Wapsi Square Forum

I know I never post here, but this I cannot ignore and here is the only place it can go on the forum- Mark Hogancamp was my mentor in WWII miniature photography. I met him online in 2006. As I learned his story, I was astounded by what he faced and how he faced it. One of his photos has gone viral several times over with people thinking it was original WWII imagery when in fact it is 12" tall action figures...


On December 22, a movie will be released about this man's story. https://www.welcometomarwen.com/

Here is his most famous shot

Fabulous! Looking forward to seeing it.

And yes, that photo is great! You'd have to look long and hard to see anything amiss about that setup. I even thought the scratch left of the pistol was an ejecting shell!

Some of the best art and imagery isn't "perfect" and focused -- it's off detail just enough to let your mind and emotion fill in the blanks and edges. Applause, applause!

Excellently posed and photographed, yes.

I'll admit, my first thought when seeing the picture was "figurine", but I tend to pay a BIT more attention to pictures and similar that most. That's 7 years in theatre for you.

if you look at the 'face', you can clearly make out that it's not right.

FWIW, I eventually noticed a lack of a previous boot print in the mud and a lack of splash for what should have been moving legs. The lack of lens flare and background explosions also indicate a certain director had no hand in this work!

I NEVER go to movies - can;t settle down and enjoy a film in a crowd. Too situationally aware and I can't turn it off.

This...this I will go to see, and likely buy when it hits Blu-Ray.

Actually, what gives it away is the extremely shallow field of focus- this is a macro-shot, meaning the figures are less than a yard from the lens... it can also mean that the f. stop is 1 or less, but that would indicate a DAMN SLOW NEGATIVE (like ASA 5), but given color in the 1940's, that is not likely. Ideally, you would tighten the f. stop and increase the shutter time to extend the field of focus to compensate... Mark figured this out after he did this roll (yes, 35mm film).


I have done wet-plate professionally- this is how I learned about these things.

I recall seeing the movie; it was Innovative, Surreal, Disturbing, and a whole lot of fun.

Sgt. Howard wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 11:36 pm Actually, what gives it away is the extremely shallow field of focus- this is a macro-shot, meaning the figures are less than a yard from the lens... it can also mean that the f. stop is 1 or less, but that would indicate a DAMN SLOW NEGATIVE (like ASA 5), but given color in the 1940's, that is not likely. Ideally, you would tighten the f. stop and increase the shutter time to extend the field of focus to compensate...

In film miniature/stop-motion work, to get acceptable depth of field, they stop WAY down, use REALLY bright lighting, and still wind up with exposures several seconds long for each frame.

Fast-moving stop-motion tends to "strobe" because, given the exposure times in live-action filming, fast-moving real-life objects tend to be a bit blurred on the film. Since each frame in stop-motion is of a motionless subject, there is no blur, in contrast to the live-action plate the image is composited into.

And then,for <i>The Empire Strikes Back</i> Phil Tippet and ILM invented go-motion.

Which, like Introvision, was a brilliant solution to a long-standing problem in film-making that was essentially obsolete in twenty or so years.

{Actually, stop-motion film makers still use go-motion to make their films look better...}