Has anyone seen any new impressive camera effects in movies or does anyone foresee what would be a good camera effect that hasn't been used yet?

For example:

1. bullet time-type effects first used in Buffalo '66 and Matrix

2. the camera that gets mounted on the person's body and faces that person (used in the very intense dramatic scenes in Requiem for a Dream and recently with Ed Holmes waking up after his wild night in The Hangover).

3. the "following the bullet" effect in Chow Yun Fat's Full Contact, Sam Raimi films

4. the "camera following into the vehicle exhaust pipe and into the vehicle's engine showing all the moving, sputtering gears" effect - I first noticed that used in Fight Club.

5. the "everyone-frozen-in-time except for the main character" effect. I've seen it forever and tons of films, but all I can think of is that scene of Ewan McGreger walking through the popcorn in Big Fish.

6. the "slo-mo to speed up to slo-mo" camera effects in Brotherhood of the Wolf and 300.


Anyone notice any new impressive camera effects/tricks in current films or have an idea for one that hasn't been used yet?

I'm probably just a traditionalist, but I think the most impressive shots are when the camera follows a scene as long as it can without making a cut. The opening credits to The Player for example.

Throw in some explosions like Children of Men and it's really impressive. (even though I read that wasn't entirely one take in that movie)

which is actually a homage to TOUCH OF EVIL. i'm going to have to agree, i much rather see interesting non-digitally enhanced shots unless they are presented flawlessly like CHILDREN OF MEN.

I have a great new idea but as with many people coming up with great ideas, I don't have influence on those making the decisions.

I've developed this device in my basement, it costed about $30 in materials from Home Depot.

What you do is: First mount the camera on it. It then has three legs. I call it a tripod. What is does: It's supposed to stabilize the image so you don't get all the fucking annoying bullshit herky-jerky camera movement. Assholes.

I'm hoping we get to a point where we get special effects that are so special that you don't even notice them. A lot of these (e.g. bullet time, freezing everyone) scream "LOOK AT ME, I AM AN AMAZING EFFECT!!!"

The aforementioned long take in Children of Men is something special. There may have been some trickery in there (blood spatters on the lens) but it was just so seamless and amazing.

The in camera practical effects in Jacob's Ladder are still very effective and hold up very well to much of today's CG effects.

Isn't the opening scene of Serenity the longest tracking shot?

Deep focus shots tend to be hella-impressive too.

Next impressive camera effect?

A nice, well-lit closeup of a beautifully made-up and coiffed Megan Fox. And the camera holds on her for more than two seconds.

Oh look.

The Greatest Long Tracking Shots in Cinema.

With Youtube clips for each one.

Do people still use the word "hella" in 2009?

Anyway, my answer is that it will be the virtual camera stuff Cameron is using in "Avatar."

Probably the much talked about but never seen "fist cams" that were supposed to debut in Dragonball Evolution.

Personally, although camera tricks are nice here and there, I hate the over-reliance on them. In college a profesor of mine had mentioned that, more often than not, something that uses a lot of camera tricks is doing so to mask the fact that nothing particularly interesting is being shown. I tend to agree, though there are exceptions to the rule.

Put me in the camp that would prefer a great tracking shot, a beautifully composed single shot, a nice wide-angle set-up, or a slow zoom...than any of the new flashy camera techniques.

Me too basically.

One of the reasons Tarkovsky is the greatest is his daring with very long shots. The shots he did every day are things most directors wouldn't even attempt once in a film.

Long, slow, confident, both tracking and still... he had such an assurance with it it's amazing for me to see every time. The slow shot through the rusted out car in the Zone in 'Stalker' to eventually pass through and then do a slow tracking shot left to find the three reuniting?

I still like seeing people take it up a notch though. I like people pushing the envelope and experimenting. I agree most reliance on camera techniques is to hide a lack of fundamental substance. I disagree on Tony Scott for one instance, I really liked 'Domino' and 'Man On Fire' and I liked the way his work with cameras there added to the movie.

I'm in the same camp. There are some exceptions like the Children of Men warzone scene which had me and a friend yelling wildly that that was impossible (and it was to an extent). Cuaron so far is the exception..I'm sure there are others but...you know if it's literally an in-camera effect it's a lot better cuz it's harder and it really shows off the beauty of whatever you're wanting.

The convo about long tracking shots is incomplete without Russian Ark.

The movie is basically a 95 minute steadicam tracking shot.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pIFHvJ-ZSYo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pIFHvJ-ZSYo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Yeah, I think it's a staple item now to show any film students. We saw this film..it's amazingly shot. I think they only had 3 fuck ups? Good thing was that it was early on in the film not like in the later section.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KT_li-WHcII&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KT_li-WHcII&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VFmu7BYbthY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VFmu7BYbthY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KNmYCuiFaAs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KNmYCuiFaAs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Nope, it is two long shots spliced via a clever transition, ala Rope, which is eight seperate shots (I think Hitchcock would have went longer but that was the limit of the film).

I agree. I really hate all the jerky camera stuff.

The "moving rooms'" from Inception? http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810099246/video/15201197

(It's not new, natch, but I can see it being used a lot in the future.)

I think really long takes are sort of becoming overused. Most of the examples I see nowdays draw too much attention to the long shot and takes away from the scene itself. Heck even Children of Men felt that way. It was an amazing shot and very impressive but it felt more like an excercise in style than a storytelling decision.

How about hand-held shots that include digital effects? It first showed up in The Fellowship of the Ring, and was used extensively in Cloverfield and District 9.

Ha ha! Well played!