Hilary youtube ad-1984 [Archive]

Dustin Kesselberg

23rd March 2007, 08:19 AM

There are various bits of software that could do it. Why don't you ask the person behind it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-de-vellis-aka-parkridge/i-made-the-vote-differen_b_43989.html

There are 17 pages of comments there. I doubt he'll answer mine. Plus I'm not registered there.

Do you know which software most likely was used?

The Central Scrutinizer

23rd March 2007, 08:54 AM

There are 17 pages of comments there. I doubt he'll answer mine. Plus I'm not registered there.

Do you know which software most likely was used?

Excel. Or maybe UNIX. I'm not sure.

Pardalis

23rd March 2007, 08:57 AM

Hey! Leave Ridley Scott out of this! :mad:

Dustin Kesselberg

23rd March 2007, 08:59 AM

Excel. Or maybe UNIX. I'm not sure.

How does it work? You just paste the movie of Hilary into the movie of the 1984 apple commercial or something? Or does it work frame by frame and then you add sound?

Tailgater

23rd March 2007, 09:48 AM

How does it work? You just paste the movie of Hilary into the movie of the 1984 apple commercial or something? Or does it work frame by frame and then you add sound?

Try posting this in the computer forum. You might get a better response.

The Central Scrutinizer

23rd March 2007, 09:53 AM

How does it work? You just paste the movie of Hilary into the movie of the 1984 apple commercial or something?

Yes. You load each video file into the UNIX program and then type "ps -ef | grep Hillary" and the program does the rest.

Dustin Kesselberg

23rd March 2007, 02:46 PM

Yes. You load each video file into the UNIX program and then type "ps -ef | grep Hillary" and the program does the rest.

Funny?:confused:

The Central Scrutinizer

23rd March 2007, 03:40 PM

Funny?:confused:

What's funny?

Dustin Kesselberg

23rd March 2007, 03:49 PM

What's funny?

Exactly.

Beanbag

23rd March 2007, 10:02 PM

If you have access to hi-end video editing software, one of the features available is the ability to "pin" a separate video track into a section of another video. This is to allow editors to put a selected track into a television set or computer display. http://www.matrox.com/ to see the hardware and software that can do the job.

You're talking about a 58-second video. At 30 frames per second (possibly shot at 24 frames per second, since Ridley Scott tended to work in film, rather than video at that time), you're talking 1740 individual frames, out of which maybe less than a quarter would require retouching the image on the large projection screen before the watching nebbishes. It wouldn't be too great a task to clean up and rework around 450 frames, especially since there isn't a lot of movement going on before the screen. I could probably do it in a long weekend, fueled by Jolt Cola and ice cream sandwiches. Five years ago, I'd say maybe two weeks. Ten years ago, well, I wouldn't be interested.

Beanbag

Beanbag

23rd March 2007, 10:11 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

24th March 2007, 05:12 AM

BTW, it could be done using something as simple as Premiere Elements, though not as easily as with the Matrox stuff. Put the Hillary footage on one video track, resize and distort it to match the size of the original guy on the screen, and then manually start putting in mattes on another track to mask off objects in front of the screen. The textual information on the video screen would be done with the titler, with the title track opacity set to half-transparency. Tedious, but doable.

Beanbag

The guy who did it said it said he did it on a weekend afternoon. Is "Matrox" the onlything you can think of that could do it? I thought it would be some program by adobe or some other larger program developing company.

The Central Scrutinizer

24th March 2007, 02:41 PM

The guy who did it said it said he did it on a weekend afternoon. Is "Matrox" the onlything you can think of that could do it? I thought it would be some program by adobe or some other larger program developing company.

UNIX can do it.

Beanbag

24th March 2007, 09:14 PM

I pulled Matrox from my memory because it's the editing hardware I am currently lusting after. I'm certain there are other packages out there with similar capabilities, not necessarily PC based.

The capability of even an entry-level editing program like Premiere Elements is pretty astounding -- up to 99 video tracks with individual control of transparency, color, saturation, etc. for each track, blue/green screen chromakeying , multi-point mattes. Ten years ago, this kind of capability would have run in the thousands of dollars; today, it's $69.95.

If you look through the video again, you can see the figures silhouetted in front of the giant screen are just that -- flat, featureless outlines with their shape defined as line segments. If I could find a decent video of her, I've considered doing a similar video with Sylvia Brown just for grins. It would be more fun to put Randi's face on the girl with the hammer, except that he wouldn't look good in red shorts, plus she's in almost 90% of the video, so it would take a lot longer. Right now, I'm up to my armpits in videotape for one documentary, and busy shooting footage of the Texas State Radio Control Car Championships, so the last thing I need is another project.

BTW, Matrox is mainly hardware, and works with most main-line editing software.

Beanbag

geni

24th March 2007, 09:37 PM

I was woundering if it might be just about posible useing Cinelerra.

Dustin Kesselberg

25th March 2007, 05:36 PM

I was woundering if it might be just about posible useing Cinelerra.

What's that?

MortFurd

26th March 2007, 03:50 AM

I was woundering if it might be just about posible useing Cinelerra.

Probably, if you get along with the porcupine nature of Cinelerra's user interface. I assume you are using the CVS version, not the Heroine version. The Heroine version was too buggy for me - constant crashes.

MortFurd

26th March 2007, 03:51 AM

What's that?

Video editing software for Linux. (http://cvs.cinelerra.org/)

geni

26th March 2007, 08:31 PM

What's that?

Probably the most powerful of the open source video editing bits of software around. Not the equal of the closed source comercial stuff though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinelerra

Dustin Kesselberg

26th March 2007, 09:10 PM

Probably the most powerful of the open source video editing bits of software around. Not the equal of the closed source comercial stuff though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinelerra

So I could get those programs for free? What's the catch?

Azure

26th March 2007, 10:17 PM

So I could get those programs for free? What's the catch?

You need to be running Linux...

Tony

26th March 2007, 11:13 PM

For those of you who haven't seen the AD. Here it is...

6h3G-lMZxjo

My question was, for those computer experts out there...What program was used to create this ad? Does anyone know?

My first instinct is to say it was done with Adobe After Effects, but I'm not completely sure.

http://www.adobe.com/products/aftereffects/

Dustin Kesselberg

27th March 2007, 06:26 AM

You need to be running Linux...

Is that free?

geni

27th March 2007, 07:24 AM

Is that free?

There are certianly a number of free distros. Debian for example.

Dustin Kesselberg

27th March 2007, 07:33 AM

There are certianly a number of free distros. Debian for example.

These won't work on windows?

geni

27th March 2007, 07:42 AM

So I could get those programs for free? What's the catch?

It isn't the most stable bit of software around and lacks some of the feature set and useability of the closed source comercial stuff.

geni

27th March 2007, 07:47 AM

These won't work on windows?

It's an operateing system. It runs seperate from windows. You can set up a duel boot at startup that will allow you to use either a windows OS or a linux OS.

Which linux distro is best tends to be a subject of some dispute but for beginners I understand that Ubuntu often considered to be the best choice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28Linux_distribution%29

I've never run it myself though so I can't really comment.

Vitnir

27th March 2007, 08:16 AM

...

I've never run it myself though so I can't really comment.

If you can install Windows XP from scratch you have the required level of nerdness to install Ubuntu.

Dustin Kesselberg

27th March 2007, 11:45 AM

It's an operateing system. It runs seperate from windows. You can set up a duel boot at startup that will allow you to use either a windows OS or a linux OS.

Which linux distro is best tends to be a subject of some dispute but for beginners I understand that Ubuntu often considered to be the best choice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28Linux_distribution%29

I've never run it myself though so I can't really comment.

Sounds like way too much trouble. I might just buy some video editing software for windows when I get the $.

The Central Scrutinizer

27th March 2007, 02:28 PM

So I could get those programs for free? What's the catch?

You have to be smart enough to use them. You're not. Sorry.

Dustin Kesselberg

27th March 2007, 02:30 PM

You have to be smart enough to use them. You're not. Sorry.

Yes, Random insults are so intelligent...

BTW, If you really want to get into a cheap shot contest...I'd win.;)

Beanbag

27th March 2007, 05:47 PM

Linux still hasn't managed to shed its "must be a geek, requires excessive tweek" image. Windows, for all its faults, does a reasonable job of shielding the user from having to execute arcane commands and flipping bits. Note I said reasonable; when Windows goes off in la-la land and does a fandango on your hard drive, you sometimes end up following a list of cryptic commands that make no sense to pull everything back together.

That said, the Ubuntu Linux distribution appears to be the least-geeky version out there. Add in the fact it's free, and there's a Cinelerra package available for it (for free), it might be worth looking into. I've been running Ubuntu for a couple of years on an old Compaq Celeron just to become familiar with it. Ubuntu has gotten MUCH better over that time, and has reached a user-friendliness level of, say, Windows ME (for the most part). Haven't tried Cinelerra, didn't even know it existed until this thread. I'm a die-hard Premiere guy from back when Mac Quadra 950's were the hottest thing around.

Beanbag

Azure

27th March 2007, 11:19 PM

Sounds like way too much trouble. I might just buy some video editing software for windows when I get the $.

My friend...use Google.

I assume you already have Windows installed, probably XP.

Here is a very good video of how to install the dual boot system. I did the exact same thing today, exactly how the video instructs, and now I run both Windows and Ubuntu.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2369893842637434537

You can download Ubuntu for free from the internet as a ISO file, and burn it onto a CD.

Azure

27th March 2007, 11:22 PM

You have to be smart enough to use them. You're not. Sorry.

I bet you weren't smart enough once upon a time too..

:D

Dustin Kesselberg

28th March 2007, 08:31 AM

I bet you weren't smart enough once upon a time too..

:D

Don't worry about "The Central Scrutinizer". He/She is simply too cowardly to do anything other than take cheap shots and instantly back down when stood up to.

geni

28th March 2007, 04:49 PM

hmm:

Rosenblum Productions, Inc., owners of the exclusive television and motion picture rights to the George Orwell novel "1984", said today that it is monitoring closely the controversy surrounding a political ad posted on You Tube that, according to one Chicago newspaper, is "a takeoff on George Orwell's 'Big Brother' 1984 theme used in an Apple ad."

http://sev.prnewswire.com/advertising/20070327/CGTU06327032007-1.html

Dustin Kesselberg

28th March 2007, 07:25 PM

hmm:

http://sev.prnewswire.com/advertising/20070327/CGTU06327032007-1.html

Since the Ad itself (which was used) is nothing more than a parody and is owned by Apple, then that "Rosenblum prod inc" can't sue the guy. Apple might be able to though.

Jekyll

29th March 2007, 08:05 AM

Since the Ad itself (which was used) is nothing more than a parody and is owned by Apple, then that "Rosenblum prod inc" can't sue the guy. Apple might be able to though.
Rosenblum prod inc. felt that significant aspects of it violated their copyright and Apple declined to contest this.

Is there any reason for thinking that this advert doesn't violate copyright in a similar manor?

Dustin Kesselberg

29th March 2007, 06:26 PM

Rosenblum prod inc. felt that significant aspects of it violated their copyright and Apple declined to contest this.

Is there any reason for thinking that this advert doesn't violate copyright in a similar manor?

I don't know. Do you mean that "Apple" declined to contest that Rosenblum inc felt it violated their copyright? If that's the case then did they go after apple back in 84 because of it? If not, why not? I don't see how apples contesting the claim or not has any bearing on Rosenblum's ability to sue the guy who made the Hilary video.

Jekyll

30th March 2007, 02:57 AM

I don't know. Do you mean that "Apple" declined to contest that Rosenblum inc felt it violated their copyright?Yes. If that's the case then did they go after apple back in 84 because of it?No. If not, why not? Because Apple ceased and desisted when told to. I don't see how apples contesting the claim or not has any bearing on Rosenblum's ability to sue the guy who made the Hilary video.Because the Hilary video is derived from a work which violated copyright which means that it in turn may be a violation of the original copyright.