Can someone tell me how they did this

2

24fps4ever

Well-known member
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
Hi,

It's pretty much a 'done in post' job with with remapping of time and blur as Matt said.

Most cool. Really cool.
 
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 **** 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)
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Bayne said:
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.
Click to expand...

exactly my point, if you just randomly remapped time, or made a bunch of jump cuts, it wouldn't sync
 
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.

:)
 
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.
 
You talkin' to me? Sure, you could do that.

Wasn't King Kong done at 16fps? Just curious (not that we're off subject).
 
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 approach here ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top