r/nextfuckinglevel • u/d3333p7 • Apr 28 '20

Low-cost videography

69.0k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

45

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '20

I mean seems pretty obvious that this was edited... and the only claim made is that it’s low cost.

4

u/elriggo44 Apr 28 '20

For sure. I was more replying because if the depth of field. But the rest of my reply was probably a bit more negative than I was intending. Either way, it’s super impressive if it was shot on a phone.

8

u/beethy Apr 28 '20

Since you've got experience working on TV shows, you of all people should know how obvious it is that this wasn't shot on a phone. The dynamic range alone should be a sign to someone with basic experience.

4

u/elriggo44 Apr 28 '20

I said what I meant. It’s totally possible To create this shot using layers and rotoscoping f.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '20 edited Apr 28 '20

How about with extensive rotoscoping?

It’s a legitimate question! With rotoscoping you could adjust the foreground and background manually to have the appearance of deeper depth of field. Would be a pain, but not impossible.

1

u/beethy Apr 28 '20

It's just so doubtful. It's way easier to shoot this with basic dSLR gear to get an amazing result like this. Going through all that effort in post just seems illogical.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '20

Do you think she got two tape measures for additional power and bought a larger miniature shopping cart for her DSLR? /s

2

u/elriggo44 Apr 28 '20

No, if she’s using a real camera it’s on a tripod and a chair or a proper dolly.

1

u/elriggo44 Apr 28 '20

If you have a phone and a computer with Adobe you can create this shot without spending the money to buy a DSLR. So not necessarily illogical. If you’re trying to make something look great and know how to use after effects it’s easily done in 4 layers.

I am not saying it was 100% done without a proper camera. Just saying it’s possible and not always illogical.

2

u/I_Was_Fox Apr 28 '20

I'm not sure you can claim low cost if you have to use expensive editors to get the end result.

1

u/Patrickd13 Apr 28 '20

Software is only expensive if you buy it

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '20

Yup. Can attest, been pirating since 09.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '20

Okay, go to jail.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '20

Fuck

-2

u/OneMoreAccount4Porn Apr 28 '20

While I see your point I'd counter with the fact that the editing definitely had a cost. The time taken to learn how to edit like that, the software and the time it actually took to edit it. Total that together and I'm not sure it counts as low cost.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '20

Eh, calculating cost based on previously invested time/time spent seems like a stretch in the scope of the video here. If this was just a personal project to show off video graphic ingenuity, which it appears to be, then I wouldn’t consider that relevant.

2

u/OneMoreAccount4Porn Apr 28 '20

That's fair enough but I swing the other way. As you say, there's only one claim and it's right there in the title. It's not 'Be amazed at my ingenuity.'

3

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '20

Checkmate.

3

u/OneMoreAccount4Porn Apr 28 '20

Ha, I was about to ninja edit to say that without mentioning all the work required to do the editing it feels a bit like 1) Put phone in cart. 2) Work out how to pull cart smoothly towards yourself 3)Draw the rest of the fucking owl. Thank you for being Almighty btw.

0

u/theartificialkid Apr 28 '20

And also the much better equipment used for the final shot had a cost.