Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Peters  I have the opposite experience. Granted you don't see the world a la Paul Radcliffe's bobbibng head, but when I want to get somewhere quickly, all I ever see is obstacles that I need to get around. And it's these obstacles that create the unexpected movements (these would normally be expressed by an alternate camera angle within video). What I was trying to say was that when you're running along, you don't see the world as you would through a steadicam, which overcompensates movement. So to create a realistic sense of intensity, you need to be skilled in creating that intensity through camera movement and editing. |
You make a good argument, Marc and I'm inclined to agree with you about what you see when running - your focus constantly switches between target, environment and obstacles. But the key thing here is it is your *focus* that switches, the brain "sees" a number of clear *steady* scenes - in rapid succession. As you say this would traditionally be achieved by alternate camera angles. When viewing a sequence shot with the handheld look the brain has no other points of reference from the other senses and so it's just confusing. Both techniques have a place, but for excitement in a chase give me the former approach any time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Peters [talent on turntable] must be a personal thing, as I rather like these shots. I pressume because I feel like you're not just viewing the action. Perhaps it's part of growing up as part of the videogame genaration where fixed camera angles have become substituted for free movement. |
I suspect you're right - I was a teen long before first person RPGs so I'm certainly not used to moving around a 2D screen in a virtual 3D environment. (Dunno why we have to use colour anyway and as for spoiling film by adding sound.....)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Peters Who know's pretty soon we'll probably be a part of a film, being totally emersed in a virtual environment. |
I have no doubt at all.