Rotating 'Still' Images?

Remeniz

Fully Optimized
Messages
3,390
Location
England
How do they do this?

Like in a film when the action pauses, cars in mid air, people in mid air doing fly kicks, and the camera rotates around the scene.
  • I reckon they have a very powerful computer that makes a 3D image of that still to enable a rotation around it.
  • Or they set up many cameras around the scene and have a computer fill in the gaps to enable the rotation.
  • Or they have graphical coders that build up a 3D image to make this happen.
Because there's no 3D information in a still - its only 2D.

Help me out.

:confused::confused::confused:
 
In the matrix the flying kicks were done in a big cylinder covered in green screen, then they actually had a huge ring of cameras all around the sides. Then they had the kicks recorded with the people on fly wires. They take a few frames on each of the cameras and piece the whole thing together then they alpha the green screen out and edit the background/scenery in
 
yeah basically lots of time seeming the frames together from a bunch of different cameras. or they well have him stay still and run the camera around them with a green screen behind
 
EMM_Bullet-Time-Camera-set-.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZh787eKeEw&feature=related
 
You can do this by hanging the person in mid air, inside of a green circle.
For example.
You are in a room were the walls make a circle right?
Now you paint the walls green. That is what I mean.

Then. The person does the pose, or poses they need for the movie.
The camera then (from above) Rotates around the person.
You can then use video editing software to fill in the green screen with the background of the room.
Which with a 3D rotating affect you will usually blur the background a bit.
 
Precisely.

Although big graphic images with people shooting towards you etc. are normally done with cgi for some movies.
 
I think I know how I would achieve it.

I would line cameras around where I want them to capture a 'still' where nothing is moving, and have them all capture the action at the same time using a automatic timer, or a shutter release.

Then, since every camera has captured the exact same frame, and exactly the same point in time, you could then get these images, put them into a video editor, and line up the still frames from each camera onto a time line, creating frames from this apparently 0:00:00 timed event where no time exists.

Motion blurring would probably be added then in the editor itself, to create more of a smooth transition between the frames, since if kept without motion blurring, it'd seem unnatural, since its not a real moving camera, but a sequence of stills.

You'd also have to manually set the apatuture, shutter speed, etc I'd think, because even if its the same camera, the differences in contrast in the scene could cause one camera to lag behind another if left in automatic mode, which could cause one camera to see a second more than the other cameras, resulting in a jitter.
 
I think I know how I would achieve it.

I would line cameras around where I want them to capture a 'still' where nothing is moving, and have them all capture the action at the same time using a automatic timer, or a shutter release.

Then, since every camera has captured the exact same frame, and exactly the same point in time, you could then get these images, put them into a video editor, and line up the still frames from each camera onto a time line, creating frames from this apparently 0:00:00 timed event where no time exists.

Motion blurring would probably be added then in the editor itself, to create more of a smooth transition between the frames, since if kept without motion blurring, it'd seem unnatural, since its not a real moving camera, but a sequence of stills.

You'd also have to manually set the apatuture, shutter speed, etc I'd think, because even if its the same camera, the differences in contrast in the scene could cause one camera to lag behind another if left in automatic mode, which could cause one camera to see a second more than the other cameras, resulting in a jitter.
A real "moving camera" is exactly what you said its not. A sequence of stills lol.
 
:p What I meant was that the cameras aren't moving, so motion blur won't occur like in a real moving camera, so it'd seem more like simply stills taken with a standard digital camera, and not footage from a motion camera.
 
Back
Top Bottom