So Gladiator was on TV the other day, and it reminded me I meant to ask this question ages ago.
In the fight scenes they seem to have applied some sort of effect.
To me it looks kinda strobey, almost like they’ve removed some of the frames and then played it slightly slower so that it still takes up the same amount of time.
It sort of makes the action look “cleaner”.
IIRC it’s also used in Brotherhood of the Wolf.
Is there a name for this, and what exactly are they doing?
It looks like they’ve used a fast shutter speed on high grain film stock, upped the contrast and saturation a bit in post production, probably sharpened it a bit too.
I don’t think they’ve added or taken any frames out. It’s just a guess though.
heh, quite possibly. I know nothing about filming or photography, so I wouldn’t have a clue, just trying to find a way of describing it with my limited knowledge.
I quite like it, but I think I’d get bored if it was used in every film. Worked well in G & BotW though.
I specifically recall an interview of Ridley Scott where he discussed removing some frames of film from the fight scenes to get that strobey effect. I will see if I can get the cite. I don’t recall him using a specific name/jargon to describe it…
I started a thread asking about this where I called it the ‘super real’ effect? It’s also used in Black Hawk Down and as WordMan’s quote points out Saving Private Ryan. I guessed it was a fast shutter speed to cut down on the amount of blurring to get the super sharp effect. But I didn’t know how it was achived. Now I do
I have also seen it in live TV sports broadcasts where presumably it is an artifact of the camera not a deliberate effect.
wow, whaddya know, I guessed right! Cheers WordMan (and others!)
If you’re shooting twice as many frames per second and using every other frame, you end up with the same FPS but shot at a faster (approx. 2x) shutter speed, right? Is there some reason they didn’t just shoot it at the normal FPS with the faster shutter speed and not waste half the film? (I realize they may have shot it that way not knowing exactly how it would be end up being used in post-production, so I just mean technically.)
I have noticed this too. I think it is an effect of the “super slo-mo” cameras, which probably also run at a faster “frame rate”, so they can slow it down for the replay.
It’s Hollywood. They spend more on bottled water used to wash the megastar’s dog than they do on film stock.
“Paint the sand yellow again!”
I think you would lose the “strobe”-ey effect if you did that.
The odd perceptual effect you get with this technique is dependent on it.
In the finished footage, each event takes the same amount of time to happen as you would expect it to – but some frames are a a 1/48 of a second ahead of what you would get if you filmed it at 24fps, and the rest of the frames are 1/48 of a second behind. Events unfold in normal time, but feel alternately or simultaneously a little too fast and a little too slow.
You guys are close. Ridley made it clear how he accomplished that look in a few scenes, but the Saving Private Ryan look was done in a different manner. It’s cheaper and easier and in-camera.
You’re talking about shutter speed left and right, but what you’re really talking about so far is frame rate ( or, filmspeed ). 24 frames per second ( fps) is the standard here, 25 in Europe and other places. You can indeed remove frames after shooting 48 fps, the movements may appear jerky.
In Saving Private Ryan, there was another technique applied. I wish I still had my American Cinematographer issue on it, but I don’t. I’ll try to explain this.
The shutter speed is a misnomer. When camera people talk about their shutter, they talk about what the physical rotating shutter in a film camera is set to. Typically it is a 180 degree shutter. That is to say, a half-circle of flat black metal spins really really fast, and the film is exposed as it flies around and is “absent” from the film plane. Some cameras utilize a Maltese Cross pattern but the idea is the same. Half of a 360 arc is black, half is image striking film. If you look at this Arriflex 35mm movie camera, you can see a curved portion just below the lens. That is where the spinning mirror resides. It rotates, and flashes the image up onto the film.
The amount of information allowed by that 180 degrees of arc in the shutter is what it is- you blink, you see stuff, you blink again. What happens if you narrow that shutter significantly to say, a 90 degree shutter? You have just altered the AMOUNT of information striking that one frame of film as it is exposed. You’re allowing a smidgen less time for the exposure of that frame.
The effect is nifty and seen in the first 21 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. It’s more subtle than removing every other frame- an advent only possible in practical terms in this digital age. You can take 90 feet a minute of movie film and shoot it at twice speed- you’re now exposing 180 feet of film a minute. You can scan in all 180 feet and tell the computer to lose every other frame. It will process that image drop and “render back” only every other frame, yielding 90 feet of stuttering images.
But let us be very clear to recap. Shooting at a high shutter speed is what is referred to here, but you guys are using words like 24 fps and 48 fps- that’s not shutter speed, that’s frame rate or filmspeed. The rate at which film is drive through the gate of the camera and exposed one frame at a time.
SHUTTER SPEED or SHUTTER ANGLE of exposure is what I describe above. It’s a part of the process of exposing a film frame in a motion picture camera, but it’s totally different than frame rate.
p.s. Another method used to achieve a slightly "newsreel " look to the footage shot on Saving Private Ryan was to take the Panavision lenses and strip them of their multi-coating on the front and rear elements. This severely alters the way the images LOOK. We’re talking a different kind of contrast, color, sharpness. It was apparently highly costly and then of course, the Production had to pay Panavision to re-coat all of the lenses used. Still and all, it stands to me as one of the most harrowing pieces of filmmaking ever. I’m a pacifist, I’m no big war or war film buff and that 21 minutes just paralyzed me. Each technical choice made served that end. Sure worked well…
Cartooniverse
So, to rephrase my question with Cartooniverse’s added info, would it be possible to use the 48fps shutter speed with a 24fps film speed? Thus getting the same stuttering, shorter exposure look without the wasted film. It sounds like that’s essentially what Cartooniverse describes they did for SPR with the smaller shutter windows. And yes, it’s pretty much academic considering Hollywood studio budgets.
It’s possible to use a 90 degree angled shutter, with 24 frames per second. That is how they accomplished the newsreel footage “look” in SPR. You cannot do 48 frames per second shutters, it’s apples and oranges. But you were on the right track !!!
Odd, I hated that effect in Saving Private Ryan. I saw about 5 minutes of it on TV and had to turn it off because I thought it was filmed like a commercial.
I believe it was also used in “The Mummy Returns” in some of the fights. I’ve long called it “frame dropping”–that’s what it looks like, and that’s what I’m going to keep calling it.
Cheers for that Cartooniverse!
I haven’t seen Saving Private Ryan, as I don’t particularly like war films, but that’s made me quite want to go and see what you’re descibing.
Slightly related, but isn’t there a technique of removing a couple of frames just before an impact captured on film - especially someone punching somebody or a vehicle crash that’s supposed to heighten the effect?
Is there a name for that?
I resisted watching SPR for a long time because I hate Tom Hanks, but it’s a great film. Spielbergs all the better since he’s been using Januscz Kaminski (apologies if it’s spelt wrong), he’s a fucking brilliant cinematographer
