Yup, and Honda themselves admitted that it was multiple takes joined together. Which doesn’t really lend much support to the claim that PR people will lie about things like this.
I can’t quite picture why there would be a force towards the front of the plane in that, or any scenario, but still, even if there was it could be in a part that was edited out. They freely admit that the video is edited. It was, what 21 takes, each 45 minutes long and they edited together the parts they liked (mostly the weightless parts). Not so much the parts where they were glued to their seats.
But, I’d like to reiterate that coremelt now thinks this is fake because there’s no blooper reel. This, IMO, isn’t someone you want to be in an argument with.
If i get your original objection, it’s that at some point the plane is nose down (relative to the horizon) but no longer zero G, and that therefore the balls should roll forward, down this incline. But that’s just not how the forces add up.
You’re right, he did say that. In fact, the fact that ‘that’s just not how the forces add up’ is, literally, why that plane exists. When the plane falls, everything in it falls at about the same speed *relative[i/] to the plane. This is what gives the people/objects in plane the “feeling” of weightlessness (really, it’s just free falling).
His other objection, that I already covered, is that the objects don’t roll to the back when the plane begins climbing, but they do, you just have to watch carefully because a lot of them get hung up on chairs and stuff so they look like they’re not moving, but really they’re just stuck. Actually, it’s the same reason the people don’t fall to the back of the plane while it’s climbing.
Actually, it’s the same reason regular people in a regular plane (or bus or car for that matter) don’t fall to the back.
I was wrong, turns out you can’t just go by the # views on one YouTube video. The Facebook page of this video has 25 million views so far. At this rate, it’ll probably get more views than a Superbowl commercial, which is only 30 seconds long and costs $4.5 million to air.
How very oddly ironic.
I think I see what you mean. So the balls should move toward the floor and then toward the back, but would never move to the front.
Something I noticed after repeated viewings. (Call me a pervert if you want)
At 1:40, the hostesses come out of their spin routine and take standing positions.
At 1:44-45, you can see the breasts on the nearer lady shift upwards as gravity lessens. It’s a very subtle shift but it’s clearly not the whole jacket shifting.
Easier to see in HD and full screen.
If a little imperfection would help convince someone that CGI was real, it would be easy to insert that.
But I’m definitely in the “It’s real” camp on this one.
Ask, and ye shall receive the blooper reel
By the way, there are many points when you can see the balls sitting on chairs float up slightly. At about 2:36 you can see the balls on the lefthand side, obscured by the baseball cap wearing guy’s right hand, float up.
While I think you are incorrect in your assessment of the physics involved (The plane is always moving forwards, so why would the balls move in the direction of travel?), I can also think of one other reason the balls tend to stay toward the back of the plane: the floor doesn’t have to be level. If the floor is angled from front to back, balls would be more likely to stay in place because the force wouldn’t be enough to have them roll uphill.
I really don’t for the life of me understand why this is hard to believe. It’d be no less trouble to have faked it than it would be to do the real thing, and if you’re OK Go and have a choice, wouldn’t you RATHER do the real thing?
Riiiiiight. All in the name of science. It’s a tough job but somebody’s got to do it!
So many pixels askew! Their CGI man needs some pointers.
Cool video and I think it really was shot in a vomit comet. Only 58 puke events to make that video.
The Bad Astronomer has more details on how it was filmed here. As already noted, it is a single continuous take, but with the “weightful” parts edited out.
Sorry, looks my link was already posted
Brian
This is a weird thread. The idea that you could do all this with CGI and wires, with all those different colors of liquid moving in zero G, staining and wetting surfaces in a way that looks real for cheaper than suitcases of rubber balls, a few balloons filled with paint, and flying a smallish cargo plane up and down for an hour or two is just absurd.
There are plenty of multi-million dollar films that try to use CGI for things like blood spatter. Each spatter only has to be on screen for a few seconds or less, and it still looks horrendously fake.
The movie Gravity cost $100 million and used groundbreaking techniques to film apparent microgravity, but there are plenty of places where it just doesn’t look quite right.
Watching the OK Go video, you can clearly see places where the apparent gravity changes on them. It looks just like it should in a plane that’s going up and down.
I’m seriously doubting the OP’s own knowledge of his claimed industry.
If it’s fake, there’s some admirable attention to detail, for instance in the “Making of” video where you can see the anti-nausea patch behind the singer’s left ear (it looks like a small round Band-Aid).