I want to do fast zoom effects for a project, but do not have a constant aperture lens that can do that, but I wonder if I could fake it when I saw this video do a zoom but it doesn't look like they use an actual zoom lens. They do it at 0:48 into the video:

Britney Spears - ...Baby One More Time (Official Video) - YouTube

But I am wondering how that faked zoom was done. I tried going through it frame by frame but was not able to on youtube so far. Do they zoom in post? But if they did, that would cause resolution loss? But maybe resolution loss for an effect is okay and no one will notice, if that's what they did?

Thanks for any advice on this! I really appreciate it!

If you have a zoom lens where the maximum aperture is limited by the focal length, such as a lens that has f/4-f/5.6 printed on it, then set the aperture for the smaller of the two numbers and it will be able to keep that aperture constant throughout the zoom range. In this example, set the lens for f/5.6 and it will be f/5.6 no matter the focal length. Problem solved.

Oh okay thanks. But the amount of light coming in still changes though. I think it's because the light is coming in at a slower right if the lens is longer, even if the aperture is the same setting throughout. It doesn't matter if the setting is the same throughout, if light cannot travel through lens as fast if it's longer?


But another thing is, my lenses are also not parfocal, and goes out of focus during the fast zoom, so I would still need to find a way to fake the zoom other than using a zoom lens, if I do not have any parfocal lenses, wouldn't I?

You are either incorrect about the light changing as you zoom, or you have the world's worst lens. If the maximum possible aperture when the lens is zoomed in is X, then the lens must be able to hold that same aperture when zoomed out.

It seems to me that the exposure changes during the zoom if I am at the same aperture, but I can keep trying. However, I still have the non-parfocal issue where it goes out of focus during the zoom as well though. This is why I thought doing the zoom with other effects, other than the lens is better perhaps.

Crash Zoom rears its ugly head. Good god man you've dwelling on this for as long as I can remember you posting here.

2019!
https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/open-dv-discussion/536506-possible-pull-focus-lens-while-crash-zooming.html#post1948473

Oh yes, it's just now that I see this way of faking the zoom, I figure it's a game changer now that I was not aware of before.

Today I would just shoot in higher resolution and do it in editing. If your output is 1920x1080 shoot UHD. That video was clearly shot with many takes. It is film style not continuous video shoot so likely a fixed lens shot and two takes.

I shoot UHD these days but edit 1920x1080. This effect would be easy.

If it was up to me, I'd use a real lens and do a real snap zoom. The depth of field change that occurs from the changing optics will add to the effect in a way that can't be duplicated just by zooming out from a 4K or even 8K image. It's not the same thing at all.

It could still be faked in Resolve. However I do not think they used a zoom. I think it was multiple takes. Pure film style. Just synced just like the rest of the video.

Something could be done i post but it wouldn't look the same and it would take a ton more time and effort.

The closeup of Britney would not be too difficult to mask with Magic mask in Resolve and just put a little blur on the outside.

This is the approach. It is possible to be a lot more careful with the mask too.

How To Create Depth of Field Effects Using The Magic Mask - YouTube

First thing is try your zoom - I'm amazed after all the grief in the past three years you have had with it you still keep trying to use it.

Try the crash zoom at the full range of apertures, and then zoom in in the editor and try the zoom out in that. Then try it in 4K and see if that works better than 1080. See which looks best. You are going to talk about this for months when you could spend an hour trying these things out, sort it and move on.

If you have tried the techniques for crash zooms and they don't work for you, then maybe you should just buy a second hand lens that stays in focus!

The closeup of Britney would not be too difficult to mask with Magic mask in Resolve and just put a little blur on the outside.

Seeing is believing, so please produce a demonstration shot of your own to show us how it would look. :-)
And while you're at it, please keep track of the time it takes.

If you have tried the techniques for crash zooms and they don't work for you, then maybe you should just buy a second hand lens that stays in focus!

Or just borrow a lens for a day.

ah - but I seem to remember Ryan lives is the middle of nowhere and there are no rental houses, nor friends who own anything worth borrowing and for some reason distant rental suppliers don't rent to his area. Ryan's non-parfocal lens has driven him mad for years and he's been replacing it for the same period because in the past he has wanted to crash zoom, and nothing has changed since the last topic. He knows the answers, we've done it all before. He's had new lens, different cameras and even physical movements being considered and he's asked the same question again.

However I do not think they used a zoom. I think it was multiple takes.

You are wrong and right :) It was shot in multiple takes, 3 to be exact, first take was the close up of Britney, then a 3 frame crash zoom and then it cuts to the wide angle shot. It happens so fast that it looks like a continuous shot but it isn't.

First thing is try your zoom - I'm amazed after all the grief in the past three years you have had with it you still keep trying to use it.

Try the crash zoom at the full range of apertures, and then zoom in in the editor and try the zoom out in that. Then try it in 4K and see if that works better than 1080. See which looks best. You are going to talk about this for months when you could spend an hour trying these things out, sort it and move on.

If you have tried the techniques for crash zooms and they don't work for you, then maybe you should just buy a second hand lens that stays in focus!

Okay thanks. I have tried zooming on the lens and it goes out of focus during the zoom. I could buy a second hand lens rather than try to fake it with a few shots in post, but wonder if it's worth if the post effect will work, like it did in the music video?

You are wrong and right :) It was shot in multiple takes, 3 to be exact, first take was the close up of Britney, then a 3 frame crash zoom and then it cuts to the wide angle shot. It happens so fast that it looks like a continuous shot but it isn't.

Okay thank, you very much! Do you know if the 3 frame crash zoom was done in the lens, or in post by any chance?

It looked like it was done in the lens though I think you can get away with a zoom in post with some added motion blur since it is only 3 frames. When I came across your thread I found it interesting enough to have a look myself and downloaded the video to go through the transition frame by frame in post as that is the only way to see what is going on. Is it "legal" to download YT video's, probably not, but since this is for educational purposes only I don't really care. I'm not going to tell you how I downloaded it but it's pretty easy and doesn't even require installing anything on your pc, google is your friend in this case :)

I want to do fast zoom effects for a project, but do not have a constant aperture lens that can do that, but I wonder if I could fake it when I saw this video do a zoom but it doesn't look like they use an actual zoom lens. They do it at 0:48 into the video:

Britney Spears - ...Baby One More Time (Official Video) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-u5WLJ9Yk4)

But I am wondering how that faked zoom was done. I tried going through it frame by frame but was not able to on youtube so far. Do they zoom in post? But if they did, that would cause resolution loss? But maybe resolution loss for an effect is okay and no one will notice, if that's what they did?

Thanks for any advice on this! I really appreciate it!

As you say hard to judge on the Tube so I downloaded it.

It's not just a crash zoom out on one continuous take. Two takes are involved. There is a CUT, a jump cut at that, not even close to a match frame cut one frame before a crash out zoom of two frames. The quality of the jump frame directly after the cut is of considerably lower quality than the frame before the cut. To me, it looks like the editor zoomed in to about 70% on the second take and then one frame later crash zoomed two frames back to the full-res wide shot.

With a jump cut like that and a two frame crash out any quality loss is pretty immaterial as it's all over before the eye can absorb any detail. So not too much noticeable quality loss for the viewer. But it is there!

This is how I forensically investigate any video effect if I want to recreate something like it or to learn somene else's tricks and techniques. Like hiding cuts with wipes etc.

Chris Young

If you look at the position and the posture of the dancers in each take there are some noticeable differences which made me think it was done in 3 takes but the download sample is of lower resolution so harder to judge but anyway looks pretty easy to replicate during a shoot.

Oh okay thanks. I couldn't download the video to observe it frame by frame, because the video was too long I was told by google sources, however, I put a camera on a tripod and recorded the video, by aiming the camera at my screen.

I then went through it frame by frame and I see what you mean. 3 takes with jump cuts during the zoom. Thanks!

I could do that for a zoom effect, but worried about resolution loss, since I was always told never zoom in, in post, especially 70%. But like it was said, so quick that maybe it will not be noticeable.

Remember - never believe what people tell you, until you prove it yourself. When people shot for DVD in SD, many had these new fangled 1080 cameras, and discovered they could zoom quite a way before they saw the difference. Now we have 1080 up against 4K - same old problem. Why not experiment and see if your eye can detect the quality of three frames of lower res in the stream. My guess is probably not!

Oh okay, thanks. However the final output is going to be 4K so if I zoom into 4K footage will it be a problem of the final output is still 4k?

Oh okay, thanks. However the final output is going to be 4K so if I zoom into 4K footage will it be a problem of the final output is still 4K?

Oh okay thanks. I couldn't download the video to observe it frame by frame, because the video was too long I was told by google sources,...
Oh no! "I was told..."

What do you mean the video was too long to download? There are plenty of sites where you can download Youtube or at very least use a free screen capture program.

What others have said is true. They're doing some combination of cuts from multiple takes and/or digital zooms in post. You should be able see this for yourself.

Okay thanks. I can zoom in post then, but will the resolution loss be a problem if the final output of the project is 4K, but it zooms into 1080 for some very quick shots?

Okay thanks. I can zoom in post then, but will the resolution loss be a problem if the final output of the project is 4K, but it zooms into 1080 for some very quick shots?
Depends on what you're filming. For a music video punching in for a second will be too quick for your brain to recognize the drop in quality. Youtubers commonly use digital zooms and jump cuts. This is because creating entertaining content is more important . Once you gain a following you can always improve your production quality.

The mantra for doing these things on a production is test, test, test.

It's probably quicker to do it using a zoom lens, it seems the video was shot on 35mm, using an Arri 35mm III, so a zoom wouldn't be big a deal. They may have gone for the best performances at either end of the crash zoom, so the editor cut in the middle. With a motorised zoom, the speed will be consistent from take to take.

Seeing is believing, so please produce a demonstration shot of your own to show us how it would look. :-)
And while you're at it, please keep track of the time it takes.

Just watch the video I referred to and time him doing it. That is how long it takes in Resolve. There are lots of other videos showing this.

Sony 16-35mm f/4 Power Zoom - Brilliant Ultra Wide Zoom...Just Not for Photography - YouTube

That's a expensive investment to only create a 3 frame transition :)

That's a expensive investment to only create a 3 frame transition :)
I posted as a bit of a joke. The reviewer admits it has limited range and is very heavy. I like his sense of humor he makes me laugh.

Just watch the video I referred to and time him doing it. That is how long it takes in Resolve. There are lots of other videos showing this.

The effect shown on that video is comical and looks absolutely ridiculous. Furthermore, it does not incorporate any kind of snap zoom effect, which is what the OP is looking for.

Snap zooms are easy in post as I am sure you know. Or do you. Your comments were on creating shallow depth of field during this zoom to emulate the optical zoom ramping. How much of the effect is used is up to you. It can be key framed to the effect, altered as the zoom progresses. The video was showing how to do this no attempt at fine tuning for any particular situation. Was a demonstration of magic mask to isolate and work on mask or outside mask.

As we have seen in this case it was in fact several fixed lens shots. Classic film style and a short zoom as Noa found. Very short movement that could also be done in post. But the main effect was fixed shots so no issue of changes in depth of field anyway.

In the Britney Spears video I'm not sure if people were talking about was when I watched it closer it looked like they either had filter with a mask or the added it in post to blur out everyone except Britney. It doesn't look like they used a shallow dof that most people use today with full frame cameras to isolate the subject. Most of the fast zooms seemed like zoom transitions from wide to closeup camera. Not sure the point of creating this thread because its not hard to achieve.

People have criticized this music video because they dressed up Britney to look like a school girl. Fun fact that some people don't know she was actually 16 years old and in high school when she filmed it.

Speaking of young I ran into this music video the other day. She's 8 years old! She really kills this song and they did a nice job on the video despite the excessive shaky cam. I only realized rewatching a second time that it must have been recorded in studio and lip synced to it in the garage. Well almost all videos do that.
8 yr old Girl KRUSHES "Freak on a Leash" by Korn (v2/2) / O'Keefe Music Foundation - YouTube

Snap zooms are easy in post as I am sure you know. Or do you.

No, I don;t know that. Please show us some examples of your snap zooms that were done in post, with a realistic change in DoF. Looking forward to seeing them.

No I am not going to do that Doug. Pete seems to agree that it is not difficult. Whatever I produce you will criticize so why would I both when we have found out something you do not know.

I don't know it because it doesn't exist . . . at least not on a level that doesn't require a lot of time and effort in post and that could be done by regular folks like us. If you guys are so sure it isn't difficult, let's see it. Otherwise your assertions that it COULD be done are nothing but conjecture if you can't show any of your own examples. On the other hand, anyone with a decent zoom lens can shoot a snap zoom in a couple of seconds and be done with it.

Do you think anyone would even notice a snap zoom vs a zoom in post with some motion blur added in a 3 frame transition?

The length of the transition is not what is important. It is the length of the shot before the transition and after the transition that matters.

Just to elaborate on my previous post.

Let's say you have a very tight shot of someone's face and you want to snap zoom out to show their entire body from head to toe. If the shot lasts 2 seconds before the transition, and 2 second afterwards then it better look very good on both sides of the zoom because the viewer is going to have time to scrutinize the quality. However, if you only have a few frames before and after, then you can probably get away with something of much lower quality at one end or the other before you cut to something else.

A snap zoom from face to full body is very easy to do optically with many lenses. Personally, I can do a 24x snap zoom, and anything in-between instantly. But doing that kind of fake snap zoom in post while maintaining high image quality at both ends, and having natural-looking, DoF? I don't think so. Yes, it could be done with enough time, money, and CGI in Hollywood, but I think it goes far beyond the ability of the OP. Get a zoom lens and do it optically. Very easy.

Here's an example in iMovie how easy it is.
iMovie Tutorial: How to Zoom In & Crop - YouTube

The length of the transition is not what is important. It is the length of the shot before the transition and after the transition that matters.

Ryans question was how he could replicate the zoom transition as shown in the Britney Spears clip, since it is 3 separate takes the length of the clips before and after don't matter as they are shot separately, the zoom transition also looks like it was shot separate since the position of the dancers in the background don't match up with the pervious shot. So that leaves us with only a zoom transition, it's a "effect" they used more then once in the clip and a few just look like a zoom in post with quite a lot of detail loss but since the transition is so fast you hardly notice. Same applies to the transition Ryan was referring to which looks pretty blurry and I'm sure this could easily be replicated in post as well without having to contact Hollywood. :)

Ryans question was how he could replicate the zoom transition as shown in the Britney Spears clip, since it is 3 separate takes the length of the clips before and after don't matter as they are shot separately, the zoom transition also looks like it was shot separate since the position of the dancers in the background don't match up with the pervious shot. So that leaves us with only a zoom transition, it's a "effect" they used more then once in the clip and a few just look like a zoom in post with quite a lot of detail loss but since the transition is so fast you hardly notice. Same applies to the transition Ryan was referring to which looks pretty blurry and I'm sure this could easily be replicated in post as well without having to contact Hollywood. :)
Exactly. The primary purpose of doing zooms in post with music videos is to be able to precisely place the zooms on the beat of the music. This zoom topic has been on infinite loop since Ryan joined.

Just to elaborate on my previous post.

Let's say you have a very tight shot of someone's face and you want to snap zoom out to show their entire body from head to toe. If the shot lasts 2 seconds before the transition, and 2 second afterwards then it better look very good on both sides of the zoom because the viewer is going to have time to scrutinize the quality. However, if you only have a few frames before and after, then you can probably get away with something of much lower quality at one end or the other before you cut to something else.

A snap zoom from face to full body is very easy to do optically with many lenses. Personally, I can do a 24x snap zoom, and anything in-between instantly. But doing that kind of fake snap zoom in post while maintaining high image quality at both ends, and having natural-looking, DoF? I don't think so. Yes, it could be done with enough time, money, and CGI in Hollywood, but I think it goes far beyond the ability of the OP. Get a zoom lens and do it optically. Very easy.

Oh okay, thank you very much for the input there. But why do you need natural looking DOF, when it's just zooming between three shots in post?

In the music video post zoom, when I look at the individual shots frame by frame, I don't think they added any natural DOF effects to the image, unless I am wrong?

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.

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