How was this shot done?

[brassplyer]

Go to 11:10 - the shot starts with a closeup of a tv screen on a large airliner, pulls back goes up to the 2nd level goes down the aisle, over the seats turns around to follow the characters to their seat, all one continuous shot. The camera doesn't seem to go far enough up the stairs for it to be someone with a Steadicam.


https://youtu.be/dsE-ZJUjftg?si=leHMKVL5qXm3k7pE&t=670

[lordsmurf]

The TV is likely fake, CG, all post-production work. Maybe all of it.

The aisle shot is just camera on a moving plane (planar). Remember, this is a set, not real airplane, to "the stairs" may not exist at all.

[Cornucopia]

Yes, CG. The plane's cabin may also be CG, or partially, as an overlay. If there were any real "monitors" behind the seats, they would be green/blue-screened, so that the morphing headshots composite would be overlayed onto each, in a nested fashion.
But it's easy enough to have the actors be in an empty soundstage, and use motion tracking coordinates from the CG to guide the motion of the cam on the actors, or vice-versa.


Scott

[johns0]

The video has been taken down so most likely a fake.

[lordsmurf]

The video has been taken down so most likely a fake.

No, it's up.
It's the 2005 movie Flightplan with Jodie Foster.

[brassplyer]

Yes, CG. The plane's cabin may also be CG, or partially, as an overlay. If there were any real "monitors" behind the seats, they would be green/blue-screened, so that the morphing headshots composite would be overlayed onto each, in a nested fashion.
But it's easy enough to have the actors be in an empty soundstage, and use motion tracking coordinates from the CG to guide the motion of the cam on the actors, or vice-versa.


Scott

CGI was that sophisticated in 2005?

Okay, I see Jurassic Park was made in 1993 so clearly it was even more advanced by 2005.

[lordsmurf]

Yes, CG. The plane's cabin may also be CG, or partially, as an overlay. If there were any real "monitors" behind the seats, they would be green/blue-screened, so that the morphing headshots composite would be overlayed onto each, in a nested fashion.
But it's easy enough to have the actors be in an empty soundstage, and use motion tracking coordinates from the CG to guide the motion of the cam on the actors, or vice-versa.


Scott

CGI was that sophisticated in 2005?

Okay, I see Jurassic Park was made in 1993 so clearly it was even more advanced by 2005.

The Matrix came out in 1999.

[johns0]

The clip isn't available for canada viewing.

[VLEON]

Yes, CG. The plane's cabin may also be CG, or partially, as an overlay. If there were any real "monitors" behind the seats, they would be green/blue-screened, so that the morphing headshots composite would be overlayed onto each, in a nested fashion.
But it's easy enough to have the actors be in an empty soundstage, and use motion tracking coordinates from the CG to guide the motion of the cam on the actors, or vice-versa.


Scott

Green screen and CG shooting has become the standard in recent times

[brassplyer]

The clip isn't available for canada viewing.

A decent VPN will let you view content blocked in your country.

[lordsmurf]

Just to add, that shot is pure inanimate objects, which is vastly easier to CG. Excluding those TV screens (guaranteed CG), the rest of the shot could be a set shot, CG and partial set, or just all CG. I actually doubt it's full CG, and even the partial CG is probably less than 20%.

It could even be multiple cameras, a pseudo bullet-time of sorts, that was smooth panned in post. Even this is cheaper than full CG (at least back then), likely even easier.

There are a lot of things you can do without CG. The only "need" for CG here is those screens, as you cannot photo/video them that clear or in those angles.

[brassplyer]

Just to add, that shot is pure inanimate objects, which is vastly easier to CG. Excluding those TV screens (guaranteed CG), the rest of the shot could be a set shot, CG and partial set, or just all CG. I actually doubt it's full CG, and even the partial CG is probably less than 20%.

It could even be multiple cameras, a pseudo bullet-time of sorts, that was smooth panned in post. Even this is cheaper than full CG (at least back then), likely even easier.

There are a lot of things you can do without CG. The only "need" for CG here is those screens, as you cannot photo/video them that clear or in those angles.

Would they be able to blend footage from more than one camera precisely enough to make it look like one uninterrupted shot?

[netmask56]

"Would they be able to blend footage from more than one camera precisely enough to make it look like one uninterrupted shot? "
Yep!

"In this world all is artifice and fake m'dear"

[lordsmurf]

Just to add, that shot is pure inanimate objects, which is vastly easier to CG. Excluding those TV screens (guaranteed CG), the rest of the shot could be a set shot, CG and partial set, or just all CG. I actually doubt it's full CG, and even the partial CG is probably less than 20%.

It could even be multiple cameras, a pseudo bullet-time of sorts, that was smooth panned in post. Even this is cheaper than full CG (at least back then), likely even easier.

There are a lot of things you can do without CG. The only "need" for CG here is those screens, as you cannot photo/video them that clear or in those angles.

Would they be able to blend footage from more than one camera precisely enough to make it look like one uninterrupted shot?

Oh yeah, and (somewhat) easily.

My video skills are conversion, restoration -- not as much editing or shooting. My editing is "competent", but my shooting is still very novice level. Even I could shoot and edit (stitch) multiple shots. The CG is for somebody else, but I could do the pre-CG source. The main limiter for shooting like this is proper tools and imagination.

[johns0]

The clip isn't available for canada viewing.

A decent VPN will let you view content blocked in your country.

Already viewed it through my vpn.Just saying lot of people don't have a vpn.