I think we succeeded in 'telling the story' with the shot, even though, in screen space, the explosion happens between Hunt and the car... and yet Hunt is thrown screen right. In context, I think it works pretty darn well.<BR/><BR/>Here's how I'll finish my thought: about a week before I finalled the shot, I did a quick test for Roger, where I actually grabbed Cruise's element (which we fully roto'd), and shifted him further screen right, to try and at least settle the screen space issue, and help out the physics of the shot (so the explosion would be the furthest left, then Hunt, then the car, which makes his shockwave trajectory more plausible). And because I couldn't move the car or the truck, I moved Tom. I slid him over about three feet, and also had to do some tricky retiming so all of the choreography beats still worked. Unfortunately, it only sorta-worked. Yes, his trajectory was more plausible, but it broke a few things. Firstly, and most importantly, Cruise's performance was being manipulated and retimed, which took away a lot of the organic, realistic grit of the stunt. Secondly, it was harder to read the missile hitting the truck (since Cruise was covering that area of the frame). Thirdly, the shot was unbalanced, with just about everything in the frame on screen right, with screen left almost empty-- it felt odd. So I restored all of the original placements, and that's how we finished the scene. It was worth a shot, but it just took away too much of the authenticity of the moment.Todd Vazirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09098040041978835594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-18909512601850178422008-12-03T15:04:00.000-08:002008-12-03T15:04:00.000-08:00Anonymous wrote:With the current seeming backlash ...Anonymous wrote:<BR/><I>With the current seeming backlash against cg images on film, it's this attention to naturalism that will prevail I feel. It's also just a stronger type of image than the floaty virtual shot.</I><BR/><BR/>For my tastes, I'm with you. I personally prefer action films with an organic, naturalistic aesthetic shot with an eye toward plausibility rather than ridiculously over-the-top camera styles ("Spider-Man" and "Van Helsing" quickly come to mind). Filmmakers who create live-action films with ridiculously elaborate camera-of-god shots, I believe, are shooting themselves in the foot; they're testing the audience's patience and suspension of disbelief.Todd Vazirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09098040041978835594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-858476525675309552008-12-02T17:09:00.000-08:002008-12-02T17:09:00.000-08:00Holy shit. This was a fantastic, informative entry...Holy shit. This was a fantastic, informative entry including two of my favorite movies. Thanks and great work on MI:3!Estoyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00518716345123432646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-84295352026363102912008-11-28T20:37:00.000-08:002008-11-28T20:37:00.000-08:00Rule of thirds.... i can understand how it works h...Rule of thirds.... i can understand how it works horizontally, that seems obvious and natural, but what about vertically? Do the rule of thirds apply vertically? How would that work?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-23098713116258857032008-11-27T00:13:00.000-08:002008-11-27T00:13:00.000-08:00Great article, but I must confess I always had pro...Great article, but I must confess I always had problems with the shot, ever since I saw it in the trailer. I mean, how can an explosion <I>behind</I> someone launch him to the <I>left</I>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-6767439120133114742008-11-24T03:04:00.000-08:002008-11-24T03:04:00.000-08:00Great read, I just love this level of detail and t...Great read, I just love this level of detail and thought that goes into shot design, and such a treat to get to hear those insights. This is the sort of visual aesthetic that appeals to me, and your a great exponent of it Todd.<BR/><BR/>With the current seeming backlash against cg images on film, it's this attention to naturalism that will prevail I feel. It's also just a stronger type of image than the floaty vitual shot.<BR/><BR/>It is forbidden for you to leave ILM Todd !!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-71367830744967514632008-11-21T17:29:00.000-08:002008-11-21T17:29:00.000-08:00Wow, that's a lot of thought process into such a c...Wow, that's a lot of thought process into such a camera move. However, watching the clip, it seems effortless, which I suppose is the point.<BR/><BR/>Virtual camera moves has always been a bit of a weakness for me, but I hope to practice some more, and take to heart what I've learned here.Daniel Broadwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17517758157226659699noreply@blogger.com