trends

Steve_Arm said:
They might be in a zero gravity green room also. It is really hard to key them in a pool, even if swimming the will be bubbles and the caustices are hard to erase.
Click to expand...

Maybe a few other times. But for that water commercial, you clearly see the water on them. I noticed in the video that none of them had their mouths open, so they most likely just held in all air.
If you come across the commercial, you'll see what im talkin about. Btw, i would think a zero gravity room would cost wayyy to much than jus going to a pool and keying it out.
 
blckhawk542 said:
Maybe a few other times. But for that water commercial, you clearly see the water on them. I noticed in the video that none of them had their mouths open, so they most likely just held in all air.
If you come across the commercial, you'll see what im talkin about. Btw, i would think a zero gravity room would cost wayyy to much than jus going to a pool and keying it out.
Click to expand...

Chris Cunningham did a video like this for Portishead years back...he had the talent underwater and I think they just erased the bubbles out...here is a quote I found on the video:

As a result, Cunningham created a scenario in which Portishead singer Beth Gibbons and a teenage boy float just above the ground in a dark alley while mysterious men view them from high above. The artists spent days in large water tanks during the shoot, while Gibbons was required to sing underwater. The resulting sense of suspended animation and the subtly floating forms not only reflect the nuances of the track but also support repeated viewing.
"The idea of shooting underwater was to create a feeling. You're not really supposed to figure it out," says Cunningham, who worked hard in post production to remove all tell-tale signs such as air bubbles.
Click to expand...


And here is a YouTube link, only one I could find...sorry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60rjCC2kr44&feature=PlayList&p=91C51DE69A06ED31&index=11
 
Don't forget vector flourishes, random oddities like Deer heads, kaleidascope effects, and text at a 45 degree angle.

Hey, if the client thinks it's cool, then mission accomplished. BUT, like Gretsky said "I don't follow the puck, I go where the puck is going to be."
 
so let's see 2006(my opninion):
-over saturation is going out, but overbrightness is coming in
-slow-mo is not used so many times as before (ie:2004)
-there are more 'n' more lomo treatments, 3d strokes
-there was a quick flash of the hype williams look
-I haven't seen so many complex effects as before
-lens flare has reached the status, when there are too many on a picture, so that is not enjoyable
-and the camera movements are unstable, the picture is out of focus for short periods of frames, and it looks like a home video. (juck)
that is all what I see now.
-oh and too many overexposed shots :S
-and mixing 16:9 with 4:3 ar. in the same film...
 
surf said:
-lens flare has reached the status, when there are too many on a picture, so that is not enjoyable
Click to expand...
I can't believe they use lens flares in this decade.
surf said:
-and the camera movements are unstable, the picture is out of focus for short periods of frames, and it looks like a home video. (juck)
Click to expand...
Word! What crosses their mind when they do this out of focus thing... so unprofessional. It looks like an error and that they didn't had time to run a 2nd shot... heh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top