CSI SPOILERS - Why I have trouble watching certain shows

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Actually, they can often do it in one shot, depending on how the shot is set up... for instance, if there is some obstacle blocking the view for even a second (say, a column or curtain passing between the actor and a tracking camera), an actor can literally take a step to the side, and the double steps right in. In shower scenes, steam and shower curtains, and even mirrors, can accomplish the same thing.

I used to laugh it up in action scenes, where a man would go diving into a room through a window, say, land behind a sofa... and the actor pops up to continue the scene. The actual stunt double is still behind the sofa, and the actor was waiting for him to land there before coming up. In-camera (or one-shot) gags are always easiest, but when you know what to look for, it can be painfully (and laughably) obvious sometimes!

True of some shots, but not generally true of the panning shot, which was what Zeep was asking about. With a slow pan, it is much easier to edit if they are careful about the placement of the double in the shot. If they take a little more time to set the shot up, they save a lot of time in the editing room.

[RickyMaveety]

OK ... now tonight, it's "Bones." I can't believe that one of the regulars mispronounced the word "mylogenous."

The third syllable is not pronounced "gee" .... where the hell are the medical consultants on these shows?? On the backlot doing lines of coke??

[RickyMaveety]

Huh ... trippy .... a guy I used to ski with is playing a judge on Law & Order tonight.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

True of some shots, but not generally true of the panning shot, which was what Zeep was asking about. With a slow pan, it is much easier to edit if they are careful about the placement of the double in the shot. If they take a little more time to set the shot up, they save a lot of time in the editing room.

The shot with Angie Dickinson started with her head, panned down to her upper chest (above breast level) but still some of her lower face, then there was a noticeable (to anyone watching for it) jump to breast level and upper neck. From there (with the body double) the camera panned all the way down to her feet, back up to the upper neck when there was another jump and there was Angie's face. It was done well enough that many people missed the switch until someone pointed it out.

Even though the zoom in is definitely not like they show on TV, I am aware of a real case that was successfully solved by using multiple frames to enhance the name/logo/tear on a T-shirt. The tear was what wrapped up the case though. As I said I am aware of the case but did not see any of the video or finished still shots.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by slayda

The shot with Angie Dickinson started with her head, panned down to her upper chest (above breast level) but still some of her lower face, then there was a noticeable (to anyone watching for it) jump to breast level and upper neck. From there (with the body double) the camera panned all the way down to her feet, back up to the upper neck when there was another jump and there was Angie's face. It was done well enough that many people missed the switch until someone pointed it out.

Even though the zoom in is definitely not like they show on TV, I am aware of a real case that was successfully solved by using multiple frames to enhance the name/logo/tear on a T-shirt. The tear was what wrapped up the case though. As I said I am aware of the case but did not see any of the video or finished still shots.

So, it wasn't a complete pan shot. Yeah, most people probably wouldn't notice it. I probably would ... but then I'm one of those freaks about details. I have been known to frame by frame view some films (and TV shows) looking for continuity errors and poor editing. It's a hobby ... we all need to have our hobbies.

And, I'm sure that there have been some cases that have been solved by videos and digital enhancement of still photos. But ... as you said, it's nowhere like they show in on TV. And ... that's what bothers me. It does tend to mislead people, to the point that they actually expect the police to be able to instantly solve crimes ... because, after all, it only takes them an hour on the TV ....

[RickyMaveety]

Eeep!!

Watching another show tonight. Important scientist looks at a rather thick blood smear through the low power setting of a standard microscope and sees ... moving red blood cells and the variola virus???

Really?? You can see VIRUSES at 10x?? You can see ANYTHING that provides any real information by looking at a rather thick glop of blood??

Does anyone in Hollywood give even the tiniest rat's ass about scientific credibility??

[RickyMaveety]

Oh, and this wasn't an episode of CSI.

[Slite]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Eeep!!

Watching another show tonight. Important scientist looks at a rather thick blood smear through the low power setting of a standard microscope and sees ... moving red blood cells and the variola virus???

Really?? You can see VIRUSES at 10x?? You can see ANYTHING that provides any real information by looking at a rather thick glop of blood??

Does anyone in Hollywood give even the tiniest rat's ass about scientific credibility??

Not really no, as long as it looks good on camera, to hell with accuracy! Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Slite

Not really no, as long as it looks good on camera, to hell with accuracy! Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

Oh sure .... quote naval heroes. Pfffft.