To be honest, I'd rather think that it was unintentional.

October 13, 2006 9:17 PM

What's up with that annoying fast-motion digital effect that's been popping up in movies the past few years? I think it's supposed to make things look scary, but it really has the effect of making everything look like a bad Benny Hill comedy. Is this something that directors do to their movies on purpose, or is it a byproduct of some sort of digital processing?

The only examples that I can think of from the top of my head are "28 Days Later" and "the Sixth Sense." However, I know that I've seen it in a number of other movies the past few years, including ones that aren't even supposed to be scary.

It didn't really bother me too much in 28 Days Later, because it made the zombies look like they were moving super-fast, and I figured that it was intentional. However, in "the Sixth Sense," it just didn't seem appropriate at all.

My question - is this effect done intentionally? A dude at my work thinks that it is. My roommate thinks that it's used in scenes that are so tightly choreographed that they need to be filmed slowly and then sped it up to make it look normal. I think that it's probably intentional, but, like most digital effects, makes the movie look totally ass. What do you think?

posted by Afroblanco to media & arts (38 comments total)

Which scene in Sixth Sense? I totally can't picture what you mean.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:19 PM on October 13, 2006

intentional. almost anything you see that looks strange now is done in post. it's too expensive to risk doing it in camera.

of course, it could just be a narrow shutter angle (i'm not sure what you're describing).
posted by rbs at 9:22 PM on October 13, 2006

Any video clips or specific examples ("that scene in 28 Days Later at 1:34:30 when...")? I can't really picture this either.
posted by nervestaple at 9:28 PM on October 13, 2006

Are you talking about the sort of effect they use in the battle scenes of Saving Private Ryan? Shaky-cam-ish?
posted by Addlepated at 9:36 PM on October 13, 2006

Which scene in Sixth Sense?

Well, I didn't like the movie enough to want to watch it again (excruciatingly slow pacing, lack of suspense, heavy reliance on the inherent creepiness of kids who talk like adults), but from what I can remember, it involves the child protagonist by himself, and I think it shows him in his room climbing into his tent-thing.

that scene in 28 Days Later

Pretty much any scene that involved the zombies. Whenever you see them move, it always looks like they're artificially sped up.

I guess it's kind of hard to describe.
posted by Afroblanco at 9:37 PM on October 13, 2006

I know what you're talking about. It's intentional. In a few years they'll learn not to overdo it... just like Photoshop lens flare.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:42 PM on October 13, 2006

Do you mean the faux-slow-motion Court TV Dramatic Reenactment Special look? If so, it's intentional and a good argument for retroactive birth control. If you want slow-motion, use a high speed camera.
posted by Skorgu at 9:45 PM on October 13, 2006

It's an almost strobe-like effect, I think achieved by using a really fast shutter speed.
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 10:03 PM on October 13, 2006

There's a comment on this page that says they increase the shutter speed so there wasn't any motion blur, and then another comment that says they also changed the shutter angle to 45 degrees, whatever that means. It's nice sometimes, but it's being overused and I have come to hate it. Spike Lee used it throughout 25th Hour, and I couldn't stand it in that film. I understand using it for action films, but for a drama? No way.
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 10:09 PM on October 13, 2006

It's definitely intentional, but almost always stupid and unnecessary. I see it as the horror equivalent to the "cut every 1/2 second and spin the camera a lot"-style of fight scene filming in mainstream cop/thriller movies - a shortcut way to avoid actually telling the story by substituting rapid shocking of the audience's senses for coherent filmmaking.

That said, the effect in zombie/horror flicks is pretty creepy. Thank the gods for the 1/4-speed option on my DVD remote, though; it lets you actually see what's supposed to be happening in the plot.
posted by mediareport at 10:38 PM on October 13, 2006

You're talking about those scenes where things are just going along and suddenly they go REALLY FAST for a second (sometimes accompanied by a sound resembling static, maybe a white flash) and then it reverts to normal speed again, sorta like fast forwarding a Tivo. I see a lot of this lately too. It's just one of those directorial affectations, like a jump cut. Definitely an intentional effect.

Some films do get sped up on TV so they can cram more commercials in or whatever. It's more noticeable for me during musical interludes that sound pitched up. That's all done well after the fact, though; what you're talking about is an editing effect that's pretty commonly used nowadays, especially among the "MTV generation" type of filmmaking.
posted by First Post at 10:39 PM on October 13, 2006

Shutter angle. (Effectively equivalent to shutter speed; just a different way of changing it.)
posted by ook at 10:40 PM on October 13, 2006

(that was in response to notlobster.)
posted by ook at 10:41 PM on October 13, 2006

Is this something that directors do to their movies on purpose

I know what you mean. The second to final scene of The Ring uses the effect when the girl crawls out of the TV and gets up on her feet. Its like she is sped up but with some key frames missing and some overall jitter to her movements. I've always thought it was intended to give a otherworldly appearance to the character - no human moves like that. When its done right it creeps the heck outta me.
posted by squeak at 10:41 PM on October 13, 2006

What you're talking about sounds a lot like absence-of-motion-blur. That can happen if they're using sensitive film -- or a sensitive CCD in a digital production, and thus are reducing the exposure time per frame.

Absence-of-motion-blur happens in low-budget computer-generated imagery, too, and makes it look unrealistic. Is that the same effect you're complaining about?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:12 AM on October 14, 2006

this technique is generally credited to toronto director floria sigismondi and was used in her videos for david bowie's "little wonder" and marilyn manson's "beautiful people" back in '96.
posted by dawdle at 12:35 AM on October 14, 2006

intentional. almost anything you see that looks strange now is done in post. it's too expensive to risk doing it in camera.

In Stir of Echoes, almost all of the effects were done on camera, not in post-production. The director speeded up scense the old fashioned way, by shooting fewer frames-per-second and then playing it back at normal speed (for the ghost's strange movements, he filmed at quarter speed while the actor also moved at quarter speed, resulting in strange, jerky motion when played back at normal speed).
posted by Deathalicious at 1:54 AM on October 14, 2006

scense=scenes
posted by Deathalicious at 1:58 AM on October 14, 2006

I always assumed it grew out of those time-compressors that are used on sitcoms to cram 10% more acting into the same amount of time. You always see this on really crappy TV, like "Three's Company."

Remember when Cher used the Autotuner to make her voice go up and down, overtly artificially? Well, that's not what the Autotuner was built for; it was built to allow incompetent plastic-surgery victims like Britney and Jessica and Ashlee to stay on key in post-processing. But Cher used it as kind of a nose-thumbing, for effect.

I think this is more or less the same way of using a similar shitty effect.
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:24 AM on October 14, 2006

(In addition to others mentioned above) If you've seen the movie Millions, you'll see that Danny Boyle uses similar rhythm effects to speed up time, intensify emotion, and create suspense.

--lauren
posted by rafter at 5:00 AM on October 14, 2006

I first noted the use of this technique in the opening battle scene and the fight with the tiger in Gladiator.

As Afroblanco suggests, it pops almost everywhere these days. I've noticed that it's overused in virtually every crime- or action-related drama that premiered on TV this fall.
posted by NYCinephile at 5:50 AM on October 14, 2006

You're misremembering Sixth Sense. Everything about that tent scene happens very slowly.
posted by blueshammer at 5:57 AM on October 14, 2006

Intentional. Shooting with a faster shutter speed. Can't recall the Sixth Sense use but 28 days was unusual in that it was shot on semi-pro dv cameras. They used a higher shutter speed, in-camera, for the zombie scenes. It gives more detail and a strange strobey type effect. Some discussion here.

I like it in 28 days later but can't stand it in the first Lord of the Rings when they're on the side of the hill fighting near the end....looks like bad xena warriror princess. Same effect though, shutter speed etc...
posted by DOUBLE A SIDE at 6:26 AM on October 14, 2006

I dont think we've really worked out exactly the effect you wondering about. I havent seen 28 days later so Im not sure what your talking about.

Some people are saying a shutter speed/strobe/lack of motion blur thing. Others are talking about time ramping where the speed of the footage is edited by hand. They are too seperate effects. Im pretty sure your talking about the second one?
posted by phyle at 7:33 AM on October 14, 2006

Pretty much any scene that involved the zombies. Whenever you see them move, it always looks like they're artificially sped up. (Original Poster)

Seems like we're talking about shutter speed/strobe when it comes to 28 days later. I wouldn't be surprised if they ramped the footage a little also though.
posted by DOUBLE A SIDE at 8:31 AM on October 14, 2006

It CAN work good for horror, especially 28 Days Later, where you get more of an impression of the horror as opposed to seeing it fully. It's a different way of leaving things to the imagination--ya just get fleeting images that bounce around your brain, making you wonder about what it really is or what's really going on.

Like anything else, it can be overdone, but when done well, can be quite effective. I liked it in 28 Days Later, since they weren't Zombies per se, just filled with rage, almost to an animal level, where they don't think, just react with an overwhelmingly single minded purpose.

That final scene in The Ring used it a similar effect, to impart a creepy feeling and distract you from the fact that a healthy, grown man couldn't handle the moody, pale faced fashion disaster of a little girl, who doesn't want to stay in her room, even to save his own life.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:51 AM on October 14, 2006

I'm beginning to think that this effect is acheived through using a fast shutter speed.

One of the filmmakers discusses the effect here :

A fast shutter, however, was always used to enhance the close shots of the infected's movements.

As for why this effect has mostly made its debut during the last decade or so, one of the contributors in this forum makes the following suggestion :

My guess on the "sped up" look of the infected is a faster shutter speed. You can get a similar look on film with a short shutter (see the opening battle seen of "Gladiator"). It is de riguer for video cameras, but not so for film cameras which need a modified shutter. I think it also is what gave the crisp look of the rain in the scenes following Jim's escape.

For anyone left wondering what effect I'm talking about, I would say go out and rent "28 Days Later." Besides being a good movie, it features this effect in, like, 40% of the scenes.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:53 AM on October 14, 2006

You can see the effect briefly in the new trailer for "300" - specificially at 1:19. I tried to find a trailer for "28 Days Later" that didn't suck, but gave up. Here's some info on how it's done (also from dvinfo.net forums). I'm getting sick of it too (though that 300 trailer is oddly fascinating).
posted by TochterAusElysium at 10:02 AM on October 14, 2006

Once more for emphasis: the technique you're describing is a small shutter angle, commonly referred to in the industry as "skinny shutter". Time is not nessecarily being compressed when this effect is used, although it can be. IIRC, The Matrix makes use of skinny shutter and slowmotion.

It is overused, but can be an effective tool. Watch Dawn of the Dead if you haven't seen it, the film makes a gradual transition between normal (180 degree) and skinny (30-45 degree) shutter.
posted by nathancaswell at 10:31 AM on October 14, 2006

By Dawn of the Dead, I mean the recent remake, directed by Zach Snyder (whose new film is the aforementioned 300).
posted by nathancaswell at 10:33 AM on October 14, 2006

Zack, not Zach. I'm going to stop now.
posted by nathancaswell at 10:34 AM on October 14, 2006

Hang on - a FASTER shutter speed makes the scene look SLOWER when projected. I think you are all talking about dropped frames.
posted by A189Nut at 11:55 AM on October 14, 2006

Just to be clear, a narrower shutter angle causes each frame to have a shorter exposure (A189Nut: it has nothing to do with the frame rate).

The result is that each frame is more crisp, and further apart in time from the next frame, so that the film appears less smooth (less motion blur, more strobey). This is may be used to increase tension/drama, as it can increase the immediacy of the images, as well as possibly giving the illusion of a slight speed up.

Conversely, a wide shutter angle makes each frame very close to the next one, with maximum blur within each frame, resulting in a smooth image, possibly giving the illusion of slowness. This is a commonly used effect in R&B/hip-hop music videos, to obtain rich, opulant, saturated images.

It is worth noting neither effect are anything new or contemporary, but both have been used massively in the past 10-15 years, often in conjunction with other effects as desired (ramping frame-rate, etc).

The wiki page on shutter angle is a fair overview, here's an image which should explain this all more clearly:



So to answer the specific questions, assuming they are about the shutter effect

>is this effect done intentionally?
Yes, not much is done unintentionally in major film productions.

>My roommate thinks that it's used in scenes that are so tightly choreographed that they need to be filmed slowly and then sped it up to make it look normal.
I believe this is a very rare thing to do, for very particualr effects, and is usually done not for choreography but for the visual result.

>I think that it's probably intentional, but, like most digital effects, makes the movie look totally ass.
As above, it isn't anything to do with digital, its down to the shutter angle on the camera, which applies both to digital and film. It's a great effect, but like any other it can be used clumsily, and is now very much over-used in a totally unsubtle manner.
posted by MetaMonkey at 12:05 PM on October 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

Just to avoid confusion: the effect is question is the shutter speed - the amount of time the shutter is open to light for each frame. On a film camera shutter speed is controlled by shutter angle, digital cameras (AFAIK) don't have a shutter, so they presumably control the shutter speed digitally.

I'm pretty sure it's the same effect used in Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator (annoyingly) and Band of Brothers.
posted by MetaMonkey at 12:31 PM on October 14, 2006

The effect has been around for about ten years at least, I first remember seeing it in some episodes of the X-Files. There's an episode called "Jose Chung's From Outer Space" which uses the effect.

It's definitely done in post-production, there is a plugin for After Effects called Twixtor, whose sole purpose is to manipulate frame rates for either fast or slow motion.
posted by jeremias at 4:45 PM on October 14, 2006

jeremias: It's definitely done in post-production, there is a plugin for After Effects called Twixtor, whose sole purpose is to manipulate frame rates for either fast or slow motion.

I don't think the questioner is Asking about speeding up or slowing down clips, but anyway, that effect is not necessarily done in post, it can be achived during production by changing the camera's frame rate, a technique almost as old as film.
posted by MetaMonkey at 5:05 PM on October 14, 2006

OK...

the 300 and "Dawn of the Dead" effects done by Zack Snyder are good examples.

They are done intentionally to create an effect, as others have mentioned, as are the slow motion effects seen in the 300 trailer.
posted by HuronBob at 6:15 PM on October 14, 2006

Thanks all for your input.

I pretty much figured that it was inentional. However, I have seen it employed in so many scenes where it was wholly inappropriate and superfluous, that it was enough to make me wonder.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:15 PM on October 14, 2006