There's lots of ways you can criticize the "vote different" video,
but I'm surprised you'd go after the technical prowess of the creator.
Yes, it's true that they used a very expensive professional
advertisement as source material. So what?
The real measure of success is whether it gets the message across.
Evidently it does, given the level of attention it's getting.
If you can communicate your message using "found" source material, is
that any less valid than hiring a producer, crew, and editor, and
doing everything from scratch?
Thanks to decades of commercial TV, there's tons of old footage out
there which could be recycled into new products (copyright issues
aside). It's nothing new, and we're only going to see more of it.
-Peter
On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Bill Cammack wrote:
> Don't give too much credit to that "YouTube Video". It's 99% an
> EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE television commercial that ran on-air
> ages ago.
>
> All they did to it was replace the soundtrack with Hillary Clinton
> speaking and superimpose her image on the screen the people were
> watching. Oh. They added some text also. *yawn*.
>
> They're calling this a "mash-up", but it isn't. You could do the same
> thing with a static shot of Prince playing the halftime show @ this
> year's Super Bowl. Find a shot where nothing moves, and there's a
> screen present in the background. Use any editing system that allows
> you to change the location, size, rotation and perspective of the
> video you want to be on the screen to make that video cover exactly
> the location of the screen in the background.
>
> Et Voila... You're on the big screen @ the Super Bowl eating potato
> chips while Prince is in the foreground singing and playing.
>
> PS - Don't forget to remove the image just before the frame of the
> explosion, so it looks like they blew up your actual video.
>
> Technology's advanced a lot since the original commercial was made,
> but at the time, hardware for broadcast quality editing and special
> effects was VEEEERY expensive. If you include building the set,
> hiring the actors, shooting on film (high speed film to get smooth
> slow motion), special effects explosions and lighting effects (make
> the crowd light up as if a screen actually exploded), film to video
> transfer, color timing, messenger fees... oh... it was a commercial,
> so paying the Account Execs, Writers, Art Directors, Supervisors,
> Producers, Editor(s), paying for the Edit Suite @ ~300/hr, Sushi for
> lunch and whatever else I forgot about editing commercials..... It's
> safe to say that that "YouTube Video" cost more to make than most
> people's houses.
>
> Literally.
>
> That's not to say that we can't make good videos with the equipment
> that's available to us, including iMovie and Windows Movie Maker. The
> point is that that particular video was made with minimal effort to
> piggyback on an already successful MSM commercial... similar to MC
> Hammer rapping over already established records like "Super Freak" and
> having that record be a hit.
>
> --
> Bill C.
> http://TheLab.ReelSolid.TV
>
> --- In [email protected], "Aldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Well, the YouTube video, Vote Different, is sure getting a lot of
> > attention. People have talked about how with YouTube, anyone can now
> > make and distribute great videos.
> >
> > I must admit, I think it is an incredible video, but with all of my
> > limited video editing ability, there is no way that I could make
> such
> > video.
> >
> > So, my question to everyone on the list: What sort of tools do you
> > think were used to create the video, (or what tools would you have
> > used?) How do we help others learn to use such tools and be more
> > creative in the videos the produce?
> >
> > Aldon
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
