This post is basically a collection of little updates on different projects I've got on the go.
Megastropulodon, the TV Series version: I've hit writer's block with the first draft for the closing episode. Written a couple of dozen words in the last fortnight, if that. Getting annoying. It's not that I don't know what I want to happen, it's just that it doesn't want to happen on the page.
The Root Hill video: I re-did the intertitle graphics this morning, as I wasn't happy with the way they'd turned out when I did them the first time a few days ago. New version is much better. Video definitely getting there now.
My surreal semi-untitled story about a failed packet-mix salesman: going well, albeit sporadically. Wrote chapters 7 and 8 on Tuesday, which took the word count into five figures. Chapter 8 ends with one of the most random sentences ever - and it's only 3 words long, so its randomness-per-word ratio is through the roof. I do have a plan for how to start Chapter 9, which will make some sense of that random sentence, and I'm looking forward to penning it. Just haven't got round to it yet. I could email you the book so far if you ask nicely =]
Alien President: most of you probably haven't heard of this one yet. Last time I saw Tim, back in October, I asked the random question (probably influenced by sleep deprivation): "What if George Darlan became the next president of the USA?" Darlan, for those not in the know, is a notorious extraterrestrial inventor and self-proclaimed philanthropist, from Tim's webcomic Brothers in Shells. Tim seemed rather taken with the suggestion, and I've started writing a short webcomic series dealing with this bizarre hypothetical scenario. I've finished 8 episodes so far, with scripts written for quite a few more, and I'm planning to start posting the series online next week.
'The Answers': coming along nicely. Will hopefully be on here by the end of the week.
Um... yeah. I think that just about covers everything!
- The Colclough
Showing posts with label VFX. Show all posts
Showing posts with label VFX. Show all posts
Thursday, 2 December 2010
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Dishonest Pixels
Warning: here follows a minor philosophical rambling on the use of video filters, following on from one paragraph of what I wrote on Tuesday.
The issue is this: sometimes, you point your camera at something, and the footage ends up looking quite different to what the human eye perceives, simply by nature of the camera. If you're seeking a verite presentation, then which is the more 'honest' approach in these situations: to leave the footage as is, and claim the moral high ground on the basis that you've left the footage exactly as the camera recorded it, or on the other hand to apply filters to make the video look more like what the human eye would have seen?
An example from my own work: about four years ago, I was making a little promotional video for the art department at my sixth form college, and I ended up filming inside the darkroom, using my camera's night-vision setting. Of course, if you're in a darkroom, the only light available is a dull red, but the camera's night-vision mode rendered the image in that familiar dodgy shade of green. The problem was easily fixed in post by applying a colour filter to turn the image from black-and-green to black-and-red again, successfully emulating the way the darkroom looks to the human eye, and rendering the camera's presence somewhat more transparent.
More recently, in the aforementioned Root Hill 2010 footage, I've adjusted the colour curves for all my glow-in-the-dark passball footage, so that the players and ball stand out better from the black background, and once again I think the altered media looks closer to what I was seeing on the field.
But can I still make the same claims to authenticity if I've tampered with the footage in post-production?
I don't pretend to have a definitive answer to this question. To be entirely honest, I'm not even sure that it matters that much. It's not as if the darkroom or RH footage will ever be used as evidence in a court of law. But Vegas just crashed (I need a RAM upgrade), and I thought I'd come on here and have a little ramble while I wait for it to start up again and reload my project. If I hadn't told you, you'd probably never have known I'd used any filters anyway.
Quick update on the general status of the RH edit (leaving aside the issues of glowball filter ethics): I've now added all of the Box Hill and Concert bits, and made some more progress on the Crawley bowling section. Which leaves me staring down the wrong end of the Pizza Hut footage. Those of you who were there will know what I mean by that (remember the Yorkshire Pizza of Death?). The rest of you should probably... um... yeah. Let's just say some of the Pizza Hut footage is a bit scary... 8p
- The Colclough
The issue is this: sometimes, you point your camera at something, and the footage ends up looking quite different to what the human eye perceives, simply by nature of the camera. If you're seeking a verite presentation, then which is the more 'honest' approach in these situations: to leave the footage as is, and claim the moral high ground on the basis that you've left the footage exactly as the camera recorded it, or on the other hand to apply filters to make the video look more like what the human eye would have seen?
An example from my own work: about four years ago, I was making a little promotional video for the art department at my sixth form college, and I ended up filming inside the darkroom, using my camera's night-vision setting. Of course, if you're in a darkroom, the only light available is a dull red, but the camera's night-vision mode rendered the image in that familiar dodgy shade of green. The problem was easily fixed in post by applying a colour filter to turn the image from black-and-green to black-and-red again, successfully emulating the way the darkroom looks to the human eye, and rendering the camera's presence somewhat more transparent.
More recently, in the aforementioned Root Hill 2010 footage, I've adjusted the colour curves for all my glow-in-the-dark passball footage, so that the players and ball stand out better from the black background, and once again I think the altered media looks closer to what I was seeing on the field.
But can I still make the same claims to authenticity if I've tampered with the footage in post-production?
I don't pretend to have a definitive answer to this question. To be entirely honest, I'm not even sure that it matters that much. It's not as if the darkroom or RH footage will ever be used as evidence in a court of law. But Vegas just crashed (I need a RAM upgrade), and I thought I'd come on here and have a little ramble while I wait for it to start up again and reload my project. If I hadn't told you, you'd probably never have known I'd used any filters anyway.
Quick update on the general status of the RH edit (leaving aside the issues of glowball filter ethics): I've now added all of the Box Hill and Concert bits, and made some more progress on the Crawley bowling section. Which leaves me staring down the wrong end of the Pizza Hut footage. Those of you who were there will know what I mean by that (remember the Yorkshire Pizza of Death?). The rest of you should probably... um... yeah. Let's just say some of the Pizza Hut footage is a bit scary... 8p
- The Colclough
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)