Stay the movie - do you think they used a mini-dv with an adapter? at DVinfo.net

Leo Mandy · February 20th, 2006, 07:31 PM

If you have seen the movie Stay with Ewen MacGregor, you know the opening shot is cinematic brilliance - tire falling off a car with a camera attached to it. I just want to know how they shot it, because it looks like it has a shallow DOF and a film look and I am guessing it is not 3D. Maybe a miniDV with an adapter?

Yasser Kassana · February 21st, 2006, 03:46 AM

I haven't seen it, but i've heard it's supposed to be a mindf*ck. It's on my list watch this 2006(if they do a release in the UK)

Leo Mandy · February 21st, 2006, 06:32 AM

I won't ruin it, but the opening shot in my opinion would be too expensive to shoot with film and a film cam so that is why I think minidv.

Ben Winter · February 21st, 2006, 08:15 AM

Leo, if you're thinking that it would be too dangerous with the camera, they probably used film. They put film cameras in what's known as crash boxes when they need to put them in danger, i.e. in the movie SWAT they had like three cameras in these boxes ready to be hit with flying debris and a huge plane. And hit them they did. Besides, a Panavision is a quarter of a million dollars, but on a movie budget of, say, $80 million....

Rich Hibner · February 21st, 2006, 01:39 PM

http://imdb.com/title/tt0371257/technical

Shot on film. Movie sucked, good acting, but another cop out like Donnie Darko

Rh

Leo Mandy · February 21st, 2006, 02:54 PM

It begs the questions of why spend that much money on a shot like that, if it can be done for almost nothing with a Letus or even MPIC (less moving parts than the cd spinner). I think considering it was a crash scene, it wouldn't have matter.
Also, IMDB does not always state whether is was part film/part dv. I am hoping for an article in American Cinematographer for that.

Keith Kline · February 21st, 2006, 03:32 PM

They could have also used something like an A Cam 16mm camera. It costs about 7k so it wouldn't have made any dent in the budget even if it were trashed in the shot.

and it's smaller than most mini DV/35mm adapter set ups...
http://www.ikonoskop.com/gallery/images/e1_big.jpg

Main page...
http://www.ikonoskop.com/

Rich Hibner · February 22nd, 2006, 12:20 AM

I will give it mega thumbs up for the editing. Freaking brilliant. The editing was amazing!

Yasser Kassana · February 22nd, 2006, 03:18 AM

Watching the trailer reminds me of the sixth sense.

February 20th, 2006, 07:31 PM	#1
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	Stay the movie - do you think they used a mini-dv with an adapter? If you have seen the movie Stay with Ewen MacGregor, you know the opening shot is cinematic brilliance - tire falling off a car with a camera attached to it. I just want to know how they shot it, because it looks like it has a shallow DOF and a film look and I am guessing it is not 3D. Maybe a miniDV with an adapter?

February 21st, 2006, 08:15 AM	#4
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	Leo, if you're thinking that it would be too dangerous with the camera, they probably used film. They put film cameras in what's known as crash boxes when they need to put them in danger, i.e. in the movie SWAT they had like three cameras in these boxes ready to be hit with flying debris and a huge plane. And hit them they did. Besides, a Panavision is a quarter of a million dollars, but on a movie budget of, say, $80 million.... __________________ BenWinter.com

February 21st, 2006, 03:32 PM	#7
Keith Kline Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Akron, Ohio Posts: 153	A Cam They could have also used something like an A Cam 16mm camera. It costs about 7k so it wouldn't have made any dent in the budget even if it were trashed in the shot. and it's smaller than most mini DV/35mm adapter set ups... http://www.ikonoskop.com/gallery/images/e1_big.jpg Main page... http://www.ikonoskop.com/

February 21st, 2006, 03:46 AM	#2
Yasser Kassana Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: UK Posts: 223	I haven't seen it, but i've heard it's supposed to be a mindf*ck. It's on my list watch this 2006(if they do a release in the UK)

February 21st, 2006, 06:32 AM	#3
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	I won't ruin it, but the opening shot in my opinion would be too expensive to shoot with film and a film cam so that is why I think minidv.

February 21st, 2006, 01:39 PM	#5
Rich Hibner Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 218 Images: 1	http://imdb.com/title/tt0371257/technical Shot on film. Movie sucked, good acting, but another cop out like Donnie Darko Rh

February 21st, 2006, 02:54 PM	#6
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	It begs the questions of why spend that much money on a shot like that, if it can be done for almost nothing with a Letus or even MPIC (less moving parts than the cd spinner). I think considering it was a crash scene, it wouldn't have matter. Also, IMDB does not always state whether is was part film/part dv. I am hoping for an article in American Cinematographer for that.

February 22nd, 2006, 12:20 AM	#8
Rich Hibner Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 218 Images: 1	I will give it mega thumbs up for the editing. Freaking brilliant. The editing was amazing!

February 22nd, 2006, 03:18 AM	#9
Yasser Kassana Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: UK Posts: 223	Watching the trailer reminds me of the sixth sense.