Women in Western Art

[jazzbo]

This is pretty good.

[Man with the Golden Arm]

WOW!!!!

thanks for that!

[sidewinder]

Superb !

[.:.impossible]

My mom sent this to me a few days ago. Pretty incredible. I forgot to post it here for y'all. Thanks Lon!

[(BB)]

Very cool, I too saw this a few days ago and almost posted a link, then...

[porcy62]

Nice and a great job about iconography. More interesting for the history of art then for the video aspects.

I am not such enthusiast as most of you seems to be, because "morphing" is considered an old FX, among special effects. Lots of similar and more interesting stuff in the so called "video art" of the late twenty years.

It's cool being the "Chuck Nessa" of the situation sometimes.

Edited June 8, 2007 by porcy62

[.:.impossible]

Yes, but wouldn't you agree that "old" isn't necessarily bad? I think it is used to great effect here. If you are going to morph something, morph hundreds of years of portraits within minutes. It seems that all of this work for a youtube post is, well, a lot of work...

[PHILLYQ]

I am wowed and I also appreciate the amount of work involved. I'm not hip to what's passe in effects, so it got me good.

[brownie]

Wonderful

[porcy62]

Yes, but wouldn't you agree that "old" isn't necessarily bad? I think it is used to great effect here. If you are going to morph something, morph hundreds of years of portraits within minutes. It seems that all of this work for a youtube post is, well, a lot of work...

Yep, for a youtube post is a lot of work, and yes, "old" isn't necessary bad, but...

The thing I appreciate more, having a degree in History of Art, is that, commonly, painters were working more on the previous paintings, aka painted women, then to real woman/model. The choice of paintings is perfect for a iconographic study.

In other words, I would use it as tool in a History of Art class for this purpose.

If I were in a Film/Video Editing class, I wouldn't show it to my students.

BTW the morph and the music are out of sincronization, IMHO.

Edited June 8, 2007 by porcy62

[.:.impossible]

But everything is out of synch on youtube. I see where you are coming from though. Still, one hell of an undertaking to sequence these paintings. I don't know what goes into morphing, or most visual FX, but I can imagine it is more work than it is usually worth.

[porcy62]

But everything is out of synch on youtube. I see where you are coming from though. Still, one hell of an undertaking to sequence these paintings. I don't know what goes into morphing, or most visual FX, but I can imagine it is more work than it is usually worth.

Talking about visual FX, I don't know the consumer's stuff, but in professional one, morphing is hugely improved and simplyfied in the last years. Basically for the web low resolution the sofware does almost everything for itself, when you decide few parameters: speed, smoothness, anchor points, ecc. The more complex is the morphing program, more parameters you have: like lighting, shadows, ecc, but we are talking of 3D professional sofware, (the first software strong enough for film resolution is the one used in TERMINATOR 2, AFIK, in fact they basically wrote the movie for it). It was the same when they putted out a good special FX for fire. A lot of movies about firemens, BACKDRAFT comes to my mind, and much more explosions in action movies.

This is a simple static 2D FX, so not really complex as you could imagine. For me the biggest work in this video would be to gather and resize all the paintings, chose the more suitable. More a job of an art's expert then of computer wizard. And yes, a great job.

Edited June 8, 2007 by porcy62