View Full Version : Can someone tell me how they did this
24fps4ever
11-27-2007, 06:03 PM
I am wondered for a long time how the did this effect that starts on second 36
of the video and they keep using that effect all through the video please look close, I know its not a on camera effect but it looks like they messed around with the shutter maybe? so that it skips frames maybe? then the girls moves but her moves look "chopped" love that effect, any ideas anyone? here is the link
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FCpolTnNLAk
24fps4ever
11-27-2007, 07:16 PM
anyone?
Drew Ott
11-27-2007, 07:45 PM
Patience; I watched but didn't know the answer so I didn't respond.
I'm sure many others have done the same. I'll tell you this: it's not one effect. It looks like some weird form of time remapping and bumpy camera work.
Jon Starr
11-27-2007, 08:51 PM
Probably what you say. they have a lot of cam shake, with a lot of frames cut. They prob do things in post, like add random blurs and randomly zoom in and zoom out a touch.
ok, this is just a guess here but it looks to me like a combination of camera shake, diffusion, focus changes and quick jump cuts a few frames apart. Say for example when she is on the couch and she is rolling her head from one side to the other I'm seeing a jump cut in that motion. Again, just a guess. Would like to see what someone with experience has to say.
24fps4ever
11-27-2007, 10:27 PM
yeah me too, this is a very very popular video in mexico right now and when I saw it I was like damn that looks good, I am thinking it was some kind of shutter effect you know like in saving private ryan but I donno
Cheesesailor77
11-27-2007, 11:21 PM
it's called "undercranking"
24fps4ever
11-27-2007, 11:49 PM
are you talking about the framerates like in the hvx... the 60 @24fps
Dick Campbell
11-28-2007, 07:34 AM
almost looks like intentional (well, you hope..) use of autofocus drift.
Matt Grunau
11-28-2007, 10:35 AM
Looks like a Compound Blur with a hell of a lot of jump cuts.
Compound blur is a controlled blur, based of a Luminance map. When used right, the blur can be animated and change positions.
Pretty simple and straight forward.
MikeGunter
11-28-2007, 11:24 AM
Hi,
It's pretty much a 'done in post' job with with remapping of time and blur as Matt said.
Most cool. Really cool.
Cheesesailor77
11-28-2007, 11:45 AM
i still say its simpler then that. I dont think it's remapped in post because she's lipsyncing to it, which means the had to have playback on set. You couldn't just fuck it up in post because it wouldn't match.
Undercrank (with a high shutter speed), smear a little grease on a filter, play around with the focus, and jiggle around the camera (on a tripod)
seems pretty obvious to me
edit: here's a White Stripes video that uses undercranking to similar effect (except with a slower shutter speed and handheld)
Bayne
11-28-2007, 12:19 PM
This was probably done in AE. Selective focus on a mask, and it might have been under cranked as well. You can slow down the playback on set to sync to and then speed it up in post to add the soundtrack to it. So if you slow the speed of the sync music on set to 66% then under crank 66% or so, you can speed it up in post to match the speed of the live music.
Also, say you film the scene a little wide. Then zoom in a little in AE on it and move the picture around in the frame. You would definately want to film in HD so you can keep the resolution. Add selective focus to a mask...some MB stuff and you're good.
Cheesesailor77
11-28-2007, 12:23 PM
You can slow down the playback on set to sync to and then speed it up in post to add the soundtrack to it. So if you slow the speed of the sync music on set to 66% then under crank 66% or so, you can speed it up in post to match the speed of the live music.
exactly my point, if you just randomly remapped time, or made a bunch of jump cuts, it wouldn't sync
24fps4ever
11-28-2007, 01:06 PM
damn thats impressive, do I dare ask if someone has or will try something like this? I would kill to see that, I plan to give it a try but I just dont have time right now, but I am gonna try for sure.
:)
snowleopard
11-28-2007, 02:27 PM
What I'm about to mention isn't it, but I always wanted to try this trick:
Shoot video, anything will work for a test.
In post pull out every other frame, and double the frames left. Not the same as undercranking, but I'm sure you can visualize it.
I wanted to try it to get the King Kong effect, and this post made me think of that.
This video by the way does have the look of selective compound blurring in AE. Plus other cool tricks. Around 1:35 a couple walks away from a couch and that moment looks like obvious undercranking. I'm not into videos, but this one is pretty cool I might say.
Cheesesailor77
11-28-2007, 02:28 PM
why not shoot 12 frames a second and play it back at 12 frames? way easier than removing every other frame by hand.
snowleopard
11-28-2007, 02:32 PM
You talkin' to me? Sure, you could do that.
Wasn't King Kong done at 16fps? Just curious (not that we're off subject).
Cheesesailor77
11-28-2007, 02:36 PM
no idea, but sure, shoot 16fps (i said 12 since 12 is "every other frame" of 24fps)
Karl151k
11-28-2007, 03:46 PM
Couldn't they have done the exact opposite? IE: Shoot at at normal speeds but have the actress move very slowly then speed it back up in post. This would allow the focus puller ample time to get precise marks on the various pulls. All other options listed above are equally viable, but I'm going for an Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor) approach here ;)
Cheesesailor77
11-28-2007, 04:05 PM
i think if you thought that through you would see that your approach would be an extremely odd way to achieve that effect. Definitely not Occam's razor.
Everything you said EXCEPT "shoot at normal speed" is correct though. But instead of shooting 24fps, they might have shot at maybe 18fps, the actress moved slowly, the focus puller had plenty of time to hit marks. then they sped up the 18 frames to 24 frames. That would be undercranking
is this not making sense to people?
24fps4ever
11-28-2007, 04:54 PM
I dont think those blurrs and out of focus shots were done on camera
Cheesesailor77
11-28-2007, 05:18 PM
could be either way, just as easy to do it in camera as in post (although i agree it was probably post)
the original post was about motion, so that's what i was trying to explain
snowleopard
11-29-2007, 02:08 AM
It makes total sense to me. Just exploring other thoughts.
Any thoughts on this Mercury Mariner commercial.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEY99VpT2qY
I find it interesting how the model's movements are jerky and stiff. Done in post? Do they have her move slowly then speed up in post...
I like the effect it produces. Bordering on creepy...
Be well all...Jeffro
William_Robinette
11-29-2007, 11:44 AM
Any thoughts on this Mercury Mariner commercial.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEY99VpT2qY
I find it interesting how the model's movements are jerky and stiff. Done in post? Do they have her move slowly then speed up in post...
I like the effect it produces. Bordering on creepy...
Be well all...Jeffro
Yes yes and yes, I would like to know as well.
Greggl
11-29-2007, 02:34 PM
In post pull out every other frame, and double the frames left. Not the same as undercranking, but I'm sure you can visualize it.
Back in the optical printing days, that was called step printing :) It was
horribly overused by film students as it was the easiest printing effect
to do :) Hehe... all just little bits of history repeating :)
HansK
11-30-2007, 12:38 AM
Might have been a variation of the technique(s) used by Gondry:
http://www.director-file.com/gondry/stones1.html
24fps4ever
12-02-2007, 11:34 PM
i really need to try this I think they are overcrankin and chopping frames
need to experiment
Any thoughts on this Mercury Mariner commercial.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEY99VpT2qY
I find it interesting how the model's movements are jerky and stiff. Done in post? Do they have her move slowly then speed up in post...
I like the effect it produces. Bordering on creepy...
Be well all...Jeffro