Timeline for What is the longest, single take, tracking shot in cinema/TV?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 9, 2017 at 21:10 | comment | added | Meat Trademark | I know this is an old thread, but I forgot to mention at the outset that I wasn't limiting myself to actual "tracking" shots as per the question (shots utilizing a laid-out track) but included all techniques, hand-held, Steadicam™, etc. Since the OP said film, but didn't mean just film, I went ahead and assumed they didn't mean strictly "tracking" shots, either. I imagine I was correct in this assumption, but now I'm getting curious as to the longest FILM TRACKING shot... | |
| Mar 11, 2016 at 14:41 | comment | added | John Sensebe | Indeed, as Snake Eyes suggests, it's really easy to hide cuts these days, and probably much cheaper than trying to film an incredibly long shot in one go, so unless someone is specifically trying to break the record, there's no pressing reason to do these kinds of shots "for real". | |
| Feb 5, 2016 at 1:32 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | Presumably this record is going to keep getting broken in future, since (a) someone bothered to get the Guinness Book of Records involved, so now it's a competitive thing, (b) you can in principle point a camera at a theatrical stage, write a play with no intermission, and call the result "a movie". Which is what Hitchcock would have done for Rope if not for the technical limitation on length of a shot. Then it's just a matter of how much storage you can attach to the thing, which will certainly improve over time. | |
| Feb 23, 2015 at 22:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Feb 23, 2015 at 23:38 | |||||
| Feb 4, 2015 at 23:12 | comment | added | supercat | @MeatTrademark: The two-strip camera trick would probably be impractical, but many filmmakers have built or commissioned all sorts of custom camera equipment; a magazine which could handle oversized rolls of film would seem a lot less difficult than many other things which filmmakers have actually built. Ten minutes isn't terribly long, and it's not hard to imagine a filmmaker (before the age of digital) wanting a continuous take of a long scene which included unpredictably-moving elements that would be very hard to match between takes. | |
| Feb 4, 2015 at 22:58 | comment | added | Meat Trademark | @supercat That seems highly impractical. All that effort just for a longer shot on film? Creative editing and / or CGI works; or shoot on DV and manipulate it in post to look more "film-like." | |
| Jan 29, 2015 at 23:08 | comment | added | supercat | ...could be operated separately but synchronized together. Although doing so would be difficult, it might then be possible to swap the magazine which feeds one film gate while the other one keeps shooting. If after loading a new film one adjusted its mechanism to run in sync with the other, the images on both films would match perfectly in timing, registration, and focus, so one could invisibly cut between the films at any place where they overlapped. | |
| Jan 29, 2015 at 23:06 | comment | added | supercat | While I don't know of any films where a single take exceeded the length of a standard roll of camera film, I wouldn't say "no creativity can change that". While I'm unaware of anyone having done so, I would think it would be possible for someone to build a camera which could accommodate larger reels, and (in complete darkness) hot-splice multiple rolls of camera film onto one giant reel. Alternatively, one could use a camera with a half-silver mirror to focus light onto two film gates (as with three-strip Technicolor) and arrange things so that the mechanisms... | |
| Feb 15, 2014 at 2:45 | comment | added | Meat Trademark | Well then, you got a two-for-one answer! :) | |
| Feb 14, 2014 at 23:08 | comment | added | JoshDM | I asked it without realizing there was a need to have a distinction. | |
| Feb 14, 2014 at 15:36 | comment | added | Meat Trademark | Agadam is the single longest take, but it was not on film. It was digital video. I am trying to define the longest FILM and DIGITAL VIDEO shots. Your original question was a little vague as to the medium you were asking about because you mentioned film in the title. Film cannot do shots longer than an average of about ten to twelve minutes. Digital Video can shoot a couple hours at an HD rate. Agadam is the longest shot for a movie, but it was not shot on film. That is the difference. :) | |
| Feb 14, 2014 at 14:41 | comment | added | JoshDM | But, wouldn't Agadam be the longest? | |
| Feb 14, 2014 at 14:38 | history | edited | Meat Trademark | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
tried to address criticism
|
| Feb 14, 2014 at 14:28 | history | edited | Meat Trademark | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
tried to address criticism
|
| Feb 14, 2014 at 13:54 | comment | added | Meat Trademark | @NapoleonWilson Thank you for clarifying that. Back to drawing board... | |
| Feb 14, 2014 at 13:19 | comment | added | JoshDM | I was not restricting to film as in the media used, just the context of the product. | |
| Feb 14, 2014 at 13:18 | vote | accept | JoshDM | ||
| Feb 14, 2014 at 12:25 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson | Yet the scene in Snake Eyes was composed of smaller ~5 min takes with hidden cuts and thus similar to Rope, as explained in this answer. It wasn't an actual 13 min take and is thus unlikely to win anything in the context of this question. | |
| Feb 14, 2014 at 4:57 | history | answered | Meat Trademark | CC BY-SA 3.0 |