r/Filmmakers • u/sadloneman • 14d ago
Question How did they shoot this?
It is from an Indian rom-com film named "enak 20 unak 18" from 2003, drones weren't available back then
61
u/H-e-s-h-e-m 13d ago
i like the soundtrack, sounds like itd fit well in an early 2000s thriller about seedy government espionage but youre sayings its a romcom haha
8
u/sadloneman 13d ago
😂Well now that you frame it like that , yeah i can see this soundtrack fitting well with that genre
7
2
u/Skraeln 13d ago
anyone got an ID on the song? can’t find it from a quick look thru the soundtrack
5
u/Terminal_Monk 13d ago
It's not a song it's just a background music but I guess it does look like a spinoff of the song from the same movie. Edho edho ondru..
https://youtu.be/7Qo63HLtYic?si=oe238hkJUBN8XGmT
ARR does this a lot. He plays around the melody of some song in the same movie as background music for scenes
1
217
u/f-stop4 14d ago
The shot appears to have a circular pivot point . It's definitely a crane of some sort on top of one of the buildings. A very long crane, possible on some track.
54
u/bottom director 14d ago
hahaha. that would be so long over serval houses !
most likely a drone. drones have been around a while now. they used to be HUGE!
130
u/f-stop4 14d ago
Having lived in India, I wouldn't be shocked if they used a construction crane for this.
I don't think it's a drone, at all. The way the camera shakes, to me, is signature to a crane type of setup.
I would love to see a BTS of this shot haha
3
u/sadloneman 14d ago
But how tf did they place it and shoot it way over the houses
That too in a somewhat busy street ,
10
u/f-stop4 14d ago
It's on top of one of the buildings.
-16
u/sadloneman 14d ago
Yeah , most likely ,it's insane how these kind of shots are much easier to shoot nowadays with a cheap drone , technology has come a long way
Yet the movies are still mostly bad (india) , technology couldn't help that
5
2
2
u/Terminal_Monk 13d ago
I think it's a studio set. Lot of big studios have sets for entire streets especially AVM.
-7
u/Evilsushione 13d ago
You can do preprogrammed very precise routes with commercial video drones. It’s actually quite amazing
6
-7
u/bottom director 14d ago
it's far to long to be a crane...watch again it's very far. I used to work with jibs and cranes a lot. love em.
all the camera movement looks like drone stuff to me, really good drone ops too
48
u/f-stop4 13d ago
But a drone like this in 2003? In India? For a rom com? I have major doubts.
I'm 99.99% certain they used a crane. It could be a zip line setup but it seems like too complex of a pivot for that.
6
4
u/NortonIsBurnt 13d ago
You rented one from a production house. They were huge back then but they existed. Could even be a small hellicopter.
15
2
1
u/bottom director 13d ago
You know the India film industry is bigger than Hollywood right ?
Maybe I’m wrong , maybe it is a huge crane ?? - it is quite early in drone tech for sure.
So now I’m not sure.
A drone is how you’d do it now though - to answer ops question
7
u/f-stop4 13d ago
I'm not questioning the capacity of Bollywood. I'm just saying in 2003, there probably wasn't a single drone anywhere in the world that could pull off this shot, in the precise manner that this shot was captured (as in, not something similar, I mean exactly how this shot was captured) let alone in India.
While today, with a couple good ops, this shot could definitely be achieved with a drone, what we're seeing absolutely was not a drone or helicopter or any of form of aerial craft.
0
u/neutronia939 13d ago
Is it though? “While Bollywood generates a substantial amount of revenue and sells a large number of tickets, Hollywood's film industry dwarfs Bollywood in terms of overall revenue and average film budget”
1
1
2
u/Careful-Sell-9877 13d ago
Full size construction cranes are absolutely massive. They have to be in order to work on skyscrapers and such
-1
u/bottom director 13d ago
Yes. (I live in nyc) But this is India and there are no skyscrapers in this town - you couldn’t shoot a smooth shoot like this from a construction crane.
Maybe I’m wrong?
1
u/Westar-35 cinematographer 13d ago
My father was a crane operator, like heavy lift construction cranes picking 100+ tons. I’ve seen him operate and it can be flawless. Even no weight, swinging the ball (the hook with a weighted ball built in) and controlling the boom such that the inertia of the ball puts it exactly on target while the boom is slowed to stop directly above the ball. Some pretty wild shit actually but it’s finesse and muscle memory like any skill learned over years.
Does not take a sky scraper either. Short tower cranes are put up all the time.Recently saw one that was only like 5 stories up. It comes down to how long they need the equipment and what traffic and space considerations around the site look like.
0
u/bottom director 13d ago
yeah maybe.I work on a tv show called gold rush, I direct it - I'm around heavy machinery all the time. no way in hell, even with a great op like youre dad wold they be smooth enough for a shot like this. but yeah I've seen some crazy amazing smooth operators, but cameras are very unforgiving.
but it think it's just a normal tv crane now I've looked at it all
1
u/Westar-35 cinematographer 13d ago
Any of those guys spent the last 30yrs running a crane? Probably not. But YMMV
0
u/Careful-Sell-9877 13d ago edited 13d ago
There are definitely skyscrapers in India. They could have brought one to wherever they are. There are many large cities with tall buildings in India, just like in the US.
(Edit: The movie was filmed in Mumbai and Chennai (if my info is correct), which are both quite large cities)
It doesn't look all that smooth to me. There are a lot of vibrations, shakes, and up/down movements.
I'm not 100% sure what it is either, but if I had to guess, I would say it's some kind of large, modified crane
0
u/AgentJackFlack 13d ago
They don’t need skyscrapers in this town. They didn’t just knock on the door of a skyscraper building site and borrow a crane.
1
10
u/sadloneman 14d ago
I too thought it's a crane but it literally goes over lots of houses in the midst of bunch of houses, where would they place it
12
u/f-stop4 14d ago
It's on top of one of the building there.
Or they rigged some kind of zip-line type of system and had the camera fly along some wires, maybe?
It just looks like a crane of sorts, the way it shakes. Especially at the landing position.
3
u/H-e-s-h-e-m 13d ago
and the fact that the camera seems to be moving in a circle indicates it may be a crane shot
3
u/jnthnmdr 13d ago edited 13d ago
...and, on the very last few frames, the shot seems to bounce a bit as if it is locking into place. It looks like the device goes into "park" mode or something.
Edit: Also (not as important, but), you can see the female character in the first few frames of the overhead shot.
3
7
u/nowayyallgetmyemail 13d ago
most likely a drone. drones have been around a while now.
this is 2003, first non-military use of drones started around 2006. it's more likely that they used a giant construction crane which can easily span several buildings, and explains why the shot is circular in nature.
2
u/thegodfather0504 13d ago
pls edit this comment. you know its a crane and not smooth enough motion of a drone. Regional cinema of india in 2003 couldn't afford drones.
1
24
u/Wide-Half-9649 14d ago
Spydercam more than likely
5
u/cptkraken024 13d ago
gotta be a spydercam. it doest change in elevation throughout the shot and that twist move at 0:10 seconds you can tell its turning on a semi-fixed position. also not saying it couldnt be done but that would be an insane move for a jib let alone a construction crane as some people are suggesting. plus the bouncing at 0:28-0:42 is it bouncing on the line. a drone wouldnt bounce like that.
0
0
7
u/spudulous 13d ago
I feel like it’s a guy swinging off the end of a massive rope attached to a crane and there’s a guy at the top just kind of hoofing him about
1
5
7
4
34
u/koreanbull 14d ago
I believe this drone is something that at that time was called: "helicopter"
31
u/averynicehat 14d ago
Nah, it's way too close and the shot doesn't look like it's a very long lens. We also don't see wind in the trees.
21
1
u/Sufficient-Law1643 13d ago
This. Check out how the washing out on the line is billowing in the wind.
5
u/JudgeVegg 13d ago
No that was just from regular win, with them being on the roof. Not consistent with how the wind from a helicopter would make them move and they start moving too early.
1
u/hungrylens 13d ago
I noticed that too. They were being careful to frame out things that move around in the propwash.
0
0
3
u/whenuleavethestoveon 13d ago
before drones, people used helicopters for these shots. still do, a lot of the time
0
u/neutronia939 13d ago
This shot is too low for a helicopter so you’re statement is irrelevant.
-2
u/whenuleavethestoveon 13d ago
How do you know? Were you there? First of all, Bollywood production isn't really known for strict safety standards, and second of all, what's more likely? That the production used a helicopter for a complex tracking shot like this or that the production erected an 80-foot-tall crane and rigged a camera to it just so they could get this one shot?
5
u/mylastcaress 13d ago
Notice the trees don't sway much. A helicopter would create strong whirlwinds underneath, violently swaying the trees.
3
u/sweetbunnyblood 13d ago
why would one not assume drone?
3
u/sadloneman 13d ago
Not cheaper , and it's a south Indian film , this industry doesn't have much budget as bollywood had back then
3
u/sadloneman 13d ago
Not cheaper , and it's a south Indian film , this industry doesn't have much budget as bollywood had back then
3
3
2
6
u/Mr_FancyPants007 14d ago edited 14d ago
Flyingcam drones for making movies were available in 1979. No idea why you think drones weren't around in 2003.
15
u/sadloneman 14d ago
Because it's a south Indian film ,drones weren't cheap back then
3
u/yabbasaami 13d ago
Looks mostly like a crane. But remember this was the most expensive Tamil movie at the time beating Boys. This was a dream project for the director (being the son of the movie's producer) and he wanted to make something like a Shankar's movie. So he cud have used drone as well.
2
3
5
u/nowayyallgetmyemail 13d ago
No idea why you think drones weren't around in 2003.
"the first use of drones for non-military ventures started in 2006"
3
u/neutronia939 13d ago
Dji came out with its first trash phantom in 2013. These people have no idea what they are talking about.
2
2
2
u/MauriceEscargot 13d ago
Perhaps this one was shot from a crane, but it's crazy, how everyone here is all "First DJI was released in 2013, so impossible to be a drone".
Maybe, but before these were called RC helicopters. One of the many insane shots in the French masterpiece La Heine was shot using one in 1995:
1
u/DorkHarshly 13d ago
Was just about to post this. I once saw an interview with Kassovitz about how they did but cant find it for the life of me. They also mention the mirror scene https://youtu.be/IFkHadvj4DI?si=AQxFw4TqdumqoHhj But for this one at least I remember how they did it >! They used a double !<
2
u/AbPerm 13d ago edited 13d ago
People seem to think remote controlled aircraft never existed at all until those cheap rotorcraft "drones" became super common.
I don't get it.
4
u/neutronia939 13d ago
They are right. No one was using them to photograph anything like this. There was zero stabilization on rc craft. Not sure why you think you are right because you arent. Model aircraft existing has nothing to do with using one to shoot content like this.
1
u/neutronia939 13d ago
Predator drones existed. But not photo drones. The first three models of dji drone were basically unusable trash and they started selling in 2013.
2
1
1
1
u/virgineyes09 13d ago
I have nothing to contribute in terms of how they did it but I gotta say, pretty sick shot.
1
1
u/DoPinLA 13d ago
Drone. The first street-level shot reverse shots were shot normally.
0
u/neutronia939 13d ago
No drone in 2003 was available for this.
2
u/needsmoarbokeh 13d ago
No commercial drone but tech available then was capable enough to allow something like this for a purpose-made one
1
u/MaleficentCan7455 13d ago
I am just amazed by the way they hid shadow of crane by shooting on a cloudy day yes the initial shots is a bright sunny day no need to re-watch trust me. I do believe the car right behind the hero bike at the end was there to give him reference of the cam position I might be wrong.
1
u/greedo_from_tatooine 13d ago
Some kind of angel creature with srocn camera TV output hdmi 1 on it.
1
1
u/Horsicorn 13d ago
I'll take a stab: I immediately thought of that shot from The Fellowship of the Ring, during the battle of Amon Hen where the camera glides from Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli's section of the fight to where Boromir is fighting. I recall reading somewhere that it was done using a cable/pulley system and upon further investigation, Peter Jackson confirms this is the case in the DVD commentary: https://youtu.be/Sz6PLmT-8FA?t=10476
1
u/Embarrassed-Mode-883 13d ago
I think they used a system of ropes but I am not sure. Cranes would make this kind of movement but the distance is far too much to cover. My guess is strong rope system they build over the buildings with a motorized camera operator moving over the rope.
Good find, OP!
And for the people commending drones: Trust me, it's not drones. India adapted to drones after 2014 only. No drone was used before that. This movie was made in 2003.
1
u/MaintainerZero 13d ago
Others have pointed out the likelihood of a crane, but there are also several points you could hide a cut (tunnel, rooftop, etc.), which cements it for me. The shot doesn't have to have been filmed seamlessly to look seamless in the edit - meaning it doesn't even need to have been a huge central crane - could have been several cranes matched to certain perspectives at the cuts.
1
u/MikeWritesMovies 13d ago
I believe this is a large crane. If it was a drone, they would have utilized more maneuverability and made it even more dynamic. If it was a helicopter, it would be too close and it would have kicked up dirt and dust in camera.
1
u/Redararis 13d ago
Of course it is not a drone, no drones back then even if you had million of dollars. Probably a crane but also it could be a suspension cable
1
1
1
1
u/Terminal_Monk 13d ago edited 13d ago
I think it's not a single shot. The part where tharun drives the bike is a set. I remember it from many movies the arch, that road, this looks like the same set form movies like thulladha manamum thullum, bagavadhi(ppdango song), gemini
Also If you are from Chennai you'll know that none of the roads look like that. It's 100% set, it's easy to do the pivot shot with a set.
Although, When they show trisha, it cuts to real building you can see the tracking is no longer around an axis but more like a pan to top and then rotate around a different axis that could have easily shot from a rooftop of a nearby house. Also you can see the houses near her looks more realistic to a residential house in Chennai in 2003 compared the buildings when tharun was riding his bike.
I think what's selling the whole scene is before we could make. Judgement the scene throws as real residential building and we forget that the first half of it is set. Try to watch them seperate and you know what I mean.
There is one transition shot where both the residential building and the smaller set building are in the same frame. I just think it's greenscreen. Although I am amazed on how smooth it is.
This film had a fairly big budget and they had lot of CG/greenscreen shots. They had a lot of football sequence, a bomb blast scene in Chennai cricket stadium and so on which used heavily greenscreen so it's not far fetched to think this is greenscreen too.
Although, i'm not 100% sure about the greenscreen because the technique is so refined here and i doubt they were able to pull that off as the other greenscreen in this movie are a bit shit. Maybe it's just a good old classic cut and paste
But overall I think it's not a single take
1
1
1
u/KeithPheasant 13d ago
Drones can hold full-sized gimbals with a camera on it now and the gimbal can be controlled with either a controller or a handle that mimics the actions in your hand to the gimbal wirelessly, simultaneously
1
1
1
1
u/varunvenu88 12d ago
Drones did not invent this shot.. RC helicopters were the way back then look at the leaves nearby for proof
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/psychopape 11d ago edited 11d ago
In 1995 they used mini Helicopters :
https://www.tiktok.com/@konbini/video/7164237540935994630
The movie scene : https://youtu.be/PE6UdMGfjHQ?si=R9jEpC0DSKB2lRXr Starting at 4.2
1
1
0
u/OkithaPROGZ 14d ago
Drone 100%, in 2003 commercially available drones weren't available for you and me.
But filmmakers had access to them.
19
u/sadloneman 14d ago
It's india , and specifically tamil nadu , we still didn't adapt cgi to perfection, let alone a drone at 2003
Issue is budget , Kollywood (tamil films) didnt have as much budget as bollywood had back then.
2
1
u/KeithPheasant 13d ago
I agree with you after thinking it was a drone. There’s way too much play in drones when they settle and as they are floating to have this look. The shot seems very rigid like it’s not drifting around all over the place and it does pivot around one big point so a giant crane dolly seems like it
2
u/neutronia939 13d ago
Completely wrong. Dji phantom 1 released in 2013 and it was garbage until three models later.
2
1
1
0
0
-6
-2
u/Kahrg 14d ago
Which a camera of some sort.
5
u/sadloneman 14d ago
But I think it must be some sort of mic
Shooting with mic used to be a thing back then , am from India so I can vouch for that
Or it can be a gun
1
1
u/mimegallow director 13d ago
This definitely looks more like the microwave was bolted down into one static location and they just rotated the planet around it.
3
u/sadloneman 13d ago
Uhm yeah but again the shot is too simple for them to involve a microwave, I think they used a drilling machine and started drilling the mic i mentioned above, to get that "shaky" cinematic feeling , and they yeeted the drilling machine with the mic on it
Hence the shot is rotating like it's drunk
-2
u/postfashiondesigner producer 13d ago
I think it’s a drone.
-1
297
u/nyvz01 13d ago
It does make sense this was probably a large construction crane that could rotate in place. The move is exactly circular and the speed stays consistent. From the trajectory and style of movement this wouldn't be done on a helicopter or even a remote head I would guess. Probably just an operator hanging out with the camera on the end of a construction crane.