I wonder why animation hasn't enabled more experimental cinematography unhampered by physical limitations. So many possibilities: Long takes are exponentially more difficult to film IRL with increasing duration, yet come at no extra cost when the actors and camera are untiring and deterministic. Ray tracing allows for arbitrary virtual lenses, from prohibitively expensive to physically impossible. I saw this video demonstrating a lens that can continuously vary from endocentric to telecentric to hypercentric, where several comments are along the lines of,
> Now I really want to see a scene in a horror movie, where in camera, using a MASSIVE one of these lenses, we get to see the killer is behind the person in shot, by adjusting the camera like this. Can you imagine how freaky it would be, at they seem to appear and then grow to loom over them, out of nowhere? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ4yL6kaV1A&lc=UgwgTANmFg7oz...)
Since telecentric lenses must be as large as their subjects, that won't be happening in the foreseeable future. Yet even Blender can render a working ray-traced camera.[1]
So why don't we see these things in CGI? Even if most films stick to conventions, there should be some art films, right? Why isn't there a single one-take animated short?
Addendum: CGI also allows exposure times longer than the time between frames (i.e. shutter angles greater than 360°). So, 60fps can have the same motion blur as 24fps if desired, which those who very vocally condemn high-framerate animation seem to very much. I find it quite funny--shouldn't those most passionate about an art form be the most open to innovation?
> Now I really want to see a scene in a horror movie, where in camera, using a MASSIVE one of these lenses, we get to see the killer is behind the person in shot, by adjusting the camera like this. Can you imagine how freaky it would be, at they seem to appear and then grow to loom over them, out of nowhere? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ4yL6kaV1A&lc=UgwgTANmFg7oz...)
Since telecentric lenses must be as large as their subjects, that won't be happening in the foreseeable future. Yet even Blender can render a working ray-traced camera.[1]
So why don't we see these things in CGI? Even if most films stick to conventions, there should be some art films, right? Why isn't there a single one-take animated short?
Addendum: CGI also allows exposure times longer than the time between frames (i.e. shutter angles greater than 360°). So, 60fps can have the same motion blur as 24fps if desired, which those who very vocally condemn high-framerate animation seem to very much. I find it quite funny--shouldn't those most passionate about an art form be the most open to innovation?
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/gnea32/made_my_tlr...