h a l f b a k e r yThunk.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
These are traditional movies that eschew traditional camera angles, remade with the multitude of cockroach perspectives.
For example, in "Mutiny on the Bounty" Captain Bly is seen from the perspective of the camera racing across the floor (taking time to examine the leftover cake accidentally lodged
in his boot), then scurrying up a wall.
The love scene, er... scenes... in "Debbie Does Dallas" are shot from under the covers, on the ceiling, wall, and perched on the package of condoms laying suspiciously unopened on the nightstand.
The Producers gratefully acknowledge DARPA for their innovation in miniature camera technology, without which they could not have negotiated a half price performance from the leading lady after a particularly embarrassing indiscretion with a stage hand, faithfully recorded for possible facebook publication...
Cockroach Theatre Presents...
https://www.youtube...watch?v=Ru_EiJgTodQ
~Funky Towel~ [2 fries shy of a happy meal, May 23 2015]
Vice Admiral of the Blue William Bligh, FRS, RN
http://en.wikipedia.../wiki/William_Bligh
Not a bad guy, after all ... [8th of 7, May 26 2015]
[link]
|
| |
Orson Welles would have insisted on cockroaches of several different sizes. That's why the final scene of Citizen Kane is so poignant. Not only does cockroach eye view make everything look exceptionally large, but the falling globe killed an entire crew of cockroaches from East Timour. |
|
| |
This comment is relevant, but doesn't initially look like
it. |
|
| |
There is a trick for converting a movie photographed as
2D into 3D. Because sequential frames tend to hold
different images, the brain can often interpret the
image as 3D, if both frames are seen simultaneously by
different eyes. So a special projector can send light
through both frames at the same time, and through
different polarizing filters, and the viewer wears
appropriate polarizing glasses. |
|
| |
Modern computerized image processing should, like the
brain, be able to create a 3D scene from 2D images.
WELL! Once you have a 3D version of a movie scene,
modern computerized image processing can show that
scene from any point of view, such as the cockroach
perspective. |
|
| |
Um... yeah, [Vern], that's what I was thinking too... |
|
| |
<here's GROG quietly stepping over to his set of
Funk & Wagnall's encyclopedias> |
|
| |
[Vernon] 2D > 3D > different angles on the 3D That's a lot of intricate data that you magically make appear or have to fetch off the Internet. The difference between the reality and the computer image is the stain on the shirt never quite in frame but I suppose that is film's loss. |
|
| |
[+] scene changes would be accompanied by a <crunch> sound. |
|
| |
//...scene changes would be accompanied by a
<crunch> sound...// |
|
| |
HAAAAHAHAAAAA!!! Oh, wait... that was my best
cameraman... er... bug... |
|
| |
//There is a trick for converting a movie photographed as 2D into 3D. Because sequential frames tend to hold different
images, the brain can often interpret the image as 3D, if both frames are seen simultaneously by different eyes. So a special
projector can send light through both frames at the same time, and through different polarizing filters, and the viewer wears
appropriate polarizing glasses.// |
|
| |
Well… This only sort of works. I just tried it, and while you do get a 3D effect on some shots, it's sort of a blurry, imperfect 3D
at best. The problem is that the temporal offset between the two frames usually just creates a blurry mess. On some shots,
it's not that big a deal and the effect is actually kind of cool. Building flyovers and that sort of thing work well. For anything
with people in it, the illusion falls completely apart. |
|
| |
//Modern computerized image processing should, like the brain, be able to create a 3D scene from 2D images. WELL! Once
you have a 3D version of a movie scene, modern computerized image processing can show that scene from any point of view,
such as the cockroach perspective.// |
|
| |
The problem is that what you're creating is not a true 3D representation of the scene, but rather a (pseudo-)stereoscopic
image. It's quite a leap from having two 2D images to being able to reconstruct a 3D scene. |
|
| |
Made me ask, "why" = instabun |
|
| |
What would make this even funnier would be if the interest
level of the camera's point of view was parallel to that of a
cockroach as well. |
|
| |
So you'd see the very low angle shot of Scarlet O'Hara saying
"Where shall I go? Whatever shall I do?" and then before
what's his face can say his "Frankly Scarlett..." line, the
roachcam turns and scuttles away stopping to dine on a
little piece of food under the table. |
|
| |
Envisioning American Sniper being filmed by a roach on the
wall. All those bullets whizzing by might make me sick. If I
lived to tell the tale. |
|
| |
Just because you have 3D imagery doesn't mean you have all the detail of the room being projected; line of sight blockages and all that. |
|
| |
But what's the cockroaches' motivation ? |
|
| |