how to approach this

[Tony Kloiber]

Yes. Composite a very large check in someone’s hand for… lots of actors, wardrobe, sets, props, very large studio, elaborate camera move and lots of time for lots of takes.

TonyTony

[Chris Smith]

I don’t think there is a lick of a composite at all. It would blow the spirit of what they are trying to do. Great idea! If it’s not Michael Gondry, it sure seems like it’s his work.

I see it’s a British site, hopefully they didn’t have to use the UK version of SAG. The residuals on airing that would be huge! Unless they can get away with everyone considered as extras and not principals.

Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com

[Nicholas Toth]

I was thinking just a clean plate and portable green screens with a controlled camera….so you could just key/layer/key/layer/key/layer
Looks damn good though.

[Lars Bunch]

Hi,

I have no experience at this kind of elaborate production so the following are just random guesses of how I would start to tackle the problem;

It seems you could do this by using an array of still cameras positioned along the camera track, thereby capturing a freeze frame of every moment in the sequence from every camera position. One pass is made with no actors on the set so you get a clean plate of the set upon which to composite the actors. In the second pass, you cover everything with greenscreen material and shoot the actors moving naturally. You can then sequence the material into motion footage and key out the actors so that you can place them into the clean set compositing successive freeze frames on top of previous ones.

The bird is probably CG. The first freeze frame and the last freeze frames are, of course, shot with a motion picture camera.

While conceptually pretty simple, the execution requires a great deal of planning. I would prefer to use digital cameras in the array so that a system could be arranged to be able to view the motion version of the action on set. This would also reduce the problem of having the scan each frame and then align them properly.

If you look at the camera move carefully, you’ll notice that, until the final part of the move, it never turns so that you could see the “dolly” track. This ends up requiring a move that looks a bit like a long trucking shot, but is a lot simpler than trying to clean up the cameras that are in frame. This suggests that it was shot rather than created in CG. Obviously you would have to clean up the left part of the frame at the end of the shot, but you’ll notice there are no moving people on the left. The set extension was probably built in CG and tracked using data from the camera rig.

In order to plan the move, I would want to pre-visualize it in 3D animation and use the motion path of the CG camera as a basis for the rigging upon which the still cameras would be mounted.

But another approach is to use extremely high quality digital actors and motion capture. But my guess is it was shot with real actors.

I guess it all depends on whether you prefer film set headaches or computer graphic headaches.

Lars

[Kevin Mcquade]

oh my

[Sean Corcoran]

[Lars Bunch] “I guess it all depends on whether you prefer film set headaches or computer graphic headaches.”

Well put.

[Lars Bunch]

Additional note;

It occured to me that everyone in the shot walks away at the end. I suspect that the people walking away are digital doubles since it would be really really really difficult to achieve this with the stills capture approach.

It is very likely that the still camera array was used up to the last frame of the shot, but that as the girl turns around, the shot transitions to using CG characters that have been positioned to match each still capture frame. That may, in fact, be why the girl turns away from the camera at the end; so that the transition to a digital double would not be as noticeable.

Lars

[Chris Smith]

I would bet TONS of money that this is all done practical. Clearly everyone is a different person. They don’t hide that. Also people move a little. Look at the kids, they are rocking a little in place. The whole “Coolness” of this spot is that it was done with a bunch of actors. That’s why each actor is so done up in a costume so that different looking ppl stand a chance of looking similar. Them moving at the end is just highlighting that it indeed was all people standing still. If this spot was an effect spot there would be nothing interesting about it what-so-ever.

Besides if it was CG, then they did the end shot (ppl moving) non-CG then they basically would have to rebuild the entire set and choregraph the ppl in the EAXCT same position, which would be completely silly to do.

It’s just like the Honda “Cog” spot. That was all real and practiced so that’s what made it cool. If it was effects, it too would be -yawn- just another CG spot.

It doesn’t need motion control either. It’s way too large of a move for most MoCo rigs. I really think it was just a Technocrane on a track that was practiced. It’s not like the moves are difficult or need to be timed to the actors since they are all standing still. Technocrane moves like this are done everyday and they aren’t a big deal.

Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com

[Lars Bunch]

Hi,

I see your point about some of the slight hand movement and the fact that, especially the white haired woman at then end, seems to be a number of different people. I suppose it could be done in either way and if it is done completely practical, that is pretty darned cool.

Any ideas what production company did this spot?

Lars

[Chris Smith]

Music by Jack White. Directed by Nagi Noda. By Mother

Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com