Over cranking is the film speed going through the camera, they say 5x speed so that would be 120 frames per second. It has nothing to do with the Camera Operator turning the handle on a geared head. They indicate that with a cutsey arrow, for some silly reason. A geared head makes the panning and tilting very precise and a good geared head operator is becoming a valuable commodity in the movie business.
The younger dude has a channel for VFX, and tried to do one about thermo-nuclear weapons. He got too stunned by the reality to do it. It was really poignant.
Terry Gilliam's Dreams Trilogy, Time Bandits, Brazil, and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, are all wonderful fantastical films with pre-CGI special effects.
I'm one of the half-dozen people in the world that genuinely love that movie. It broke my heart to read that the actress that played the little girl ended up with PTSD from shooting what ended up being some minor, almost throwaway scenes. Haven't had the occasion to watch it since, and I don't know if this knowledge will impact my ability to enjoy it.
It's amazing to think about the miracles VFX people were able to pull off without CGI. One of my faves was the "drain" look of the black hole in the eponymous Disney movie of 1979. /a/Hc5oP6l
I've got a bunch of important information about your everyday life and the infrastructure you move through constantly and I guarantee you would be lost at the specific information I use on a daily basis. But I would never think it embarrassing that others don't know what I know. We're working together.
They're a VFX shop that uses their internet presence to educate the public about filmmaking. It's a credibility issue if these professional filmmakers are the ones who added that in.
It's strange. The errant arrow pointing at the wrong thing isn't in the full video (linked in the comments here). I'm wondering if it was added for the YouTube Shorts cut by a different team or something.
Ignorance shouldn't be embarrassing unless there's a good reason you shouldn't be ignorant. The idea that overcranking is done with an actual crank on the side of a camera, or even the term "overcranking", is not that widely known outside of the industry
Somehow I think that crank isn't actually what controls the frame rate. In order to get a consistent frame rate you couldn't have a human turning that I suspect it turns or zooms or pans or something.
Cranking comes from the early movie cameras where the frame rate was dependent of operator turning a crank to move the film in the camera. The faster the turn the higher the framerate. Combine that to the crank to pan the camera and you have operator turning two cranks at different speeds and/or directions at the same time while maintaining the wanted composition in the frame.
Okay none of the replies tackles this so here I go: that crank does not affect the filming speed. That crank turns the camera side to side (or up and down; there's multiple cranks). By the time this movie had been made, hand-cranking the film was LONG outdated. Mechanical camera motion is super-smooth though, hence the crank.
Well, that's the problem. Capitalism was once a way to keep things creative. Use the knowledge and expand on it, but we've been largely held back by greed at this point. Planned obsoletes to make new technologies turn out slow. Gotta milk the idea for every penny. Look at sd cards. They've been the same thing for 20 years. Smaller and smaller but it's the same lil chio in there. Our cures for disease and funding for the arts and sciences are hindered by their ability to make money, NOW. Lame
Practical effects are (generally) so much better than CGI. At least it's my preference. Action movies that add computer generated blood spray drive me crazy. It always looks like such fake dogshit compared to squibs.
good practical effects are better than bad cgi. Good cgi is better than bad practical effects. The problem isn't that CGI is bad, the problem is that bad cgi is really cheap, so you see a lot of it.
Agreed on your point but not sure a show like Spartacus (2010) would have been possible without the CGI blood; avoided the fate of HBOs Rome by keeping the budget down.
Also, Terry Gilliam's movies are always a treat. It's hard to pick a favorite but I love making new friends, finding out they haven't seen the Fisher King, and watching it with them for the first time.
Counterpoint: squibs and blanks are quite literally explosives, and accidents and mishaps with them can injure/kill people, and have. If there's a way to get the same result on-screen without subjecting people to pointless danger, I'm all for it. It *is* all just pretend, after all.
Danger's minimal, which is why they were used so widely for so long. Danger inheres in many things, but that doesn't and shouldn't mean we avoid them. Follow the safety protocols—all of them written in blood—and you will in all likelihood be fine. The mishaps occur most often around cut corners. If your production can't afford someone with the expertise, attention to detail, and the track record, then the preferred options are of course digital squibs or—heaven forbid—creative alternatives.
Although the number of people that I have heard, unprompted, express the opposite desire leads me to believe we are in a tiny, tiny minority. People are monsters.
There's a distinction to be made between "all CGI" and "CG effects." The stuff that was good 10 years ago probably didn't register as digital, or even as an alteration to the footage, and so was neither noticed nor remembered. Here's a good example of a CG replacement: Harvey Dent's burned face in one of Nolan's Batman movies. That was probably about 10 years ago I'd guess. Maybe more?
To me the burns and Harvey Dent look fake and bad. I generally prefer good CG to good practical effects, but I just don't think that one was good CG but there's a ton of other stuff in those Batman movies that look fantastic that are practical and CG. Consider me watching that scene and pay attention to the lighting on his face and I think the shadows are in all the wrong places, or at least this is often what's wrong with CG.
Oddly, the first Jurassic Park, one of the first films to heavily use CGI, still looks good, over 30 years later. It's all about knowing the limits, working within them, and using the right tool for the job. There's the story about Jaws where the editor was ruthless in cutting the footage of the shark, because the difference of only a few frames was the difference between a live shark on screen, and a stupid mechanical prop.
Ocer half the footage of the dinosaurs on screen was animatronics for Jurrasic park 1. All the close up scenes and scenes that involved physical interaction.
The CGI scenes only make up about 6 mins of the movie and are quite easy to tell apart.
I think this is the best to take here, because Jurassic Park had a bunch of CGI and practical effects, and it just nailed the quality of both and used each one where it was appropriate. And so did Lord of the Rings and a bunch of other great stuff. But then we have the new Marvel movies that look like crap with CGI and we have like troll 2 that looks like crap with practical effects.
Early films that used CG I think looked better due to the fact they only had to focus on one or two major effects, rather than putting it everywhere throughout the film. For Jurassic Park is was all about the dinosaurs, for Terminator 2 it was all about the fluidity of the walking mercury bot.
Because they don't need to rush, like current effects studios, and shove CG into every shot from lighting to getting rid of mustaches. Effects are being abused lately.
The rushing of shots is a big issue. Filmmakers nowadays keep requesting changes to COMPLETED shots, or shots well into post production, and the VFX houses get paid per shot, not hours worked, and only get paid once the shot is approved, so you have a bunch of people crunching at the last minute to finish complex shots. This video goes into it, with a demonstration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3VTvobIsAk
A recent example of a film using VFX well is Godzilla Minus One, which had a relatively small budget of $10–15 million. One factor is that the director, Takashi Yamazaki, is a VFX artist himself, so knew how to plan the shots to get what he wanted from the beginning, instead of revising and redoing them. Also Godzilla is only on-screen for 12 minutes of the 125 minute film, although there's still plenty of other VFX in the film. https://youtu.be/8OM1xQ6j4uo?t=210
Good practical effects are better than bad CGI. But that goes for the opposite as well.
There is some CGI in practically everything, and mostly it just looks real. Digital set extension is routine, and you'll hardly ever be able to notice.
The studios actually hide how much CGI is in films nowadays, and they get away with it because it's invisible. See this Youtube video essay series: "NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo
As an example, even a movie like Parasite is choke full of CGI, as you can see with this picture of the main set. Full 3D set extensions are a thing since Star Wars Episode I.
anticiv666
I have this on VHS! It might not be rare but I cherish it
QotU
Brazil is still a crazy and phenomenal movie. But you have to watch the real ending to get it, not the cut off version.
ximzadix
for those who are interested yet never heard of this - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/
"A bureaucrat in a dystopic society becomes an enemy of the state as he pursues the woman of his dreams"
joechristo
Over cranking is the film speed going through the camera, they say 5x speed so that would be 120 frames per second. It has nothing to do with the Camera Operator turning the handle on a geared head. They indicate that with a cutsey arrow, for some silly reason. A geared head makes the panning and tilting very precise and a good geared head operator is becoming a valuable commodity in the movie business.
inthepines
secularink
PowerPedant
Full episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvYkkwiQ5DY
Nahnahyeah
When I saw "Sorry to Bother You" it immediately made me think of Brazil. If you haven't seen that one and you're a fan of "Brazil" check it out.
DarkWingz
I love it but can't rewatch it, the end is too painful.
Megadestructo
This, Dr. Strangelove, and Blade Runner swap places for my favorite movie frequently.
Fisicboy
From: Corridor Crew
Verbodentoegang
Poo poo productions
Columbus43219
The younger dude has a channel for VFX, and tried to do one about thermo-nuclear weapons. He got too stunned by the reality to do it. It was really poignant.
TheDisembodiedFloatingHeadOfEdwardGRobinson
Loooooooove this movie, probably my favourite of Gilliam's, though it's a tight race.
burningcouchwv
Had/have on laser disc
geoffreyfourmyle
Twelve Monkeys might take the top spot for me, but as you say it's a very close race.
TheDisembodiedFloatingHeadOfEdwardGRobinson
12 Monkeys was my gateway drug to Terry Gilliam, and so holds a very special place in my heart.
collinwebsterwork3000
This is what it felt like watching Captain America New World Order
Harryteeters
So was The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
DaveSamsonite
Terry Gilliam was very creative and knew how to stretch a budget. There is a new series on AppleTV+ based on one of his movies
marsilies
Terry Gilliam's Dreams Trilogy, Time Bandits, Brazil, and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, are all wonderful fantastical films with pre-CGI special effects.
78927x4No1
.
umbrael
Another really good movie! I loved Brazil and Baron Munchausen, that Venus scene was gorgeous!
0xDEC0DE
I'm one of the half-dozen people in the world that genuinely love that movie. It broke my heart to read that the actress that played the little girl ended up with PTSD from shooting what ended up being some minor, almost throwaway scenes. Haven't had the occasion to watch it since, and I don't know if this knowledge will impact my ability to enjoy it.
DaCareBearStare
Oh wow! I never knew about this before. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/12/sarah-polley-terry-gilliam-run-towards-danger-baron-munchausen-interview
RabidNutria
Fuck. That was sad to read. I love that movie and I have a 7 year old daughter.
TheDaharMaster
Thank you for reminding me to check on my sausage bushes!
TheLoveLight
One my favorit movies and the best use of music in a film. https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTY1YjkxZmJlYW8xNmE2MGFhMGx0YzN5YmdqYjhsZjdqaDU5bmNsMXkwcjdzYTJtZCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/YoJkktqbgzSizXNECN/giphy.mp4
zeusfdelta
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTY1YjkxZmJlMHVlMmo5M3g1ZDJldXN2NnVocmU4bzZsdzY3MjA1d2h0bDU3cjUyaCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/rhgwg4qBu97ISgbfni/giphy.mp4
DuckyOpus
...what movie is this?
AllTheGoodOnesWereGone
Brazil.
mygodhasabiggerdick
And that dude leaving is Robert fuckin DeNiro.
AllTheGoodOnesWereGone
“We’re all in it together kid!”
Northwindlowlander
da da da, da da da da da, da da da, da da da da da intensifies
theskepticinme
Wow. Corridor dudes on imgur!
ManOCheese
Ewww, corridor crew on Imgur.
theskepticinme
To each their own I suppose
ManOCheese
If it was just about personal taste, I wouldn't have said anything.
theskepticinme
“Ewwww” sounds like personal taste. Do you have an objective measure why others should dislike them?
dentd
To be fair, it still is.
Huor
It's amazing to think about the miracles VFX people were able to pull off without CGI. One of my faves was the "drain" look of the black hole in the eponymous Disney movie of 1979. /a/Hc5oP6l
JerBearington
One of my favorites!
9z2nf02h
Actual video segment https://youtu.be/tvYkkwiQ5DY?si=cyzd1Ldff1K2mp0x&t=497
rotodisc
Jesus fucking Christ. The “overcranking” arrow pointing at the camera adjustment crank is embarrassingly ignorant.
TheUtahn
I've got a bunch of important information about your everyday life and the infrastructure you move through constantly and I guarantee you would be lost at the specific information I use on a daily basis. But I would never think it embarrassing that others don't know what I know. We're working together.
9z2nf02h
This is a Corridor Crew video, and they know better, but the cutaway shot is in the original video, but not the annotation. So weird.
danomyces
jesus fucking christ chill out a bit dude, this isn't embarrassing for anyone but you
193X
They're a VFX shop that uses their internet presence to educate the public about filmmaking. It's a credibility issue if these professional filmmakers are the ones who added that in.
Steeveeo
It's strange. The errant arrow pointing at the wrong thing isn't in the full video (linked in the comments here). I'm wondering if it was added for the YouTube Shorts cut by a different team or something.
zafner
Ignorance shouldn't be embarrassing unless there's a good reason you shouldn't be ignorant. The idea that overcranking is done with an actual crank on the side of a camera, or even the term "overcranking", is not that widely known outside of the industry
rotodisc
And the creators of this video should know better.
Tractorfist
You're unreasonably upset over inconsequential ignorance.
sqeaky
People who don't know shouldn't be educating others, consider that's I need your factor in how we one specific Orange politician.
StormCrowMith
FeloniousMonk13
I've been on this earth for 40some years and did not know what that crank did til today
sqeaky
Somehow I think that crank isn't actually what controls the frame rate. In order to get a consistent frame rate you couldn't have a human turning that I suspect it turns or zooms or pans or something.
seekerrr
Cranking comes from the early movie cameras where the frame rate was dependent of operator turning a crank to move the film in the camera. The faster the turn the higher the framerate. Combine that to the crank to pan the camera and you have operator turning two cranks at different speeds and/or directions at the same time while maintaining the wanted composition in the frame.
StormCrowMith
It turns the camera smoothly
dreammer243
It cranks
DuckyOpus
Okay none of the replies tackles this so here I go: that crank does not affect the filming speed. That crank turns the camera side to side (or up and down; there's multiple cranks). By the time this movie had been made, hand-cranking the film was LONG outdated. Mechanical camera motion is super-smooth though, hence the crank.
nik282000
Welcome to the world of tomorrow. Where everyone has access to the sum of all human knowledge but no one bothers to use it.
StormCrowMith
Tl;Dr;
Tractorfist
Pretty sure some of us are using this clip to access some of that knowledge.
somethingstupidandclever
Well, that's the problem. Capitalism was once a way to keep things creative. Use the knowledge and expand on it, but we've been largely held back by greed at this point. Planned obsoletes to make new technologies turn out slow. Gotta milk the idea for every penny. Look at sd cards. They've been the same thing for 20 years. Smaller and smaller but it's the same lil chio in there. Our cures for disease and funding for the arts and sciences are hindered by their ability to make money, NOW. Lame
AvidApostate
Ah, Jonathan Price
GoAheadAndDownvoteYouFlippingFascist
I'm the good boy, not cousin Larry.
AvidApostate
PrYce. Freaking auto-correct
CyanideBreathMint
Ya, but more ah, Terry Gilliam
JerBearington
Legend 🤴
ChickenTendercles
He was SO nasty as Mr Dark in “Something Wicked This Way Comes”
dontfloatmygoat
Stage or screen. Can’t find it on IMDb
ChickenTendercles
Screen, early 80s. Disney has it locked up and I can’t find it either.
QotU
I loved Jonathan Pryce in anything he was in at this stage.
And the book for Something Wicked this Way Comes is Bradbury’s best. I’ll die on that hill.
nurmich
Practical effects are (generally) so much better than CGI. At least it's my preference. Action movies that add computer generated blood spray drive me crazy. It always looks like such fake dogshit compared to squibs.
[deleted]
[deleted]
marsilies
To be fair, it's the same with practical effects. Brazil was actually way over schedule, but came in under budget.
TODAYSNUMBERIS
I think cgi is best when it augments and improves practical effects.
7thor8thcaw
The effects in the new Mad Max movies are awesome because they feel so real.
vmos
good practical effects are better than bad cgi. Good cgi is better than bad practical effects. The problem isn't that CGI is bad, the problem is that bad cgi is really cheap, so you see a lot of it.
TexMexHex
Not really a preference, more like a fact.
Ebo352
Agreed on your point but not sure a show like Spartacus (2010) would have been possible without the CGI blood; avoided the fate of HBOs Rome by keeping the budget down.
drakkaris12718
Don't worry, AI is gonna make EVERYTHING so much better... *Sigh*
nurmich
Also, Terry Gilliam's movies are always a treat. It's hard to pick a favorite but I love making new friends, finding out they haven't seen the Fisher King, and watching it with them for the first time.
DexPumpkinGod
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTY1YjkxZmJlYTltZmZnZ2NlMmw0ZmNzdW9wZzBudG96dDQ0anRtY3RtNnNidmN2YyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/huyVJYSKcArLiu8J5g/giphy.mp4
demoncatmara
nice!
0xDEC0DE
Counterpoint: squibs and blanks are quite literally explosives, and accidents and mishaps with them can injure/kill people, and have. If there's a way to get the same result on-screen without subjecting people to pointless danger, I'm all for it. It *is* all just pretend, after all.
meadowmeal
Danger's minimal, which is why they were used so widely for so long. Danger inheres in many things, but that doesn't and shouldn't mean we avoid them. Follow the safety protocols—all of them written in blood—and you will in all likelihood be fine. The mishaps occur most often around cut corners. If your production can't afford someone with the expertise, attention to detail, and the track record, then the preferred options are of course digital squibs or—heaven forbid—creative alternatives.
CurbYourClassWar
Tell that to Halyna Hutchins.
sqeaky
Minimal, not none. I don't need people dying or suffering for my entertainment.
0xDEC0DE
Exactly this.
Although the number of people that I have heard, unprompted, express the opposite desire leads me to believe we are in a tiny, tiny minority. People are monsters.
tempestfoxthree
Good practical effects age better that's for sure.
Good practical effects from 40 years ago still look great today. While good CGI from 10 years ago looks ass today.
meadowmeal
There's a distinction to be made between "all CGI" and "CG effects." The stuff that was good 10 years ago probably didn't register as digital, or even as an alteration to the footage, and so was neither noticed nor remembered. Here's a good example of a CG replacement: Harvey Dent's burned face in one of Nolan's Batman movies. That was probably about 10 years ago I'd guess. Maybe more?
sqeaky
To me the burns and Harvey Dent look fake and bad. I generally prefer good CG to good practical effects, but I just don't think that one was good CG but there's a ton of other stuff in those Batman movies that look fantastic that are practical and CG. Consider me watching that scene and pay attention to the lighting on his face and I think the shadows are in all the wrong places, or at least this is often what's wrong with CG.
VinnieJonesDiary
That looked like impressive cg, but it definitely looked like cg.
marsilies
Oddly, the first Jurassic Park, one of the first films to heavily use CGI, still looks good, over 30 years later. It's all about knowing the limits, working within them, and using the right tool for the job. There's the story about Jaws where the editor was ruthless in cutting the footage of the shark, because the difference of only a few frames was the difference between a live shark on screen, and a stupid mechanical prop.
tempestfoxthree
Ocer half the footage of the dinosaurs on screen was animatronics for Jurrasic park 1. All the close up scenes and scenes that involved physical interaction.
The CGI scenes only make up about 6 mins of the movie and are quite easy to tell apart.
sqeaky
I think this is the best to take here, because Jurassic Park had a bunch of CGI and practical effects, and it just nailed the quality of both and used each one where it was appropriate. And so did Lord of the Rings and a bunch of other great stuff. But then we have the new Marvel movies that look like crap with CGI and we have like troll 2 that looks like crap with practical effects.
madeejit
Jurassic Park is 127 minutes long, dinosaurs are on screen for 15 minutes, and only 6 minutes of that was CGI. Less is more.
dontrike
Early films that used CG I think looked better due to the fact they only had to focus on one or two major effects, rather than putting it everywhere throughout the film. For Jurassic Park is was all about the dinosaurs, for Terminator 2 it was all about the fluidity of the walking mercury bot.
Because they don't need to rush, like current effects studios, and shove CG into every shot from lighting to getting rid of mustaches. Effects are being abused lately.
marsilies
The rushing of shots is a big issue. Filmmakers nowadays keep requesting changes to COMPLETED shots, or shots well into post production, and the VFX houses get paid per shot, not hours worked, and only get paid once the shot is approved, so you have a bunch of people crunching at the last minute to finish complex shots. This video goes into it, with a demonstration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3VTvobIsAk
marsilies
A recent example of a film using VFX well is Godzilla Minus One, which had a relatively small budget of $10–15 million. One factor is that the director, Takashi Yamazaki, is a VFX artist himself, so knew how to plan the shots to get what he wanted from the beginning, instead of revising and redoing them. Also Godzilla is only on-screen for 12 minutes of the 125 minute film, although there's still plenty of other VFX in the film. https://youtu.be/8OM1xQ6j4uo?t=210
PowerPedant
Good practical effects are better than bad CGI. But that goes for the opposite as well.
There is some CGI in practically everything, and mostly it just looks real. Digital set extension is routine, and you'll hardly ever be able to notice.
marsilies
The studios actually hide how much CGI is in films nowadays, and they get away with it because it's invisible. See this Youtube video essay series: "NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo
PowerPedant
That's such a well-done series.
meadowmeal
As a great man once said: you might not notice, but your brain does.
PleaseRespectMyAsshole
Yeah, well, my brain is stupid.
bluntforcedrama
https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1Mjhvbmw1Ym15d3ZpMzQ2MnlzZnpjcnl4bHdrdThnYnA0eTdpMXptdyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/kSlJtVrqxDYKk/200w.webp
SirenBrick
They are certainly cleaner than the old matte painting technique. People forget how "crunchy" those old backgrounds could be.
IndianJoe
As an example, even a movie like Parasite is choke full of CGI, as you can see with this picture of the main set. Full 3D set extensions are a thing since Star Wars Episode I.
mikeatike
The "good cgi" nobody notices because peolle think it's practical, or simply not an effect at all.