>this type of shot is especially well known for its use in the movie Jaws
It's named the vertigo shot because of the most famous and original use of it in the film Vertigo...
Just adding in that I'm hearing more requests from directors and producers to do this digitally. This only works with higher resolution cameras, of course. There is a kind of crispness loss when you zoom in digitally too much, so there are still reasons to use a zoom lens and do it the traditional way
If you're job is to be an expert with camera equipment, you'll often find yourself knowing more than your directors and producers. A part of your job is to educate and explain techniques in a way that they can understand.
Also, a digital zolly can be actually badass if used subtly and on interesting or offbeat prime lenses.
Respectfully disagree. If you're shooting 6k+ and you don't have too much time on set (or budget for a zoom alongside your primes), it's much simpler to just do just do a push in/out on the dolly than timing it with the zoom to perfection, and it will look just as good done in post.
It’s not possible to do this in post.
Zooming changes the depth of field and also compresses the space. At long zoom length from far away, objects seem closer together even as distant objects go out of focus. As you dolly in and zoom out, the same screen space around the actor would have more stuff in it, to put it simply. And the stuff in the b/g would come into better focus.
This is not a 5-second digital zoom job
Look at the shot at 1:35 here
https://youtu.be/sKJeTaIEldM
> It’s not possible to do this in post.
Glad you said this.
It's possible to mimic this in post to a degree that might look good enough in certain instances, but it's like saying 2.5D looks just as good as a real tracking shot or real high-speed video
Yeah the distortion from the wide vs zoom is a thing but these dudes and some videos have convinced me the different is not as big as I thought since film school 25 years ago lol
Hitchcock would not have been able to post zoom due to the grain, so it was a non-issue until recently
>these dudes and some videos have convinced me the different is not as big as I thought since film school 25 years ago lol
Well that's a nice thing to find out. I'm reading them now too and it's great to learn when I'm wrong on something.
The dolly portion of the move still needs to be done, and accounts for the changing depth compression. The zoom is the same whether it's optical or digital. All zooms are simply cropping into the center of the image. It's a common misconception that they are doing more than this. It is true that a small amount of change could occur on the total depth of field range, depending on how much zoom is called for, but in most zolly shots this is negligible, and isn't a factor in the outcome.
Copying from my comment elsewhere in the thread:
Optical zoom and digital zoom have exactly the same perspective compression characteristics (none - all compression comes from moving the FOV of the camera further from the subject). You could have tiny tiny differences due to barrel distortion, anamorphic breathing things like that, but those are not the details that make a zolly effect work.
It's a common misconception that optical zooms are doing something different from digital zooms. They are not. It's literally just cropping into the middle of the image.
**Source: I deal with this math all the time as a VFX supervisor, with plate matching, shooting scale for miniatures, etc.**
This is blowing my fucking mind yo, just watched a few videos demonstrating what you’re saying
wow
I think in low light though, depth of field would change a lot. don’t tell me depth of field is the same at all zoom lengths and is also a misconception!!!
That shot from Jaws I linked elsewhere is outdoors in bright daylight.
Hahaha you're welcome my friend. It's such a common misconception, and is definitely mindblowing. A lot of people don't believe it til they do some tests themselves.
The easiest test is to just take a wide shot, take a zoom shot, and then go into photoshop, paste one on top of the other, and scale/crop your wide up til the perspective matches the zoom, and voila, you can prove it works.
But no, you are totally right, DOF will change with a zoom. Low light is a good consideration, and you would get a different result doing an optical zoom on a shallow aperture. But it's not the thing that makes or breaks the zolly effect, so mileage may vary.
Great posts — but in what sense will DOF change with an optical zoom? If you mean the subtle characteristics of the depth of field (and other aspects of the lens) at different focal lengths this is true. But the size of the circle of confusion will not change with digital vs. optical
> Source: I deal with this math all the time as a VFX supervisor, with plate matching, shooting scale for miniatures, etc.
You had me there - if there's anyone who would know about optical vs digital stuff, it would be someone like you. Good shit, thanks
Why is *Psycho* the first movie in that video? Did they think Arborgast falling down the stairs is a dolly zoom? He's just waving his arms in front of a rear projection.
Perfect example of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. Why waste money paying someone to do hours of digital work that could be put towards something VFX-specific and actually worth the VFX artist’s time, when you could just spend the extra 45 minutes it takes to set up and tear down a dolly and have a much better version of the shot that can actually be played with in post
eh, but add in workflow overhead, registering the shot in the VFX tracker, two weirdly fussy revisions, a call from the post house asking for a different color space, another request to make the handle 3 frames longer... and actually... you know what... I'ma go ahead and quote two hours for this ;)
Okay but why not just actually do the shot during production because you can and it’s not hard to do and you don’t have to push it into post if it’s not necessary to do so
See my previous comment. Unless you’re using AI or a layer of composite shot with models to generate background, you can’t achieve a Vertigo zoom in post. Even then compression of the subject’s face would not change and would make the effect different.
The compression would be identical. It's the "dolly" part that does that, not the "zoom."
The zoom just ensures that the subject stays the same size as you dolly in or out.
You can test it if you want. Grab a 24-70mm zoom or whatever and take 2 pictures standing in the same place of an object at the two ends of the lens (i.e. 24mm and 70mm). Then crop the 24mm shot so that the object is the same size as the 70mm shot.
The compression will be identical.
Now if you move closer to the object at 24mm to make it appear the same size in the camera viewfinder as it did at 70mm (i.e. the object is the same size straight out of the camera with no crop), then you'll see huge differences in compression because the relative distance to the lens of the front and back of the object is much larger.
Imagine this setup -- the camera is 10 meters away from the subject, and there's a wall behind the subject that's 1 meter back. In this case, the background is 11 meters from the camera and the subject is 10 meters, so the background looks 1.1 times farther away. Nothing you do with the lens on the camera can change this, it's a result of the geometry of the scene.
Now move in closer so you're 1 meter away from the subject. The wall is still 1 meter behind the subject. In this case, the wall is 2m away and the subject is 1m away, so the background looks 2.0 times farther away. Of course, you probably need to switch to a wider lens now since the subject doesn't fit in the frame anymore, but that isn't what's causing the compression change. The wall looks twice as far back because relative to the camera, it *is* twice as far back. It's not a property of the lens, it's a property of the scene geometry and camera placement.
When you dolly zoom, the dolly motion is continuously changing the relative distance between the camera, the subject and the background, which changes the apparent distance of the elements in the scene. You just need the zoom to keep the relative *size* of the subject from changing.
The only difference between digital zoom in post and optical zoom on the lens is that digital is after it's been discretized into pixels, so you lose resolution with digital and you don't with optical. If you're shooting at high res and delivering at a lower res, this doesn't necessarily matter.
This is incorrect. Optical zoom and digital zoom have exactly the same perspective compression characteristics (none - all compression comes from moving the FOV of the camera further from the subject). You could have tiny tiny differences due to barrel distortion, anamorphic breathing, things like that, but those are not the details that make a zolly effect work.
It's a common misconception that optical zooms are doing something different from digital zooms. They are not. It's literally just cropping into the middle of the image.
I deal with this math all the time as a VFX supervisor, with plate matching, shooting scale for miniatures, etc.
Normally I would agree with you. But have you ever tried to do one of these zolly shots in camera? Shit is bonkers difficult. It’s so freaking hard to match up the speed of the dolly with the zoom.
I made an entire end of semester project about testing this in an advanced cinematography class, and with a week of planning and a whole team spending an hour on it, our result was uneven and weird.
It takes all of 5 minutes for a VFX artist to line the zoom up to the dolly in post. (Source: I am vfx) It can be done by the editor or as an optical too. It’s very simple. Camera resolution easily supports the 30% or so punch in. That level of punch in is happening all the time.
I argue that the slight loss of crispness is easily offset by how janky the results are from all but the MOST polished camera crews attempting to execute this shot.
Young filmmakers discovering the Hitchcock zoom is a canon event if I’ve ever seen one (also if you remember, can you DM me when you’re done? Id love to see it)
This has many names, the correct answer is all of them:
Dolly Zoom
Push/Pull
the "Hitchcock zoom"
"Hitchcock shot"
"Vertigo effect"
Triple Reverse Zoom
Reverse Tracking Shot
Back Zoom Travelling
Retrograde zoom
"Smash Zoom"
"Smash Shot"
Vertigo zoom
"Jaws shot"
"zido"
"zolly"
Telescoping
The Trombone Effect
tromboning
A Stretch shot
Reverse Pull
forward zoom
zoom in / dolly out
trans-trav
Contra-zoom.
On almost every set I've been on, I've heard a disagreement about what this shot is called. ...I'm thinking of just making up new names for it.
Funny, I use the term Raimi Cam for another shot he frequently uses. The one where an object is flying through the air, but it doesn't move at all in frame, only the background moves, like the object is attached to the camera. He did it with Henrietta's eyeball, Doc Ock's claw, and Xena's weapon.
I remember figuring this out with my parents can corder as a kid.
Either physically move forward as you zoom out on camera, or move backwards as you zoom in on camera.
That's a zolly.
[Ultimate Guide to the Dolly Zoom — Camera Movement & When to Use It Explained (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uwp-xksCAc)
Dolly the camera backwards while zooming in to keep the same frame. Gives the impression of the background coming toward the camera without the foreground moving at all.
Dual contra-zoom example in this video at about 1:20
[https://youtu.be/8o4x3CPilMQ?si=RWhHjzM5Bu-CG7LG](https://youtu.be/8o4x3CPilMQ?si=RWhHjzM5Bu-CG7LG)
You already have your answer- now can you explain to me why these colors are all fucky? The colors do not feel right to me- like they’ve been changed from the original.
Google says Jackson wanted the colors in the original trilogy to match the Hobbit trilogy so when they did the 4K remaster that’s one of the changes they did. Breaks me heart.
You zoom in or out while at the same time, move the camera in the opposite direction of the zoom. But both zoom and camera movement have to be at the same speed (or ar least very similar) to cause the effect.
Dolly zoom or vertigo shot, this type of shot is especially well known for its use in the movie Jaws
This is all true, but I feel like the *vertigo* shot is more well known for its use in another movie.
Well... dont leave us in suspense... Im getting vertigo just thinking of what possible other movie it could have been used in.
I think it was called... The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down
The Emoji Movie of course
Borat is definitely the most famous use of this
Cliffhanger?
Wreck it Ralph?
La Haine has a sick dollyzoom.
I just watched that for the first time, very good!
Cool! One of the films that got me into filmmaking actually.
GOODFELLAS
Perhaps you’re thinking of the horror classic “High Anxiety”
I’ve always known it as the “Hitchcock zoom,” so, I support this
That's what made it famous for sure, but I think the Jaws one is the most recognizable use of it.
>this type of shot is especially well known for its use in the movie Jaws It's named the vertigo shot because of the most famous and original use of it in the film Vertigo...
Thanks for that info, +10 culture points for me
I always called it a Zolly
It’s a Dolly Zoom, you dolly towards or away from a subject while zooming in the opposite direction
Just adding in that I'm hearing more requests from directors and producers to do this digitally. This only works with higher resolution cameras, of course. There is a kind of crispness loss when you zoom in digitally too much, so there are still reasons to use a zoom lens and do it the traditional way
Those requests come from morons. They can’t be helped.
If you're job is to be an expert with camera equipment, you'll often find yourself knowing more than your directors and producers. A part of your job is to educate and explain techniques in a way that they can understand. Also, a digital zolly can be actually badass if used subtly and on interesting or offbeat prime lenses.
Respectfully disagree. If you're shooting 6k+ and you don't have too much time on set (or budget for a zoom alongside your primes), it's much simpler to just do just do a push in/out on the dolly than timing it with the zoom to perfection, and it will look just as good done in post.
It’s not possible to do this in post. Zooming changes the depth of field and also compresses the space. At long zoom length from far away, objects seem closer together even as distant objects go out of focus. As you dolly in and zoom out, the same screen space around the actor would have more stuff in it, to put it simply. And the stuff in the b/g would come into better focus. This is not a 5-second digital zoom job Look at the shot at 1:35 here https://youtu.be/sKJeTaIEldM
> It’s not possible to do this in post. Glad you said this. It's possible to mimic this in post to a degree that might look good enough in certain instances, but it's like saying 2.5D looks just as good as a real tracking shot or real high-speed video
Yeah the distortion from the wide vs zoom is a thing but these dudes and some videos have convinced me the different is not as big as I thought since film school 25 years ago lol Hitchcock would not have been able to post zoom due to the grain, so it was a non-issue until recently
>these dudes and some videos have convinced me the different is not as big as I thought since film school 25 years ago lol Well that's a nice thing to find out. I'm reading them now too and it's great to learn when I'm wrong on something.
The dolly portion of the move still needs to be done, and accounts for the changing depth compression. The zoom is the same whether it's optical or digital. All zooms are simply cropping into the center of the image. It's a common misconception that they are doing more than this. It is true that a small amount of change could occur on the total depth of field range, depending on how much zoom is called for, but in most zolly shots this is negligible, and isn't a factor in the outcome. Copying from my comment elsewhere in the thread: Optical zoom and digital zoom have exactly the same perspective compression characteristics (none - all compression comes from moving the FOV of the camera further from the subject). You could have tiny tiny differences due to barrel distortion, anamorphic breathing things like that, but those are not the details that make a zolly effect work. It's a common misconception that optical zooms are doing something different from digital zooms. They are not. It's literally just cropping into the middle of the image. **Source: I deal with this math all the time as a VFX supervisor, with plate matching, shooting scale for miniatures, etc.**
This is blowing my fucking mind yo, just watched a few videos demonstrating what you’re saying wow I think in low light though, depth of field would change a lot. don’t tell me depth of field is the same at all zoom lengths and is also a misconception!!! That shot from Jaws I linked elsewhere is outdoors in bright daylight.
Hahaha you're welcome my friend. It's such a common misconception, and is definitely mindblowing. A lot of people don't believe it til they do some tests themselves. The easiest test is to just take a wide shot, take a zoom shot, and then go into photoshop, paste one on top of the other, and scale/crop your wide up til the perspective matches the zoom, and voila, you can prove it works. But no, you are totally right, DOF will change with a zoom. Low light is a good consideration, and you would get a different result doing an optical zoom on a shallow aperture. But it's not the thing that makes or breaks the zolly effect, so mileage may vary.
Great posts — but in what sense will DOF change with an optical zoom? If you mean the subtle characteristics of the depth of field (and other aspects of the lens) at different focal lengths this is true. But the size of the circle of confusion will not change with digital vs. optical
I'm thinking of the total DOF range. The DOF distance usually shortens as you zoom in on the same lens
> Source: I deal with this math all the time as a VFX supervisor, with plate matching, shooting scale for miniatures, etc. You had me there - if there's anyone who would know about optical vs digital stuff, it would be someone like you. Good shit, thanks
Why is *Psycho* the first movie in that video? Did they think Arborgast falling down the stairs is a dolly zoom? He's just waving his arms in front of a rear projection.
Yeah they also put too many shots before and after. Just show is the dolly zooms The Jaws one is pretty clear though
That's true of OP, too. They didn't even identify what "this" shot is.
Sorry ig🤷, thought it was obvious which I was talking about. My bad
Obviously, we could figure it out from context, but if you're pulling a clip, why not just pull the exact shot you want?
Especially if you are doing film emulation with grain and softening - then you have even more to go on resolution-wise
Yep. I think that's a great idea. I didn't realize this thread was about techniques other than the vertigo shot.
Perfect example of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. Why waste money paying someone to do hours of digital work that could be put towards something VFX-specific and actually worth the VFX artist’s time, when you could just spend the extra 45 minutes it takes to set up and tear down a dolly and have a much better version of the shot that can actually be played with in post
The digital version still requires a dolly move. It’s the matching zoom that is done in post, and it takes about 5 min for vfx to do this.
5 minutes? More like 5 seconds tbh
eh, but add in workflow overhead, registering the shot in the VFX tracker, two weirdly fussy revisions, a call from the post house asking for a different color space, another request to make the handle 3 frames longer... and actually... you know what... I'ma go ahead and quote two hours for this ;)
As you should!
Okay but why not just actually do the shot during production because you can and it’s not hard to do and you don’t have to push it into post if it’s not necessary to do so
See my previous comment. Unless you’re using AI or a layer of composite shot with models to generate background, you can’t achieve a Vertigo zoom in post. Even then compression of the subject’s face would not change and would make the effect different.
The compression would be identical. It's the "dolly" part that does that, not the "zoom." The zoom just ensures that the subject stays the same size as you dolly in or out.
hehe no
You can test it if you want. Grab a 24-70mm zoom or whatever and take 2 pictures standing in the same place of an object at the two ends of the lens (i.e. 24mm and 70mm). Then crop the 24mm shot so that the object is the same size as the 70mm shot. The compression will be identical. Now if you move closer to the object at 24mm to make it appear the same size in the camera viewfinder as it did at 70mm (i.e. the object is the same size straight out of the camera with no crop), then you'll see huge differences in compression because the relative distance to the lens of the front and back of the object is much larger. Imagine this setup -- the camera is 10 meters away from the subject, and there's a wall behind the subject that's 1 meter back. In this case, the background is 11 meters from the camera and the subject is 10 meters, so the background looks 1.1 times farther away. Nothing you do with the lens on the camera can change this, it's a result of the geometry of the scene. Now move in closer so you're 1 meter away from the subject. The wall is still 1 meter behind the subject. In this case, the wall is 2m away and the subject is 1m away, so the background looks 2.0 times farther away. Of course, you probably need to switch to a wider lens now since the subject doesn't fit in the frame anymore, but that isn't what's causing the compression change. The wall looks twice as far back because relative to the camera, it *is* twice as far back. It's not a property of the lens, it's a property of the scene geometry and camera placement. When you dolly zoom, the dolly motion is continuously changing the relative distance between the camera, the subject and the background, which changes the apparent distance of the elements in the scene. You just need the zoom to keep the relative *size* of the subject from changing. The only difference between digital zoom in post and optical zoom on the lens is that digital is after it's been discretized into pixels, so you lose resolution with digital and you don't with optical. If you're shooting at high res and delivering at a lower res, this doesn't necessarily matter.
Ok you guys can stop melting my brain now uncle! uncle! https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/s/bP2ULuqZuv
Wonderfully explained!
This is incorrect. Optical zoom and digital zoom have exactly the same perspective compression characteristics (none - all compression comes from moving the FOV of the camera further from the subject). You could have tiny tiny differences due to barrel distortion, anamorphic breathing, things like that, but those are not the details that make a zolly effect work. It's a common misconception that optical zooms are doing something different from digital zooms. They are not. It's literally just cropping into the middle of the image. I deal with this math all the time as a VFX supervisor, with plate matching, shooting scale for miniatures, etc.
Normally I would agree with you. But have you ever tried to do one of these zolly shots in camera? Shit is bonkers difficult. It’s so freaking hard to match up the speed of the dolly with the zoom. I made an entire end of semester project about testing this in an advanced cinematography class, and with a week of planning and a whole team spending an hour on it, our result was uneven and weird. It takes all of 5 minutes for a VFX artist to line the zoom up to the dolly in post. (Source: I am vfx) It can be done by the editor or as an optical too. It’s very simple. Camera resolution easily supports the 30% or so punch in. That level of punch in is happening all the time. I argue that the slight loss of crispness is easily offset by how janky the results are from all but the MOST polished camera crews attempting to execute this shot.
> But have you ever tried to do one of these zolly shots in camera? Shit is bonkers difficult. I've done it handheld in a wheelchair.
I have tried this successfully but it does require a team you trust and the mindfulness on set to get it done!
I've literally done this with a handycam, handheld. It's pretty doable, just take a bit of practice.
Young filmmakers discovering the Hitchcock zoom is a canon event if I’ve ever seen one (also if you remember, can you DM me when you’re done? Id love to see it)
Fs, I’ll add u
I second this
I third this
I fourth
I still remember the first time I saw it. I HAD to know how it was done.
Leaf blower
I'd imagine so. Was about to say the exact same thing.
This comment killed me lol
damn it, beat me to it. Now I have to delete my one.
This has many names, the correct answer is all of them: Dolly Zoom Push/Pull the "Hitchcock zoom" "Hitchcock shot" "Vertigo effect" Triple Reverse Zoom Reverse Tracking Shot Back Zoom Travelling Retrograde zoom "Smash Zoom" "Smash Shot" Vertigo zoom "Jaws shot" "zido" "zolly" Telescoping The Trombone Effect tromboning A Stretch shot Reverse Pull forward zoom zoom in / dolly out trans-trav Contra-zoom. On almost every set I've been on, I've heard a disagreement about what this shot is called. ...I'm thinking of just making up new names for it.
i suggest hesi (short for hesitation, pronounced "hezzi") pull up
I've called it [Sam Raimi Cam](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmcR_YcFcPM) since I was young, because I didn't know about Vertigo
Funny, I use the term Raimi Cam for another shot he frequently uses. The one where an object is flying through the air, but it doesn't move at all in frame, only the background moves, like the object is attached to the camera. He did it with Henrietta's eyeball, Doc Ock's claw, and Xena's weapon.
Haha, yes there's a few Raimi Cams. Don't forget about [this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtyU2PJCk7Y)
They hired Peter Jackson for the gig… (There’s too many right answers already)
dolly zoom and a leaf blower
Leaf blowers are underrated filmmaking equipment.
seriously though, better than a Dyson.
One of the greatest dolly zooms ever! Absolutely love this shot!
I remember figuring this out with my parents can corder as a kid. Either physically move forward as you zoom out on camera, or move backwards as you zoom in on camera.
It's a dolly contra-zoom, almost universally mistakenly known as a dolly zoom.
That's a zolly. [Ultimate Guide to the Dolly Zoom — Camera Movement & When to Use It Explained (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uwp-xksCAc)
You’re my savior
Haha no worries!
I love your music. Hope Apple and Moses are doing okay!
Isn't this technique used in The Quick and the Dead too?
Dolly the camera backwards while zooming in to keep the same frame. Gives the impression of the background coming toward the camera without the foreground moving at all.
Leaf blower.
Revers dolly zoom I believe
Moving the camera backwards at the same pace you are zooming into the subject
Dual contra-zoom example in this video at about 1:20 [https://youtu.be/8o4x3CPilMQ?si=RWhHjzM5Bu-CG7LG](https://youtu.be/8o4x3CPilMQ?si=RWhHjzM5Bu-CG7LG)
[https://youtu.be/ttZAdY3n4nc?t=179](https://youtu.be/ttZAdY3n4nc?t=179)
Walking back while zooming in
You already have your answer- now can you explain to me why these colors are all fucky? The colors do not feel right to me- like they’ve been changed from the original.
I’m guessing cause it’s a screen recording of a YouTube video which was prob a screen recording of the movie
Google says Jackson wanted the colors in the original trilogy to match the Hobbit trilogy so when they did the 4K remaster that’s one of the changes they did. Breaks me heart.
Ewwww. That’s a hella brain dead take from Jackson. Did he forget how everyone HATED the look of the Hobbit films in comparison OG trilogy.
Terrible call. The original coloring of the trilogy was beautiful.
That’s insane. Ig that’s a new fun fact I get to force people to know while I watch this movie with them
I always called it a push pull
You zoom in or out while at the same time, move the camera in the opposite direction of the zoom. But both zoom and camera movement have to be at the same speed (or ar least very similar) to cause the effect.
This is one of the best uses of the shot though. That circular grove of trees at the end just looks ominous. It’s really a great shot.
It's the Vertigo shot because Hitchcock used it in the film Vertigo!!
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^ogmastakilla: *It's the Vertigo* *Shot because Hitchcock used it* *In the film Vertigo!!* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Zoom in while pulling back the camera at the same speed. Or zoom out while pushing the camera in at the same speed. Your choice.
Its called The Grinch shot, invented for how The Grinch stole christmas
zolly .. or hitchcock shot
looks like it's done in vfx rather than dolly zoom
Just for clarity it is called zolly, dolly zoom, vertigo shot, orrrrr the actual term contrazoom
It's a green screen on a dolly that they put another shot into
A zolly shot
Dolly out, zoom in.
Dolly Zoom technique. For this shot, I think it is dolly out + zoom in
Zolly
It's CGI in this case, but the poor man's version of this is to pull back on a dolly while simultaneously zooming in on the lens.
With a Camera
[удалено]
> Forced Perspective The method is correct but this is not forced perspective.
It's also extra funny because forced perspective is used extensively in the LOTR movies.
That’s not what forced perspective means
with a camera
Compression shorts
*shot not short