bullet catching

[Cartooniverse]

*Originally posted by Darqangelle *
Without going into it too much, I do not disagree with what Cartooniverse said… but he said probabbly quite a bit more than what was needed to be said.

Thanks. Sorry I dared to speak about an area of expertise. I could have sworn this was the Straight Dope. :rolleyes:

**

Discounting the Matrix and its panning view (which was a trick of computer imagery-did you happen to notice that you never actually see the agent pointing his gun DIRECTLY at Keanu? The camera hovers ABOVE Keanu during that shot, and that scene was mostly filmed indoors with Keanu only. **

Well, although you say you don’t want to get into it, you’re thoroughly wrong here, and I don’t have a lick of trouble proving it. The effect is an IN CAMERA effect. It was originally done with a series of still cameras, fired in synch. Now, a series of 35mm Arriflex III’s can be rented, on a rail system, that roll film in perfect synch. That effect is not computer generated. Period. If American Cinematographer’s archives were as good as the Straight Dope’s, I’d have a cite for all to see; an article WITH a photo of the array of motion picture cameras. <sigh>
**

As for the way stunts are planned and played out; yes, that’s pretty much how I’ve experienced it as well (with a few exceptions, but nothing to get into a serious discussion over). **

Yes, but this already IS a serious discussion. What aspect of the film industry are you in, that you say you’ve experienced the same things? I’m curious. I’m a professional D.P./Camera Operator/Steadicam ® Operator. What do you do?

Cartooniverse

[Anal_Scurvy]

Cartooniverse is correct about the array of cameras. I believe it took thirty-six. I don’t remember where I encountered this, but the two most obvious places are either the book The Art of the Matrix (I got an autographed copy!) or the special footage at the back of the DVD (and video).

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by mmmiiikkkeee *
**Well judging my the number of similar posts I’ve seen like mine EVERY day in ALL forums, it looks like this is an absolute haven for people to make funny comments on oddly-worded sentences. I’ve seen entire threads of almost nothing but silly one-liners, and even the mods join in sometimes too. Don’t make me post even a day’s worth of them man!, you’ll be reading for hours!!:D. Realistically, comparing firing a bullet at drywall from any distance and hitting it with a hand is comparing apples and oranges as far as power and damage goes. Would you rather take a fist or a bullet to the forehead? - yup, thought so. A more appropriate cliche would be “nobody likes someone with no sense of humor”;). **

I apologize. I had just got done being yelled at by my manager when I posted my assholish response.

I’m really sorry for having no sense of humor when I posted that.

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
**Nobody likes a smart ass. I think it’s pretty clear what I meant. **

That’s just a dumb thing to say. On this board, everybody likes a smart ass.

[Cartooniverse]

*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
** On this board, everybody likes a smart ass. **

[Flirtaciously] Joe?? I like your smart ass.[/Flirtacious]

[Darqangelle]

*Originally posted by Cartooniverse *
**

Originally posted by Darqangelle *
** but he said probabbly quite a bit more than what was needed to be said.*

I could have sworn this was the Straight Dope. :rolleyes:**

sigh Yes, I thought so too…
The OP was “How does bullet catching work?”
The side track was:
Anal Scurvy: “What about the people who got shot attempting this trick?”
Kesagiri: “Stupidity. The case of Brandon Lee is a fine example”

So for you to bring in your area of expertise is certainly welcome, but my reasons for trying to keep an explaination short include that it 1) wasn’t really answering the original question, but became a hijack 2)Has probably been answered elsewhere. I was trying to keep the answer short and sweet. I guess that’s just not good enough for some people.:rolleyes:

Here is the snopes link regarding Brandon’s death

I was in the process of getting lnks to other threads discussing who’s at fault for Brandon’s accident, but the administrator “disabled the boards for maintenance”. That’s me: king of timing.

**

Discounting the Matrix and its panning view (which was a trick of computer imagery-did you happen to notice that you never actually see the agent pointing his gun DIRECTLY at Keanu? The camera hovers ABOVE Keanu during that shot, and that scene was mostly filmed indoors with Keanu only. **

**

…you’re thoroughly wrong here, and I don’t have a lick of trouble proving it. The effect is an IN CAMERA effect. It was originally done with a series of still cameras, fired in synch. **

Yes, you are right… the effect was used by putting together a series of stills. However, I am not “thoroughly wrong”: After the still shots are taken, with the help of a computer, the producers (I mean “visual production team”) turn it into a sweeping image (otherwise, it’d be a bit jittery), adding in the background and whizzing bullets later (with the computer).
quote:
“then the photos were scanned into the computer, which created a strip of still images, similar to animation cels. the computer generated “in-between” drawings of the images”.
Hmm. Computers messing with images… trick of computer imagery. You say potato…

What other part was I “thoroughly wrong” on? Keanu being filmed alone in a room? The fact that the other images are added in later?

Here’s the setup. This is also the page where the above quote is from. You’ll note that we see Keanu, and a lot of green. Not a lot of danger in pointing ANYthing at the actor if there’s nothing there in the first place.
So, I concede that the sweeping camera effect deos show the viewer what is happening at any given time from more than one perspective, it still does not mean that an actor has to endanger another by pointing, much less firing, a weapon at another.

This was the point that I was trying to originally make.

Are we done now? Seeing as we agree on so many levels?

**

As for the way stunts are planned and played out; yes, that’s pretty much how I’ve experienced it as well (with a few exceptions, but nothing to get into a serious discussion over). **

**

Yes, but this already IS a serious discussion. **

Not about the original subject. Actually, I think we’ve answered that (and the other question) quite well, don’t you?

**

What do you do?**

I was trained at a stunt school.