OT:Camera Move Question

royfphoto wrote on 2/28/2016, 7:34 AM

I am shooting UHD on a Pana G4 to output 1080. Tell me what's wrong with this thinking since I don't have a crane or vertical slider? Shoot with the camera in the vertical position, flip 90 degrees in soft ware and use soft ware for the tilt. Seems like a lot smoother, a true crane type rise, more speed control. I am guessing a lot of motion in the scene would mess it up. Thoughts?

Comments

Steve Grisetti wrote on 2/28/2016, 8:00 AM

Flipping 16:9 video 90 degrees would give a 9:16 video -- video that's taller than it is wide. I don't think that's what you're looking for, is it?

JohnnyRoy wrote on 2/28/2016, 8:31 AM

> "Flipping 16:9 video 90 degrees would give a 9:16 video -- video that's taller than it is wide. I don't think that's what you're looking for, is it?"

I think you may have missed the question. It was:

"I am shooting UHD on a Pana G4 "

Shooting vertical UHD to crop to 1080 should allow you to fake a really nice crane shot. I would have never thought of that. Nothing wrong with the idea that I can see.

~jr

PixelStuff wrote on 2/28/2016, 9:30 AM

I guess the only reason I can think of that it might not work well is if you have multiple objects in the scene that would normally give you a parallax effect. In that case something might seem off to the viewer.

Chienworks wrote on 2/28/2016, 9:47 AM

Only issue i can think of is if the camera shoots interlaced. If so, Vegas has to go through a whole lot of processing and interpolation when the output doesn't exactly match the input, and this may result in a slightly softer image.

royfphoto wrote on 2/28/2016, 10:19 AM

shooting 30progressive, don't see how parallax enters into it.. UHD =3840x2160

OldSmoke wrote on 2/28/2016, 10:35 AM

Parallax effect is an issue. What you get with your idea is a 2D flat movement, much like a still image move. In an actuall crane movement, for round objects move differently from background objects.

Eagle Six wrote on 2/28/2016, 11:31 AM

@ OldSmoke....."Parallax effect is an issue. What you get with your idea is a 2D flat movement, much like a still image move. In an actuall crane movement, for round objects move differently from background objects. "

I agree.....

Although if you don't have a crane and want to get additional movement tilt effect, rotating 90* is an option that may work in some situations, I would think if there was not a lot of subject movement or large detailed subjects. As OldSmoke points out, it's going to look flat.

Best Regards.......George

Chienworks wrote on 2/28/2016, 4:12 PM

Well, what it's going to look like is the camera being panned vertically. It won't look like the camera is changing position at all, so there really won't be any crane effect.

Rainer wrote on 2/29/2016, 3:53 PM

Easily test it for yourself. Put a tape measure against a wall. Shoot what you suggest.
Then shoot moving the camera up the tape, like a crane. Compare. Not the same, is it?

PeterDuke wrote on 2/29/2016, 5:51 PM

If you stand on the footpath (sidewalk?) out the front of the Empire State Building and pan upwards in the normal way, you will see that in the first frame the walls at left and right are parallel. As you pan up, these walls progressively taper in. (The same thing happens with your eyes.)

If you have a very wide angle photo, and then pan the field of view up the photo, you won't get this progressive tapering.

I have wrestled with the reverse issue. How to take a very wide angle photo of the facade of a tall building from close up, using normal view photos stitched together. If you don't allow barrel distortion, you end up with a tapering facade, with people on the footpath on each side leaning in towards the centre.

I have also played with reducing the taper afterwards. If the facade is flat this works fairly well, but if the facade has some depth then it will lead to distortion. For instance, round towers on either side will appear oval.

rmack350 wrote on 3/3/2016, 2:15 PM

Essentially its the same as tracking across a photo except the photo has movement in it.

Yes, it's a move, and you might like it. It's not the same as a pedestal-up, and even farther from a crane-up, but that doesn't mean you won't like it. In some ways this might be more like a tilt up since your camera is always at a single elevation, which is what Peter's pointing out. One help might be to shoot it at a longer focal length to flatten it out a bit and reduce distortion.

It sounds like you won't be able to compensate very easily for vanishing points but the farther away you can get the camera, the less you'll notice it. You would still want foreground objects that can move in and out of the edge of the frame but they shouldn't cross the center.

Try it. Do some test shots.