Forums » Off-Topic
Practice your aim
I don't know if it has already been posted here. If it has been, apologies. Otherwise, enjoy.
Auto-aim Off
Auto-aim Off 2
Auto-aim Off
Auto-aim Off 2
Very nice find :)
Cool, i bet that one bouncing off the opening door in episode 2 took a fair bit of practice.
Er..it doesn't look real to me. At first it did, but then I stated watching the can rather than the action. The physics are sometimes wrong, the can is often too bright, and in some cases the lighting does not correspond with the scene. Don't be fooled by trash appearing to move when the can lands, people appearing to react to the can bouncing near them, and other easy to rig tricks.
maybe its being played backwards, and they use some sort of very thin string to pull the can...
Perhaps, but I think the can looks post-production in some shots. Many of the French comments indicate suspicion of fakery.
What french comments?
Most simply point out the obvious, like a can bouncing off glass wall of a bus stop behind wich the camera lies and stuff like that.
They discuss the overly-paranoid-OMGIT'SFAKE type of people because they can't do better.
This kind of art (should we call it art) is nothing new. A lot of people actually spend their time bouncing off ping pong balls to land them in glasses. Others like to run around in city blocks bouncing off fences, walls and what-have-you for the sheer pleasure of the acrobatic exercise.
Nothing in these videos indicate trickery. Just a lot of practice, and a lot of unseen failed attempts.
If anything, some of the cans seem to have added weight.
There's the making of, if you wish, as seen through a french documentary (news spot) on them.
You can see how they do it, and some failed takes. It shows how they add weight sometimes to make the can go further.
Most simply point out the obvious, like a can bouncing off glass wall of a bus stop behind wich the camera lies and stuff like that.
They discuss the overly-paranoid-OMGIT'SFAKE type of people because they can't do better.
This kind of art (should we call it art) is nothing new. A lot of people actually spend their time bouncing off ping pong balls to land them in glasses. Others like to run around in city blocks bouncing off fences, walls and what-have-you for the sheer pleasure of the acrobatic exercise.
Nothing in these videos indicate trickery. Just a lot of practice, and a lot of unseen failed attempts.
If anything, some of the cans seem to have added weight.
There's the making of, if you wish, as seen through a french documentary (news spot) on them.
You can see how they do it, and some failed takes. It shows how they add weight sometimes to make the can go further.
The weight would certainly explain the weird flight characteristics and that objects struck by the can move considerably more than they should if they were struck by an empty can.
However, most of the newstory footage was excerpted from the scenes already prepared for YouTube, and I would not be suprised if the few other scenes were supplied by the guys as well. If you are able to CGI a can going into a bin, you can CGI a can missing, or simply miss with a real can.
However, most of the newstory footage was excerpted from the scenes already prepared for YouTube, and I would not be suprised if the few other scenes were supplied by the guys as well. If you are able to CGI a can going into a bin, you can CGI a can missing, or simply miss with a real can.
A lot of people actually spend their time bouncing off ping pong balls to land them in glasses.
(or quarters)
(or quarters)
You mean to tell me, Whistler, that it's impossible to throw a can into a bin 20 feet away without resorting to complex CGI?
Geez. If you can't land a can within 20 tries, it would be lame.
Now put it all on tape, cut the failed ones and you got yourself a nifty vid. What's so hard about that? Certainly feels a lot simpler to me than faking it through CGI.
Geez. If you can't land a can within 20 tries, it would be lame.
Now put it all on tape, cut the failed ones and you got yourself a nifty vid. What's so hard about that? Certainly feels a lot simpler to me than faking it through CGI.
I agree with Whistler. It's not that it's impossible to do these scenes, it's just that they look fake. The can physics seem jerky and tacked on when I watch it, and the lighting seems wrong for a few scenes. Some of the scenes just look completely wrong and unnatural(physics and lighting-wise) to me.
It's certainly easier and less time consuming to splice a CG can into a scene rather than spend the time practicing until the shot is perfect.
It's certainly easier and less time consuming to splice a CG can into a scene rather than spend the time practicing until the shot is perfect.
well, the added weight would explain some of the abnormal trajectory....An empty alluminum can cant fly like that.
uc: I told you nothing of the sort.
I believe that it is possible for them to have attempted those shots over and over, choreographing each one carefully in hopes of making it. They may even have done so with some of the shots. I'm saying that it is evident to me that some of the scenes are doctored.
Could they have made all of those shots after many attempts? Sure, why not? Did they? I don't think so. The trajectory of the cans, the odd motion of things that the cans hit, the lighting / coloring / relative size and focus of the can in some scenes is not consistent with undoctored footage.
Lastly, it stinks of being a viral ad for Coke products.
I believe that it is possible for them to have attempted those shots over and over, choreographing each one carefully in hopes of making it. They may even have done so with some of the shots. I'm saying that it is evident to me that some of the scenes are doctored.
Could they have made all of those shots after many attempts? Sure, why not? Did they? I don't think so. The trajectory of the cans, the odd motion of things that the cans hit, the lighting / coloring / relative size and focus of the can in some scenes is not consistent with undoctored footage.
Lastly, it stinks of being a viral ad for Coke products.
Why not try to just enjoy the vid?
I didn't say I didn't. I enjoyed their clever trickery.
Just admit the French can aim! =P Thierry Henry and Tony Parker ftw!!
If you watch the reporting linked by UC, you will see that:
- For short shots, they use empty cans and for long ones, they put gravel in the cans to add some weight.
- They shoot their movies with a basic digital camera.
Of course you may have doubts and suspect any kind of trickery (after all you can still find some people thinking the pictures of Armstrong on the Moon are fake :P). But perhaps you could throw a can with gravel inside before elaborating about their trajectory. As regards lighting, you may also shoot a similar event in similar conditions (outdoor, urban background, sunny lighting, basic digital camera) and see the outcome before wondering about CGI. Metal cans tend to reflect more light than concrete, trees or asphalt.
If you watch the reporting linked by UC, you will see that:
- For short shots, they use empty cans and for long ones, they put gravel in the cans to add some weight.
- They shoot their movies with a basic digital camera.
Of course you may have doubts and suspect any kind of trickery (after all you can still find some people thinking the pictures of Armstrong on the Moon are fake :P). But perhaps you could throw a can with gravel inside before elaborating about their trajectory. As regards lighting, you may also shoot a similar event in similar conditions (outdoor, urban background, sunny lighting, basic digital camera) and see the outcome before wondering about CGI. Metal cans tend to reflect more light than concrete, trees or asphalt.
I worked for a few years in the movie special-effects industry and I have an awareness of how things look on film and video. Much of my work involved making things that were to be filmed live in production appear real to the audience. It's amazing how fake reality can appear on film - and video in particular. That said, some of the "can's professional" scenes simply don't hold up to scrutiny. They're quite clever, nonetheless.
Isn't it interesting that the video is associated with New Line Cinema? and AOL / Time-Warner? Why is that? What is their role in producing this apparently dirt-cheap video? New Line Cinema has been involved in a number of viral ads. Coca-Cola has expressed interest in viral marketting. Coincidence? Maybe...
One thing that isn't clever, if true, is using gravel for ballast. If you want to make a perfect shot and know that it will take multiple trials, you don't add a variable like shifting gravel ballast. You'd dribble in some epoxy to add weight in the bottom (I've actually done this) so that the variable of shifting ballast is removed. Shooting outdoors offers enough changing variables as it is (wind, lighting, gawkers, unwanted sound, etc.) without adding more.
I'm not going to put a great deal of effort into dissecting each scene or doing screenies -the evidence that some scenes are not what they seem is there for all to see (and I'm not talking about the "it bounces off nothing" argument, which is clearly silly). There's really no point in arguing about it further unless somebody else takes it apart or new, raw footage appears - so I won't.
Isn't it interesting that the video is associated with New Line Cinema? and AOL / Time-Warner? Why is that? What is their role in producing this apparently dirt-cheap video? New Line Cinema has been involved in a number of viral ads. Coca-Cola has expressed interest in viral marketting. Coincidence? Maybe...
One thing that isn't clever, if true, is using gravel for ballast. If you want to make a perfect shot and know that it will take multiple trials, you don't add a variable like shifting gravel ballast. You'd dribble in some epoxy to add weight in the bottom (I've actually done this) so that the variable of shifting ballast is removed. Shooting outdoors offers enough changing variables as it is (wind, lighting, gawkers, unwanted sound, etc.) without adding more.
I'm not going to put a great deal of effort into dissecting each scene or doing screenies -the evidence that some scenes are not what they seem is there for all to see (and I'm not talking about the "it bounces off nothing" argument, which is clearly silly). There's really no point in arguing about it further unless somebody else takes it apart or new, raw footage appears - so I won't.
Ok two things I want to add to this debate:
1. Scuba suggests that it might perhaps be less time consuming to create the scenes in CG. I would argue that this isn't necessarily true when one considers the tasks involved in creating and comping one of these shots.
a. Shoot the original plates (video of characters pretending to throw cans).
b. Model the cans (admittedly not an arduous task)
c. Texture the cans (again, quick job).
d. Light the cans (might be a quick job if they had knowledge of and access to HDR technology, otherwise this can be a time consuming job).
e. tracking, rotoscoping, and comping the shot together.
2. And this relates to 1. I find it very interesting nowadays, with CG technology and skill getting so good, that I often do double takes with REAL stuff, thinking that it looks CG'd. CG has become so hyper real, that it often looks more real than reality itself, and may or may not be conditioning peoples senses to expect such hyper realism from reality.
Anyway, I don't personally think that CG'ing those shots would be less time consuming than simply practicing and shooting. I'm definately not saying it isn't CG; if Coke was behind this, then they would have an army of little Maya Monkeys to bang these shots out production line style.
1. Scuba suggests that it might perhaps be less time consuming to create the scenes in CG. I would argue that this isn't necessarily true when one considers the tasks involved in creating and comping one of these shots.
a. Shoot the original plates (video of characters pretending to throw cans).
b. Model the cans (admittedly not an arduous task)
c. Texture the cans (again, quick job).
d. Light the cans (might be a quick job if they had knowledge of and access to HDR technology, otherwise this can be a time consuming job).
e. tracking, rotoscoping, and comping the shot together.
2. And this relates to 1. I find it very interesting nowadays, with CG technology and skill getting so good, that I often do double takes with REAL stuff, thinking that it looks CG'd. CG has become so hyper real, that it often looks more real than reality itself, and may or may not be conditioning peoples senses to expect such hyper realism from reality.
Anyway, I don't personally think that CG'ing those shots would be less time consuming than simply practicing and shooting. I'm definately not saying it isn't CG; if Coke was behind this, then they would have an army of little Maya Monkeys to bang these shots out production line style.
you either have no sense of humour, whislter, or didn't bother reading the disclaimer at the begining (i suppose option 2)..
the opening titles for newline etc is a joke. if you just read the disclaimer (which is in french) you'd realize it instantly.
anyhow. yeah, i suppose we never landed on the moon either.
the opening titles for newline etc is a joke. if you just read the disclaimer (which is in french) you'd realize it instantly.
anyhow. yeah, i suppose we never landed on the moon either.
Nope, didn't read the disclaimer. At least, I didn't note anything that mentioned New Line. I'll have to look at that.
/edit: ....unless French has changes since I was in highschool, it's just a joke disclaimer as I thought. That does not negate a relationship with New Line.
You can believe whatever you like. I'm done here.
/edit: ....unless French has changes since I was in highschool, it's just a joke disclaimer as I thought. That does not negate a relationship with New Line.
You can believe whatever you like. I'm done here.