OT: Coldplay's "Yellow" video - how'd they do it?

[Chip McDonald]

Starts off with the singer walking on the beach at "night"... ...ends with him on the same beach and it's daylight, 4 minutes later. One continuous travelling shot. So, I presume they just lowered the saturation and brightness at the beginning to make it dark, then added in "stars" (very well done...?), took those out as it got "brighter"? The problem is that the sky morphs very interestingly, although the ocean is in real time... Did they key a different sky in and morph it to the daylit sky? Or pixelate-out the differences of the sky in the "night time" shots? Is the sky real? Did they morph a fake sky into a real sky? Is the beach real - there looks to be a slight shadow as if light is coming from the right of the shot, although it's implied the sun is coming up behind him? I'm sure it's simpler, though... Very well done and very simply effective video. Although I think the subtlety was lost on a lot EmptyV viewers probably. ?

[BP3]

Probably the same type of digi matte done in "Forces Of Nature".

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by TinderArts: [b]Probably the same type of digi matte done in "Forces Of Nature".[/b][/quote] It doesn't look like a matte, his body obscures the sky background - and if it is they matched the changing brightness/contrast perfectly?

[Master Zap]

I aint seen it so I cant really judge but I'd do it with some tediously painful rotoscoping or using the sky as a natural bluescreen to get the matte of the guy and then superimpose a computer generated sky (or one shot at night) and use a motion controlled cammera so all camera moves can be duped. Easier, is to shoot the guy on a bluescreen stage, and shoot the place with a motion control camera either at slow speed (stop motion-esque) or just at a bunch of places during the day, morph the time transition points. Or, maybe the answer is to stop-motion with a motion control camera for the SKY (assuming it behaves as a real time speeded sky does) and then do another pass for the real-time water at various time points, and then a trivial motion-control duplicate move on a light-controlled bluescreen stage to guy. Composite - et viola. Done. /Z

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Master Zap: [QB]I aint seen it so I cant really judge but I'd do it with some tediously painful rotoscoping [qb][/quote] Nah, it's a real human figure.... [b]or using the sky as a natural bluescreen to get the matte [/b] I thought about that, but it's too seamless and the sand and ocean appear to be changing as well. The thing that's tricky is that it's all matched together perfectly, it has to be basically one element. If it's a composite it's perfect. [b]one shot at night) and use a motion controlled cammera so all camera moves can be duped.[/b] They'd need track 300 meters long... plus, it's reverse tracking so there's no place to hide it. I suppose they could erase it after the fact, [b]Easier, is to shoot the guy on a bluescreen stage, and shoot the place with a motion control camera either at slow speed (stop motion-esque) or just at a bunch of places during the day, morph the time transition points.[/b] The lighting changes *perfectly* convincing. Plus, he walks backwards and forwards in the frame, and the lighting changes accordingly, again perfectly convincing. They could have just edited him and the beach out of the continuous shot until the end and then morphed it into the real daylight shot, then superimposed a time lapse shot of the sky and beach... Hmm. I guess that wouldn't be so bad because the edge of the beach is a continual arc that stays fairly constant through the shot, as does the horizon, but when he bisects it that would take some work... it looks perfectly real, but that must be the trick I suppose... but I'm thinking there's some new obviously clever gimmick/trick, like the sequenced multiple exposure/Matrix trick, but... They had to just have superimposed/edited the beginning of the shot, and then frame by frame match the beach's brightness/contrast with the edge... It has the look of having been shot *fast*, actually.. I dunno. Actually, I think I figured out what they did.. Hmm. no wait, I take that back, I was going to suggest they messed with the shutter rate, added time between frames, but you can see his hair sticking out and that would give it away. Hmm. I suppose they could have done a motion control setup and erased the tracks after the fact... I think they had to do a dropped-frame thingy and just got it right/lucky.....