18 replies to this topic

[Ed Moore]

Don't think this has been posted before. Never seen this until an old friend who's now a cocktail designer (!) sent me a link saying "this combines my interests and yours".

Brilliant operating I thought - the lockoffs at each end are astounding to me. And the timings of Robert Carlisle getting to each prop at the right point in the dialogue must have taken a serious amount of rehearsal.

For the speed they're going and the length of the run I'd say this pretty much has to be vehicle mounted in some way. There's also two grips in the credits.

There's no steadicam credit but as the DoP is listed as George Richmond I'd say it's pretty certain it's the same George (http://www.imdb.com/...104/maindetails)

[Lawrence Karman]

Nice concept and work by George, but what was he saying? Maybe they should do one in English.

[RonBaldwin]

I'm tired just watching it! That's a serious walk/talk, I need a drink.

[Kevin Andrews SOC]

Thanks for posting Ed!

How did they keep the noise of the vehicle out? The tires on gravel sound must have been overwhelming?

Very impressive. Wonder how many actual takes they did.

[Mark Schlicher SOC]

Very nice indeed. At two points the shot received some "help" from a slight zoom, which I suspect was done in post...in both cases to delay a reveal of one of the bigger props. The first was the TV wall and the second was the banner.

Don't think this has been posted before. Never seen this until an old friend who's now a cocktail designer (!) sent me a link saying "this combines my interests and yours".

Brilliant operating I thought - the lockoffs at each end are astounding to me. And the timings of Robert Carlisle getting to each prop at the right point in the dialogue must have taken a serious amount of rehearsal.

For the speed they're going and the length of the run I'd say this pretty much has to be vehicle mounted in some way. There's also two grips in the credits.

There's no steadicam credit but as the DoP is listed as George Richmond I'd say it's pretty certain it's the same George (http://www.imdb.com/...104/maindetails)

[Lars Erik]

Thanks for posting Ed!

How did they keep the noise of the vehicle out? The tires on gravel sound must have been overwhelming?

Very impressive. Wonder how many actual takes they did.

They have recorded Robert Carlyle's dialogue in studio after the takes.

Nice work, but I found it to be a bit boring, sorry. A long steadicam shot wuth nothing or little happening in the background isn't very interesting to watch. Instead of using just props, they could have used actors adding to the story.


LE

[Charles Papert]

There were a ton of zooms (or image repo's--this was apparently shot on RED so they could have done a 2x zoom in and still deliver 1080), interesting. By the same token, they could have done some additional image stabilization in post--the operating was almost too good to be true.

[Brad Grimmett]

Blimey! If that's steadicam, then bravo! Does anyone have any confirmation that it is? I must say it looks like a stabilized head on an arm/crane, mounted on a vehicle to me. Some of the accelerations at the beginning scream vehicle shot. And the lockoffs just aren't believable, unless they used image stabilization like Charles said.
In any case, it was a nice idea nicely done.

[Jess Haas SOC]

Looks like an optical zoom vs. image repo to me. Looked like there was a bit of a vertigo effect going on at atleast one point although my eyes could have been playing tricks on me.

Gyros maybe?

~Jess

[Ed Moore]

Looks like an optical zoom vs. image repo to me. Looked like there was a bit of a vertigo effect going on at atleast one point although my eyes could have been playing tricks on me.

Gyros maybe?

~Jess

The one coming up to the stack of TVs is definitely a zoom as you can see the perspective of the hills in the background change quite a lot.

But I wouldn't be at all surprised to find Charles is right and they've stabilised some of this, especially the lock offs at each end which are just phenomenal if they were done by hand.

Couldn't find a contact anywhere for George but I've emailed the DIT to see if we can get some behind the scenes info.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Looking at it I don't think it's a steadicam shot, I think its a stabilized head on a short arm, hence the two grips. There are few spots that to me it looks the XR head in action. With something like the XR head you wouldn't need to do any post stabilization, and honestly it's the way I'd shoot the spot.


XR head info

[Lawrence Karman]

Think I'm going to have to agree with Eric. Not sure about the type of stabilized head, though. I thought all the XR heads were converted to Predator duty in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan. Nobody throws a glass away better than Robert Carlyle!

[Matt Petrosky]

Looks like an optical zoom vs. image repo to me.

Agreed, the perspective change and depth compression give it away. And like Charles said, there are a TON of zooms, it's almost constantly zooming.

And I agree with Eric and Doc, looks like a stabilized head shot, and why not, this would be a great way to do this.

-Matt

[Charles Papert]

Perspective change would be essentially identical with optical vs digital zoom. Theoretically depth compression (assuming you mean depth of field) would also remain the same, although having seeing examples that prove this, I always feel like I don't buy it for some reason.

I had thought 3-axis stabilized head when watching this also but got thrown off somewhere along the line, thought someone had said it was definitively Steadicam but I guess that wasn't the case.

[Ed Moore]

Got a reply from the DIT:

The job was at least a year ago now, so some details are getting sketchy in my memory - I can't remember what lens it was but I think it might have been an Ultraprime, and I guess a 24 or a 32mm judging from how close Bobby was to the camera.

It was a rickshaw, pulled by two grips, with a garfield mount plus steadicam, operated by George. I'm not sure if the beginning and end were stabilised, but they didn't need it - I remember there was a tiny bit of very organic, non-distracting movement in the original, so I think they have taken it out.

They have done zooming in post on the actual frame during the shot, which ends up being a contrazoom, as the camera is coming further away from Bobby, but they have simultaneously zoomed in on the picture. Watch the background at 1.29 for eg. It's horrible. Again, unnecessary, as they seem to have done that just because they wanted a slightly tighter frame. I think there's another one later, but I don't have time to look for it now.

We had one half day for technical rehearsal, then two days shooting for just this one take. I think we did about 30 in all... I'm pretty sure the one they used was the very final take of all three days.