Watch the fantastic "Bullet Time" results of this high-speed camera array

#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/12/watch-the-fantastic-bullet-t.html

4 Likes

#2

Impressive? Yeah, sure, at least technically. But not very useful since I’m incapable of watching the result without getting nauseous.

I get that it is probably the easiest way to demonstrate what the rig can do, but it is (hopefully) not the best way to show how it can be used.

I got the feeling that it might be a lot more interesting to do clips where the ‘bullet time’ camera angle rotation thing is only part of the clip. For instance with the can that gets shot: pick one of the cameras on the entry side of the can, film in slo-mo untill the bullet enters, then do the rotation thing and stop it when you have a nice angle on the exit side. Then just hold that angle and show the exit in slomo from that camera.

17 Likes

#3

I was thinking the same thing. The first few objects destroyed were really cool to watch, but by the 5th or 6th it was just too much.

3 Likes

#4

Impressive.
But that’s not how you open a bottle of champagne.

Also: did they decide on the number of cameras first and had the scaffolding made to order, or did they get an off the shelf rig and fitted as many cameras as possible?

3 Likes

#5
5 Likes

#6

It reminds me of how people still way overuse the panning-around-a-scene move in 3D animation just because they can, even in silly kids’ shows. It used to be reserved for then the effect would be truly impactful to the specific events occurring, but now it’s one click away.

Technically, you could’ve done something like this 50 years ago, right? It would just be a lot of work in post to cut up 48 film reels and stitch them back together frame-by frame. I guess I don’t understand what the technology is, really beyond the metal ring?

4 Likes

#7

Spinning spinning, I feel dizzy! Slow it down!

@HMSGoose “Technically, you could’ve done something like this 50 years ago, right?”

Well yea… but it wouldn’t have been Computerized!

2 Likes

#8

“NOT THE PROSECCO! YOU MONSTERS!”

4 Likes

#9

The Phantom Flex was a really big deal, and it was 10,000 fps. I don’t think there was anything capable of this speed in the 60s, but I could be mistaken.

ETA: And I stand corrected.

2 Likes

#10

Yes there was. See video linked above, after the 1:30 mark.

3 Likes

#11

Whoa. Much earlier than I thought. Thanks!

2 Likes

#12

How long before they get all meta and capture a person eliminating the contents of their stomach? With a brown note soundtrack? Okay, sorry.

0 Likes

#13

Echoing what others have said above, this does seem to be misconceived. What’s the point of ultra-slow motion if you’re going to be whirling around it too fast to get anything from it?
(Reminds me of how I felt after watching Avatar – that the 3D was most interesting when it was least busy, and that by filling the screen up with CGI busyness, Cameron was effectively erasing what was effective about the 3D.)

0 Likes

#14

Yeah, the panning effect would have worked much better for me at like 1/4 the speed, to allow me to focus on some of the detail being captured.

But otherwise, cool demo.

0 Likes

#15

Filmed in stunning Hurl-o-Vision ™.

1 Like

closed #16

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

0 Likes