Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Ronaldinho: Touch of Gold
wow, just fucking wow. Some say it's a fake, but most of them can barely speak english, so fuck them.
wow, just fucking wow. Some say it's a fake, but most of them can barely speak english, so fuck them.
Comments:
Most likely fake. The probability of him pulling that off intentionally once (even if it is Ronaldhino) is medium, twice, very low, three times, close to impossible.
Also, it's a spot for Nike.
Nice CGI though.
Also, it's a spot for Nike.
Nice CGI though.
Well, because it's a spot for Nike, the chances for it being fake increases significantly; however, if it is, indeed, a fake, then I would like to know how they did it--in detail, ofcourse.
Here's what I think:
Big Blue Screen on the field with one side parallel to the net, and one side parallel to the players in the background.
Ronaldhino kicks the ball into the bluescreen, they edit it out, replace it with a digital ball that hits the post and flies back.
Man in a blue suit tosses Ronaldhino a real ball each time he needs it (with a bit of variety to keep it looking real).
For pro companies, this isn't exactly difficult.
Big Blue Screen on the field with one side parallel to the net, and one side parallel to the players in the background.
Ronaldhino kicks the ball into the bluescreen, they edit it out, replace it with a digital ball that hits the post and flies back.
Man in a blue suit tosses Ronaldhino a real ball each time he needs it (with a bit of variety to keep it looking real).
For pro companies, this isn't exactly difficult.
Never said it was difficult; I just wanted to know how it was done. I looked it up on the internet and Nike says that he does actually hit the ball twice on the crossbar, while using the same footage for the final two shots.
Way easier than that Reuben, the ball was entirely cgi. Looked so friggin' obvious to me. I mean, I don't see how you could think this vid was at all genuine, Gautam...
...do you also believe that LeBron James can make 5 baskets in a row from 80 ft. out now too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6-ogEgY55M&search=lebron%20james%20commercial
As as for your "I looked it up" statement, that's 100% false. OBVIOUS!
...do you also believe that LeBron James can make 5 baskets in a row from 80 ft. out now too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6-ogEgY55M&search=lebron%20james%20commercial
As as for your "I looked it up" statement, that's 100% false. OBVIOUS!
Okay, Jutin, your statements actually piss me off a bit, to be honest.
First off, I don't know what makes you a CGI specialist; if you know anything about it at all, the fact is, it was very well done and not at all obvious. I saw the Lebron James one a long time ago and that one is obviously fake because he barely puts any power into it and the ball actually goes off-screen. With this one, the ball stays in the picture the whole time; however, there are ways of telling that the effects are fake.
Secondly, did you even use any reasoning in your stupid statements?
Nope, not at all. You just said it was "obvious", without actually stating any reasons to support your case. Sure you could say that it was obvious so you weren't required to give any reasons, but I think, in this instance, that you are full of shit, so yeah..'nuff said.
Thirdly, I did check it up on the internet, so there is nothing "100%" false about it. How can you even say "100%" when you have no fucking clue what you're talking about in the first place.
If you had watched the video properly, however, you could see that on the first kick that everything is accurate (like the net moving, the frame-rates and such). After that, it looks off and when I had posted the video, I had only seen it once and thought it to be cool enough to post on here.
It's not that you thought it was obvious, but your statements leading to everything you said pissed me off, so I am letting you have it.
First off, I don't know what makes you a CGI specialist; if you know anything about it at all, the fact is, it was very well done and not at all obvious. I saw the Lebron James one a long time ago and that one is obviously fake because he barely puts any power into it and the ball actually goes off-screen. With this one, the ball stays in the picture the whole time; however, there are ways of telling that the effects are fake.
Secondly, did you even use any reasoning in your stupid statements?
Nope, not at all. You just said it was "obvious", without actually stating any reasons to support your case. Sure you could say that it was obvious so you weren't required to give any reasons, but I think, in this instance, that you are full of shit, so yeah..'nuff said.
Thirdly, I did check it up on the internet, so there is nothing "100%" false about it. How can you even say "100%" when you have no fucking clue what you're talking about in the first place.
If you had watched the video properly, however, you could see that on the first kick that everything is accurate (like the net moving, the frame-rates and such). After that, it looks off and when I had posted the video, I had only seen it once and thought it to be cool enough to post on here.
It's not that you thought it was obvious, but your statements leading to everything you said pissed me off, so I am letting you have it.
I saw gautam's embittered response coming from a mile away.
I was mainly skeptical because of the power of the rebound, and the angle at which it came back each time.
Also, the ball is not always CG, it only is sometimes, Ronaldhino is one hell of a ball handler.
I was mainly skeptical because of the power of the rebound, and the angle at which it came back each time.
Also, the ball is not always CG, it only is sometimes, Ronaldhino is one hell of a ball handler.
Heheh, Gautam man... you took the bait...
My post was purposely filled with what I call "Gautamism". In other words, it was unnecessarily blunt about my own opinions while shooting down the opinions of another.
If you haven't noticed, most of my comments (like, 95% of them) are rather tactful. But for some reason, I kinda felt like giving you a taste of Gautamism that day... plus, I enjoy reading your enraged replies. Heheh. Offending you was kinda my point... but no hard feelings, eh???
Now, that being said, the one thing that I thought was missing from your well crafted (if somewhat spiteful) reply was a link to this internet source you found. I actually couldn't find it myself, and am kinda curious to read it myself (as I still think it's entirely cgi). Now, I could've gone "I still think it's cgi, do you have a link to this page? I couldn't find it myself..." or something tactful like that. But that's the opposite of Gautamism. Heheh...
My post was purposely filled with what I call "Gautamism". In other words, it was unnecessarily blunt about my own opinions while shooting down the opinions of another.
If you haven't noticed, most of my comments (like, 95% of them) are rather tactful. But for some reason, I kinda felt like giving you a taste of Gautamism that day... plus, I enjoy reading your enraged replies. Heheh. Offending you was kinda my point... but no hard feelings, eh???
Now, that being said, the one thing that I thought was missing from your well crafted (if somewhat spiteful) reply was a link to this internet source you found. I actually couldn't find it myself, and am kinda curious to read it myself (as I still think it's entirely cgi). Now, I could've gone "I still think it's cgi, do you have a link to this page? I couldn't find it myself..." or something tactful like that. But that's the opposite of Gautamism. Heheh...
Well Nits, if that was indeed your ploy, then LOL.
I was a bit surprised that you came up with such Gautamisms, but eluded me well, none the less. I didn't know of any such of mine existed, but it's kind of cool, never the less. Ofcourse no hard feelings, lol.
I had a feeling you would have asked for a link to the site, but I didn't find it through google, as none of my searches worked. I had just searched several other forums discussing the video and someone had a link from there. I am too lazy to actually find it.
Post a Comment
I was a bit surprised that you came up with such Gautamisms, but eluded me well, none the less. I didn't know of any such of mine existed, but it's kind of cool, never the less. Ofcourse no hard feelings, lol.
I had a feeling you would have asked for a link to the site, but I didn't find it through google, as none of my searches worked. I had just searched several other forums discussing the video and someone had a link from there. I am too lazy to actually find it.
