- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Probably too many insurmountable issues with filming like this during a race but would certainly add something extra.
Probably too many insurmountable issues with filming like this during a race but would certainly add something extra.
Drone shots are cool but they kinda kill the sense of speed of the cars. One of the best shots I’ve seen in recent years was a static camera with a wide angle shot of the cars going through maggots and becketts. The speed which they carried and the neck breaking changes of direction was an incredible sight. Similar was the ground camera looking up at eau rouge/raidillion. If you match the speed it’s hard to truly appreciate how fast these cars really are in comparison with other series.
Standard drone/helicopter shots, sure. They have to use a wide angle and a huge distance to follow the car through a corner or two.
But this is a narrow angle with a fairly close distance to the car. I think there is a pretty good sense of speed here.
Meh to each their own. I feel like these shot would look just as fast if it were following an f3 car at 160kph. It’s the like how movies create the illusion of going fast even though they were going 30kph while filming. The car is (almost)static, centered and in focus in the screen so I don’t particularly think it shows the true speed of the cars. It’s a basic shot composition technique, the subject quickly going from one end of the screen to the other is a powerful dynamic effect. The blurriness of the surroundings do all the heavy lifting here so you don’t get as much visual information to distinguish between going 150 or 350kph. You can see this in the video when are on a dry vs wet track, it’s really hard to tell how much slower or faster they are going it all looks the same. I think a static cam is closer to what you would see IRL. By the way I’m not against those shots, they are far better and clearer than quick panning shots like what is mostly used anyway.