Motion Picture: Hollywood Says the Sky’s the Limit for Unmanned Aerial Cinematography
A Flying-Cam UAS was used to capture images from the dragon’s point of view for the movie Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Photo: FlyingCam.
Dig in to your overpriced popcorn, silence your cell phone, and get set to watch movies featuring more creative visuals.
In September, the Federal Aviation Administration approved applications from six aerial cinematography companies for exemptions to the ban on commercial use of UAS in the United States: Astraeus Aerial Cinema Systems, Aerial Mob LLC, HeliVideo Productions LLC, Pictorvision Inc., RC Pro Productions Consulting LLC dba Vortex Aerial and Snaproll Media. A seventh exemption was issued in October to FlyingCam Unmanned Aerial Systems.
A key question now is what does FAA approval mean to the movie industry, including companies specializing in aerial cinematography?
“First and foremost, the FAA ap- proval is a victory for audiences,” says Lauren Reamy, director of government affairs for the Motion Picture Association of America,
in response to emailed questions. “The approval allows aerial cinematography companies to work on productions in the U.S., giving filmmakers another creative tool to engage movie watchers in new and innovative ways. This also encourages productions to film in the U.S. — meaning more jobs and revenue here at home.”
MPAA was asked about the advantages of using drones rather than manned airplanes or helicopters for aerial shoots.
“Small unmanned aircraft systems are a safer, more efficient and a more flexible alternative in many cases,” Reamy says. “For example, SUAS run on electricity, while manned helicopters require thousands of gallons of gasoline. Of course, they are not a complete substitute for manned helicopters. The final decision is up to filmmakers, and we are glad they now have that choice. ... For all filmmakers, the approval gives productions another creative option that will ultimately benefit consumers.”
A pulse-quickening sequence in a 2012 James Bond movie, “Skyfall,” which was shot in Istanbul, Turkey, is one often-cited example of effective aerial cinematography using a small UAS. Daniel Craig as 007 is shown from above and many other angles as he rides a motorcycle in a wild chase on the roofs of buildings, battles with a bad guy atop a speeding train, plunges off a cliff and is swept over a roaring waterfall.
“While we have already seen movies filmed with SUAS from overseas productions — take for example the roof sequence of ‘Skyfall’ — the sky is literally the limit in imagining what new angles and views filmmakers will thrill us with next,” Reamy says. “Every day, moviemakers are increasingly leveraging the latest technologies to advance their craft. Using SUAS is an example of that, one in which audiences will continue to see scenes and shots we could only have imagined a few years ago.”
One prominent cinematographer has a positive but less exuberant reaction to the prospect of using drones for filmmaking. The drone is welcome, he says, but it’s just another tool.
“I think it’s going to open up some more sophisticated opportunities,” says Richard Crudo, president of the American Society of Cinematographers. “I wouldn’t say necessarily that that means we’re going to get better movies at any level, but we may see some flashier, more self-conscious shots.
“I suppose it will make certain kinds of shots that were inaccessi- ble to lower-budgeted productions more common,” he says. “[Drones] could allow you to do certain things a little bit more creatively. You know, get the camera into spaces where you couldn’t ordinar- ily get a helicopter. That would be the chief creative advantage.”
Independent filmmakers and other producers whose budgets don’t allow for manned helicopters could save money and broaden their creative possibilities by using drones, Crudo says. “The independents will embrace the cheapness of it, and the studios will embrace the trendiness of it.”
For ASC cinematographers, the prospect of shooting with drones “is not that big a deal to us,” Crudo says. “It’s just another tool. ...It’s a ripple, not a tidal wave.”
Movie audiences “wouldn’t know the difference it you [shot a scene] from a helicopter or a Saturn V rocket, honestly,” he says. “General audiences have no idea what they’re looking at, nor should they. They shouldn’t be sitting there saying, ‘Oh, that was done by a drone.’ ‘No, that was done by a helicopter.’ As a filmmaker, that’s the last thing in the universe you want an audience thinking about. It’s absolutely immaterial to an au- dience how these things are done.”
One condition for drone cinematography is that the aircraft may fly no higher than 400 feet, but that might not be a serious problem.
“I find, as a cinematographer, where the shots are most interesting and most dynamic is down low,” says David Wagreich, CEO and pilot for Astraeus Aerial Cinema Systems. “Typically, with full-scale helicopters, you’re always asking to go lower. To be high and wide and looking down on something isn’t as exciting as being down in the action. Typically, our best shots are at 50, 30 feet or below.”
Wagreich says drones with high-resolution, gimbal-stabilized cameras will complement but not fully replace established image- capturing systems such as full-scale manned helicopters and ground-based systems like the cable-mounted cameras used for overhead views of football games and cameras mounted on cranes or remote arms of customized ground chase vehicles like the Porsche Cayenne and the Mini Cooper.
Previously, he says, for movies like “Spiderman,” crews had to spend days — and tens of thousands of dollars — rigging cable cameras and programing their movements.
“There are a lot of production economies,” Wagreich notes. “In comparison with full-scale helicopters, which can cost upwards of $30,000 a day to operate ... you can fly a UAS for [about] half the price.”
Treggon Owens, a cofounder of Aerial Mob, says the FAA’s approval of the limited use of UAS in aerial cinematography is a “good first step into mass use in the cinematography world.
“Right now, the FAA has been very good in granting this exemption, but I would say we’re definitely still in the guinea pig stage, where some of the processes between an operator and the FAA are still being worked out. Once those are all worked out and it becomes a very smooth and integrated process, that would be the next step.”
The demand for unmanned aerial cinematography has been “very strong,” Owens says, but the time needed to gain clearance makes it a challenge to meet the demand.
“The demand for the use of it is definitely outstripping our ability to get through the regulatory hurdles, but [FAA officials] are working on that very hard.”
Unmanned aerial cinematography companies typically buy a base UAS and customize it to meet the customer’s needs or build their own, Owens says. Rotary-wing UAS are widely used in filmmaking in configurations ranging from a single electric-motor-driven rotor to four, six or eight rotors.
“It’s kind of a new tool for cinematographers to do dynamic motion,” Owens says, which complements but does not supplant other camera platforms like dollies and cranes. “What I really like about the drone is that it frees up your creativity,” he says. “You are providing the filmmaker a whole new way to tell a story.”
Advantages of UAS over manned helicopters for moviemaking include greater safety. Most fatalities of film crew members have involved manned helicopter accidents. While movie drones are not immune to accidents, their limited size, weight and strict restrictions on their use should improve safety substantially.
“The biggest disadvantage we have come against is the noise factor. It sounds like a swarm of bees that are traveling by you, and that can disrupt dialogue. ... Outside of that noise factor, it’s pretty much the sky’s the limit as long as we are following the safety rules and avoiding public airspace. It’s just a very useful tool for the filmmaker to get a dynamic motion in a shot,” Owens adds.
“The technology, from our perspective, is game changing,” Astraeus Aerial’s Wagreich says. “You can create shots that you could never achieve before.”
With drones, he says, “you can show up and fly it in real time,” saving time and money and allow- ing greater creativity. “I think what’s going to happen now is directors of photography are going to start conceiving shots around UAS.”
Already, filmmakers who use drones have their own film festival and a “world tour” to show off that creativity. The New York City Drone Film Festival is set for 21 Feb., and an 18-month Aerial Drone Cinematography World Tour of 48 universities is scheduled for 2015 and 2016.
The advent of unmanned aerial cinematography offers exciting new capabilities to the movie industry, but its significance could extend far beyond Hollywood. FAA officials and other observers are likely to closely scrutinize movie drone use as a bellwether that could influence how and how fast the agency eventually will allow broader commercial use of unmanned aerial systems for agriculture, real estate, oil and gas exploration, and a host of other applications.
Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy scenes with a little more artistic flair as a growing number of movies are enhanced by unmanned aerial cinematography.
