MovieChat Forums > Eye in the Sky (2016) Discussion > Stationary drone - same camera angle the...

Stationary drone - same camera angle the whole time?


It's listed as a technical goof - I found it really annoying that they would make such a stupid mistake like that.

"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules. "
-Walter Sobchak

reply

Was it really the same? If the distance to target is large and the holding pattern is small, the shift in perspective would also be small.

reply

Why is it so hard to believe? It was at a range of just under 7k away, if it just locked the camera on to a point (aka the target) and just flew around in a slow circle, it wouldn't really change perspective much, if at all.

reply

Utter nonsense. The drone is stationary for the ENTIRE MOVIE. But hey, crystal clear 1000x zoom 4K footage from non-existent beetle drones doesn't exist either. This movie doesn't care much about reality.

reply

[deleted]

Every time I see a drone movie it is always one that hovers above the target instead of flying around it. Hollywood can't get a single fact right even when it's staring them in the face.

reply

I'm pretty sure that the stability of the image is a good likeness for the real thing. Drones fly in a small holding pattern and the camera 'turret' has a 360 degree turning angle that means given the distance the drone flies above (they have MASSIVE magnification properties), it circles but in relative location to the target, especially when it's a stationary target. You get a lot of wobble, but the image is digital and processed in real-time by computer to keep the image centred and smooth (you can get the same kind of software to fix shaky phone camera footage), so this aspect of it, unlike the hummingbird and beetle drones which will maybe be possible in the near future, is fairly accurate.

reply

I found it quite distracting. Maybe it is all possible i dont know but the perspctive on the shots where bits of the building were flying up in the air made it look like the drone was no higher than a crane.

reply