Primarily, I’d have to say, my favorite thing about this video is that it shows surfing in a different light. This is the first time I’ve seen the sport shot in this fashion, and I’d have to say its awesome to see its been taken to a new level, even if its just for a commercial, its possible to potentially use a similar rig in the future for the actual sport. I like how photographers have been shooting in the water with housing kits, and even using remote flashes with the help of an assistant, but this style just adds a completely different dimension to photography, literally. Even though, this is a very expensive technique to use, when used, I feel its easy to take even the simplest of subject matter and transform it into footage that can be very exciting. The problem with surfing and this style of photography is a. the water (liquid and electronics don’t mix) and b. the movement. Surfing is a sport that involves riding a wave, obviously, but trying to shoot this with a camera setup that is meant to stay static opposes a big problem. Maybe you could built some complex camera rig that mounts on top of jetskis, and they can ride along the surfer, without wiping out and destroying thousands of dollars worth of equipment? Not likely, but its a pretty cool idea. The commercial below was shot in a water pool, which makes it a lot easier because the wave is designed to break identically the same, every single time, so the cameras can stay in one position, without the composition changing.

I can easily see this being used with an indoor sport, such as basketball, where the backboard is always at a fixed distance. The rig could be installed, knowing where the action would be happening, the only issue would be safety and equipment. From personal experience, I know its very different to mount camera gear anywhere when an audience is present, many safety precautions must be used. Aside from that, with the distance from subject to camera in basketball, depending on the framing you’re looking for, the lenses could be very expensive, if you were to shoot something tight, with say… a 70-200, unless you have 50 friends that you can borrow that lens from, you’re looking at paying around oh, $90,000 (1800 x 52) ? Thats just unheard of. Maybe this techique should only be used for subjects that are close to camera. This would definitely be great for shooting some kind of action portrait, maybe an ad campaign for Nike, Adidas, etc. These ads would definitely be shot in a closed studio environment, which helps you get closer to subject, but my other concern would be being able to use a complex lighting setup, and having the possibility of getting some of the lights in the frame. For instance, the high-end sports look these days uses blown out highlights from behind, on the both sides (used as edge lights). Having these backlit strobes fire in the frame would definitely blow out the exposure. However, if there was a way to mount these strobes just out of frame, maybe right at the top of the frame, you may be able to make this happen. You’d probably need a big cyc wall, and bring the lights to the top of the cyc, so they’re not seen in the frame.

I definitely see this multi-camera setup being very interesting, even though its very expensive to accomplish. The video below, just got my brain ticking, and I wanted to share a few ideas of how I thought this technique could further be applied. Let me know if you have any other thoughts of how this could be used, or how it could be changed, to create even more interesting results. Thanks and enjoy.

First of all, to shoot a sequence shot, I highly recommend a camera that shoots faster frames per second, preferable 5-6.  I was using a Canon MK III, which shoots around 9 frames per second, but honestly, I used every other frame for this sequence, so shooting that fast really wasn’t necessary.  Personally, I didn’t want to use all the photos, when I originally stitched them, I tried with every frame, for me it was just too busy.  I prefer to have some spacing between the different parts of the maneuver.  To make matters much easier, its in your best interest to use a tripod for this.  No shifting of the camera means a much easier time stitching the final image together.

Obviously the first step is to bring the photographs into Adobe Photoshop.  Rather than pasting the different images straight in, I mask them before pasting, so I only grab the information I need, which will save you looks of time.  To do this, I use a quick mask, which you can use by pressing “Q” in photoshop.  The advantage to using the quick mask, is that you can see what you’re masking, while you paint, it shows up as a transparent red.  When doing this, I start with a bigger brush to cover the majority of the subject, then size it down to grab the finer details.  I also use a harder brush edge, so I go really close to the edges, I usually grab this roughly, then go back and touch up the edges.  When you’re masking for a sequence, make sure you grab something that will allow you to line the subject up consistently.  In my example, I used the ramp they’re jumping off, it has a hard edge, which makes it easy for me to line the different photos up in the sequence.  Once they are lined up, you can mask out the ramp.  The rest of the work will be fine tuning the mask around your subject, making sure to drop out any parts of the background that may change, move, etc.  My sample photo isn’t a great example of masking, these are merely showing you how the stitching is done.  Once you’ve gotten your first photo masked out, and aligned where you need it, you can move onto the next one, and the next one.  I realize this isn’t the most in depth tutorial, but I hope this steers you in the right direction when you attempt to create a sequence shot.  Please share your results when you’re finished!