Skip

Stop motion inside stop motion
August 27, 2011 5:22 PM   Subscribe

500 people holding more than 1,500 (!!!) developed pictures all around Israel, creating a smooth music video within their hands. (Best viewed not on full screen). Stop motion inside stop motion.
posted by MechEng (18 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite

 
Fun!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:25 PM on August 27, 2011


Interesting concept, but the content was kinda boring. Hopefully, that's just a first attempt.
posted by blaneyphoto at 5:25 PM on August 27, 2011


Were they actually holding distinct photos, or was the content photoshopped in? The lighting looks a bit funny. And I can tell from some of the pixels
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:33 PM on August 27, 2011


The concept immediately reminded me of Pan With Us.
posted by sciurus at 5:36 PM on August 27, 2011


A similar effect is used in Sia's video for Breathe Me -- although as far as I can tell it's a special effect.
posted by dhartung at 6:14 PM on August 27, 2011


Were they actually holding distinct photos, or was the content photoshopped in?

Photoshopping the content into the video would make the whole project fairly pointless, I think.
posted by ShutterBun at 6:17 PM on August 27, 2011


Looks more like full-motion inside animation.
posted by scrowdid at 6:18 PM on August 27, 2011


Developed .... pictures?

Is this even possible anymore unless someone has a Beseler enlarger and their own darkroom?

Wouldn't they have just printed out images from digital instead of going to the trouble and expense of printing 1500 photos onto $1/sheet photo paper (price recalled from my photo classes in the '80s) from negatives? Seems a lot less labor intensive, but maybe that's part of the charm. Maybe I'm just being pedantic again.

Anyway, interesting idea. I love stop animation, and this is novel. I would like to see this done with more interesting content.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:24 PM on August 27, 2011


Pukefilter (two Stone IPA's and that video DO NOT MIX)
posted by roboton666 at 6:34 PM on August 27, 2011 [5 favorites]


Looks more like 1500 than 1500!!! to me. 10^(10^(10^3.314182862168642)) would certainly be a lot of pictures!
posted by jewzilla at 6:44 PM on August 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


I seized and shat myself watching that. What do I win?
posted by Renoroc at 7:12 PM on August 27, 2011


A new pair of pants?
posted by ook at 10:06 PM on August 27, 2011


Very cool. Although Renoroc's comment actually makes me wonder if a warning for epileptics might be appropriate for this post.
posted by brundlefly at 12:01 AM on August 28, 2011


Developed .... pictures?

Is this even possible anymore unless someone has a Beseler enlarger and their own darkroom?


Are you serious? Film cameras and film are still sold. Film can still be dropped off to be processed and, gasp!, printed in shops all over the place. Here, check this out.
posted by pkingdesign at 1:39 AM on August 28, 2011


I kept hoping the clip would end with the stop motion photograph starting to display the meta-video. It would have taken a bit of extra time and forethought, but the payoff would have been killer. Props anyhow.
posted by jwhite1979 at 8:47 AM on August 28, 2011


I enjoyed it. I hope I have the opportunity to visit there someday.
posted by ageispolis at 11:21 AM on August 28, 2011


I had to watch it twice - the second time to see the people holding the photos.

Dizzy now.
posted by Surfurrus at 1:28 AM on August 29, 2011


Developed .... pictures?

Is this even possible anymore unless someone has a Beseler enlarger and their own darkroom?

Wouldn't they have just printed out images from digital instead of going to the trouble and expense of printing 1500 photos onto $1/sheet photo paper (price recalled from my photo classes in the '80s) from negatives? Seems a lot less labor intensive, but maybe that's part of the charm. Maybe I'm just being pedantic again.


Developed pictures: possible (as explained previously)

Price-wise? 1500 sheets of 5x7 black and white paper would cost about $700 from Amazon. Add to that the labor of framing & printing each frame? No way, in my opinion. They were most likely printed via inkjet. "Developed" was perhaps a poor choice of words, unless the filmmakers care to weigh in.

Could it be done using old-school enlargers & chemicals? Yes.
Is there any practical reason to do so, given the (apparent) objectives of the finished product? No way.
posted by ShutterBun at 4:05 AM on August 30, 2011


« Older The perils of common Twitter usernames   |   Doraemon with English subtitles Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post