|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 8, 2014 14:02:44 GMT
So well I used it as an example This was tested on a BBC show called 'Hollywood Science', similar to Mythbusters if on a much smaller budget. Their testing indicated that anyone trying that trick from that height would probably have been killed if not torn in half. Turns out that fire hoses are not exactly elastic....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 8, 2014 14:12:30 GMT
a note: "impenetrable" forest is usually only a small band where a river or some form of damage has interrupted the trees - once inside a primeval forest, there is usually little to no undergrowth. - the perspective of jungle being impenetrable comes from explorers who went in on rivers, and did not penetrate the "impenetrable" band.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 8, 2014 14:13:57 GMT
So well I used it as an example This was tested on a BBC show called 'Hollywood Science', similar to Mythbusters if on a much smaller budget. Their testing indicated that anyone trying that trick from that height would probably have been killed if not torn in half. Turns out that fire hoses are not exactly elastic.... and didn't he come down and hit the window, then have to kick off of it and shoot it out to get inside?
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Apr 8, 2014 16:50:20 GMT
So well I used it as an example This was tested on a BBC show called 'Hollywood Science', similar to Mythbusters if on a much smaller budget. Their testing indicated that anyone trying that trick from that height would probably have been killed if not torn in half. Turns out that fire hoses are not exactly elastic.... Sorry; doing taxes today must be destroying my reading comprehension ability...
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 8, 2014 17:17:25 GMT
Try dealing the the (British) DSS....
Not that I think that the Die Hard swing is something MB couldn't or shouldn't consider, it was after all posted enough back on Discovery so adding it to a 'King of the Swingers' segment would make sense if we could find three or four similar 'swing' myths to go with it. After all any rig that can be used for one swinging test could be used for any other, and probably done on the same day.
What about the inadvertent swing done in Die Hard 3? The one where they were climbing down a winch cable from a truck when the truck was pulled off a bridge. Could a human have kept hold of the cable in that situation, let alone survived the fall?
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Apr 8, 2014 19:59:54 GMT
...a 'King of the Swingers' series... *Biting down hard on tongue and trying with all my might not to make inapproriate comments about Adam and Jamie making that proposition to their wives*
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 9, 2014 6:54:38 GMT
'Cause I'm the king of the swingers... a Jungle VIP...?... I've had to stop, when I reached the top, and thats whats worrying me...
No seriously, if wildlife crews can film in the top of a jungle canopy?.. Plus they dont have to have the exact same course, just one that is navigable, maybe at the side of a road, where the walking contestants are not allowed to use the road.
Edits... "Self" filming... a couple of go-pro mini camera's, perhaps even a quad-copter drone.... Yes I am aware of limitations there, but someone has to suggest and experiment with ideas?... Technology has progressed, and the Canon D series, is it the 5, the 7, or the 1, can do full HD broadcast quality filming, MUCH lighter that the huge suitcase-on-a-shoulder things they had in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 9, 2014 10:44:42 GMT
Yes, someone should suggest and experiment with ideas as to how to film.
One thing to note however is that many over the counter cameras can't film at the high resolution required for modern TV shows. Those that can may be far too expensive for MB to buy for a single myth. Sure, they *may* be able to find other uses for those cameras. But if they haven't already got something like that in the shop it is most likely because they either can't afford them or decided that they would probably never use them.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 9, 2014 19:18:18 GMT
Yes, someone should suggest and experiment with ideas as to how to film. One thing to note however is that many over the counter cameras can't film at the high resolution required for modern TV shows. Those that can may be far too expensive for MB to buy for a single myth. Sure, they *may* be able to find other uses for those cameras. But if they haven't already got something like that in the shop it is most likely because they either can't afford them or decided that they would probably never use them. I would actually be surprised if Adam did not already own a DSLR capable of shooting HD video suitable for broadcast - as several consumer grade DSLRs brag about the capability, and Adam gives every appearance of liking to buy gadgets. but that said, shooting an action sequence while in motion is not a good application for one. there is a reason why steadicam equipment tends to be somewhat massive. I think having a parallel "filming track" would be a viable solution. this could - in the right place - even be done with a cable mounted trolley system - assuming they could find a suitable "test track" that had a straight clear channel from one end to the other.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 9, 2014 19:36:12 GMT
You are forgetting the safety angle, something that is mentioned in the Interview with Steve Christiansen (Adam and Jamie's Director). Forest floors and trees do not lend themselves to people swinging and falling from them.
Looking at things from what would be safe and practical I think that we should really be looking at an indoor location and a fake forest where conditions could be tested safely, quickly and cheaply. It would probably be cheaper and easier for them to create artificial vines, than to try and find a real world location that has what they need. Such a rig would also allow them to test other 'swinging on' myths and scenes with minimal fuss and costs as the basic rig would be the same.
Heck, they could make their own forest using scaffolding in a day, and do all of the tests the day after in an old hanger in SF while using enough safety equipment to ensure that there is no chance of anyone suffering more than a few bruises and possibly an expanded vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 9, 2014 19:45:30 GMT
You are forgetting the safety angle, something that is mentioned in the Interview with Steve Christiansen (Adam and Jamie's Director). Forest floors and trees do not lend themselves to people swinging and falling from them. Looking at things from what would be safe and practical I think that we should really be looking at an indoor location and a fake forest where conditions could be tested safely, quickly and cheaply. It would probably be cheaper and easier for them to create artificial vines, than to try and find a real world location that has what they need. Such a rig would also allow them to test other 'swinging on' myths and scenes with minimal fuss and costs as the basic rig would be the same. Heck, they could make their own forest using scaffolding in a day, and do all of the tests the day after in an old hanger in SF while using enough safety equipment to ensure that there is no chance of anyone suffering more than a few bruises and possibly an expanded vocabulary. right; test the real vines separately. one part of a breakdown is how far could a person swing from vine to vine to vine? keeping in mind this may involve losing momentum as you go.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 9, 2014 19:58:23 GMT
Yeap, they could probably get real vines and run strength tests on them in the shop - if not just find that information out by asking the right people.
Lets face it, 'how much weight can a vine take' is hardly the strangest question they've ever had to ask someone.
So any other myths that involve swinging on ropes, vines ect?
We have those from Die Hard and Die Hard 3, Tarzan's vine swinging...just need a couple of others to fill things out.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 9, 2014 23:39:44 GMT
Yeap, they could probably get real vines and run strength tests on them in the shop - if not just find that information out by asking the right people. Lets face it, 'how much weight can a vine take' is hardly the strangest question they've ever had to ask someone. So any other myths that involve swinging on ropes, vines ect? We have those from Die Hard and Die Hard 3, Tarzan's vine swinging...just need a couple of others to fill things out. somehow I hardly think a professional opinion will carry more weight than tying a vine around buster's neck and pushing him off one of the drydocks, though. It would be really challenging to build, but there's always Gwen Stacy's death in the Spiderman comics. (one of the goblins pushes her off a bridge - he catches her, but she doesn't survive it) are there any myths about precision work with a crane? its not quite the same as a rope swing, but its close. how about pirates swinging on ropes on sailing ships? I think nearly every pirate movie has a pirate swinging across a ship or between ships on a rope. (that would be more trajectory than strength)
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 10, 2014 8:03:27 GMT
This takes some planning out, but is "Viable"..... If you plan a route that is straight with no obstructions, you can stretch a taught wire, then position a rig to carry a camera. A few gyroscopes, that need be no more than a spinning push-bike wheel underneath the rig, will keep the camera from swinging about making the shot messy. If then you pull the camera with a rope slowly along the track?....
As for static shots, I will suggest Gorilla pods. These wonderful camera stands have three very flexible legs that can be wrapped around a branch, are magnetic for attaching to steel poles, and VERY stable. Put the camera in shot, set up the shot, get ready, and if you havnt got a remote shutter release in place by now, you are a twit..... climb up and press go if you need to.
The expense of these camera's... NOT Adam or Jamie, or even M5 industries, they are being filed by a film crew, and if that film crew have not already got such equipment, WHY NOT?...... They have a high-speed, why not a DSLR with full broadcast HD quality....
Far be it from me to have to give technical advice to film crews, this should be teaching grandma to suck eggs, they should be able to get such shots with ease by now. If not, again, why not?....
If they want more advice like this and suggestions, then let Cyber know, we can open a dedicated thread somewhere to suggestions for camera work. You OK with that Cyber?... worth suggesting?...
May I also suggest something...... DRONES.
All these shots of explosions, to get a real neat high level shot of something that go bang, a drone with geo-stationary ability floating high level just far enough away to be stable and catch the shot.... Priceless. Will it fall out of the sky with the shock-wave?... Yes, probably, but it may recover from that, and how much is that kind of shot worth anyway?.....
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 10, 2014 9:31:05 GMT
Well, Mythbusters have professional camera-people (check the interview with Steve Christiansen). So such information might not be all that helpful to them - besides I don't think that the film crews or directors go on message boards like this. Ideas fall more within the producer/researchers area. That said I'm sure that such information might be of interest to those who read TC.
The biggest problem with this from MB's view is cost, a factor that people often overlook when it comes to TV and indeed films. Even people inside the industry often forget this, as evidenced by a scriptwriter who (a long time ago) turned in the first draft for a famous movie. The script was, apparently, wonderful...only they would have blown their entire budget just trying to film the opening credits.
Although shows may budget 'X' amount per episode, they don't (and can't) hold to this too strictly as some episodes will require more money than others. Spending too much on one episode requires that they spend less on another, on most shows this is why if you have a couple of high action/special effects heavy episodes you'll see a couple of 'bottle' shows in the subsequent weeks. This is also why shows reuse as many props and sets as possible (and MB reuse old rigs).
Buying camera equipment, even 'cheap' equipment, purely for one segment doesn't make sense as they would have to take that money from elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 11, 2014 6:20:21 GMT
I do not deny anything you say Cyber, I just suggest that the DSLR be put on the wish list for future programs, they will need it eventually, and then wonder why they didnt in the first place.... It is a long time production teams started thinking about what is the absolute need for the shoulder to be the only place you can stick a camera to start filming, especially when you can set one up and control it remotely from a large screen where you capture better images.
The use of the DSLR camera, the production crew need to start using such camera's, as technology has moved on, and the viewer now expects the kind of shots we are suggesting, and the films we are suggesting are using those kind of camera's... Not because they are of any price bracket, but because they CAN get broadcast quality footage from something that cost less than the camera they were using last year. And often, better quality.
No seriously, I have handled the Canon's flagship DSLR, and it scared several buckets of whats good for the roses outa me in its absolute brilliance and usability. The scary bit was in full automatic, it knew more about photography than I did.... I am a keen amateur, I own a Canon DSLR, have done for years, but the technology in the big boys is truly frightening, and much much better than anything else comparable on the market.
If I stick mine in full auto, it gets much better quality shots than anything I could take with the Pentax SLR it replaced.... If I have time to think manual, I get shots you would not believe from anyone who isnt Pro.
Smaller cams, I have seen "Go-Pro" style camera's strapped to Adam's helmet before.... keep it clean you, yes you, you know who you are, nothing smutty here, they wanted a POV shot from a racing helmet, and other instances, such as the yellow helmet with camera worn where Adam goes behind a revving 747 that they used for storm chasing myths.
So such camera's are in use.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 11, 2014 14:47:18 GMT
Like I said - I'd bet Adam personally owns an advanced DSLR (which are not really SLR any more) but lightweight cameras and freehand video can have drawbacks. the trolley system would be better partly because of stability, and partly because they can do motion control overlays.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 11, 2014 20:01:50 GMT
Hmmm... Depends.... Some are, some are not. Mine is, because the mirror is used to protect the sensor when changing lens. In many Canon, you have to manual lock up the mirror to clean the sensor. In some, when in video mode, you can only use the back screen, as the viewfinder mirror locks up as soon as you select Video.
But DSLR is now a "Standard", its used to denote large format large file size camera of a serious nature, and not a point-and-shoot p-o-s "snap happy" thing. In between you have "Bridge". Bridge are the camera's one up from snap cameras but not as technical as DSLR, its a point-and-shoot mainly automatic with "Interchangeable" lens... but its not a DSLR.... So its kind of not anything special. And its not much better than point-and-shoot. So my advice is save up, buy DSLR, and put it in auto... Who knows, one day you will investigate the manual functions....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 12, 2014 1:03:02 GMT
Hmmm... Depends.... Some are, some are not. Mine is, because the mirror is used to protect the sensor when changing lens. In many Canon, you have to manual lock up the mirror to clean the sensor. In some, when in video mode, you can only use the back screen, as the viewfinder mirror locks up as soon as you select Video. But DSLR is now a "Standard", its used to denote large format large file size camera of a serious nature, and not a point-and-shoot p-o-s "snap happy" thing. In between you have "Bridge". Bridge are the camera's one up from snap cameras but not as technical as DSLR, its a point-and-shoot mainly automatic with "Interchangeable" lens... but its not a DSLR.... So its kind of not anything special. And its not much better than point-and-shoot. So my advice is save up, buy DSLR, and put it in auto... Who knows, one day you will investigate the manual functions.... My mother coined the term "PHD Camera" as in "Push Here, Dummy"
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 13, 2014 11:27:11 GMT
Point-and-shoot also gets the acronym POS, on one site I go one, "Snap" camera photography is not allowed, unless its supported by the full frame digital DSLR shot it was trying to get.
As in, some people I know will use a large back-screen snap camera or a pad to get a shot "Framed" so they know basically what it will look like when its in 7x5 print. This is for those who dont have a sizeable screen on the back of their camera, my own back screen is only a tiny 2x3, I cant see much on that without glasses... and it doesnt do justice to the actual end result..... I use that back screen to check on exposure and other settings, which I may use and alter "Auto" settings when on manual.
Getting it right "In the camera" is seen as the be-all-and-end-all for some purists... But I take many shots knowing Post Production (PP) will be needed in Photoshop, like when I am planning conversion to monochrome, B&W or sepia.
Anyway, we are off on a tangent....
Back to WHY this type of camera is most useful for shooting Video....
Its ease of use and its conversion from Photography makes it an all round better camera. Its got the best sensors money can buy. It has the best glass in the lens you can ever wish for. There are camera aficionado's out there who would have said already if the lens work was crud, and they praise the glass, so therefore, you are already using the best you can get.
Sure yes, you can get video-cams that will do an entire recording studio work in the camera, but for the absolute precise "This is the best" optical work, the DSLR has not only caught up, but has surpassed the video cams used by some outside broadcast units for TV news reporting.....
Plus they are a hell of a lot lighter, you can fit spare batteries in your shirt pocket, and you have a plethora of different lens attachments to play with.
Then you have the production work.... Some of the camera's now have the ability to "Send" wireless the entire file to your router and tablet. Some have the ability for remote control, either tethered by USB lead, or "blue-teeth" to your eye-pad fingy....
The addition of what other people use for different things, camera companies have set up a consortium of smart phone, DSLR, Video-cams, and Pads, and got a good product that works with everyone else. Its the new DSLR, Ok, you cant make phone calls with it (yet) but you could "Skype" a live photo with connection to any decent pad?...(and mobile network)
|
|