--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Peter Leppik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
:) I didn't criticize the 'technical prowess' of the creator. I didn't say that the person doesn't have any skills. There are lots of talented musicians that release very simple music on their albums, because that's what their audience understands and responds to. That doesn't mean those same musicians don't have the 'technical prowess' to play amazing music. > Yes, it's true that they used a very expensive professional > advertisement as source material. So what? "So What?" is that the original poster asked SPECIFICALLY, and you still have it quoted below in your reply... "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? Therefore... The answer is what I said it is. It's my opinion that professional editing and compositing programs were used to create that video, which at the time probably amounted to over $300,000, including the price at the time for Avid's Media Composer series or Lightworks or whatever else they might have used that was WAY outside the public's ability to purchase. Now... is it possible that they re-created the video themselves? Sure. :) If they did, it's a weak attempt, because you can see Hillary Clinton bouncing all over the place as they attempt to rotoscope her into the monitors that are moving in the shot coming down the hall. If they didn't... All they did was cut and paste some video over an already created video, and to respond to the poster as if they made this thing from scratch with Windows Movie Maker and a few of their friends for not very much money is disingenuous. If you want to see GOOD, DIY Special Effects, watch GALACTICAST! <http://galacticast.com>. There are way more effects in several Galacticast episodes that I've watched that require way more thought, preparation, effort and skill than went into that one commercial "mash up". What would you rather I would have responded with that would have been truthful and wouldn't have seemed like I was attacking someone for doing what it is that I feel that they did? I'm actually interested in what you would have said. > The real measure of success is whether it gets the message across. > Evidently it does, given the level of attention it's getting. Of course it does. That commercial was HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL when it was initially released. The market research is already done. The focus groups have already watched this video, which is why it made it to air. People already acccepted it, what? 20 years ago? and received the message that was in the original video, and they're receiving the message now. That's why I said it was like MC Hammer. If you rhyme over "Super Freak", people are going to like your record... because... they like "Super Freak". It doesn't matter if your rhymes are good or not. Similarly, steal the treatment and shot selection from a well-known and highly-successful commercial, and you'll have..... another highly successful commercial. Just don't try to get credit for it as if you came up with this off the top of your head. AND... Don't advertise to DIY videomakers that what they watched was created from scratch. It gives the wrong impression, AND makes people wonder why they can't get their video to look like "video x", even though they are posting to the same website. Just because it's on YouTube doesn't make it a "YouTube Video". That's why they're getting sued right now. Why don't you tell the poster how he can make a UFC title fight video with his iMovie? :) > 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? No. I said nothing about the effectiveness of the video. I agree with what you said there. However.... Nobody asked about "message communication". Read it again. The poster asked "What sort of tools do you think were used to create the video?" The message was communicated well, and continues to be communicated because it's a news story that people keep bringing up. The fact that they used "found" material is giving the video as much life as the fact that it's about a politician. This is just as good as lite-brites spread out around Boston! :D > 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 And I think that's a good thing. Is that your answer to the poster's question about tools to use to make a video like that??? ???Google??? :D -- Bill C. http://TheLab.ReelSolid.TV > 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 videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Aldon" <ahynes1@> 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] >
