News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans. Parent comment

Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by flixic on Thursday November 03, 2011 @07:47PM (#3194240)
Could you explain? Do you suggest using some kind of CG or greenscreen, or what?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by mbreese on Thursday November 03, 2011 @08:02PM (#3194289)
Well, one thing they could have done that wouldn't have changed their stop-motion commitment would have been to use more than a frames worth of jelly beans. Instead they could have made one long movable landscape. Then they could have adjusted the "viewport" by moving the camera or the landscape. As it is, it looks like they moved each "pixel" for each frame.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by prolepunk on Thursday November 03, 2011 @09:03PM (#3194465)
I think that behind the scenes video doesn't give that information. Although they did shot last frame last, they didn't say that they shot them in order.

Also they only shot 2300 whereas the clip at 24 fps would have taken 4920 though the 'real' frame seems to be lower. Finally moving around jelly beans is a lot easier than setting up the scene from scratch, as mentioned, a frame took 5 minutes to 3 hours to setup.

tl dr: I would like to see more technical behind-the-sceens.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by ElevenElOwl on Friday November 04, 2011 @10:22AM (#3196141)
A lot of animation is shot at 12fps and they double each frame. I would imagine that is why there are only 2300. Animation seems to be able to get away with a lot more in terms of persistence of vision than live action can.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by scott_s on Thursday November 03, 2011 @10:18PM (#3194683)
they didn't say that they shot them in order.

She implied it when she said that after every day, they could see the progression up until that point.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by bch on Friday November 04, 2011 @12:22AM (#3194922)
They _could_ have inserted out-of-order frames as they were completed, and she could have been commenting on witnessing the video moving from flat vector gfx to jelly bean gfx.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by scott_s on Friday November 04, 2011 @12:52AM (#3194979)
They could have, but I have a feeling they didn't. There's also the fact that in the last frame they shot, she's wearing the space suit that is, in fact, what she's wearing at the end of the video.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by cfn on Friday November 04, 2011 @05:11AM (#3195424)
They did. If you watch the second video (the making of) they commemorate the last "Kina shot" where she is dressed as an astronaut which does not match the last sequence with her of the movie.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by wlievens on Friday November 04, 2011 @04:39AM (#3195366)
That's a rather vague allusion to draw such a strong conclusion.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by shin_lao on Friday November 04, 2011 @04:37AM (#3195359)
The clip is obviously not at 24 fps, it's too choppy for that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by cfn on Friday November 04, 2011 @05:09AM (#3195419)
Most animation films are not shot at 24 fps, many go as low as 12fps to save time and money.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by rorrr on Thursday November 03, 2011 @10:03PM (#3194645)
They recorded the girl with green screen. Why not use these frames instead of placing her on top of glass and spending minutes per frame trying to replicate that same shot?

And yes, they could've have created a simple animation (which they did anyway), and then convert it to jelly beans with a relatively simple code in Processing.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by ugh on Thursday November 03, 2011 @10:36PM (#3194728)
This video would be pretty uninteresting had they used artificial jelly beans. I think everyone is aware that it’s trivial to convert a simple animation to a jelly bean animation. That’s not the point. Art works by different rules. (Hey, and if you like to be a cynic about it you can also say that viral videos work by different rules. OK Go owes their fame to never taking shortcuts when creating their music videos†.)

(I think that placing the singer directly on the jelly beans allowed them to do certain tricks that would be harder to accomplish otherwise: pay attention to the lighting or the costume changes. It’s not clear to me whether using a green screen would really have saved time.)

—

† One example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qybUFnY7Y8w

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by hessenwolf on Friday November 04, 2011 @08:16AM (#3195740)
'Art works by different rules' is such a cop out for hippies to excuse time-wasting. What added wealth to the world is created by doing it the hard way?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by JonnieCache on Saturday November 05, 2011 @08:27AM (#3199594)
The day which we are all yoked to the silicon valley drive towards ultimate productivity and the whole of society is locked in one wild-eyed, redbull swigging death march towards launching their amazing consumer products unto each other is the day I slit my throat live on TV. As I slump, bubbling and frothing to the floor of the reality tv startup contest studio, the terrified panic on the faces of the VC judges shall serve as an incoherent and meaningless howl into the void of endless efficiency and unlimited, exponential, never-ending, self-justifying wealth-creation. My own futile demise shall be my ultimate MVP.

What is wrong with these people who think that the world would be a better place if everyone was exactly like them? There seems to be an increasing concentration of them here.

There is more than one kind of wealth in the world.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by Aylw on Friday November 04, 2011 @09:46AM (#3196009)
With modern day technology, shooting a ball in a hoop consistently or building a pyramid is easy. So why are Pro Sports and the Pyramids so amazing? Because they did it the hard way. I guess they could achieve the same thing if they lied, but if someone finds out, you are sol. See: Milli Vanilli
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by scott_s on Thursday November 03, 2011 @10:17PM (#3194677)
I think that for them, the art was in the physicality of it. For them, how they did it mattered.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stop motion video shot over 2 years with 288,000 jelly beans by ticks on Friday November 04, 2011 @01:57AM (#3195107)
That's how I assumed it was made until I saw the behind-the-scenes video, i.e. a production company makes a generic video that takes several months to complete. They then pitch it to a music label for some up-and-coming artist who is added to the video (using some sort of low frame rate effect in front of a projector or green screen).
[ Parent | on HN ]