Can someone tell me how they did this

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?
 
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
 
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
 
snowleopard said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top