 |
 |
Thanks, Brook To expand, my understanding is that the intervalometer is a dial on the camera which allows for altering the frame rate, such that one can produce, for example, in-camera time lapse -- and not have to stand beside the camera for 24-hours to, say, open the shutter every 60 seconds, or whatever "interval" one is shooting for. It's used to capture things like watching the clouds race across the sky, the sun set, a flower bloom, etc. Additionally, and to clarify, my mention of "step printing" was not to suggest that it was a form of fast-motion, per se (though it can produce a kind of visual "staccato" effect), but to clarify for the dialogue that some of these effects ARE done during production itself, while others are done in post, which you mentioned as well. The word I am trying to think of is a word for in-camera fast motion, and I mentioned "step printing" because it was the word hopping around in my brain at the time, and not the word I was looking for. I just can't recall the word I'm trying to recall just yet...and it's driving me crazy.... My brain is still working on it though! As a filmmaker working with celluloid, I am old-school, and part of my practice involves doing these sorts of things MANUALLY on an optical printer or through rear projection using an analyst projector. As for the type of term being looked for at present -- "a technical/aesthetic term for on-screen movement in films which suddenly fast-forwards at incredible speed, before returning to 'normal' motion?" -- I would suggest that this is far more difficult to do in-camera than in post, especially if one wishes to do it somewhat seemlessly (without a cut), simply because of issues around exposure, and the fact that there would likely be a visible sign of exposure change, even for a split second, if one were to do this on the fly, or in production. Speed adjustments on the fly are not as easy as, say, focus pulling, because adjustments to speed alter the amount of time the shutter is open for. That is, the film moves through the gate faster (for slow motion) or more slowly (for fast motion), and this alters the amount of time the film is exposed to light, and so one needs to compensate by adjusting the iris, or exposure rate, accordingly. For example, one needs a lot more light to shoot in slow-mo than they do to shoot in fast motion. In fact, I have shot in fast motion at times when there just wasn't enough light, and then reshot the footage in slow motion during post when the conditions were controllable. There's a scene in Cassavete's "Shadows" (1959) that takes place in a train station: Hugh and his agent Rupert are running up a flight of stairs. Most, if not all, of the exterior and location sequences in this film are shot guerrilla-style, and the train station is no exception. There wasn't enough light to shoot the two men, and no time to set up lights in a train station stairwell where there's no permission to shoot, people coming and going, etc., so the scene is shot in fast motion -- not as comic relief, I would suggest, but simply because it would have been technically impossible in terms of exposure to get a decent image otherwise. Why this was not fixed in post is another issue, but I suspect that because the shot was not particularly long, and the fast-motion is not overly noticeable, Cassavetes chose not to slow it down in post. Just a personal theory, and perhaps some Cassavetes expert out there knows better. Would like to hear what folks have to say about this. I also agree that this is an interesting thread. I like talking about the tech stuff. TL * * Film-Philosophy salon After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. * Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **