# No one sees it like you....



## Roo (Mar 26, 2014)

I saw this video at a presentation last year and been looking for it online ever since. Watch in fullscreen HD - its just awesome 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGpuFFhY0io&feature=youtu.be


----------



## distant.star (Mar 26, 2014)

.
Thanks, but too weird for me.


----------



## Click (Mar 26, 2014)

Great advertising. Well done.


----------



## Valvebounce (Mar 27, 2014)

Hi Roo.
Wow, that is incredible, but are we really seeing reflections from people's eyes or is it just more CGI nonsense? Some of the images looked to me like they strayed from the eye on to the tear duct, but only watching on an iPad 1, so I could be mistaken.

Cheers Graham.


----------



## Roo (Mar 27, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Roo.
> Wow, that is incredible, but are we really seeing reflections from people's eyes or is it just more CGI nonsense? Some of the images looked to me like they strayed from the eye on to the tear duct, but only watching on an iPad 1, so I could be mistaken.
> 
> Cheers Graham.



Hi Graham

More than likely CGI but its still a nice idea to convey their message.

Cheers


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 27, 2014)

100% it is CGI.

But this isn't.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2014)

Very interesting. I love the thought and execution...


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> 100% it is CGI.
> 
> But this isn't.


I've heard of people doing that.... I've even heard that you can do that with the reflection from the eye of a chipmunk....


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 100% it is CGI.
> ...



It isn't new. https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=reflection%20eye

Though when you look at the angle of reflection and there is no camera there you can be pretty sure that at the least it has been retouched, the video has many shots where there should be a camera reflection and there is nothing.


----------



## AmbientLight (Mar 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



At least Don's chipmunk shot is for real.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ........Though when you look at the angle of reflection and there is no camera there you can be pretty sure that at the least it has been retouched, the video has many shots where there should be a camera reflection and there is nothing.


The series could have been planned with that in mind from the beginning, then shot with a tilt-shift to keep the camera and its operator out of the reflections.

Might have been all CGI'd, might have been well planned and executed primarily in camera.

I like it a lot, I'd like it even more if I knew it was great camera work and not CGI.

edit......
On further reflection, why would our beloved Canon, the long standing dominator of the pro imaging market resort to CGI in a corporate production?
They make and sell the gear that makes such a production possible, surely they also have access to the talent and experience to execute.





.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 30, 2014)

tolusina said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ........Though when you look at the angle of reflection and there is no camera there you can be pretty sure that at the least it has been retouched, the video has many shots where there should be a camera reflection and there is nothing.
> ...



Get real. How do you take this panned and auto AF'd in the water shot with a tilt shift? It is CGI. As is the meteor shot, which castes doubt on most, if not all, the others.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 30, 2014)

Try as I could, I could not find a photographic example showing how a tilt-shift lens can be used to get the camera's and operator's reflections out of the image, I did find a few quotes, here are two;

From....
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/tilt-shift
"...._If you face a mirror head on, you will be in the shot. If you move to the side, it turns into a parallelogram. With a shift lens mounted, move the camera to the side, turn the film and lens parallel to the mirror, then use shift to get the original composition back (more or less)...._"

From....
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/nikon_24_pc.shtml
"_....One use for this capability to to be able to shoot straight into a mirror, or mirrored surface such as a glass wall, without seeing the camera's reflection...._."

So, my suggestion to use tilt-shift was about removing the camera's reflections, nothing about tilt-shift has anything to do with auto focus or anything else in the composition.
Does that help you with your reading comprehension?
- - -


privatebydesign said:


> .....Get real. How do you take this panned and auto AF'd in the water shot with a tilt shift? It is CGI. As is the meteor shot, which castes doubt on most, if not all, the others.


Ok, here's real, 
(attachment should be here, don't see it in preview)


SOC jpg shot handheld on a 10mpx Nikon D80, iso 100, 1/125, f6.7, 300mm (x1.5 crop = 450mm), cheap arse Tamron 28-300 zoom, image tightly cropped, then zoomed to ~240%
Consider everything going against IQ, sharpness, depth of field etc., in the image.
In this image are a primary subject, the model's eye, and the secondary subjects, the reflections.
Depth of field in the primary subject is thin, in the original, the eye and most of the eyelashes are in focus, the eyebrow is quite blurred.
In the secondary, reflected in the curved surface of the eyeball image, the photographer, cars, buildings and horizon are readily apparent. With currently available, top level gear, IQ and clarity will be much greater than what is shown here.

Your auto focus concerns are irrelevant, camera/lens only has to focus on the eye, whatever is reflected in the eye will be in focus.
- - -
The skydiving sequence (00:16) gave me the most trouble imagining how it was done, then I realized the camera was helmet mounted, pre-focused on the eye, whatever the eye looked at ended up in the shot. Likely many takes were required. Wind buffeted the camera on its mount.

At 00:10 there's a hex reflected, no, that's not reflection of aperture blades, it's an umbrella.
At 00:20 following the skydive is a boxer. Notice light changing, flashes popping in the background.

There is a handheld look to most of the sequences, there is motion apparent, camera relative to eye. The sequences could not have been shot handheld, I am quite at a loss to imagine how the handheld look was achieved.

Meteor sequence? Same as the rest, whatever reflects in the eye is captured as the secondary subject. The primary subject must only look towards the desired secondary. Camera follows the primary eye, eye follows the secondary.


Schedule the meteor shoot same as any meteor shoot, google it.
https://www.google.com/#q=meteor%20shower%202014&safe=off
Likely several simultaneous takes using multiple models and gear set ups.
- - -
Panning? Primary subject's head with camera rig pan together, eye stays in focus, reflections stay in focus, done.
- - -
Here's hoping your clients don't suffer from your lack of creative imagination that your post here has shown.
I quite enjoyed this video for it's artistic and entertainment value, that enjoyment has decreased significantly through this technical dis-assembly.
- - -
I'll concede only a maybe regarding the meteor trails, and that concession concerns only light levels as I've never attempted anything similar. 
Kudos to those that did even if CGI was involved.


I continue to doubt that Canon would resort to CGI to promote imaging gear, this was not an Adobe, fake what you can't do for real, production.












.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 30, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Try as I could, I could not find a photographic example showing how a tilt-shift lens can be used to get the camera's and operator's reflections out of the image, I did find a few quotes, here are two;
> 
> From....
> http://photo.net/equipment/canon/tilt-shift
> ...



Oh dear.

There are no AF tilt lenses.

If you would like to demonstrate to me how somebody in the water could have a cameraman following focus with a tilt lens on a reflection of the eye then you might have a point.

Oh, as for only focus on the eye, try this, go look in a mirror, put a piece of tape on it, stand back ten feet, focus on the tape and take a picture then focus on yourself and take a picture. Notice anything?

It is just CGI, so what?

As for my reading comprehension, that isn't called for. I was pointing out obvious technical issues which you have not addressed.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 31, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> There are no AF tilt lenses.
> 
> ...


Ok, you win, tilt shift not needed, just tried some eye selfies (came out horrid), the eye only sees the camera if it's looking at the camera, camera doesn't show in the reflection if the eye is looking elsewhere.
So, never mind mirror shots or tape on a mirror.
- - -
I really dislike being redundantly repetitive again and again.
There is no auto focus in use. Period.
Focus is fixed and on on the eye. Period. If the rest of the face were shown, it would be out of focus.
Reflections in the eye will be in focus.
There is no cameraman, there is no follow focus, camera is head mounted. Period.
I see no reason to think that it had to be CGI, none. It's not Adobe.
It's from Canon, it's about image capture.
- - -
Try this, in good ambient light, take a close up photo of an eye and focused on that eye looking away from the camera, that eye looking at any randomly detailed scene. Review the reflections, they'll be in focus. Capisce?
- - -
Do you find it fun to attempt to overly complicate relatively simple topics?






.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 31, 2014)

tolusina said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Oh dear.
> ...



I am sorry you are so upset by this, and that you don't have a basic conceptual idea of how these images could, or could not, have been created. 

I knew from first look some of them had to be CGI, some are very easy to do without, the first 16 seconds for instance, the sparklers, the spotlights etc, but some are impossible to film directly, the surfer, the boxer, the meteorite etc. 

I know you won't ever believe anything I say, maybe you will believe the words of one of the digital artists that was responsible for the actual work, Brenda Busstra-Smink?

She says *"The majority of the eyes where shot clean with no active reflections . It was our job then to composite in the various reflections".* Link


----------



## tolusina (Mar 31, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> .......
> I know you won't ever believe anything I say, maybe you will believe the words of one of the digital artists that was responsible for the actual work, Brenda Busstra-Smink?........


No idea what to believe regarding this production........
http://www.behance.net/gallery/Canon-Masterbrand-TVC-Seeing/9057637
Video was presented as from Canon Australia.
Jim Walsh, Leo Burnett are both in Australia.
http://www.behance.net/mrjimwalsh shows this kind of work.

Brenda Busstra-Smink appears to be in The Netherlands, dis-similar work........
http://www.pinterest.com/brendabusstra/
http://www.pinterest.com/brendabusstra/photography/


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 31, 2014)

tolusina said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > .......
> ...



Goodness you really do have a bug up your butt.

This conclusive enough?

Shot almost entirely as separate elements, the eyes and the reflection plates were composited seamlessly together.

It was a true collaboration: Shoot Supervisor Urs Furrer worked closely with production team who went to great lengths in mimicking the reflected environments.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 31, 2014)

well, if you used a longish lens...
(27% crop, no scale)
still can't find me & the wife reflected in the rodent's eye
(and I wish my 100-400L was as crisp as this cheap plastic Fuji zoom)


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 31, 2014)

Good god, that is an accurate representation of the image framing and dof in the advert isn't it! 

I have linked to the man who owns the agency that created the composite, on that company website he says his firm created the composite, how much more proof do you need? 

IT IS A COMPOSITE, it is CGI.


----------



## aclectasis (Mar 31, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Try as I could, I could not find a photographic example showing how a tilt-shift lens can be used to get the camera's and operator's reflections out of the image, I did find a few quotes, here are two;
> 
> From....
> http://photo.net/equipment/canon/tilt-shift
> ...



Haha wow, lol, that is all.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 31, 2014)

Has to be some type of composting -- optical or software. I don't see anyway to have decent focus on the eye itself and the reflection at the same time if it was a straight shot. Focus distance to the eye is very short -- maybe an couple inches max. the reflected image focus distance is the actual distance to the object reflected -- several feet to infinity. (Try this test, take camera and focus on your own reflection in a mirror, then without changing focus, shift sideways so the frame of the mirror is in view. It will be out of focus. Refocus on the mirror edge and your reflection goes out of focus.) 

I'm guessing before CGI this might be done by shooting thru a half-silvered mirror mounted at 45 degree angle. A small video monitor would be mounted the same distance from the mirror as the eye. Camera would see both the eye and whatever video was played on the monitor at the same apparent focus distance.


----------



## mkabi (Mar 31, 2014)

tolusina said:


> I continue to doubt that Canon would resort to CGI to promote imaging gear, this was not an Adobe, fake what you can't do for real, production.



What are you talking about?
Have you never seen this commercial? 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Ac8zg0voE


----------



## Aglet (Mar 31, 2014)

There's also a simple and inexpensive method to make such images without resorting to CGI or editing tricks.
But that would lack the pizzazz of a big CGI crew, even if it got the job done in less time and 1/100th the budget. Tho it might contain some minor reality-flaws someone would eventually complain about.
Still, a nice bit of commercial video to make their point.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 31, 2014)

old-pr-pix said:


> Has to be some type of composting -- optical or software. I don't see anyway to have decent focus on the eye itself and the reflection at the same time if it was a straight shot. Focus distance to the eye is very short -- maybe an couple inches max. the reflected image focus distance is the actual distance to the object reflected -- several feet to infinity. (Try this test, take camera and focus on your own reflection in a mirror, then without changing focus, shift sideways so the frame of the mirror is in view. It will be out of focus. Refocus on the mirror edge and your reflection goes out of focus.)



A flat mirror is the wrong comparison.

You really don't need CGI to have sharp eyes AND sharp reflections see the image below which is a simple proof. The image is made with an APS-C camera, HD video mode, f7.1 @60mm (EF-S Macro). @f/2.8 the same situation.
The cornea is a spherical mirror (in that case) and acts as a second optical element providing more or less sharp images.

The only problems are:
- avoid the reflection of the imaging system
- getting enough contrast (as you can see with my image with blue-gray eyes) - dark (e.g. brown) eyes are
much better but i have to live with what I have.

CGI is much cheaper and using a fisheye will give satisfactory distortions which are well accepted as reflections form the cornea.

So everyone is right - at least a little bit ...

EDIT: Forgotten the attachment - now available ...


----------



## Roo (Mar 31, 2014)

Sometimes we waste too much time over analyzing everything rather than just appreciating things for what they are...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 1, 2014)

Roo said:


> Sometimes we waste too much time over analyzing everything rather than just appreciating things for what they are...



That depends, if you are an artist type then sure, just look at things as they are and interpret them as you will. If you are an engineer type then it is far more fun working out how things are done. If you are a dillusional type then arguing black is white in the face of far more experienced doubters seems fun. If you are a pro photographer knowing what can, and can't, be shot easily, or created in post with better results, is a professional necessity.

It isn't that I believe my opinion is important, it is that I believe the truth is, particularly when the truth is being denied.


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 1, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes we waste too much time over analyzing everything rather than just appreciating things for what they are...
> ...



Bravo! I can only applaud your ethics in this, because finding out how something has been done is important for many of us on this forum. It is only sensible to point out how things can get done effectively to achieve the wanted results.


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 2, 2014)

Hi Folks. 
++1
Or nice and concise, enquiring minds need to know!
Appreciating things for what they are when really they are not is an exercise in futility!

Cheers Graham.



AmbientLight said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Roo said:
> ...


----------

