Just try a 3 frame transition between a closeup and a wide shot and see how it looks in post so you can judge yourself if it's acceptable, you can test the transition with either a zoom in post or zoom out as fast as your lens allows.

Oh okay thanks. My lenses are not parfocal, so I cannot stay in focus during the zoom so I am guessing post looks more acceptable there because at least I am in focus the whole time, if I try to fake it in post. I think it looks different as people are more use to the lens zooms, but the music video got away with post, and no one thinks it looks unnacceptable. My worry is though, is that I have more resolution loss, compared to a music video shot on 35mm film, but like it was said, it is fast and quick without probably anyone noticing.

But will others think it's acceptable, since it not usually done in movies, compared to music videos? I notice that in movies when they do a fast whip pan from one side of the room to the next, they often cut to a different take in between, and that is acceptable, so theoretically, would a cut to a different take during a fast post zoom be?

In the music video, they probably shot the closer shot and the wider shot at a roughly similar distance.

But one shot is closer than the other, how could it be at roughly a similar distance then, unless they zoomed in the lens you are saying, from the same camera position?

It's entirely possible.

However, the "zoom" is so short that all there is a going to be is streaking, which could be used to bury any resolution issues during a change in the middle of the zoom effect. However, the method they used in 1999 on 35mm film may be different to what you can use.

That it's an 4 x3 aspect ratio probably reveals that the video was made in standard definition.

This looks like a similar effect using two shots.

How To Make a Zoom Blur Transition in After Effects - YouTube

Okay thank you very much for the link. That's kind of what I was thinking!

So when you say that it's standard definition video, you are saying that I cannot see the requirements for what is acceptable resolution loss, because the video is already in too low of a resolution to be able to tell?

Higher definitions don’t stay hi def all the time do they! Remember your old topic on whip pans? The entire point of the technique is to be able to hide a cut or do it in one shot and the audience don’t really care. It’s an effect, they know it was an effect and they accept it. If you do a slow dissolve in 4K then it’s perfectly acceptable for it to be blurred if it works, as an effect. Why are you agonising over a few frames? The only question is a very simple one. Did it work? My work is never ‘art’, it’s craft, and I’ll happily insert a little archive material, sometimes cropped 4:3 SD if I need to. Never has a client say, why was that bit at 17:23 soft?

It depends on the method used at the time.

I suspect they used a zoom transition as above, which would've been pretty cutting edge stuff in 1999. Shoot the tight shot on a longer focal length lens, use the zoom transition to the wider shot, which has a short focal length lens. The dancing will have been heavily rehearsed, so it's repeatable because they're trained dancers. However, they may have used the zoom transition to cover the slight differences in facial expressions etc between the two shots, plus add more energy to the cut because it's an extremely short transition, which you barely notice.

With the smearing and streaks, the brain fills in the blanks and assumes that there has been a crash zoom.

If they wished, they could have done a zoom using the full resolution of the 35mm film negative for the wide shot and done a blow up for the tighter shot, but the range of the zoom is too great in this case to look good, because the grain size would be noticeably different. Traditionally, this was done with an optical printer (the DVE of the photochemical film world), although at that time it may have been possible in a 2k film scanner (HD wasn't around at this time for everyday productions), but that's more feature film territory than music video.

As mentioned earlier, you could also do it in the camera with a crash zoom with the zoom lens.

Thank you very much for the input! I don't have lenses that can do zooms now but I can do it in post like the music video as long as it's professional. But I guess it worked for them.

Thank you very much for the input! I don't have lenses that can do zooms, but I can do it in post like the music video as long as it's professional. But I guess it worked for them.

It’s been years since you first had issues with this lens. Surely by now, you’d have solved the problem, or are you just on a never spend money quest? That lens has been the subject of so many posts because of its deficiencies. I can’t believe you’re still using the damn thing!

Oh well the lens works well as long as I don't zoom or rack focus. If it's deep focus shots where I am not zooming it suits me well. I thought I would just forget about zooming for a while and concentrate on other things.

But then I see this post-zoom in the music video and saw that it might be a game changer, and maybe I can zoom if I want to, and just do it in post without a lens, or so I thought.

The zoom transition is OK for a fast crash zoom effect, otherwise it's pretty limited you want more.

Thank you, that makes sense. Well people tell me to just move the camera back or forth instead of zooming, and I keep reading to do this instead as well, but when it comes to fast movement, is there a way to move the camera faster than a person can physically run with it?

Motor cycle, skateboard, ropes?

Hang out of the windows from a speeding car, the faster you drive the faster the zoom will be.

Hang out of the windows from a speeding car, the faster you drive the faster the zoom will be.
That makes sense :-)

Thank you, that makes sense. Well people tell me to just move the camera back or forth instead of zooming, and I keep reading to do this instead as well, but when it comes to fast movement, is there a way to move the camera faster than a person can physically run with it?

Those are different, the perspective doesn't change when you zoom. As mentioned, you can mount the camera on a vehicle of some sort.

You can do a speed ramp going faster, rather than slow motion, on the camera move if you want to go with that effect.

I could do the speed ramp going faster, it's just that I am worried it may come off as fast motion with the actors moving faster as well, which may lead to an unintentional eye brow raise. But, I guess the same thing happens if you do it in post as well, so it's no difference?

As always, it's how you do it and if it's a stylistic choice that works. That's a decision you need to make, since we don't know your proposed film.

Thanks, that makes sense.

Well so far I wanted to use a crash zoom effect once in a while to show reveals such as guys waiting to ambush another guy when he steps into a room for example.

Or this was the intention of the crash zoom effect I had mind so far.

The appears to be what you mentioned before.

Either method will work. With good timing and suitable action, so that the actors move slower during the speeded up camera move, the audience may not be aware of any trickery in the final film.

It's all in how it's done.

Okay thank you. I can do that then. Thank you very much and thank you very much to everyone for all advice!