I have just taken the low quality video from a flip camera and was seeing how interesting I could quickly make it with some inspiration from tilt-shift techniques.
Due to interest in the song in the video, I've put it up on my music MySpace page so that anyone can download or stream it for free. Click here to get it.
Due to interest in the song in the video, I've put it up on my music MySpace page so that anyone can download or stream it for free. Click here to get it.
I just put the song up for free so that anyone can download or stream it.
You can get it on my music MySpace page here:
http://www.myspace.com/reidgershbein
Enjoy!
-REid
Posted by: Reid Gershbein | September 13, 2008 at 01:56 PM
The thing is, (real and fake) tilt-shift blurring creates the illusion of miniatureness only when the subject is planar enough that the focused area is all equidistant from the camera, making it appear that it low depth-of-field is creating the blurriness of near and far objects. Many of these images have areas that are blurry that wouldn't be if it was a miniature scene, and vice versa. If you're going to do computerized blurring, you may as well selectively blur based on distance for the real effect of depth-of-field rather than approximating the effect of tilting a lens, which is itself only an imperfect approximation of the effect you're actually going for.
Posted by: Craig | September 13, 2008 at 01:56 PM
great job -- never would've thought the flip camera could do that. and good choice of subjects, too.
Posted by: maaaty | September 13, 2008 at 09:36 PM
To move the matte points in Final Cut, you can click on the "+"
button to the right of the x and y fields in the filter menu.
Then you can click and drag the point around in the preview
window (which is the right window in the "Standard" window
configuration).
I am a complete and total novice at Final Cut, so someone else
might be able to tell you the specific terms of what I am
trying to describe.
Posted by: Reid Gershbein | September 14, 2008 at 12:02 AM
You got a little lazy at the end, but this was a nice piece of work. Inspiring. Keep it up!
Posted by: Darth Brooks | September 14, 2008 at 09:32 PM
The last 1/4 of the movie shows the original footage so that you can see what it looked like originally. :)
Posted by: Reid Gershbein | September 15, 2008 at 10:31 AM
gaussian blur is not like camera blur. you should use some camera blur plugin. The result is way more realistic. Usually called camera blur or rack defocus.
Posted by: ariel wollinger | September 15, 2008 at 04:11 PM
well, I'm not so sure a "more realistic" result is either needed or intended... to me I felt like I was watching a live lego set or some sort of kids imaginary world... 'realism' is not always the best option. Nice work and thanks for being open with your tips...
I made a film last year about two guys lost in the wilderness, I'm thinking of revisiting the edit and trying some of this to see if it would isolate them even further
Posted by: gtron | September 17, 2008 at 08:35 AM
You absolutely could use a "defocus" or other blur to get a more realistic effect.
For me, it was really an artistic decision to go with the techniques that I used to and exploring different visuals. Just playing around with trying to get things that I liked
the way they looked, regardless of how "realistic" they looked. In fact, I was pushing
beyond realism to get more interesting effects.
Posted by: Reid Gershbein | September 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Have never seen it done on film. Interesting.
The best example in still photography can be
seen here: http://www.claudioedinger.com
Posted by: Ron Koeberer | September 26, 2008 at 01:13 PM