I've noticed that when it comes to action and thriller movies taking frames out, to speed up the movements, that's it's more of a newer thing, compared to say the 90s for example, where you don't see near as much of it movies, compared to today. Is it because of digital?
Why don't a lot of older movies take frames out as much?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Combination of what's "trendy" and technology.
NLE (non linear editing) didn't really become fully possible until the late 80's (though invented in the 70's). before that most editing was done by physically cutting and splicing film. When an edit required actually making a physical cut in a copy of the film and splicing it together you tended to see a LOT less "cuts" in films.
NLE (non linear editing) didn't really become fully possible until the late 80's (though invented in the 70's). before that most editing was done by physically cutting and splicing film. When an edit required actually making a physical cut in a copy of the film and splicing it together you tended to see a LOT less "cuts" in films.
Well, for one, Mel Brooks did it in Young Frankenstein, that was 1974.
It's the part where the bookshelf spins and Gene Wilder gets crushed by it. Although, if I remember correctly, that was for safety reasons. Or maybe it was just because they couldn't get the bookshelf to move fast enough. Listen to the director's commentary, he talks about it there.
It's the part where the bookshelf spins and Gene Wilder gets crushed by it. Although, if I remember correctly, that was for safety reasons. Or maybe it was just because they couldn't get the bookshelf to move fast enough. Listen to the director's commentary, he talks about it there.
Yeah it's done once in a while in older stuff, but not near as often, and usually when it is, it's for comedic purposes, and not common in action scenes. I thought cutting and pasting the film with your hands was still done, with movies shot on film. What did they start doing in the late 80s?
Everything shot on film is telecine'd and converted to an uncompressed high-resolution digital format, at least in Hollywood.
One reason why a lot of stuff isn't sped up is because it looks pretty fake, you can only get away with a little but because our brain is used to Earth physics so when you jack with it, everyone can tell. Though I'm sure keying and modern VFX software can help battle that.
I don't think it's done all that often in modern movies either? Do you have examples to support your numerous claim?
Most stair fall sequences way back when (rolling down cliffs too) were shot way undercranked and had the actors moving very slowly to avoid injury, then played back at normal speed to feel real.
One reason why a lot of stuff isn't sped up is because it looks pretty fake, you can only get away with a little but because our brain is used to Earth physics so when you jack with it, everyone can tell. Though I'm sure keying and modern VFX software can help battle that.
I don't think it's done all that often in modern movies either? Do you have examples to support your numerous claim?
Most stair fall sequences way back when (rolling down cliffs too) were shot way undercranked and had the actors moving very slowly to avoid injury, then played back at normal speed to feel real.
H44 - As Gonzo mentioned it's a cutting style (MTV Generation editing) and the availability of digital technology that has reached the point where things don't look phony as long as they don't exceed the boundaries of physics too badly.
Compare a fight scene from say, "Robin Hood" (2010) and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). There are continuous shots during the sword fight that last 10, even 15 seconds in the '38 version, an eternity in current action editing styles. Oh, just something to think about; in the late 1930s color was reserved for a only a few big budget films every year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L10fR31jC1w
There's more than 70 years of new technology, new directors, new editors, and cultural change between the two films. Most of you "kids" have had access to digital technology all your lives; my peers and I watched it all arrive. I can remember editing a song with a razor blade and splicing tape. Pro Tools has only been around since 1984. Avid has only been around since 1988, Final Cut since 1998.
Except that most of the time it they used stunt doubles. Stars were too valuable to risk.
Compare a fight scene from say, "Robin Hood" (2010) and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). There are continuous shots during the sword fight that last 10, even 15 seconds in the '38 version, an eternity in current action editing styles. Oh, just something to think about; in the late 1930s color was reserved for a only a few big budget films every year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L10fR31jC1w
There's more than 70 years of new technology, new directors, new editors, and cultural change between the two films. Most of you "kids" have had access to digital technology all your lives; my peers and I watched it all arrive. I can remember editing a song with a razor blade and splicing tape. Pro Tools has only been around since 1984. Avid has only been around since 1988, Final Cut since 1998.
Except that most of the time it they used stunt doubles. Stars were too valuable to risk.
How do cut out frames? It's easy. I am doing it for my short film to speed up punches and shoves, and things like that. It works most of the time, just so long as you don't over do it. You just cut a single frame out and see if the movement works, without looking silly, then take out another and keep going till it looks just right.
One example would be the short film Losses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMhXexbDmv8
During the fight some of the frames are removed, speeding up the movements. I think The Bourne Ultimatum might have done it during it's fight scene as well, but it was so quick cut, from shot to shot, it was hard to tell.
One example would be the short film Losses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMhXexbDmv8
During the fight some of the frames are removed, speeding up the movements. I think The Bourne Ultimatum might have done it during it's fight scene as well, but it was so quick cut, from shot to shot, it was hard to tell.
Last edited: