How did they do this? (Commercial)

[Tim Milgram]

I just came across this commercial/promo video and I really love the style of it... now I'm just trying to piece it apart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaSeDVDTYeg

It looks like they had the camera on some kind of automated crane system that repeats the same sequence of movements identically every time. This still doesn't solve the question in my mind about the ridiculous amount of rotoscoping work one would have to do for the moments where she has multiples of herself on screen walking in front of one another. I don't think any of this was green-screen so I can't come to any other conclusion.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this. Can anyone chime in?

 

[Bob Gundu]

Definitely motion controlled. But there's not much rotoscoping work. She only crossed over herself twice.

 

[Jason Diamond]

seems like a motion control shoot with multi passes. when shes in front of multiples they could easily do a quick floppy green screen behind her since she'd be in the foreground anyway and another matched pass would be the BG. not a hard spot just executed beautifully and designed really well.

 

[Dominik Muench]

Bob and Jason mentioned it already....you can find a similar concept here done with one of the cutest Australians there is

 

[Justin McAleece]

This comes down to the "Gondry did it!" sort of rule of our business

 

[Tim Milgram]

Definitely motion controlled. But there's not much rotoscoping work. She only crossed over herself twice.

I actually counted 5, not including the desks overlapping (not sure if they had multiple desks or just one which they moved (which would be harder).

I think the green screen concept is starting to make sense. A lot easier than rotoscoping but still a pretty "fun" time editing that, I'm sure.

 

[Cliff Hokanson]

Yea Motion control and nice work blending the shadows

 

[Vince Knight]

Triplets and they keep running behind the camera! lol.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Definitely motion controlled. But there's not much rotoscoping work. She only crossed over herself twice.

I counted 5 times. You probably missed the two times she was further away in the background.

Not that it matters, I bet it took longer to block everything out so she wouldn't cross over herself too many times than it did to do the roto work. To me it felt very restricted, inorganic, boring in the mostly empty set.

Kylie's MoCo video is much more interesting. Of course, it probably had a real budget, among other thing… http://vimeo.com/48948064


…Oh, I guess I should read the thread. It's already been pointed out.

 

[Craig Parkes]

With the camera's range of movement this coukd be multiple bits of kit, but I suspect it was possibly the techno dolly.

 

[Lakis Amarantithis]

I just came across this commercial/promo video and I really love the style of it... now I'm just trying to piece it apart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaSeDVDTYeg

It looks like they had the camera on some kind of automated crane system that repeats the same sequence of movements identically every time. This still doesn't solve the question in my mind about the ridiculous amount of rotoscoping work one would have to do for the moments where she has multiples of herself on screen walking in front of one another. I don't think any of this was green-screen so I can't come to any other conclusion.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this. Can anyone chime in?

It can be done with matchmoving sofware. I did this few days ago: http://red.3dmovies.com/a-natural-giant-bfly-video_e1507a6d4.html

the butterfly is 3D but you can put real people as many as you want there, not only walking but flying, lions, dogs, as many as you like and anything you like.

Done it in 3D also, more tricky but works awesome! As you see in the butterfly the distortion of the 11mm Tokina is also matched in the 3d model.