Was Iggy's ad greenscreened? A videographer's take
Got that update I mentioned from a friend of mine, who's taken a good look at the Liberal's new english ad, and has shared some thoughts on whether or not it's a "greenscreen" job. He clarified his thoughts on the refresh rate/horizontal lines I mentioned, and provided a few new points for consideration... [My comments in ITALICS]
1) If he really is in a natural setting, where are the bugs and the birds? Of course, silly me, I forgot... there are no bugs in Narnia!
2) The Liberals are still trying to get their act together even when doing simple things like producing videos, as seen by their errors prepping it for upload to YouTube. Hey, on the bright side, there is some evidence that they're getting better though... at least they didn't use a laptop webcam this time.
3) The movements of the camera vs. Iggy and the background leave the door open to the possiblity that this was infact a studio job... more likely somewhere in the MTV (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver) as opposed to, you know, actually OUTDOORS somewhere in Canada. (like Algonquin Park, maybe? I hear he actually missed the place while he was away...) Again on the bright side, if it is a greenscreen, at least they've done a good job of it.
So, while we don't have any definitive answers on the video front, we do have a few more points to consider. Anyone hearing anything else on this front?
The lines [when viewing the video in HQ format] are a result of someone ripping a DVD for SD television and uploading it without making it "progressive scan". [LOL, guess the Liberals aren't so "progressive" after all...] It happens all the time and is a HUGE pet peeve of mine especially when I see people in my industry do it. It looks sloppy and can be so simply corrected. These lines have nothing to do with a green screen or chroma key.So, there you have it, a few more things to debate about the video...
The audio was either treated in post to filter out birds and noise or his audio was rerecorded in a studio and lipsynced. Its 50-50 as both options would achieve the result.
In critiquing this video I am still most bothered by WHAT he is saying. [emphasis mine]
I just watched it in HD and i notice the background movements slightly differ with the camera...which would suggest a faux background. Its really good greenscreen if it is.
1) If he really is in a natural setting, where are the bugs and the birds? Of course, silly me, I forgot... there are no bugs in Narnia!
2) The Liberals are still trying to get their act together even when doing simple things like producing videos, as seen by their errors prepping it for upload to YouTube. Hey, on the bright side, there is some evidence that they're getting better though... at least they didn't use a laptop webcam this time.
3) The movements of the camera vs. Iggy and the background leave the door open to the possiblity that this was infact a studio job... more likely somewhere in the MTV (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver) as opposed to, you know, actually OUTDOORS somewhere in Canada. (like Algonquin Park, maybe? I hear he actually missed the place while he was away...) Again on the bright side, if it is a greenscreen, at least they've done a good job of it.
So, while we don't have any definitive answers on the video front, we do have a few more points to consider. Anyone hearing anything else on this front?
posted by Christian Conservative @ 4:18 p.m.
17 Comments:
At Tue Sep 08, 05:02:00 p.m. EDT,
Ardvark said…
Don't forget that he appears to be wearing the same blue shirt in all of the ads.
At Tue Sep 08, 05:02:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
CC:
Come on now. This is the type of unserious partisan garbage that Steve Janke spews out.
What's next? Questioning his birth certificate? Accusing him of rigging the vote when he won his Governor General's Award for best Canadian book?
It seems we are about to enter into an election. In 2004, Harper ran on a more traditional conservative agenda and got beat, but at least Harper's campaign was about policies and vision.
In 2006, Harper moderated his conservative agenda and won, while it was mostly about anger toward the Liberals and Harper's image, he did have some policies, and while most have since been abandoned, it was a good campaign.
In 2008, Harper called for an election he promised he wouldn't (and some are claiming broke his own law) and then his entire campaign was about Dion. He wasn't going to introduce a platform and then under pressure finally did only two days before we voted. What respect for the voter. It was Harper's Seinfeld election and it was all about framing and imaging, the furtherest away from the old conservative Harper once was and from any vision or policy for the country. And he won more seats.
I take it from this post and the Conservative talking points and pundits that the answer for 2009 will be even more of the same focus on attacking the opposition and saying nothing, focusing on images, and the quality of a video, and forgetting about policy.
Very sad state our democracy is in.
At Tue Sep 08, 05:12:00 p.m. EDT,
Bec said…
"most likely somewhere in the MTV..."
Very clever, indeed!
Being outside, would have given it way more panache.
The French ones are, just dull. The message is lost with the level of face time, imo
At Tue Sep 08, 06:04:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Not so Ted. I'm very much about good policy, and from what little I see coming from the Liberals, I must say I'm unimpressed. They talk about having a "grand vision", but in order to make a vision happen, you need to have a roadmap on how to get there. Liberals love to campaign on "ideas", without telling Canadians how you intend to implement them. We, however, tend to campaign on the details, on what we will do to get us to where we need to be... which you guys love nothing more than berating relentlessly.
Who's more responsible for the current state of political affairs? The only thing that you can possibly say is that we learned from our teachers well... we took everything you've ever thrown at us, and turned them around right back at you.
When you guys stop calling us "Reformatories", or "scary" and "mean spirited", THEN you can claim the high ground. Until then, start taking responsibility for this mess that YOU'VE caused.
I'd love nothing more than to be able to sit in a room and discuss ideas on what we need to do to solve our problems, and perhaps even come to a consensus, and then a roadmap to get there. But with you guys always seeking to turn everything into a partisan advantage, it ain't likely gonna happen.
As I've said before... the ONLY way politics in this country will ever change is with the DEATH of the Liberal Party of Canada. Then from its ashes, MAYBE a new day can dawn in Canada... a truly centrist party, with a reasonable agenda, that doesn't insult people of faith at every opportunity.
Until then, I'm sticking with the guys who show more respect to the grassroots voter, and who show some respect for their tax dollars.
At Tue Sep 08, 06:13:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
CC:
You mean names like "Lieberals" and "Liberanos" didn't come from conservatives? Whatever was I thinking.
Seriously, back to the point, and without trying to say "who started it", my point is simple: with each election, the Harper Conservatives have gotten further and further away from principles and more and more into the politics of attack and image. Each election is less and less about "the details" as you say and even less and less about the Conservatives. They did not even care enough about "the details" or the voter to provide us with any time to read their platform in the last election. Your post - with its petty Steve Janke style focus on nothing of importance - is not only unlike your usual commentary but very much in line with the Conservative approach.
Responding that "yeah, well, the Liberals did it too" is hardly any answer at all. I would agree that Chretien and even moreso Martin dropped the ball on making things better, improving our democracy. So saying that now that we hold the sledgehammer, we're going to continue hammering away at the foundation of our democracy... hardly seems like a strong defence.
Harper is making things worse. And the fact that he has the lowest level of support from Canadians than any other Prime Minister in our history and even fewer votes than he himself got in the last election, is proof that whatever your political pursuasion the current Prime Minister and the prior Prime Minister are doing things wrong.
And focusing on green screens, coffee cups, birth certificates and personal attacks is not going to fix things and saying "but you started it" is worse.
At Tue Sep 08, 06:34:00 p.m. EDT,
KURSK said…
"In 2008, Harper called for an election he promised he wouldn't (and some are claiming broke his own law"
..and why, one of those people would be YOU in previous posts, even though you know Harper broke no such law.It was meant to be used in a majority situation, so why you keep repeating this lie one can only imagine..
" Harper is making things worse. And the fact that he has the lowest level of support from Canadians than any other Prime Minister in our history.."
Proof please.Harper has consistently rated high as the most trustworthy amongst the federal leaders in most (if not all) leadership categories..
At Tue Sep 08, 07:07:00 p.m. EDT,
paulsstuff said…
"What's next? Questioning his birth certificate? Accusing him of rigging the vote when he won his Governor General's Award for best Canadian book?"
What about asking him if he loves Canada? Ridiculing the way he interacts with his children? Making rumor and innuendo about his wife and John Baird? Calling him a whore?
Oops, sorry Ted, that was all done against the PM, by msm, Liberal bloggers, Liberal strategists, and Liberal MP's.
So save me your sanctimonious lecturing of how a Blogging Tory should act. Not to mention Iggy's hand picked strategist wrote the book (literally), on sleaze and partisan attacks.
At Tue Sep 08, 07:44:00 p.m. EDT,
MrEd said…
it's an easy way to pocket money from advertising fees to go directly into the coffers of the Liberal Party if they in fact actually paid someone 2 million dollars for this load of dingo's droppings...
At Tue Sep 08, 08:13:00 p.m. EDT,
Ardvark said…
So Ted back to the topic was that ad filmed in a studio or was it filmed outside?
At Wed Sep 09, 09:10:00 a.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
Kursk: Of course the fixed-election-date law was meant to apply to minority governments. There is no exception in the Act for minority governments. More to the point, Harper was very clear on the intention of the Act: so that a PM could not call an election on a whim and elections would only be held "on fixed dates or if the government loses confidence of the House". Period. He broke yet another big major Reform/Conservative promise with that one. Add it to no taxes on income trusts, no unelected senators (broke that one on the first day), no taxes hikes, accountability and transparency, deficits (in deficit even before the recession), spending (record spending even before the recession), spending on polling (doubled Martin's spending on polling which he promised would not happen), etc etc etc.
In 3.5 years, this government has broken more promises than the last 3 Prime Ministers did over the last 25 years.
At Wed Sep 09, 09:14:00 a.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
So, what you are saying Paul, is that when a few acted stupid before, you think the solution is to act even stupider now?
As you know, I totally reject the notion that someone else's bad behaviour excuses more bad behaviour.
(And who made any rumours about Baird and Laureen? Please, of all the people that is no threat at all of having an affair with Laureen is John Baird. And who on earth called him a whore? I really think you are making stuff up here. But to the point, a blogger said some stupid or mean things and so that justifies the Conservatives broken promises? That just doesn't compute Paul.}
At Wed Sep 09, 09:16:00 a.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
Aardvark: Outside. Obviously. When are you going to start caring about real issues?
At Wed Sep 09, 06:37:00 p.m. EDT,
paulsstuff said…
"(And who made any rumours about Baird and Laureen? Please, of all the people that is no threat at all of having an affair with Laureen is John Baird. And who on earth called him a whore? I really think you are making stuff up here. But to the point, a blogger said some stupid or mean things and so that justifies the Conservatives broken promises? That just doesn't compute Paul.}"
Umm, that would be one Garth Turner Ted, who was a Liberal MP at the time and not one Liberal member, Iggy included, took him to task. And if you search far and wide you'll find similar by other notable Liberal bloggers.
Hey, just last week you had one Liberal call the PM sleazy and another call him racist.
At Thu Sep 10, 09:35:00 a.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
Paul: everyone in Ottawa and on this planet knows that Laureen is, shall we say, not the kind of tea that John Baird likes to drink.
I read a lot of stuff online. I've never heard anyone say anything nasty about Laureen and very few attacks on Harper's person as a husband. Which contrasts with the kinds of things I've read about Ignatieff as a husband and about Szuszana, but that is the conservative way. I just can't believe that unless you can provide a link.
[And by the way, I had other responses to the questions posed directly to me up above, but I see I must have got too close to the bone and CC is, uncharacteristicly but with more and more frequency, censoring comments that don't buy into the Conservative talking points. As a result, I am pulling up anchor here as I refuse to comment on a site that only allows half a debate and censors civil discussion just because I disagree with him. So Paul, if you respond here further, you'll understand that I will not be, though I will check back because I would like to know who said Laureen had an affair Pink John.]
At Thu Sep 10, 01:31:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Ted, I recall only toasting one comment of yours in the last two weeks, and that was because I got a Liberal-talking-point pile on, of which yours appeared to be one of. I don't recall toasting any of your other comments, are there some that are missing?
At Thu Sep 10, 01:48:00 p.m. EDT,
Ted Betts said…
Well, CC, that is good to hear, I suppose. I posted a response to Kursk about may comment that Harper has the support of the fewest Canadians of any PM in our history, with only 21% of Canadians voting for him.
The post was a bit long with links and I'm not going to re-write it. The nut of it was that, with each passing election, Harper makes it more and more about the other guy and less and less about policy.
Harper's vote count dropped from 2006 to 2008 and yet he won more seats. This is troubling. He had less support from Canadians than any other PM in our history with only 21% voting for him. That is troubling. We had the lowest voter turnout last year. That too is troubling.
While certainly not only Harper's doing, he is in charge right now and, instead of trying to make it better and strengthening our democracy, he is making it worse, weakening our democracy. No amount of finger pointing at the other side changes that. He can't pass the buck on this issue too. It is dangerous for our democracy when so few vote and it seems part of the campaign strategy.
At Thu Sep 10, 02:20:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Thanks for that Ted.
Post a Comment
<< Home