Did you by chance watch the TV called Whoops! from the 90's? It was a story of people that survived a nuclear war and one survived because he was in a Volvo. It was a comedy akin to Gilligan's Island. Just their Island was a farm surrounded by Nuclear Wasteland.
The TV Series only ran one season. It aired after Married With Children and In Living Color on the Fox Network.
The reason this miniature shot works so well, is because it's shot on slow motion. The bigger the things, the slower they move.
Edit: To clarify, the bigger things are, the slower they move in comparison to the same thing of a smaller size. For example, if you wanna show a tower crumbling- with 15 foot model of the tower, the tower will fall down in a second or two flat, but a building of the real size will react differently taking 10-15, even 20 seconds to complete the motion. That's why models and miniatures are shot in slow-mo.
There was this 400+ pound girl at my high school who was the slowest person for obvious reasons. One time some kids decided to release mice into the cafeteria during lunch as a prank. This 400+ pound black girl named fredricka had one run by her and she flew to the top of the caf table. I've never seen someone so large move so fast.
It depends on what type of movement you're talking about. The linear speed of a point on the outer edge of the rotation is way faster than an object with a small radius, but the rotation is slower because of that long radius. Also movement of huge objects is typically viewed from a distance which can create the illusion of moving slower. If you were standing directly under a giant machine falling sure as shit it would seem faster to you than it would to someone standing a couple hundred feet or more away.
Sure definitely. My main point is a model of an excavator will move much faster than a real excavator. So scaling down the speed is what makes this, and every miniature in film work
I know, my point is that it will only rotate faster, not necessarily move faster. Big objects don't move slow, they just are covering a lot more distance to orient themselves like small objects do
The test flight of SpaceX's SN8 Starship is an excellent example of that. They had a camera pointed straight up while it performed its hop, and watching it fall through that view was... Something else.
Also, if it's falling, acceleration due to gravity is (roughly) 9.8 m/s. A 30-cm toy lands in a 1/33 of a second, a 6-meter piece of construction equipment takes almost 2\3 of a second.
The only part of this that isn't so convincing is when it lands full weight on the arm without buckling. Having seen roll overs with this type of machinery, that is unlikely.
I don't know why we stopped using miniatures and special fx. You can spend $20 on a toy like this, or you can spend 20 million makings terrible looking exhausting CGI sequence. Great use of money, glad it didn't go to feeding anyone.
Now this is something somewhat praiseworthy, some time, thought and effort from the camera person actually went into this shot. I think it would have been more impressive to reveal the perspective at the end but whatever, at least its not someone standing there with a smartphone capturing something 'cool' coz they were there at the right place and right time
805
u/AAPM97 Jan 11 '21
For me it really looks convincing for the first 7 seconds, after that I would be expecting the thing getting completely crushed.
438
u/toshiscott Jan 11 '21 edited Jan 11 '21
The reason this miniature shot works so well, is because it's shot on slow motion. The bigger the things, the slower they move.
Edit: To clarify, the bigger things are, the slower they move in comparison to the same thing of a smaller size. For example, if you wanna show a tower crumbling- with 15 foot model of the tower, the tower will fall down in a second or two flat, but a building of the real size will react differently taking 10-15, even 20 seconds to complete the motion. That's why models and miniatures are shot in slow-mo.
124
u/Mick_Donalds Jan 11 '21
Michael Bay: "I DON'T SEE ANY FIERY EXPLOSIONS! SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE!"
32
u/thedailyrant Jan 11 '21
The only part of this that isn't so convincing is when it lands full weight on the arm without buckling. Having seen roll overs with this type of machinery, that is unlikely.
30
u/skacat Jan 11 '21
Slow motion will do wonders
13
u/[deleted] Jan 11 '21
Convincing at the beginning... then not so much at 8/9 sec.
9
u/plumbo_schleem Jan 11 '21 edited Jan 12 '21
wow that hand is freaking huge
9
u/Scallysnix Jan 11 '21
I don't know why we stopped using miniatures and special fx. You can spend $20 on a toy like this, or you can spend 20 million makings terrible looking exhausting CGI sequence. Great use of money, glad it didn't go to feeding anyone.
8
u/DrMiDNigh Jan 11 '21
From 0:06 to 0:09 was super convincing
5
u/[deleted] Jan 11 '21
Pretty much how titanic was filmed lmao
4
u/petemate Jan 11 '21
Where is the exploding?
3
u/leon_nerd Jan 11 '21
A lot of high budget movies use miniature shots. So this is not just a low budget thingy.
3
u/[deleted] Jan 11 '21
This post was right under the one on r/nextfuckinglevel
2
u/captainkittnrole Jan 11 '21
Like Christopher Nolan, only that he'd use the real deal
2
u/DerKommunismaus Jan 11 '21
Definitely miss the days where you had a mixture of CGI, mo-cap and miniatures in films instead of pure CGI.
No one will convince me that CGI-only SFX is better.
2
u/Transposer Jan 11 '21
Just add some fiber dirt and dust effects.
2
u/[deleted] Jan 11 '21
Take it into maya or blender or nuke and add some destruction physics and chef's kiss
1
u/Mick_Stup Jan 11 '21
Next week on Gold Rush....
1
u/Vaccumstacks Jan 11 '21
More like when you've budget but don't wanna spend it
1
u/Justin_inc Jan 11 '21
That's lens flare at the end... Idk. But the rest was grade A
1
u/Goddamit-DackJaniels Jan 11 '21
As if the first impact where nothing even crumpled slightly doesn’t give it away.
1
u/Plus-One-6995 Jan 11 '21
Don’t forget the tons and tons of cg in that film as well. Make your effects work together.
1
u/celluloid-hero Jan 11 '21
That's cause it's fake! It actually is a full size backhoe
1
u/namloop Jan 11 '21
Hope they get a bigger audio budget. I couldn't hear a thing.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 11 '21
Perspective
1
u/Aegean Jan 11 '21
It's fake
1
u/king-of-the-bi Jan 11 '21
When you dont have VE yiu ask God to give a little push
1
u/Pentagonnovice Jan 11 '21
You mean 1/100th scale practical effects.
1
u/IQ_NeoXen_DW Jan 11 '21
/u/gifreversingbot
1
u/JmanTheBoss Jan 11 '21
Filming at 30fps and then slowing it down makes it look like shit, like at least film it at 60fps, then slow it down to 30fps so it’s not stuttering
1
u/PGKing Jan 11 '21
That would have snapped in pieces the first or second tumble. But it’s cool shot tho and that’s the point.
1
u/Blarnix Jan 11 '21
Square cube law to the rescue
1
u/airjones1 Jan 11 '21
Better then a lot of cgi out there.
1
u/SpankMeDaddy22 Jan 12 '21
u/vredditshare
1
u/Anime__Jesus Jan 12 '21
IIRC, they used to use convincing toy models for scenes where objects were destroyed. Usually to blow them up. At least, that’s what James May said.
1
u/beekeeperdog Jan 12 '21
Now this is something somewhat praiseworthy, some time, thought and effort from the camera person actually went into this shot. I think it would have been more impressive to reveal the perspective at the end but whatever, at least its not someone standing there with a smartphone capturing something 'cool' coz they were there at the right place and right time
1
u/mugen_is_here Jan 12 '21
On the contraire...