Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Virtual Camera and Trendy Commercials

CmdrTaco posted more than 15 years ago | from the how-do-they-do-that dept.

Technology 46

Polaris sent us a link to an interesting article where you can read how they do that super trendy camera trick where the frame freezes, and the camera pans around. It's the ad industry's current 'morph' as best I can tell, but its still interesting to see the technology that goes into it. And the longer term applications for a user controllable camera.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If you read it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014288)

It said name or email address. i just put the letter a for that field at it let through.

Patent? But it's a technique! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014289)

The first time I saw that ad for the SUV where they froze time and rotated the camera, I thought, hmm, line up some cameras, and set them off all at once. Turns out I was right. But this patent... what exactly will this cover, just his camera design, or the whole tecnhique? If I go shoot something using the same basic technique, with my own camera set up, will he come after me with legal rights? It sort of scares me... imagine if you could patent a dolly shot, or patent a pedestal shot, or patent using a camera crane... I sure hope this "patent" doesn't try to cover the technique. Anyone could think of, and use this, as an artform, not a device. Very scary....

Just think of the implications (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014290)

All I can say is:

    • WOOHOO! I'll make a fortune!

Rolling Stones video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014291)

This was done about three years ago in a Rolling Stones video. (Which starred Patricia Arquette.)
She was stoned/whatever and stumbling through a party. Every so often the characters would freeze, but the camera kept "moving" along the path.

Very cool effect.

I've been wondering for _ages_ how the hell it was done! Thanks guys for finally solving that one for me!

And they say slashdot isn't relevant any more!


Blade Runner ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014292)

...Esper machine ? not really the same, but anyways ;)

What a piece of crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014293)

First, you open a lot more possibilities with a lot fewer headaches by simply using two cameras that are synchronized and use morphing techniques to move between them. You can even add another camera or two if you want a larger angle.

Second, his description of the technology is ridiculous. He gets confused when describing it because he is trying to use time in two different ways. What he really has is 2 variables, time and space (yes, the spatial component only needs one variable in his case because position can be describe by arc length along the string of cameras).

What I'd really like to see is a three camera setup with the cameras set in a triangle and the ability to interactively move the viewing position within that triangle. That would be cool.

YAAC - Yet Another Anonymous Coward

Art in Commercials (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014294)

Yeah, its called Stopmotion. I've been looking
into that for a long time, but can't seem to
do it my current video equipment.

It's bad enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014295)

Press and hold the back button. Then you can choose where you want to go back to.

Patent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014296)

You say that this system "obvious to anyone with half a brain". Well, the technology to make this possible has been around since the invention of the motion picture, but nobody's done it until now.

Everything is obvious in hindsight.

using only one camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014297)

I didn't have 60 cameras, i didn't even have 2. so I did a similar shot with just one camera, but shot the event twice from two different angles. if you want to check it out go here 59/morphing/kickflip.html

old news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014298)

If memory serves, those are done in realtime on some of SGI's more expensive systems.

View Morphing SIGGRAPH Reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014299)

In case anyone wants to read about an _innovative_ way of doing this, check out rp/vmorph.html [] for links to the '96 SIGGRAPH paper. It also has a cool MPEG of the Mona Lisa rotating back and forth, using only the one original image (plus the mirror image).

You don't understand patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014300)

1) All the things that are patented are crap.
2) All the things that deserve patents are openly published in scientific, peer reviewed journals.

They correspond to different forces at work in the universe.

Damn Right A Patent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014301)

Unlike the multitude of crap patents and copyrights we've been seeing recently it's nice to see this justifiable one. This is a well though-out and executed idea. If it wasn't for this guy, we wouldn't have the neat film trick, therefore he should be rewareded. This is the reason there are patents.

If it's such an obvious idea why didn't you do it?

... you moron

(sorry for that last part, but I am an AC afterall)

I could have done a similar invention when I was 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014302)

well DUH it's so easy to figure out "how they did it" I cant believe they actually have a patent on it. "How they did it" is incredibly easy as long as you have the money to afford all the cameras. This article was totally boring and useless.

I agree with you entirely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014303)

I can understand how this filming process may be named after him, like "the bob dobbs rotation"
but a patent? LOL yeah, okay, whatever.

"sorry, you can't do a pan because I 0wn it."

It's so incredibly easy to do.. it's hilarious that there's even a discussion here about it. I refuse to acknowledge the patent, the whole thing is ludicrous lol....

Ok, here's an idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014304)

haHAHAha no shit sherlock
you deserve a patent for the art of "finding the site, reading it, and referring someone to it"

It started with QTVR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014305)

Look at their pages closely - you'll see early demo work in QTVR; they put together the equipment, tracks, etc to make it easy to do in a production environment.

It's bad enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014306)

....or give it the back button, !!!hurry up and hit escape!!!!, and then back button routine.

Holography uses same process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014307)

I read a bit about the process you are trying to patent. At first I thought,
"That's pretty cool and unique, it deserves a patent". However after some
thought it occurred to me that your process is a primitive version of
holography. When recording a hologram, interference patterns are stored
on film rather than an image which allows the hologram to consequently viewed
from any angle. In essence, it takes a range of "snapshots" from a large
number of angles. The practice of making panaramic holograms is exactly what you
are suggesting except that the film is not enclosed in a camera unit and
a reference beam is used.

Jonathan Clark

funny noone calls the linux kernel 'trendy' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014308)

why is it that 'entertainment' tech gets no respect?
as if the stuff they do is 'less' than
AVL trees or smp trampoline.
nobody calls it 'the trendy smp trampoline that
you see in those pop operating systems like linux
that arent that great but sort of interesting
and might have real application'
fuck this elitist shit

I could have done a similar invention when I was 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#2014309)

Still, though, How good would it be? The idea is very simple but to get highly repeatable, quality results, a person may need to be quite inventive. Things are not necessarily as simple as they seem.

No Subject Given (1)

drwiii (434) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014310)

That credit card commercial with all the frozen-in-time crap is cool. Much more watchable than most of the other pathetic "ooh-lets-be-funny" excuses for commercials.

It's bad enough... (1)

gavinhall (33) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014311)

Posted by KyDex:

That they want an email address and title of there visitor to view the information, but when I elected not to fill out the information netscapes back button wouldn't take me back to slashdot.

Cool... I love this (1)

Tim Doran (910) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014312)

See Meat Beat Manifesto's 'Helter Skelter'.

It's a great application of this technology - water frozen midair, etc.

Actually I think this is a justifiable patent.. (1)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014313)

Unlike some of the other frivilous patents, I think this one is pretty normal.

Just what DO you think patents should be used for?

First Example? (1)

pedro (1613) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014314)

I've seen that video too. The effect was stunning. Done around 1986 or so, directed by that Russian or Polish guy who was very popular at the time. His videos were *always* interesting, no two the same. I seem to remember a chunky blond gut screeching very loudly into the camera(s)...
Definitely prior art.

Obvious? Hogwash. (1)

RobotSlave (1780) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014315)

There are a lot of folks here saying that the technique was "obvious" to them after they saw the technique used for the first time. Well, sure. That's why they don't give you patents for figuring out how someone else did something. If, on the other hand, you manage to dream up something that no-one has ever seen before, and then make it happen... well, then you probably deserve a patent.

Me, I thought it was fewer cameras, more computers. Nice to see a good analog solution once in a while.

old news... (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014316)

I remember reading that AC article back in 1996 about this. Seemed like a really cool technology, but if you notice the commercials doing it now and compare it to the ones on the site, the ones using that system have the worst quality in terms of image stability while the "movement" is happening, color continuity, etc, etc, etc...

That credit card commercial in particular I thought looked like crap. Any of the ones involving moves through a larger amount of space, because they seem to spread the units out too far and double or triple up on frames like older cartoons did. It makes for very choppy movement.

The commercials where its done very clearly are typically shot from fewer vantage points and digitally morphed, like the Gap ad. (Which still tracks poorly, but looks a lot better anyway...)

I'm more impressed with the CGI in those chrysler ads where the car peels away. Very slick, very clean. Anyone know which agency/effects house did those?

it's all analog? (1)

Leapfrog (4220) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014317)

Gee, and I thought it was a CG trick the whole time. Silly me. Now it'd be really cool if I could get my hands on about 60 quickcams.... I guess that means I'm going to run out of parallel ports real quick.

Think of the Engineering (was Patent?) (1)

J05H (5625) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014318)

This camera system took years to think up, and
hundreds of hours of work to build and get working.
Would you deny a patent for a new video camera?
After all, it's pretty obvious that if you put a
CCD behind a lense and add a video deck in the loop that it is a camera.
There's a lot of little details that had to be
worked out, like keeping the exposed film sealed
and coordinating that many shutters, that this
camera is, IMNSHO, worthy of a patent.

Commercials suck (1)

Honeylocust (6024) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014319)

I don't know how anyone who makes commercials can be proud of what they do for a living. If it was one commercial, maybe I could forgive them, but their huge list of commercials just turns me off -- can't ad execs think of something creative to do rather than copying other ads?

Yes, they've got a nice camera. I'm sure a lot of good things can be done with it. Prehaps I've just gotten cynical as I get older, but I can't have any respect for people that make beer commercials. They don't make me think about nubile girls in bikinis, but rather about the times the room was spinning around, when I had to clean up vomit, and the many times I've been punched by a drunk. When I see a Discover card commercial, I think about how they got in trouble with the FTC a few years ago for a slick series of ads that claimed that the Discover card didn't charge interest for cash advances -- that you'd get money extracted from your pocket if you used another card -- it didn't tell you that you had to pay a "service fee" which would have been more than the interest on most cards...

You don't have to submit an email address... (1)

Polaris (9232) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014320)

I told them I was Bill Gates!

Nooo!! *I* Invented it! (1)

Jeremy Lee (9313) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014321)

Of course, there's no way to prove this, since I didn't actually get the idea notarized by an official JP, or even tell anyone. :-) But I thought up the same technique in 1996. June, I think.

Peter Gabriel's "Mercy Street" is a particular favorite song of mine, and (never having seen the videoclip) I like to imagining what it would look like. I'm great at visualizing things...

I was contemplating the line "She pictures the broken glass/pictures the steam" and imagined a smattering of shattered glass falling towards the concrete, frozen in flight. I wanted a scene change by having sunlight glint off the falling glass and whiteout the shot... then fade from white into the next.

How would I do this, I thought, if I wanted to actually make the clip? CGI was my first idea, but seemed unsatisfying. It's hard to do right. I thought of whizzing a camera around really, really fast, but was concerned about the blur.

Then I saw it.. an arc of cameras, All shooting at the same time.

Two months later, I read about this 'amazing new camera technique' invented by this guy in new york, who was going to patent it. Scientific American, from memory. I can get the exact reference if anyone wants.

The first time I saw it used in an ad, I was electrified. It's weird seeing something that up until that moment only existed in your head.

Ideas. Memories. It's a strange world.

ps. Listen to the song.

You can do this with Flint on a SGI (1)

drundle (11585) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014322)

Discrett Logic's Flint has been able to go effects like this for years on the SGI with only one or two camera angles.

Patent? (1)

Rimmer (14783) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014323)

I'm sorry, but WHAT? Doesn't that "invention"
fall into the patent denial category of "being obvious to anyone with half a brain"? So, you have lots of cameras all lined up. Blimey. That's incredible. Give the man a medal.

Sorry for the sarcasm.

Patent? (1)

Rimmer (14783) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014324)

I'm sorry, but WHAT? Doesn't that "invention" fall into the patent denial category of "being obvious to anyone with half a brain"? So, you have lots of cameras all lined up. Blimey. That's incredible. Give the man a medal.

Sorry for the sarcasm.

Patent? (1)

aonaran (15651) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014325)

Considering that the same trick was used before movie cameras were invented, I think that it would be pretty easy to dispute the patent in court.
Adding the moving parts to the film is new, (where something freezes and someone walks around it) but blue screen has been used for several decades too.

I don't blame him for trying to patent it though, this camera trick is VERY popular right now and I'm sure there is a lot of money being made from it.

Gap ads is not virtual camera (1)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014326)

This was discussed on Roger Ebert's web page a while ago. Just in case anyone cares, it was brought up that the Gap ad with the swing dancers doing the lindy hop did not use virtual camera, that was jen-ewe-ine SGI effects.

First Example? (1)

jwriney (16598) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014327)

The Garbage video for "Push It" did something very similar to this as well. In it, they had the image moving very fast, then it would freeze and they'd pan around it. I'm not sure if this was done with the same tech or not...

John Riney III

Ok, here's an idea. (1)

jwriney (16598) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014328)

What about this?

Take a bunch of ordinary, motor-drive cameras.
Rig them up in a circle around the subject.
Use some hardware to command the cameras to fire en masse.
Repeat until out of film.
Put all the frames together sequentially(E.G. camera 1, frame 1 -> camera 2 frame 1 - ... - camera n frame 1 -> camera 1 frame 2 -> ... -> camera n frame m). Tada! You've got rotating slow motion.

With different camera paths and firing sequences, you could do other wacky stuff.

John Riney III

Ok, here's an idea. (1)

jwriney (16598) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014329)

Um, yeah, I did read the web site. It appeared to me that what they did was shoot all 32-48-64 etc frames in one shot, one frame per camera, string them together and that's it. What I'm saying is to have every camera take multiple shots over time. Perhaps^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hprobably I misunderstood^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hscrewed up

/me slinks back to his corner

John Riney III

First Example? (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014330)

I remember the first time I saw this effect. I thought, "Gosh, they must have a whole bunch of cameras all lined up in a row."

It was for a music video, and since they panned all the way around a scene, you could see the cameras on the other side.

I think it was a Bone Thugs 'n' Harmony video. Can anybody think of the first public example of this technique?

Wouldn't it be cool if we could come up with some previous art, and kill this stupid patent attempt?

First Time I saw it.... (1)

GOD_ALMIGHTY (17678) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014331)

Vincent Gallo's independent film with Christina Ricci - Buffalo '66

Ending scene has Vincent Gallo shooting himself in the head... They freeze and pan around with his face all contorted. Very cool!!

It was released in 1998... don't know if that helps with the patent.

Ugh! (1)

ElvisPresleyTheKing (17986) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014332)

Damn, is the technique overused or what?

GAP, Subaru, etc. etc. etc.

If I see it in 2 different commercials in the same evening you know it's already cliche.

Kinda like those comical little 3d animated characters. Bud frogs, Listerine, Zip-Locks

Boy, them ad exec types are reeeel creative!!!

Commercials don't suck - consumers do. (1)

phatcon (18127) | more than 15 years ago | (#2014333)

I "make" commercials for a living and I'm proud.

It is of course more true to say that I contribute a fractionally small element towards some or more commercials, broadcast graphics, simulator rides, movie films etc etc

Ad execs (if that's who you wish to believe 'make' commercials) can prolly think of thousands of exciting new and original creative things to do - the problem being that no-one will pay you money to be original, creative and independant. Adverts aren't conjured out of thin air, they are bought and paid for by all the people who buy the products they advertise.

On a recent visit to the states I was shocked to hear American commercials directors rubbishing the more "creative" adverts as a waste of airtime because advertising is a "science" and the "personal" vision of creative directors is irrelevant to the majority of viewers / consumers / lemmings.

Timeslicing has been about for a year or two now, afaik there's one guy who invented it (Dayton Taylor / Timetracks) and a couple of poor imitators. Most all of the effective uses [of this technique] I have seen were done by him / his company. No-one else seems to get the sync quite right.

The first time I saw timeslicing (in the UK) was an advert for Capitol Radio a long while ago - it doesn't appear to have been the overnight gimmick that morphing was. One minute PDI morphed michael jackson's video the next day practically everyone was morphing everything - morphing is still a valuable production tool it's just been relegated to the "invisible" effects dept. :)

The problem with the flickering (light) is easy enough to correct ..umm.. hit the 'deflicker' button in flame or inferno, the fluttering (slight zooming in and out) is harder to fix but a lot of stabilisation will usually cure all but the most wildly misaligned cameras. What's practically impossible to fix however is badly synchronised shutters especially on faster moving subjects. Usually ropey frames can be morphed over but high complexity stuff like big splashes of water are too painful to try.

Hitachi have released a plugin for Composer that allows you to "Tour Into Picture" (called Tipit) ( nofeature yet!? ) ( ) that maps existing still pictures onto roughly defined perspective shapes allowing you to "move" into the picture - it can get very close to the timeslicing effect as long as you don't have busy, complex scenes with lots of layers of parallax.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?