Story would be the most important thing for me.It is never really possible to get away from the fact that it is a computer game.I actually don't like it when things are a little too 'perfect'.
And really,I would find it hard to critisize at all as I know just how time consuming the majority of these films are.Constructive critisism is great,but sometimes the films seem to be just ripped apart by people (present company excepted)who have no idea of the work involved.I enjoy each and every il2 movie I see,if only for the work and passion the maker has put into it.
OK, I've got a couple, everyone agrees that showing the stick moving is one of the worst as obviously there's no pilot. I've noticed in lots of movies one which is just as bad....camera pans right round in lock in cockpit view to reveal glimpse of headrest and back of seat...obviously with no pilot!
Another for me which is not an immersion killer but strange is massive camera shake on ground explosions when the static camera is not actually on the ground. I've seen shake like an earthquake on explosions in IL-2 movies when the camera is hundreds of feet in the air looking down, doesn't happen..... only in Hollywood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Z6YzYt8Xs
Aye Uther, no argument that the story, or the idea (might be a documentary or promo) is everything. But sometimes there can still be some awful images that just yank you right out of the story.
Wolf, stunning clip. Now, it just needs a little camera shake added to make it more like the movies
Camera shake is a srange beast. It's like lasers in Star Wars! Do lasers in space really make a zzshooom noise, light up like 20mm tracer and travel so slow that you can see them
I do agree that excessive camera shake can be off putting. There are places it must be used, IMO e.g. when you are filming an aircraft in flight from an external camera. If it was a real movie, this would be filmed from another aircraft and it would be very hard to get a rock steady view.
There are places where it shouldn't be used. Generally, a camera view from a stationary camery on the ground would have a real camera on a locked or damped tripod. Why on earth would that shake? Maybe if there was an explosion that shook the ground, but not for stedy shots.
There has been an overuse of fake camera shake to make shots seem more 'live'. I think NYPD Blue was one of the first to use the technique? It was used to great effect in the low budget UK film The Blair Witch Project. But the Bourne Ultimatum really blew the technique!
It's a good trick, but needs to be used tastefully. If so, I don't mind using it even if it isn't true to life. It is Hollywood after all!
I posted here yesterday and it's not here....weird. Let me try again.
I'm assuming that mouse zooming and outer radius panning is taboo because of how choppy it can be and it's unrealistic movement.
Outside of a fly-by, is there any other way of getting a SMOOTH moving shot on a static object?
It seems almost impossible to even TOUCH the mouse without it being choppy.
Aye, well nothing is actually taboo! There is at least one top filmmaker who uses the mouse movement for some shots and does it very well.Originally posted by Lazarus2008:
I'm assuming that mouse zooming and outer radius panning is taboo
What I reckon we should be trying to do is avoid anything that will distract the viewer from the main point of the movie.
As for getting a smooth pan, use the mouseemu like Falcon said, or use some of the camera locks. Like, flying past an object go into external and use F6 or F7 to lock onot it. Or even use the internal view wonderwoman view, use padlock and flypast the object.
TIR can also give some smoother camera movements.
I suppose really lot of the effects are like kids in candy stores. You see it you want it...but then you want more! Eventually you are stuffed and content, but other people outside the candy store just don't get it! So what does that mean?
Well, camera shake (not explosions but drifting camera) I still remember Scragbat's "Sacrifice" being the one that introduced it and watching if for the first time blew me away...it looked real with a little de-sturation and very slight Gaussian blur taking the edge of the sharpness.
So camera shake is easy to do, and I use it a lot, but generally very subtly. Explosions with the camera near, I give a sharp motion as though the blast wave has hit it, but further away, as has been said, the camera wouldn't be affected. It's just a case of getting it right....but trust me, if you don't, you'll know about it when the audience watch it!
Cheers, MP.
I don't like camera shake either except when VERY close to explosions or a horrendous fusillade of gunfire. Your brain damps out all but the most violent shaking of your vision and the pressure wave will make you blink through most explosions (at least the shaky part).
The same thing goes for filming aircraft to aircraft. Unless you're really bouncing around you won't notice it. Note that I am not talking about the lazy drift of aircraft when in formation but rather a true "shake".
Of course I'm a die-hard "like you would see it if you were there, not as if a camera were there" person which is not what most people are after.
I also hate the aircraft breaking up into so many pieces so often.
--Outlaw.
All kinds of movies have their place, Lazarus, even the 'crap' flicks of some online action complete with icons and mouse pans which are just like the original 'game demos' from which machinima developed so many years ago (i.e. the Quake demo). Plenty of IL2 players are still interested to see what happened during an online fight and don't mind the immersion killers.
However, if you want to be a creative filmmaker as opposed to a game demo moviemaker, then you must do everything possible to make the viewer engage and believe in your make-believe story. Any distraction, or immersion killer will instantly yank the viewer out of the world you have tried so hard to create.
The IL2 filmmaking scene is at it's lowest point ever for these types of movies, so good luck!