Comments on: We Got Time for David Wilson and his Stacked Praxinoscopes

We Got Time for David Wilson and his Stacked Praxinoscopes

carsonb — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:39:27 -0800

We Got Time [QT video, YT video] is a mind-boggling music video by David Wilson for the band Moray McLaren. It comes with a handy making-of video that explains how the in-camera effects were achieved, the platter artwork, and some very nice behind the scenes stills.

By: carsonb

carsonb — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:41:05 -0800

[via Motionographer]

By: mrzarquon

mrzarquon — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:43:09 -0800

This is awesome, I had a chance to see it earlier today. I watched the video before I watched the making of, and my jaw hit the floor when I realized it was all done in camera.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:45:20 -0800

SPOILER: Bambi's mom gets a raw deal. This reminds me of the work of Roel Wouters, who directed Robot High School, but it's actually more spatially artful. More about praxinoscopes. I've been spending the day reading about kinetoscopes, kinescopes, and now praxiscopes. I think I might have scoposcopophilia. Or... well, metavoyeurism.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:52:13 -0800

Even more praxinoscope goodness.

By: Xoebe

Xoebe — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:58:12 -0800

Wow. Cool. Wonderful.

By: GavinR

GavinR — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:08:48 -0800

You'd think that people had never seen a zoetrope before.

By: saul wright

saul wright — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:14:34 -0800

nice, even the making of video is cool.

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:27:35 -0800

Neat! /Bender

By: Dr. Send

Dr. Send — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:35:44 -0800

Can someone explain how they changed the record labels mid-shot (e.g. at 3:25)?

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:38:00 -0800

I loved the video and I loved the "making of" video even more. Excellent find!

By: mrzarquon

mrzarquon — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:42:51 -0800

> Can someone explain how they changed the record labels mid-shot (e.g. at 3:25)? They spent a lot of time mapping this out in previs animations, and I would guess they did cut to swap to a different disk with the transitional animation on it, and then another cut to a full disk. Everything was timed so they could easily cut at each frame, as long as the camera and table were locked in relation to each other, it would be pretty much seamless.

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:51:42 -0800

From the YouTube Description: The transitions between each section of animation was created by simply cutting or wiping between the bits of footage.

By: Pronoiac

Pronoiac — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:56:47 -0800

Heh. I know another David Wilson, who reads Mefi but doesn't have an account yet. Hi David!

By: Pronoiac

Pronoiac — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:02:51 -0800

Under Chuck Norris' beard is not a chin. There is merely another wolf.

By: bendybendy

bendybendy — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:31:37 -0800

Quite a spectacular show of optical wit paired with quite an unspectacular guitar rock song. I like echo-effect-abuse at the end, but it's a shame the track isn't in the league of "Fell in Love With a Girl" or "Take On Me".

By: rageagainsttherobots

rageagainsttherobots — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:49:35 -0800

This is a really memorable music video.

By: longsleeves

longsleeves — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:52:04 -0800

Meh.

By: Robin Kestrel

Robin Kestrel — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:04:02 -0800

The song is a bit meh, but the video and technique are excellent and fit the song perfectly. Great post.

By: mmoncur

mmoncur — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:34:10 -0800

This video deserves a much better song.

By: popcassady

popcassady — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:59:15 -0800

Heh. I know another David Wilson, who reads Mefi but doesn't have an account yet. Get an account, you cheapskate.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:44:26 -0800

Can someone explain to me what in-camera effects are and why they're so amazing right now? Plain English, if possible.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:49:01 -0800

Also, how is that band not Coldplay?

By: nosila

nosila — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 06:07:28 -0800

IAMAVA, but I think it means they made it in real life and just shot it and cut it. They didn't use programs like Aftereffects etc. to make the craziness happen.

By: nosila

nosila — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 06:08:10 -0800

They're amazing right now because almost everything you see anywhere anymore has been digitally enhanced to a large degree or, almost as likely, did not involve real objects/people moving in space at all.

By: flatluigi

flatluigi — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:33:48 -0800

In-camera means without the aid of computer effects -- that all the fancy stuff you see in the video was happening in real-time and in real-life.

By: kozad

kozad — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:54:18 -0800

Sorry for being an aesthetic elitist, but gimmicks don't do anything for me. I appreciate all of the hard work and intelligence that went into this, but I'll take a good song, poem, painting or film over this kind of thing any day.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:02:11 -0800

Well, if this deconstructed persistence of vision is a gimmick, you may as well take "film" off your precious list.

By: Lipstick Thespian

Lipstick Thespian — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:11:17 -0800

Song is great, video is great, post is great. I'm glad I saw this today.

By: DoctorFedora

DoctorFedora — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:13:46 -0800

Eidetaker: 1. Basically they just took one more step down the road via which Coldplay became an even more mediocre U2. 2. So far as I can tell, "in-camera special effects" means that they didn't have to do post-production work (i.e. CGI) to add the special effects — the camera recorded what you see.