home planet
June 5, 2009 6:34 PM Subscribe
June 5th was established in 1972 as World Environment Day by the United Nations General Assembly. Home, the movie by Yann Arthus-Bertrand, which premieres today for the occasion, has some nice aerial visuals.
Related. The movie's home site.
Related. The movie's home site.
Lovely cinematography, but a bit too much anthropomorphized, sentimental, scientifically indefensible narration.
posted by twsf at 8:23 PM on June 5, 2009
posted by twsf at 8:23 PM on June 5, 2009
Interesting note: the film cost 12m euros to make. Of that, 10m were furnished by PPR, the owners of Gucci.
Materialism? Surely not!
posted by WalterMitty at 9:00 PM on June 5, 2009
Materialism? Surely not!
posted by WalterMitty at 9:00 PM on June 5, 2009
Beautiful photography. Really. Reminded me somewhat of Koyanasqatsi at times, although without the frenetic editing and relentless Glass music.
The narration is at once poetic and preachy, but wow. What a beautiful film. Arthus-Bertrand certainly has been doing this kind of photography long enough to know how to do it right.
I'm having a hard time understanding the word "anthropomorphized" when applied to the narration of this film. Can someone help me understand? My cat hates it when I don't understand things.
posted by hippybear at 9:51 PM on June 5, 2009
The narration is at once poetic and preachy, but wow. What a beautiful film. Arthus-Bertrand certainly has been doing this kind of photography long enough to know how to do it right.
I'm having a hard time understanding the word "anthropomorphized" when applied to the narration of this film. Can someone help me understand? My cat hates it when I don't understand things.
posted by hippybear at 9:51 PM on June 5, 2009
The narration is a bit preachy, but the cinematography is fantastic.
posted by homunculus at 10:11 PM on June 5, 2009
posted by homunculus at 10:11 PM on June 5, 2009
Burhanistan: There's a torrent for the movie, though I cannot comment on frame rates yet as it is still downloading for me.
posted by Bangaioh at 3:31 AM on June 6, 2009
posted by Bangaioh at 3:31 AM on June 6, 2009
I happened to catch this late last night on NatGeo, being slightly champagne sozzled, I wasn't put off by the narration at all. Only when I showed my husband parts of the film at the site this morning did I cringe slightly. Absolutely beautiful photography. I too was reminded slightly of Koyanasqatsi as well as Buraka.
posted by msali at 2:18 PM on June 6, 2009
posted by msali at 2:18 PM on June 6, 2009
@Burhanistan — yeah, really choppy when I played this in FireFox. Either go the torrent route or use services like www.youtubemp4.com
posted by querty at 2:49 AM on June 7, 2009
posted by querty at 2:49 AM on June 7, 2009
yeah, really choppy when I played this in FireFox.
Why not start the movie loading, hit "pause", let the red bar finish crawling across the screen as the movie loads, and then hitting "play"?
(not trying to keep people from downloading the movie, but I don't understand why this wouldn't play just fine on any hardware that has the processing power to render the flash video. I can understand it not working on my 1999 iMac Graphite, but my newer iMac handled it with no problems at all.)
posted by hippybear at 11:40 AM on June 7, 2009
Why not start the movie loading, hit "pause", let the red bar finish crawling across the screen as the movie loads, and then hitting "play"?
(not trying to keep people from downloading the movie, but I don't understand why this wouldn't play just fine on any hardware that has the processing power to render the flash video. I can understand it not working on my 1999 iMac Graphite, but my newer iMac handled it with no problems at all.)
posted by hippybear at 11:40 AM on June 7, 2009
Even with the flash file fully loaded the FPS is noticeably lower than a well ported .avi or .mov file.
Perhaps this displays my ignorance, but how can a "ported" file have a better frame-rate than the source? Wouldn't any derived file format be subject to the strictures of the original? Surely one would have to go back to a higher quality source in order to improve the frame rate?
posted by hippybear at 12:43 PM on June 7, 2009
Perhaps this displays my ignorance, but how can a "ported" file have a better frame-rate than the source? Wouldn't any derived file format be subject to the strictures of the original? Surely one would have to go back to a higher quality source in order to improve the frame rate?
posted by hippybear at 12:43 PM on June 7, 2009
Go look it up.
Rude, but okay. I did look it up.
Flash's default frame rate is 12 frames per second (fps) and generally produces the best results for the web... QuickTime and AVI movies are generally 12 fps, while video uses 24 frames per second.
Looked at many other websites, couldn't find anything which told me that QuickTime or .avi files had any intrinsically better frame rate than flash.
Can you perhaps eludicate?
posted by hippybear at 1:18 PM on June 7, 2009
Rude, but okay. I did look it up.
Flash's default frame rate is 12 frames per second (fps) and generally produces the best results for the web... QuickTime and AVI movies are generally 12 fps, while video uses 24 frames per second.
Looked at many other websites, couldn't find anything which told me that QuickTime or .avi files had any intrinsically better frame rate than flash.
Can you perhaps eludicate?
posted by hippybear at 1:18 PM on June 7, 2009
or for that matter, "elucidate"...
damn fingers.. undermining my MeFi presence at every possible turn.
posted by hippybear at 2:14 PM on June 7, 2009
damn fingers.. undermining my MeFi presence at every possible turn.
posted by hippybear at 2:14 PM on June 7, 2009
« Older Let's get this thing goin' before cats start dyin'... | LA's Got Talent Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by netbros at 8:19 PM on June 5, 2009