ALL SCI-FI

[Bud Brewster]

Holy mackerel, Wayne, I thought for sure I'd made my case crystal clear. Your statement really puzzles me.

[Bud Brewster]

Stop the presses! I just figure it out!

Wayne's sharp-eyed recognition of the cloud pattern that appears in two separate scenes -- and in two very separate places -- gave me the clue I needed to solve the mystery of why Hawks never let us see in the direction of the saucer's slide path other than the long shots when the men approach the site and when they form the circle!

The reason the cloud patterns in these too scenes are the same, even though the clouds are over two very different spots is . . . it's the same section of the cyclorama, used in two locations!

__

First they used it here, as the background for the initial approach and the scene of the men in the circle.



Then they moved it to the side of the set for the rest of the shots. Heck, why do a painting for both scenes when you can use one painting twice!



That means my map needs to be amended to look like this --



-- with the straight blue line being the background painting used for the long shots, after which it was relocated to the side and reshaped as the cyclorama.

Hot damn, I am so good at this!
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[orzel-w]

I, too, was straining to find the saucer's fin in the close-up shots where it was depicted in the long shots.

[Danilo]

[orzel-w]

Show me a photo of an actual outdoor curved cyclorama.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------

[Bud Brewster]

Wayne, you're amazing! You did it again -- provided vital clues to the solution of this mystery.

Your terrific composite photo of the panning shot really brought things into focus. I was able to compare it to some of the material I've put together, and I think I can offer some new ideas.

Here's what I did.

Using your photo, I placed yellow, blue, and orange arrows similar to the ones used earlier -- but with a big difference! Instead of showing the center of each shot to call attention to the cloud formations and landscape they include, I drew them to pinpoint the extreme right and left boundaries of the panning shot (as well as the center).

We know that the background shown in that scene is a big chunk of the total painting. There's a little bit more on the left and right, but the part shown in that one continuous shot is enough to help us draw some important conclusions.

Here's your composite picture with the arrows. Notice how wide the angle is between the two arrows on the sides.



Then I placed arrows on the long shot of the circled men so we could consider the scope of the panning shot from that perspective. The angle between the yellow arrow and the orange arrow looks even wider when viewed this way.



Based on the two photos above, it was easy to place the arrows on my map. First I numbered all the colored stars that represent the men. Paul Frees is number 1, Dewey Martin is number 10, Scotty is number 8, and Carrington is number 3.



And then I drew the arrows that showed the limits of the pan, labeled far left and far right. The angle they form is about 130 degrees. Remember, these are the boundaries of one unbroken camera pan.

I was pleased to note that the cyclorama easily accommodated the left and right boundaries of the shot, and the camera would always be viewing the painting dead-on in any direction!



Now, here's where things get interesting.

I carefully considered the problem of where to put a long, straight background painting that would be visible to the camera from both the left and right extremes of the panning shot, with a little left over for the additional areas we see on the sides during a few other shots.

The results surprised me.



Uh-oh. There seems to a problem, Wayne. Remember when I said the view of the right and left ends of a wide, straight background painting would be distorted by the extreme angle?

Well, it's worse than I thought. This arrangement would cause the two ends to look like this!



And it doesn't even cover the far right very well, so I had to make it longer!



Of course, all that would do is make the background at the right end so far away you'd need binoculars to get a good look at it!

So, what do you think, Wayne? Still convinced they used one incredibly long, completely straight background painting?

I'll say one thing for it, though -- it would certainly catch the sunlight well!

P.S. It just occurred to be that all that white "snow" in the area, right up to the base of the cyclorama, might have provided enough reflected sunlight to solve the lighting problem you've described.

Well, you gotta admit, it's a nice sciency idea, ain't it.


_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[orzel-w]

[orzel-w]

[Bud Brewster]

My drawing illustrated how the ends would be viewed by the camera at an extreme angle if the painting was flat and extended as far out to sides as it would have to.

I thought I'd made that clear.

And Ted Newsom was pretty clear, too.

[orzel-w]

[Bud Brewster]

Well heck, thanks again for providing just what I needed to prove my point.

Please explain to me why a camera that panned across a wide flat backdrop like this --



-- would not look exactly like this --



-- on the ends, the way I said it would.

Wayne, you CANNOT pan across a flat backdrop this wide without distortion being caused by the extreme angle on the far right and far left.

And yes, since you brought it up, the height is also a factor. The further away the ends of a flat backdrop gets from the camera, the smaller they appear to the eye and the camera.

Hey, maybe the shape of the backdrop you envision for The Thing looked like this.



But the image painted on it is still going to suffer from that pesky problem called perspective. I'm sure you've noticed from all my funny little diagrams (not to mention some nice artwork) that I have a good handle on that concept.

You know as well as I do that perspective is the thing that happens when the original image looks like this --



-- but when you photograph it at an angle it looks like this.



And THAT, Wayne , is why they absolutely, positively HAD to curve the cyclorama to make it look like a real outdoor location from several camera set ups and with a wide pan -- a pan you demonstrated with your own composite picture.

By the way, I suspect that combining several images from a pan like you did tends to distort the image a bit, and that's why the circle looks squeezed inward from the sides. You noticed the fact that the men's shadows weren't parallel, the way they would be if you stood back and took the picture of the whole circle of men.

Using three images taken from a single point position while facing in different directions is a bit like using a fish-eye lens. It compresses the image.

That compression also reduced the apparent angle of the pan, as shown by the arrows.

I was also puzzled when you said the actors weren't in the same positions in both the long shot and the panning shot. Okay, but . . . so what? That's completely irrelevant.

Here's why.

The pan went from one side of the circle of men to the other, and the circle was the same approximate size in both the long shot and the panning shot. So the angles would be the same in both situations.

__

So, before you get started with your "corrections" of the diagrams, I'm pretty sure they don't need it. Allowing for the compression in your photo compared to the long shot, those angles are correct. Given the simple geometry involved, how could they not be?


_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[orzel-w]

I apologize for being so slow in replying, but I'm dealing with that POS Photobucket website. That's what makes trying to post images here a pain in the BUTT.



Here's where your map diagram misinterprets the setup.

First, the placement of the actors appears fairly reasonable, so we'll take that as a starting point. We have to start somewhere.

[Brent Gair]

I like pie.


(I just wanted to say something that we could all agree on ).

[orzel-w]

[Pow]

Loving these pix of the RKO Movie Backlot.

I enjoy photos/videos of the studio backlots. Bought a book that covered all the studio western streets which was fun to see. Now on old westerns/tv shows I recognize which lot is being used.

Sadly, with the decline of westerns being made (a fav genre of mine), many of the western streets have been demolished.

Also purchased an excellent book covering the MGM Backlot. It was considered the finest studio backlot in its day. Demolished & gone now.

The Planet Of The Apes tv show took advantage of the tearing down of the MGM Backlot for an episode. The production company for the series got wind of the fact that they were knocking down the backlot buildings.

That made the streets look like a disaster had really struck them. This was perfect for the show which took place on a ruined earth. So amidst the real rubble of the torn down backlot, they shot an episode that really had a movie quality look to it due to the vast area.