How did they fake the zooms in this music video?

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

The length of the transition is not what is important. It is the length of the shot before the transition and after the transition that matters.

Ryans question was how he could replicate the zoom transition as shown in the Britney Spears clip, since it is 3 separate takes the length of the clips before and after don't matter as they are shot separately, the zoom transition also looks like it was shot separate since the position of the dancers in the background don't match up with the pervious shot. So that leaves us with only a zoom transition, it's a "effect" they used more then once in the clip and a few just look like a zoom in post with quite a lot of detail loss but since the transition is so fast you hardly notice. Same applies to the transition Ryan was referring to which looks pretty blurry and I'm sure this could easily be replicated in post as well without having to contact Hollywood. :)

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Ryans question was how he could replicate the zoom transition as shown in the Britney Spears clip, since it is 3 separate takes the length of the clips before and after don't matter as they are shot separately, the zoom transition also looks like it was shot separate since the position of the dancers in the background don't match up with the pervious shot. So that leaves us with only a zoom transition, it's a "effect" they used more then once in the clip and a few just look like a zoom in post with quite a lot of detail loss but since the transition is so fast you hardly notice. Same applies to the transition Ryan was referring to which looks pretty blurry and I'm sure this could easily be replicated in post as well without having to contact Hollywood. :)

Exactly. The primary purpose of doing zooms in post with music videos is to be able to precisely place the zooms on the beat of the music. This zoom topic has been on infinite loop since Ryan joined.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Just to elaborate on my previous post.

Let's say you have a very tight shot of someone's face and you want to snap zoom out to show their entire body from head to toe. If the shot lasts 2 seconds before the transition, and 2 second afterwards then it better look very good on both sides of the zoom because the viewer is going to have time to scrutinize the quality. However, if you only have a few frames before and after, then you can probably get away with something of much lower quality at one end or the other before you cut to something else.

A snap zoom from face to full body is very easy to do optically with many lenses. Personally, I can do a 24x snap zoom, and anything in-between instantly. But doing that kind of fake snap zoom in post while maintaining high image quality at both ends, and having natural-looking, DoF? I don't think so. Yes, it could be done with enough time, money, and CGI in Hollywood, but I think it goes far beyond the ability of the OP. Get a zoom lens and do it optically. Very easy.

Oh okay, thank you very much for the input there. But why do you need natural looking DOF, when it's just zooming between three shots in post?

In the music video post zoom, when I look at the individual shots frame by frame, I don't think they added any natural DOF effects to the image, unless I am wrong?

[Noa Put]

Just try a 3 frame transition between a closeup and a wide shot and see how it looks in post so you can judge yourself if it's acceptable, you can test the transition with either a zoom in post or zoom out as fast as your lens allows.

[Brian Drysdale]

In the music video, they probably shot the closer shot and the wider shot at a roughly similar distance.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Just try a 3 frame transition between a closeup and a wide shot and see how it looks in post so you can judge yourself if it's acceptable, you can test the transition with either a zoom in post or zoom out as fast as your lens allows.

Oh okay thanks. My lenses are not parfocal, so I cannot stay in focus during the zoom so I am guessing post looks more acceptable there because at least I am in focus the whole time, if I try to fake it in post. I think it looks different as people are more use to the lens zooms, but the music video got away with post, and no one thinks it looks unnacceptable. My worry is though, is that I have more resolution loss, compared to a music video shot on 35mm film, but like it was said, it is fast and quick without probably anyone noticing.

But will others think it's acceptable, since it not usually done in movies, compared to music videos? I notice that in movies when they do a fast whip pan from one side of the room to the next, they often cut to a different take in between, and that is acceptable, so theoretically, would a cut to a different take during a fast post zoom be?

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

In the music video, they probably shot the closer shot and the wider shot at a roughly similar distance.

But one shot is closer than the other, how could it be at roughly a similar distance then, unless they zoomed in the lens you are saying, from the same camera position?

[Brian Drysdale]

It's entirely possible.

However, the "zoom" is so short that all there is a going to be is streaking, which could be used to bury any resolution issues during a change in the middle of the zoom effect. However, the method they used in 1999 on 35mm film may be different to what you can use.

That it's an 4 x3 aspect ratio probably reveals that the video was made in standard definition.

This looks like a similar effect using two shots.

How To Make a Zoom Blur Transition in After Effects - YouTube

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thank you very much for the link. That's kind of what I was thinking!

So when you say that it's standard definition video, you are saying that I cannot see the requirements for what is acceptable resolution loss, because the video is already in too low of a resolution to be able to tell?

[Paul R Johnson]

Higher definitions don’t stay hi def all the time do they! Remember your old topic on whip pans? The entire point of the technique is to be able to hide a cut or do it in one shot and the audience don’t really care. It’s an effect, they know it was an effect and they accept it. If you do a slow dissolve in 4K then it’s perfectly acceptable for it to be blurred if it works, as an effect. Why are you agonising over a few frames? The only question is a very simple one. Did it work? My work is never ‘art’, it’s craft, and I’ll happily insert a little archive material, sometimes cropped 4:3 SD if I need to. Never has a client say, why was that bit at 17:23 soft?

[Brian Drysdale]

It depends on the method used at the time.

I suspect they used a zoom transition as above, which would've been pretty cutting edge stuff in 1999. Shoot the tight shot on a longer focal length lens, use the zoom transition to the wider shot, which has a short focal length lens. The dancing will have been heavily rehearsed, so it's repeatable because they're trained dancers. However, they may have used the zoom transition to cover the slight differences in facial expressions etc between the two shots, plus add more energy to the cut because it's an extremely short transition, which you barely notice.

With the smearing and streaks, the brain fills in the blanks and assumes that there has been a crash zoom.

If they wished, they could have done a zoom using the full resolution of the 35mm film negative for the wide shot and done a blow up for the tighter shot, but the range of the zoom is too great in this case to look good, because the grain size would be noticeably different. Traditionally, this was done with an optical printer (the DVE of the photochemical film world), although at that time it may have been possible in a 2k film scanner (HD wasn't around at this time for everyday productions), but that's more feature film territory than music video.

As mentioned earlier, you could also do it in the camera with a crash zoom with the zoom lens.

[Ryan Elder]

Thank you very much for the input! I don't have lenses that can do zooms now but I can do it in post like the music video as long as it's professional. But I guess it worked for them.

[Ryan Elder]

Thank you very much for the input! I don't have lenses that can do zooms, but I can do it in post like the music video as long as it's professional. But I guess it worked for them.

[Paul R Johnson]

It’s been years since you first had issues with this lens. Surely by now, you’d have solved the problem, or are you just on a never spend money quest? That lens has been the subject of so many posts because of its deficiencies. I can’t believe you’re still using the damn thing!

[Ryan Elder]

Oh well the lens works well as long as I don't zoom or rack focus. If it's deep focus shots where I am not zooming it suits me well. I thought I would just forget about zooming for a while and concentrate on other things.

But then I see this post-zoom in the music video and saw that it might be a game changer, and maybe I can zoom if I want to, and just do it in post without a lens, or so I thought.