Hey guys did you know that zero gravity flight is called a vomit comet? Ha ha ha ha. Vomit comet. Let’s see how many times I can call it that in one post to show how familiar I am with the jargon.
Indeed. And whenever they mention the “one take” they do indeed asterisk it with a footnote saying they cut out the quiet bits. They’re quite upfront about it.
I can tell by some of the pukes that it’s not a real vomit comet, and I’ve seen quite a few pukes in my time.
No it doesn’t. It says the result is the result of 8 periods of weightlessness. Each complete run through took 45 minutes including waiting for the plane to go weightless. They don’t tell you the total number of takes they did, only 21 flights total. Anyone who has actually been involved in a shoot like this (hand ups up anyone else here at all? ) would know the enormous pressure they would have been under to complete it as quickly and cheaply as possible. Even huge stars get pressured by producers to “fix it in post” and OK GO are not huge stars on the level of U2, Michael Jackson, Kanye West etc.
Let me guess, you’re one of those kooks who think the world is round, right?
*[sup]Yes, yes, I know an it’s an oblate spheroid…[/sup]
From the FAQ page you linked to.
You’re moving the goalposts. Working quickly and fixing it in post are a far cry from “its all CG cuz I can see the artifacts in the pixels”.
Yes, after I saw the behind the scenes photos I admitted they used the IL76, thats called “changing your mind due to new evidence”.
Every time your accusation has been refuted, you’ve come back with a new accusation. That is a clear case of moving the goalposts.
Not really, I’m not demanding any higher standard of evidence, I’m making a weaker claim. I’ve been a visual effects supervisor on similar projects and you always use whatever tricks you have access to, to deliver the result. Then you can make up whatever story you want for behind the scenes.
In this case I think the balls and disco balls are CGI, the paint dye balloons are real, paper from the Pinatas probably CGI, it would float everywhere due to the planes air system and be impossible to gather up neatly. The people are real and really floating, laptops are real. I’m sure there is a lot more masking and combining of multiple takes than they admit to, other people have pointed out that some people seem to be experiencing different gravity at the same time a few places throughout the video.
Anyway I’m done.
What the fuck is “the planes air system”?
Like the God of the gaps eh? You start by asserting its all CGI then as more and more evidence is presented your claim of CGI reduces to cover the remaining gaps in your understanding of the shoot.
using CGI to cover gaps in whats possible with practical effects is exactly the point of CGI. It’s to enhance the possible with the impossible, or to make something thats possible with practical effects but absurdly expensive much cheaper to shoot.
Is removing “dead” space (when they pause in their actions) - considered CGI?
You’ve been a visual effects designer on projects that have used visual effects. Given that this project didn’t use visual effects other than morphing between weightless segments, what makes you think this shoot was in anyway similar to the shoots you’ve done? What makes you think your expertise is relevant?
Just because your solution to a shoot like this is to make heavy use of effects, doesn’t mean that was the solution they used. Especially when they are shooting for a group who make a point of not using effects.
The band has made a point of saying how it was done, they shoot continuous takes, why would they just scrap what they have established and go “yeah, let’s just lie about how we did this and just CGI it. Totally easier.”
From what i understand, NONE of their videos have been “easy.” Why would they change that now?
Its a grey area since they didn’t just literally cut out frames, they had to do morphing to seamlessly join together the slightly different positions. No one can hold absolutely still for five minutes while going from zero G to 2G and back to zero G. Sure they admit to that.
However if you’re using that technique anyway, and the actors have marks to go back to when they freeze, its trivially easy to combine bits from different takes instead.
Because of the cost and time pressure. I also know that lying about how things were achieved is common, because I’ve been on multiple projects where that was done. I can’t prove it, but if you speak to other people in visual effects they’ll tell you the same thing. Its common for directors to try and emphasise how much is in camera and downplay the hard work of the visual effects teams, because they think that sells more tickets.
How do you explain the fact that the balls and other stuff wouldn’t be in the same place in different takes?
But that’s not my point. My point is that you attribute CGI to any bit you don’t understand. As faults in your understanding are pointed out you withdraw your CGI claims. Has it occurred to you that it is just what they’ve said it is? And that any gaps between what they say happened and what you think happened are down to gaps in your understanding rather than them lying. We have already demonstrated that you have gaps in your understanding while you have failed to produce any evidence that they have lied.
All that stuff would be CGI except the liquid dye. Theres a reason they used the balloon liquid dye last. And yes Mr Pearse, I can’t prove it, all I can do is point out that its common practise and it would have saved a huge amount of money to cheat.