u/samuraijon

Hello all,

I’ve been working with pyrotechnic blood squib SFX for several years now, both behind and in front of the camera, and have been “shot” many times during testing and filming. Over time I started building and refining my own systems, and these days I’m mostly interested in modernising it with newer electronics, miniaturisation, automation and improved safety and reliability.

One aspect I focus a lot on is wardrobe integration which I think is often overlooked. Once the rig is worn by the actor, it becomes part oof the costume, performance and visual storytelling. I find the intersection between engineering and creative/artistic work really interesting.

Now I’m especially interested in hearing about this from the actor’s perspective. If you have experienced it, please share! I've got some questions alongside my own experience below:

• What project was it for and what kind of wardrobe were you wearing?

Personally, I've been "killed" a few times, some of them in roles wearing winter jackets/parkas, another occasion as a cyclist wearing lycra. Beyond this, I've rigged all kinds of wardrobe for other performers/projects, but I think down jackets look the best. The prep is quite complex, but the combination of down feathers and stage blood bursting out is really visceral. From a practical perspective, they can also hold multiple squibs and the electronics, and it's easy to for the actor to put on/take off.

• How many squibs and takes were involved?

The most I've done was 20 squibs on a parka. We prepped two parkas and they were basically shredded in the end. It was a work of art and labour of love. The jackets were REALLY heavy and weighed about 4 kg more from the squibs and electronics.

• How many takes did you end up doing?

Usually we try to capture the master shot on the first take with multiple cameras running. Second/third takes only really happen if there’s time and duplicate wardrobe available, which is usually limited by budget, but even still, we usually prep three costumes for as many takes.

• Did you feel the SFX/stunt team was competent and reassuring and did you enjoy the experience overall?

For me this is probably the single most important thing. Once everything is wired up and armed you really need confidence in the people around you. Personally I love the experience and it never really gets old. You wake up, arrive, briefing, blocking and act! Once you can physically feel the extra weight and hardware hidden underneath the costume, the effect (and the expectation to perform well) suddenly feels very real.

• Were there any uncomfortable/stressful parts or problems and what improvements to the process or device would you like to see?

I always find there’s a strange mix of excitement, tension just before the shoot. Did you encounter any workflow/safety issues and what was done well or badly? I’m personally very interested in safety, miniaturisation, wearable integration and making systems less bulky and more comfortable for actors.

• Finally, what happened to the costumes afterwards?

In my experience they either get discarded, returned to production, archived or sometimes the actors/crew get first dibs. Personally I’ve kept several of the costumes I’ve acted in because they feel like really unique memorabilia pieces afterwards. The spare/pre-rigged duplicates even if not used are permanently modified internally anyway and they usually don't take them back as a result.

I’d also be interested to hear whether practical hits felt more immersive/helpful for performance compared with productions that relied more heavily on digital effects.

I think the effect will become rarer with AI, but I don't think it'll truly go away. The same was said with CGI. With either of these you don't have 100% control of what you want to achieve -- there's always something you want to tweak. Practical bullet hits have a physicality and interaction with clothing/lighting/performance that's difficult to replicate digitally. I do get that the cost factor is compelling though, if it achieves 80% of the effect with 20% of the cost, why bother with practical effects.

However, I think to keep practical effects alive, it needs to be accessible, especially to independent and lower budget filmmakers. Pyrotechnics is prohibitively expensive, and the paperwork (qualification, permits, insurance etc.) alone is too much. I think one way is pneumatic based systems that anyone can use, but it has its own limitations. This is where I think a lot of improvements can be made, which is where I'm at.

Finally, I was thinking I should make a youtube series on how squibs work behind the scenes from an engineering perspective! If you're keen on watching something like this, do you have any pointers/questions already?

Thank you 😄

Hello all,

I’ve been working with pyrotechnic blood squib SFX for several years now, both behind and in front of the camera, and have been “shot” many times during testing and filming. Over time I started building and refining my own systems, and these days I’m mostly interested in modernising it with newer electronics, miniaturisation, automation and improved safety and reliability.

One aspect I focus a lot on is wardrobe integration which I think is often overlooked. Once the rig is worn by the actor, it becomes part oof the costume, performance and visual storytelling. I find the intersection between engineering and creative/artistic work really interesting.

I'd like to share my own experience as well as to learn from others. It'd be great to hear from anyone who's worked with it, whether as an actor, technician or crew.

Regarding wardrobe prep:

• How many duplicate costumes do you usually prep? I wire up 3 costumes for the stunt, plus more reserved for the other scenes ("picture"/hero), backups and tests. Depending on budget it can go from 2-3 in total to 8+.
• Do you weaken the fabric at the hit area? I’ve do several approaches depending on fabric type and desired tear pattern, mostly sanding and perforating it carefully from the back. Personally I try not to do “star” (*) cuts because they can look cleanly cut, but some people swear by them. Some people don't weaken the fabric at all. While that looks great on camera before the burst, it does blow a bigger, messier hole (it would also tear along the fabric weave pattern). I guess it depends on the aesthetic you're trying to achieve.
• What costumes work best? I’ve rigged everything from T-shirts, military uniforms, jackets to cycling kits/lycra. Personally I love working with outdoor/ski jackets and parkas because they are really flexible -- you can hide multiple squibs and wiring. They're easy to put on/take off, provides more padding and are waterproof (so no mess inside on the actor). Since they're insulated, you need to cut open the lining to access the outermost fabric from the inside. It gets more complicated with down filled insulation, but I think the aesthetic of bullet hits on down jackets is unparalleled -- you have stage blood and feathers shooting out.
• What's the wildest project? I've once prepped 2 parkas with 20 squibs each. they're a work of art, really. The parkas were so heavy (the squibs and equipment added 2 kg). I still have the parkas!

Regarding the devices/technical side:

• How do you build your devices? I'm more interested in the philosophy behind different approaches, but generally speaking, they consists of a blood bag, the squib charge, a metal disc and padding. I know that sometimes people place the squib above the blood bag (so next to the wardrobe fabric) to achieve a "recoil" look with a stream of stage blood gushing out. If you put it below the bag (on the metal plate), you achieve a misty burst. Some people align the squib near the bottom of the bag to get a burst-and-flow look. It really depends on what you want to achieve I suppose.
• What's your go-to squib size? I think 99% of the cases it's the 1 grain size (usually yellow), sometimes the 1/2 grain size (usually red). I think with risk management you want to reduce the charge size where possible while achieving the desired effect. 2 grain is possible (it does have its uses) but more safety measures are needed.

Regarding the shoot:

• How many takes do people realistically do? Normally we try to get the master shot on the first take with several cameras. The second wardrobe allows another take if anything needs to be adjusted. Third take is only done if there's time.
• What was the experience like as an actor? I mean, you wake up on the day of filming, arrive, briefing, blocking and act! It all leads to this moment. when you wear the costume you can feel the weight of the squibs, and it's real. Sometimes you change into the costume earlier and perform with them and need to be careful. For me it's always exciting and never gets old, both in front of and behind the camera. I love it.
• What happens to the destroyed costume afterwards? In my experience -- they're thrown away, returned, or the actors get first dibs. Personally I've kept the ones I've acted in -- I think they're a really nice memorabilia. The thing is that the spare rigged ones have been prepped/cut open so they can't really be used again. So I end up with a load of identical jackets that have the insides cut open, some bloodied with bullet holes. The "picture" ones that you used to act in the other scenes you may ask production if you can keep/buy them afterwards, since they're perfectly fine.

Any other tips, tricks, failures/successes you'd like to share?

I think the effect will become rarer with AI, but I don't think it'll truly go away. The same was said with CGI. With either of these you don't have 100% control of what you want to achieve -- there's always something you want to tweak. Practical bullet hits have a physicality and interaction with clothing/lighting/performance that's difficult to replicate digitally. I do get that the cost factor is compelling though, if it achieves 80% of the effect with 20% of the cost, why bother with practical effects. However, I think to keep practical effects alive, it needs to be accessible, especially to independent and lower budget filmmakers. Pyrotechnics is prohibitively expensive, and the paperwork (qualification, permits, insurance etc.) alone is too much. I think one way is pneumatic based systems that anyone can use, but they don't look as good (i.e. they don't rip open a hole on the costume and the way the blood comes out needs refining), and the equipment is also quite bulky. This is where I think a lot of improvements can be made, which is where I'm at.

Finally, I was thinking I should make a youtube series on how squibs work behind the scenes, and perhaps some tutorials on the pneumatic system so that everyone can continue making movies as much as possible practically! If you're keen on watching something like this, do you have any pointers/questions already?

Hello all,

I'm working on an indy project with a decent budget and there's some room for practical effects and stunts. Currently just in the ideas/planning phase.

The idea is use some of my real cycling kits from a local team that I belong to, along with branded outdoor jackets/parkas from e.g. the north face, adidas etc. for scenes with simulated cycling crashes and gunshot wounds.

A "crash" would involve damaging and distressing a few sets of cycling jerseys and bib shorts. A few of them would also need to be wired up with blood squibs, which are pyrotechnic devices hidden in an actor's clothing that blow out a hole and sends stage blood flying out.

I was wondering how the audience would perceive this when the team and brand are real rather than generic costume wardrobe. Personally, I think that it adds realism and authenticity in the same way that real cars/phones etc. do in films. I'm really into my cycling and filmmaking and I want to get the details down to the tee, which I hope people would appreciate. Once you start noticing productions deliberately taping up logos or using obviously generic wardrobe, you can't unsee it and the scene feels too artificial or low budget.

On the other hand, I can also imagine real brands and teams breaking immersion in a different way. Some viewers might see it as wasteful or disrespectful in violent scenes, even if the story itself is completely fictional. The audience may also stop focusing on the scene itself and instead start thinking about things like brand/team approval, or simply "that jacket is expensive". It's like if they destroy an expensive car in a movie, I start thinking about the cost/logistics rather than staying immersed in the story.

The intention here is about incidental realism and they are not central to the narrative, and I understand that incidental use is generally accepted, whereas larger productions e.g. Netflix series might want to pursue formal product placement arrangements that benefit both sides.

Cost isn't a main factor here as I have a dozen cycling kits and secondhand jackets, and the expense of setting up the SFX is proportionally more than the wardrobe.

Immersiveness - summary	Real team and branded wardrobe	Fictitious team or plain kit and generic clothing
Pros	More authentic and immersive	Cheaper, simpler, fewer clearance concerns
Cons	Can feel wasteful/distracting; team/brand approval may be required	Can look artificial, generic or low budget

So please let me know your thoughts if you think real team kits and branded clothes would feel more authentic or a fictional/generic wardrobe be more preferable, or would the average person not care/notice?

Thanks!

Hello all,

I'm working on an indy project with a decent budget and there's some room for practical effects and stunts. Currently just in the ideas/planning phase.

The idea is use some of my real cycling kits from a local team that I belong to, along with branded outdoor jackets/parkas from e.g. the north face, adidas etc. for scenes with simulated cycling crashes and gunshot wounds.

A "crash" would involve damaging and distressing a few sets of cycling jerseys and bib shorts. A few of them would also need to be wired up with blood squibs, which are pyrotechnic devices hidden in an actor's clothing that blow out a hole and sends stage blood flying out.

I was wondering how the audience would perceive this when the team and brand are real rather than generic costume wardrobe. Personally, I think that it adds realism and authenticity in the same way that real cars/phones etc. do in films. Once you start noticing productions deliberately taping up logos or using obviously generic wardrobe, you can't unsee it and the scene feels too artificial or low budget.

On the other hand, I can also imagine real brands and teams breaking immersion in a different way. Some viewers might see it as wasteful, overindulgent or even disrespectful in violent scenes, even if the story itself is completely fictional. The audience may also stop focusing on the scene itself and instead start thinking about things like brand/team approval, or simply "that jacket is expensive". It's like if they destroy an expensive car in a movie, I start thinking about the cost/logistics rather than staying immersed in the story.

The intention here is about incidental realism and they are not central to the narrative, and I understand that incidental use is generally accepted, whereas larger productions e.g. Netflix series might want to pursue formal product placement arrangements that benefit both sides.

Cost isn't a main factor here as I have a dozen cycling kits and secondhand jackets, and the expense of setting up the SFX is proportionally more than the wardrobe.

Immersiveness - summary	Real team and branded wardrobe	Fictitious team or plain kit and generic clothing
Pros	More authentic and immersive	Cheaper, simpler, fewer clearance concerns
Cons	Can feel wasteful/distracting; team/brand approval may be required	Can look artificial, generic or low budget

So please let me know your thoughts if you think real team kits and branded clothes would feel more authentic or a fictional/generic wardrobe be more preferable?

Thanks