How did they do this effect?

Hey guys,

..at 1.04 sec..How did they create this 'slide camera' movement affect?

Surely not with a camera slider (btw I have a camera slider) .. their are some other movements (sfx) they did in the video, but this one looks cool.
I thought it was a 'ken burns' effect.

Looks like s mistake to me. Camera nudged and panned off slightly and came back.

I think they may have shot at 4K on a locked off camera but took advantage of the ability to crop and track across the 4K frame without noticeable loss in quality at HD resolution in post. Just simple transform effects. That's my guess.

hey tom,
i think it is an effect bud.

hey steve,
yeah i think that's more like what they would have done..zooming in & out, and sliding on the fixed shot..I'll try it..cheers bud

If we're talking about the same thing, it's a really crappy effect in my view and just looks bad. Or are you taking about the pseudo zoom overlays that are a couple of seconds earlier?

Thanks guys,
I think I've figured it..basically what steve said.
I increased the 'transform' on some footage i had, chucked an 'aspect ratio' effect on top (to give it the letter box look, i think using the 'letter box, gives you more wiggle room) then just played around with 'x' & 'y'..I think what sold it was the dancers & the camera movement at the same time. Nice idea with a fixed camera.Probably not new..but first time I've kinda noticed it.
it's almost 'ken burns' like but not.

Easiest way would be to simply pan the camera. Not hard to do. Why wouldn't it be a physical came pan? Why would it have to be mysterious and magical for something to basic and simple?

I think they're talking about the effect that's a little before the 1:04 mark.

Tom Wolsky wrote: I think they're talking about the effect that's a little before the 1:04 mark.

In which case, you'll notice it zooms in a bit first, then like the random Motion parameter behavior. Still, pretty simple, doesn't take 4K or anything. Seeing as how they do a zoom in first to give wiggle room, and never zoom out more than the original framing. Simple, no magic.

Of course, it doesn't have to be 4K to crop in on some footage but if you were setting out to do this from the get-go you might consider an ultra high definition format to maintain the image quality. I mean it's no big deal. My girlfriend shoots 4K on her phone - nothing special. The effect is mainly used to keep the dancers centred within the frame and the mechanical precision of the move matches the precision of the dance moves. I agree that the easiest way would be to pan the camera but they may not have been worried about the dancers moving left and right across the picture initially when they shot this and decided to 'fix it in post'. They probably also didn't want a camera operator showing up in the mirror as it's already cluttered enough with the light stands and camera tripod. I think what gives it away as not being a pan is that the perspective within the shot doesn't change at all due to rotation which is what makes it look a bit like a very fast slider move. Even with a slider though you would notice a small shift in parallax within the scene and in the video nothing changes, just look at the lights on the ceiling.

Endoh935 wrote: .....How did they create this 'slide camera' movement affect?
...

that's indeed a post-production 'shift', look:



the dance is recorded with a wider crop than final poduct.
When the 'camera moves', by overlaying the two frames you notice the absence of any parallax shift = you would had with a real slider => post-pro cropping.
While recording you have to keep that effect in mind, the two arrows show the original width of frame, so I'm with Steve: a higher res than final output is helpful...

The 'effect' is to mimic the movement of the hat guy :
the audience mostly focused on people, notices no move of the face in the cadrage, but the room moves... sortof horizontal dolly-zoom :woohoo:

nice! … haven't seen before.
should watch more music-videos ...

and, btw: no operator at cam, it seems:



just a tripod..

Nice bit of analysis there Karsten.

Steve McGarrigle wrote: Nice bit of analysis there Karsten.

Thanks, Steve, I like to solve such riddles...
And I'm with the OP: on first look, a surprising effect!

.... which makes me "hmm, how did they do that..?"

:lol:

here's another good one, more practical

Hah ha yeah, the floor moves. Used to be well into Jamiroquai and Acid Jazz in general.
One of my favourite music video's, 'Star Guitar' by The Chemical Brothers and directed by Michael Gondry. One of the best literal interpretations of music i have ever seen.

Steve McGarrigle wrote: … 'Star Guitar' by The Chemical Brothers and directed by Michael Gondry. One of the best literal interpretations of music i have ever seen...

wow wow and no to forget wow!
How come I missed that masterpiece of music-video?
raises the word 'sequencer' to a new level.-
the first 30-60secs I completely misssed the effect... super well done.

2003?? ... ok, book all Quantel Harry and Henry suites in London avail.. for a week. Or two...

Steve McGarrigle wrote: … Hah ha yeah, the floor moves....

and, no, the floor is 'fix'...
The whole set incl camera moves in a huge hangar...

"and, no, the floor is 'fix'...
The whole set incl camera moves in a huge hangar..."

Ha ha, i had it around the wrong way all these years!

Karsten Schlüter wrote:











just a tripod..

That's all some producers consider us to be.....carbon/water based camera support devices.

Up snd Up or any Coldplay video.

If the camera doesn't have an operator it's remote controlled. It pans left and right quite a bit at 1:05:03 the camera is here

(not adding images today)

It's panned over to the left.