For the producers - what about this idea?

[redjak6t4]

Hello.

I have an idea for a new angle (literally!) on the way quicksand perils are photographed and videoed and was wondering if any of the producers would like to respond?

It all stems from my interest in the final phase of a sink, where the model is about to go under. In nearly all cases she tilts her head back to keep her face above the surface for as long as possible. The mud forms a kind of depression in its surface and as she sinks deeper this cavity fills in, covering up her face, with her nose disappearing last of all.

For me, this is the ‘money shot’.

I suspect that there are other quicksand fetishists in this forum who also like to see women going under like this. If so, then what I’m about to suggest might get some support.

So, what about filming or photographing these ‘going under’ moments from directly above? Yes, this has been done by the photographer standing quite close by in the mud and taking the shot above the model as her face disappears under the mud. If memory serves, 'Young Lady, Deep Mud' is an example. But these are tight, close – up shots. I think what I’d like to see is something a little different to this. The same scenario, but shot from a greater distance above her – so that her face is framed with a wide expanse of mud around it.

Of course, I realize that there are technical difficulties accompanying this idea. How to get the camera to such a location in the first place, for one. Now, I’m no tech wizard, but two possibilities suggest themselves to me.

First, what about fixing the camera onto some kind of articulated boom that could be swung out over the mud to take its position over the model? Footage could be shot by it and other cameras elsewhere and then spliced together afterwards. That way we could see her sink from an eye-level point of view and then when she’s chin-deep the viewpoint is switched to the overhead camera, which covers her as she goes under.

The other, more technically demanding option, might be to mount the camera on a drone and have it hover over her. The drone operator would have to have a screen upon which they can monitor the camera output and keep the model centred in the shot at all times. A potential problem with this method might be the sound generated by the drone’s engine and rotors. A sound engineer would have to evaluate the pros and cons of this.

Both methods of filming suffer from another potential problem – shadows. A careful analysis of where the sun is and where the boom or the drone might cast their shadows would have to be done to eliminate these unwanted things straying into the shot.

Please note that I’m only raising this idea as a tentative possibility and politely asking for feedback. In no way does this message suggest any dissatisfaction on my part with any of the excellent work done for us by our wonderful band of producers over the years.

Thanks,

Redjak.

[Fred588]

I can reply only from my own point of view. Others may see things differently.

First, I think you have identified the chief problems with the drone idea. Its costs a LOT, makes noise, and requires a crew member just for that one thing.

Second, the boom thing has been done, although not necessarily for that specific shot I still have the boom here as proof. That also requires a crew member just for the boom or you risk missing the shot even with a wide shot. Another problem with the boom approach is that it is impossible to predict in advance exactly where the actress's face will be when she submerges. Because of that, trying to place the camera directly overhead would be very problematic.

Today's video cameras have pretty good zoom lenses. When I do something like what you describe I usually have the camera zoomed in very tightly. I do that because I believe that is what most customers want. If I was to attempt the wide shot, for a custom scene perhaps, my first approach would be a hand-held shot with the lenses set as wide as I could get without getting something not wanted in the scene, such as my boots.

One last thing I could suggest would be shooting a custom of JUST a submergence. That is to say, a submergence with no surrounding scene. That would cost the same as a complete scene, but it might be possible, using a few face towels and an experienced actress, to shoot a half dozen submergences, one after the other except for a brief cleanup.

[Duncan Edwards]

Questions like this often attempt to solve technical problems that don't exist. What you have to ask is why would any one producer want that shot? I can tell you that if Dave or Fred wanted that shot, they'd get it. It's likely already been done, at least to a certain degree, and I just can't recall it. Anyhow, the most helpful thing would be several people asking for it. Ideally, they would have asked about five years ago.

[Jumpoff_Joe]

Questions like this often attempt to solve technical problems that don't exist. What you have to ask is why would any one producer want that shot? I can tell you that if Dave or Fred wanted that shot, they'd get it. It's likely already been done, at least to a certain degree, and I just can't recall it...

Here, here. Dave or Fred or whomever, with me falling into the latter group.

If viewing from directly overhead, it's hard to see the depression without bright light. Also, for my shots, I like the intimacy of a close-in shot with the texture of the shifting bog or sand around them. I like the look of seeing facial features sinking below the visual plane.

As for the drone, and a lot of extra equipment, that's more gear for me to handle and keep track of in the field and then clean afterwards. If I had a studio, life would be different (and I would likely spend most of my free time fighting back the blackberry bushes). 8)

[Fred588]

Since my reply earlier I thought of one thing to add. It would be from about the same angle as the close-up shots instead of directly above, what you appear to want (or most of it) may in fact exist. When I zoom in for the close up it is with camera 1. Camera 2 is still running, of course, but its footage for that shot would never make it into the final scene. But it still exists. Almost certainly the same is true for other producers as those whom I have observed all use at least two cameras, and sometimes more.

[redjak6t4]

My thanks to Fred, Duncan and Joe for their replies.

If any further ideas or suggestions occur to me, would you like to hear them?

I ask, not to second guess anyone or imply that there is anything missing from what is produced. No. Rather, it's but because I'm trying to push myself into new ways of thinking about quicksand fetishism and sometimes I wonder if my thoughts are worth sharing.

Perhaps the major difference is that you guys have to deal with what is real and make that work. Whereas I, as the maker of QS fakes, can let my imagination run riot and create things that aren't real and that can never work. All I need to do is to make my images look real. As producers, you have the much more difficult task of dealing with reality on it's own terms.

I take my hat off to you for doing that.


Thanks,

Redjak.

[Fred588]

Personally, I have no problem with such questions. I think they are actually quite valuable in keeping the forum active.

[TK421]

Hello.

I have an idea for a new angle (literally!) on the way quicksand perils are photographed and videoed and was wondering if any of the producers would like to respond?

It all stems from my interest in the final phase of a sink, where the model is about to go under. In nearly all cases she tilts her head back to keep her face above the surface for as long as possible. The mud forms a kind of depression in its surface and as she sinks deeper this cavity fills in, covering up her face, with her nose disappearing last of all.

For me, this is the ‘money shot’.

I suspect that there are other quicksand fetishists in this forum who also like to see women going under like this. If so, then what I’m about to suggest might get some support.

So, what about filming or photographing these ‘going under’ moments from directly above? Yes, this has been done by the photographer standing quite close by in the mud and taking the shot above the model as her face disappears under the mud. If memory serves, 'Young Lady, Deep Mud' is an example. But these are tight, close – up shots. I think what I’d like to see is something a little different to this. The same scenario, but shot from a greater distance above her – so that her face is framed with a wide expanse of mud around it.

Of course, I realize that there are technical difficulties accompanying this idea. How to get the camera to such a location in the first place, for one. Now, I’m no tech wizard, but two possibilities suggest themselves to me.

First, what about fixing the camera onto some kind of articulated boom that could be swung out over the mud to take its position over the model? Footage could be shot by it and other cameras elsewhere and then spliced together afterwards. That way we could see her sink from an eye-level point of view and then when she’s chin-deep the viewpoint is switched to the overhead camera, which covers her as she goes under.

The other, more technically demanding option, might be to mount the camera on a drone and have it hover over her. The drone operator would have to have a screen upon which they can monitor the camera output and keep the model centred in the shot at all times. A potential problem with this method might be the sound generated by the drone’s engine and rotors. A sound engineer would have to evaluate the pros and cons of this.

Both methods of filming suffer from another potential problem – shadows. A careful analysis of where the sun is and where the boom or the drone might cast their shadows would have to be done to eliminate these unwanted things straying into the shot.

Please note that I’m only raising this idea as a tentative possibility and politely asking for feedback. In no way does this message suggest any dissatisfaction on my part with any of the excellent work done for us by our wonderful band of producers over the years.

Thanks,

Redjak.

These are all kinda cool ideas but having run production, there are a few logistical concerns.

Sorry, but here is where I kinda get "Neggy Nancy" on you.

A decent Camera Gantrys/Cranes/Jibs, that will fill the role properly, are not cheap...not even to rent, even less so to purchase. As stated by Fred, it would need another body just to manipulate the thing and that's a lot of material to haul out to God knows where and back again for a part of a shot that will probably be a whole 120-240 seconds of the final product. For someone who has both the professional space, money, manpower and time to train them (Yes, you want to train someone to use a camera gantry/crane), I think it's a great idea. For a hobbyist or small established producer who is looking to jump into producing their own content, it just hurts to think about.

Drones might be a more efficient idea but again, you need someone who is experienced enough to run one (And trust enough not to drive the blasted thing into the models dome or God forbid, the mud). Again, not cheap to purchase (And we have all seen enough youtube fail videos to understand the risks of renting one). Depending on whether or not external mics are used, type of mics used and where they are placed, noise could be filtered out in editing (You would need a decent DAW) but you're talking extra time editing because they are not quiet, especially in the presence of omnidirectional and most condenser mics. Even in post, you would probably still hear it in the mix (I've tried editing drone footage and it is almost impossible to edit out completely so we normally play music in the foreground for that reason).

The good news is, for all that effort, it would be quite a shot! Dave has dabbled with this idea (Sorta) with I think using a fixed camera with Summer in Jungle Girl in the Hammer Swamp (and I think a few others) and I thought it was brilliant! Not truly what you were looking for but might be a good medium to start with and it's worth checking out because, well...it's Summer in a Hammer Swamp. Do I really need to sell you on this one?

[Duncan Edwards]

Personally, I have no problem with such questions. I think they are actually quite valuable in keeping the forum active.

Agreed. I guess my point might be better expressed by saying that the producers certainly have the means to get most any camera angle if it's requested. By now all of them are pretty clever at getting things done if they want. They just need to hear about it.

[TheDoctor6013]

What I would suggest is even more ambitious. How about actually have a mini camera from the model's point of view where it shows the mud close over the viewpoint of the audience.

I don't know if you could really get a small camera into the model's hair, mouth or whatever but a view from under the surface of the mud closing over the 'audience's' face would be worth it.

Even if you had to do 2 different takes with one regular sinking and one 'perspective sinking' many people would enjoy this.

It would be nothing to make the camera waterproof.

Just my thoughts but a view from under the mud as it closes over would be amazing.