Zoom long video lens.

[cee-dee]

I wonder if there's many on here that like or watch wildlife programmes and marvel at the shots obtained at great distances?

The lens often used costs over £40,000 and it sure does an excellent job.... however.... I find that the filmmakers often zoom in really close, so close that although the subject is superbly captured (on video) but in concentrating so closely means you don't see "any of the action".

For instance, they could be filming a Lion  (a Leopard, a Cheetah, a Hyena or a Wild Dog etc) on the hunt and then the chase, during which the subject is superbly followed on camera but so closely that you don't get to see the object (of the chase) or the actual capture (or escape). You're then left with either the hunter standing over its victim or it standing there annoyingly staring at what's probably it's rapidly departing victim making it's escape before the cameraman then changes shot to show that. Surely it would be better to show a wider angle to actually capture all of the scene?

I just wonder what anyone else has to say? OK, so the old RT doesn't generate as many comments as in the past but I hope that some of the many viewers will perhaps "join in"?

[style_wise]

Nature documentaries tell a story by splicing together footage from the wild with those from zoos, and even studio-produced images/sounds such as those created with CGI. They're telling the best story they can by building off of what actual footage they have.

[tressygirl]

I agree with @style_wise   these films sometimes take months or years to film as editing must take up most of that time .

I disagree that films do not show the whole chase from a distance. 

Not all animal documentaries may do,  as the actual catch and tearing apart of a live animal is not  'everyone's cup of tea'  so some programmes may not wish to show this , and  they focus on the beauty of the animal, so those expensive lenses are worth the money showing us these beautiful animals in close ups that most none of us can ever experience.

[cee-dee]

I didn't say I "wanted" to see an animal being torn apart. I don't think either of you have grasped what I'm saying. It's great to see a close-up of animals/birds but it's like studio interviews/meetings, they zoom in so close you can see every blemish and wrinkle but not what's actually going on.

As to "the chase", again I'll say they follow the hunter (animal) in real close-up but you don't get to see just how far away the intended victim is when the hunter either gives up or closes in.

[tressygirl]

I don't think you've grasped what we've been saying.

That is,  not EVERY programme will film a chase from a distance,  some will some won't , for the reasons I outlined,  and did not infer you particularly wished to see animals torn apart.

There are SO many animal programmes,  some good with great filming some too ' arty' . 

Horses for courses,  there's enough to choose from , if it's not what you wish to see find another,  plenty to choose from.

[cee-dee]

I agree about the "too arty" ones and I know some filming has taken months to film with ages spent on editing but... (you knew there'd be a "but"?) watching a prog about a lion pride and a particular hunt, they closely followed the stalk, you could see every whisker of the lion but not of the quarry. There followed the chase, again in close-up (yes, great filming) but where's the quarry? Oh, there, they've got it!! Another stalk, watch those rippling muscles, crouching on the approach, one step, two steps.... twenty steps... but where's the quarry? Oh, there, it's been alerted and it's running, the lion stands there, probably thinking "darn it, it's got away, pesky squirrel startled it!" 🙂