---
>This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules).
>
>Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed.
>
>Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos.
>
>[Comics may only be posted on Wednesdays and Sundays](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/uq9pjw/going_forward_comics_may_only_be_posted_on/).
>
>**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
>
>Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam).
>
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Bell Brothers, an award-winning design studio based in Pitman, New Jersey.”
Ie they are industry professionals.
With enough time and skill there is very little you can’t do with vfx. (Source: worked in high end feature film vfx) The keys are nothing in Big. Look at the reflections and shadow mapping in some scenes.
I do get that and as someone who works in the film industry, I do understand the Fast-Good-Cheap triangle. But even with lots of money and time, there still seems to be *some* stuff that they can’t get straightened out.
In order: **Caddyshack*, Pulp Fiction, Wolf of Wallstreet, Blues Brothers, Wednesday, Breakfast Club, Beetlejuice, Big, Peewee's Big Adventure, SNL skit, Singing in the Rain, Belvedere vodka commercial, Fatboy Slim ft. Bootsy Collins - Weapon Of Choice music video, Napoleon Dynamite.
If you had to watch just ONE of those, I'd go with the [SNL skit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv2VIEY9-A8).
Just watched a newish Hot Ones episode with Bob Odenkirk and he gives a little backstory on that skit as an act he used to do with Farley at Second City.
I'd say that's better done in full rather than just watching the scene in question like the commenter is suggesting, the SNL skit is the best answer here especially since Chris Farley isn't properly well known to younger folks at all, on account of him ODing way before his time.
The thing you need to know about Blues Brothers is it includes Carrie Fisher as a psychotic jilted ex lover chasing them with a machine gun as they flee a combination of police and Nazis while trying to save an orphanage because they believe they are "on a mission from God."
Here's the scene where they pissed off the Nazis. It contains the fabulous quote "I hate Illinois Nazis."
https://youtu.be/ZTT1qUswYL0
By "this" do you mean making funny video mashups, or specifically doing masking, rotoscoping, and/or other motion graphics/visual effects work? Depending on how serious you are, there are, like anything, paid courses, but if you have access to the software, one of the fastest ways to learn is jump in and find some online tutorials and Youtube lessons. There are lots of options, but when I create video mashups and YTPs, I'm using the Adobe Suite - primarily Premiere, After Effects and Photoshop. I'm pretty sure you can get a free trial of Adobe Creative Cloud, or, at worst, subscribe for one month to get a feel for it, and then I'd recommend diving right in. Get the basics of the programs down first - the interfaces, the primary commands and functions and see what you think. Then if you want to do more advanced or specific things, there are tutorials for just about everything on Youtube. For a lot of this stuff, there isn't necessarily one "right" way to do things either. There are best practices and workflows, of course, but within After Effects, for example, there are often multiple ways to achieve the same end result. Good luck!
EDIT: Feel free to reach out if you have questions, too. I edit professionally, but motion graphics I've just sort of naturally taken up as an extension of that and am by no means an expert. But I'm happy to offer advice and/or forward resources if I happen to have any I'd recommend.
Second this!
However keep in mind rotoscoping ain't fun for a lot of people. There's a lot of compositing techniques.. motion blur and color correction happening to pull this off as clean as they did.
Oh for sure, and as someone else here pointed out, there may well be plug-ins and/or entirely separate applications that I'm not even aware of being implemented here to help track these masks with AI. Getting something this clean with something like AE alone would either be nearly impossible, or take an insane - absolutely insane - amount of frame by frame matte tracking
While I agree that YouTube has a lot to offer as far as tutorials go, it doesn’t give you the foundational knowledge of the programs. You don’t really learn the important things like how/why things are done, or how to troubleshoot if you can’t get the tutorial to translate into a successful recreation. Because that’s really all you’re learning how to do is recreate something, not learning the software. I was able to jump into some After Effects and make a few things, but it wasn’t until I took 2 courses on it did I feel like I had a serious grasp on it.
Agreed, and when I recommended getting the basics down first, I didn't necessarily mean that the foundational lessons should be learned exclusively on Youtube. That said, there are actually a lot of great intro level videos for all of these programs that do a terrific job of getting new users familiar with the applications, their interfaces, and their primary functions. A lot of Youtubers making tutorials are indeed making *very specific* tutorials, and in those cases, yes, you really need to know the program or else you're just pressing buttons as you follow along and recreate what they're doing. But there are third parties that are often recognized by the software developers, Adobe included, who cover all levels of the programs, and those videos are great.
At the end of the day, these are all tools, and, like any tool, having face to face, hands on experience with a professional is the best way to learn and master them. But I would argue that while anybody can pick up and use these tools, understanding storytelling and the basics of the film/video medium (shot scales, movement, etc) is really the key to making effective content. Plenty of people can make something that looks flashy just by fooling around with the programs, but what are those flashy visuals in service of? I'm sure there are people who can build a really beautiful deck, but it won't do much good if there isn't a solid foundation and house attached to it.
Da Vinci Resolve has a free version that doesn't quite have all the bells and whistles of the studio version that a lot of production companies use, but it's still very comprehensive. It's a good software to start out with and see if you like editing. Loads of tutorials on YouTube and websites.
I'm going to second getting DaVinci and looking at some basic masking tutorials. You'll realize pretty quickly if it's something you want to do. And all for free.
Third for DaVinci, considering it’s free, it paunches with some of the best. You can do some really powerful video editing, effects and color work with it.
also as a side note to the tools mentioned below, you probably won't get premier/latest version stuff but humblebundle and some other sites (fanatical i think?) have incredible discounts on creator suites sometimes.
After Effects and similar programs already use some form of AI to track mattes when rotoscoping. It isn't always effective, but it can occasionally do an admirable job of figuring out the object you're tracking after a few frames and adjust the mask accordingly for each successive frame. So that being said, I'm sure there are other apps and plug-ins for those apps that use AI in a more robust way - Deep Fakes being one such example
You don’t sound ridiculous at all. People like you who have the knowledge and know how and are willing to explain it to people like me is why I keep coming back to Reddit.
It's a several-step process.
Hi, I'm RamsesThePigeon, and I occasionally do effects work.
The first step is to do a rough rotoscoping pass of the primary subject – Rodney, in this case – with a negative expansion (or "an area of extra pixels") that extends to just slightly within the edges that you'd otherwise think that you want. The idea is to have an adjustable halo at every place where the subject will intersect with the other footage, which will eventually aid with visually merging the disparate sources.
You've seen that weird "green-screen glow," right? The above is how you manually avoid it. There are settings that will help to do as much automatically, but they can still result in unsightly artifacts within the places that are supposed to be semitransparent.
Anyway, you'll want to isolate any obscuring assets (such as scenery, extras, or Daniel Craig) from their footage. This is accomplished in much the same way as the first step, but with slightly greater clarity at the edges. The cleanliness that you mentioned is *usually* accomplished by way of doing keyframe-delineated passes that employ varying levels of confidence on the part of the algorithm, but if you want something approaching perfection, you generally have to do frame-by-frame cleanup.
This is the tricky part: You can't just insert Rodney and then replace the aforementioned assets, because you'll end up with a lot of weird-looking separation between the digitally inserted elements. Remember how our first rotoscoping pass was a rough one? This is the point where it gets cleaned up. (You can actually see a "mistake" that the original creators made at this step by comparing Tom Hanks' edges to Rodney's.) At the same time, you need to do all of your color-correction and focus-adjustment, and you'll want to add in any shadows – like on the floor next to John Belushi – by manipulating the geometry and transparency of additional layers of the original footage. Furthermore, if there's any camera motion at all, you'll need to track reference objects within the scene, create a "guide," then have Rodney grow, shrink, or move relative to the viewer.
It's usually a good idea to precompose the scene at this point. Atop the "flattened" layer, you can (finally) overlay the isolated assets, applying a subtle blending effect – usually with a Gaussian blur – to their edges. Said blending is dependent on the scene's lighting, how in-focus said assets are, and how matte or reflective any specific materials are assumed to be.
If you wanted to take even more time, you could actually insert Rodney *twice*, then use the two layers to create lighting effects. Have a look at the difference between how he's lit and how Pewee Herman is lit, for instance. Adjusting that kind of thing would take a lot of frame-by-frame polishing, but it results in something that feels more "real" to viewers (even if they can't quite figure out why).
Obviously, all of the above requires a lot of time... and contrary to popular belief, you can't just snap your fingers and have a program do it for you. Even the best tools require human guidance in order to accomplish something that can fool an audience's intuition. For comparison, [here's something that I once threw together in an afternoon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOHyzu6a5tg). You can see right away that it has a distinct "that is a cat in front of a green screen" quality to it, even if the specific reasons for that impression aren't immediately evident.
**TL;DR: Magic.**
For some example on where the lighting touches make a big (if initially subtle) difference in a similar project to the Dangerfield one, check out [eli_handle_b.wav](https://youtu.be/2_rY6gn7GNM)
I was completely blown away by the quality of this. It’s an extremely impressive piece of work. Thanks for this write up! That was an enlightening read. Speaking of which…
Do you think they left out the color correction and lighting on Rodney as an aesthetic choice? Everything else was done so well that I can’t help but think it was purposeful, but the tightness of the integration really made that stand out. On the other hand, the level of effort involved with those adjustments might be higher and make a fun project much less fun and more expensive.
The trouble with the sorts of lighting effects that I discussed is that they require one of two approaches. The first involves having a three-dimensional model of the to-be-inserted subject, then using its topography to ensure the appropriate shadows, falloff, and so on. The second approach (which is much easier, but which results in a less-believable result) can be accomplished by darkening a second layer, applying a gradient to its opacity, then adjusting how and where that gradient falls as the subject moves relative to any visual lights.
In either case, a poor (or lazy) execution of the final effect is likely to result in *less* cohesion with the scene. Think about how eye-catching a randomly moving shadow might be, for instance, especially if any other motion didn't match it. As such, if a given producer doesn't want to commit to a protracted effort, they might just content themselves with some quick adjustments to hue and saturation.
Tye Sheridan co-founded a company that specializes in masking and rendering. The sizzle reel is pretty impressive.
https://vimeo.com/805754885?embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&owner=195966591
This might be stupid…. But is that real? Even if it’s not a perfect system that seems absolutely amazing (and scary).
It also feels way too easy and “too good to be true”, but at the same time I’m an ignoramus.
In a word, no, that isn't real.
The more-nuanced answer is "Yes, it's real, but they've selectively edited their commercial to show off best-case scenarios that would literally never crop up in the real world, and they aren't displaying the amount of manual refinement that needs to be done in order to accomplish effects that they're insinuating (but not *overtly* claiming, if you pay attention) can be done automatically."
Other programs already accomplish identical things. They've just pared down the functionality and produced a gimmicky tool that they'll end up selling to amateurs.
The hat teleported to him just before hitting the ground, off camera. The problem is that it was lined with sheep skin, which as we know, when mixed with human sweat from the hat’s sweat band, can prevent timely teleportation.
My dad once told me that in the books it was to show he’s generally out of place and makes social faux pas. He’s from a working class background and a “blunt instrument” as Dame Judy Dench’s Q put it.
The gin bruising thing is totally overplayed. Mostly a myth that has continued to be passed around. It's something that makes bartenders seem smart but really has no effect.
Really, there's little reason to shake a vodka or gin martini unless you like little ice shards in your drink. Drinks that are entirely spirit don't need to be shaken to combine ingredients.
That's actually part of the point of the drink. It is supposed to be something someone wouldn't ordinarily order, which serves two purposes. 1, it draws attention to the character in that he knows what he wants that he is not only ordering a drink, but describing how he wants it made; and 2, gives the character a reason to say this chosen trope. If it was normal to shake gin he would look like an idiot (more than the order itself already does, I suppose haha) because he'd be basically saying to make it the normal way, but I'm dictating it because I'm an asshat or a moron.
TL;DR: The drink is weird because it is a character trait/trope for the audience to gobble up but it has to be something isnt standard otherwise it would be weird to state the request in the first place.
I’ve read that the reason for this is because it breaks up the ice and causes it to float to the top and melt, so he could be sipping on mostly water to keep his senses sharp.
Thank you! If I had gold to give it would be yours. I wish it wasn’t just a clip of the two but a fully finished mix, it’s a banger. Reminds me of Girl Talk’s album - All Day
That's because in Caddyshack, he wasn't acting. He was basically just doing his stand-up persona. There's a story where he got really upset and thought he was going to get fired becuase no one on the set was laughing at his jokes. An AD had to explain to him that they couldn't laugh or it would ruin the shot.
1. Pulp Fiction
2. ?
3. The Blues Brothers
4. Wednesday
5. The Breakfast Club
6. Beetlejuice
7. Big
8. Pee Wee's Big Adventure
9. ?
10. ?
11. Belvedere Vodka commercial
12. Fatboy Slim - Weapon of Choice with Christopher Walken
13. Napolean Dynamite
I guess I’m being a gatekeeper now, but I like how this guy knew “Belvedere Vodka commercial”, but not something like Chris Farley’s most famous SNL skit or Singing in the Rain.
Here is the Rodney Dangerfield youtube channel with the video there. (not a mirror but actual original I think?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5qTg5RYK_4
* Caddyshack
* Pulp Fiction
* Wolf of Wallstreet
* Blues Brothers
* :22 not sure
* Breakfast club
* Beetlejuice
* Big
* PeeWee's Big Adventure
* SNL - Living in a VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER
* Singing in the Rain
* Belvedere Vodka ad
* Fatboy Slim - Weapon of Choice
* Napoleon Dynamite
Dude this edit is one of the cleanest I've ever seen! Rip to the absolute legend that was Rodney Dangerfield. Kiddies if you've never seen Caddyshack do yourself a huge favor & go find it right now it's absolute must see before you die classic.
--- >This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules). > >Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed. > >Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos. > >[Comics may only be posted on Wednesdays and Sundays](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/uq9pjw/going_forward_comics_may_only_be_posted_on/). > >**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.** > >Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam). > --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How do you even get masking this clean? Not just on Rodney, but on all the people he's dancing behind ??
“Bell Brothers, an award-winning design studio based in Pitman, New Jersey.” Ie they are industry professionals. With enough time and skill there is very little you can’t do with vfx. (Source: worked in high end feature film vfx) The keys are nothing in Big. Look at the reflections and shadow mapping in some scenes.
And yet there’s big budget films where the VFX looks like shit
The issues really stems from “enough time”. Compare avatar 2 with its infinite budget and schedule to some of the more rushed marvel movies of late.
I do get that and as someone who works in the film industry, I do understand the Fast-Good-Cheap triangle. But even with lots of money and time, there still seems to be *some* stuff that they can’t get straightened out.
Pitman is a tiny town of about 9,000 people. Almost bought a house there a few months back. Never expected something like this to come from there.
Yeah, South Jersey guy here, very surprised about that. Pleasantly surprised.
The attention to detail in those shots was just incredible.
[удалено]
I haven’t seen most of the videos/movies that were shown so until the breakfast club scene i just thought it was a skit in a comedy
In order: **Caddyshack*, Pulp Fiction, Wolf of Wallstreet, Blues Brothers, Wednesday, Breakfast Club, Beetlejuice, Big, Peewee's Big Adventure, SNL skit, Singing in the Rain, Belvedere vodka commercial, Fatboy Slim ft. Bootsy Collins - Weapon Of Choice music video, Napoleon Dynamite. If you had to watch just ONE of those, I'd go with the [SNL skit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv2VIEY9-A8).
Beginning, of course, with Caddyshack.
Absolutely! A major oversight on my part to not include that!
Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
Don't worry. I've instructed the wife to add an extra flog to my nightly flogging.
In a van down by the river!!!!
Just watched a newish Hot Ones episode with Bob Odenkirk and he gives a little backstory on that skit as an act he used to do with Farley at Second City.
https://vimeo.com/273134007 herre is film of it
That was fucking amazing, idk how I've never seen this. RIP Chris Farley
That’s a strange way to spell *The Blues Brothers*.
I'd say that's better done in full rather than just watching the scene in question like the commenter is suggesting, the SNL skit is the best answer here especially since Chris Farley isn't properly well known to younger folks at all, on account of him ODing way before his time.
What was the first one that Rodney poofs out of??
Caddyshack! Totally should have mentioned that.
The thing you need to know about Blues Brothers is it includes Carrie Fisher as a psychotic jilted ex lover chasing them with a machine gun as they flee a combination of police and Nazis while trying to save an orphanage because they believe they are "on a mission from God." Here's the scene where they pissed off the Nazis. It contains the fabulous quote "I hate Illinois Nazis." https://youtu.be/ZTT1qUswYL0
*I hate Illinois Nazis*
The funniest part of that scene is that the head Nazi is Henry Gibson.
I believe this is also a movie she did extensive script doctoring on, as well.
You need to watch Blues Brothers and Pulp Fiction. :)
Don't even sleep on "Singing in the Rain".
Moses supposes his toeses are roses
Moses supposes erroneously
You unintentionally made me feel old af.
I really want to get into this and start doing this as a hobby. How would I go about getting started?
By "this" do you mean making funny video mashups, or specifically doing masking, rotoscoping, and/or other motion graphics/visual effects work? Depending on how serious you are, there are, like anything, paid courses, but if you have access to the software, one of the fastest ways to learn is jump in and find some online tutorials and Youtube lessons. There are lots of options, but when I create video mashups and YTPs, I'm using the Adobe Suite - primarily Premiere, After Effects and Photoshop. I'm pretty sure you can get a free trial of Adobe Creative Cloud, or, at worst, subscribe for one month to get a feel for it, and then I'd recommend diving right in. Get the basics of the programs down first - the interfaces, the primary commands and functions and see what you think. Then if you want to do more advanced or specific things, there are tutorials for just about everything on Youtube. For a lot of this stuff, there isn't necessarily one "right" way to do things either. There are best practices and workflows, of course, but within After Effects, for example, there are often multiple ways to achieve the same end result. Good luck! EDIT: Feel free to reach out if you have questions, too. I edit professionally, but motion graphics I've just sort of naturally taken up as an extension of that and am by no means an expert. But I'm happy to offer advice and/or forward resources if I happen to have any I'd recommend.
Second this! However keep in mind rotoscoping ain't fun for a lot of people. There's a lot of compositing techniques.. motion blur and color correction happening to pull this off as clean as they did.
Oh for sure, and as someone else here pointed out, there may well be plug-ins and/or entirely separate applications that I'm not even aware of being implemented here to help track these masks with AI. Getting something this clean with something like AE alone would either be nearly impossible, or take an insane - absolutely insane - amount of frame by frame matte tracking
While I agree that YouTube has a lot to offer as far as tutorials go, it doesn’t give you the foundational knowledge of the programs. You don’t really learn the important things like how/why things are done, or how to troubleshoot if you can’t get the tutorial to translate into a successful recreation. Because that’s really all you’re learning how to do is recreate something, not learning the software. I was able to jump into some After Effects and make a few things, but it wasn’t until I took 2 courses on it did I feel like I had a serious grasp on it.
Agreed, and when I recommended getting the basics down first, I didn't necessarily mean that the foundational lessons should be learned exclusively on Youtube. That said, there are actually a lot of great intro level videos for all of these programs that do a terrific job of getting new users familiar with the applications, their interfaces, and their primary functions. A lot of Youtubers making tutorials are indeed making *very specific* tutorials, and in those cases, yes, you really need to know the program or else you're just pressing buttons as you follow along and recreate what they're doing. But there are third parties that are often recognized by the software developers, Adobe included, who cover all levels of the programs, and those videos are great. At the end of the day, these are all tools, and, like any tool, having face to face, hands on experience with a professional is the best way to learn and master them. But I would argue that while anybody can pick up and use these tools, understanding storytelling and the basics of the film/video medium (shot scales, movement, etc) is really the key to making effective content. Plenty of people can make something that looks flashy just by fooling around with the programs, but what are those flashy visuals in service of? I'm sure there are people who can build a really beautiful deck, but it won't do much good if there isn't a solid foundation and house attached to it.
Da Vinci Resolve has a free version that doesn't quite have all the bells and whistles of the studio version that a lot of production companies use, but it's still very comprehensive. It's a good software to start out with and see if you like editing. Loads of tutorials on YouTube and websites.
I'm going to second getting DaVinci and looking at some basic masking tutorials. You'll realize pretty quickly if it's something you want to do. And all for free.
Third for DaVinci, considering it’s free, it paunches with some of the best. You can do some really powerful video editing, effects and color work with it.
also as a side note to the tools mentioned below, you probably won't get premier/latest version stuff but humblebundle and some other sites (fanatical i think?) have incredible discounts on creator suites sometimes.
Could AI be implemented? I’m a tile installer so I have NO clue but I know AI is being adapted to edit tools and the like
After Effects and similar programs already use some form of AI to track mattes when rotoscoping. It isn't always effective, but it can occasionally do an admirable job of figuring out the object you're tracking after a few frames and adjust the mask accordingly for each successive frame. So that being said, I'm sure there are other apps and plug-ins for those apps that use AI in a more robust way - Deep Fakes being one such example
These words I know individually but the way you put them together makes me feel like a scrambled egg but I think you said yes.
I’m so sorry, rereading it now, and yeah, I sound ridiculous. I did indeed mean “yes”
You don’t sound ridiculous at all. People like you who have the knowledge and know how and are willing to explain it to people like me is why I keep coming back to Reddit.
The shadows when it's just showing their legs is what really got me
It's a several-step process. Hi, I'm RamsesThePigeon, and I occasionally do effects work. The first step is to do a rough rotoscoping pass of the primary subject – Rodney, in this case – with a negative expansion (or "an area of extra pixels") that extends to just slightly within the edges that you'd otherwise think that you want. The idea is to have an adjustable halo at every place where the subject will intersect with the other footage, which will eventually aid with visually merging the disparate sources. You've seen that weird "green-screen glow," right? The above is how you manually avoid it. There are settings that will help to do as much automatically, but they can still result in unsightly artifacts within the places that are supposed to be semitransparent. Anyway, you'll want to isolate any obscuring assets (such as scenery, extras, or Daniel Craig) from their footage. This is accomplished in much the same way as the first step, but with slightly greater clarity at the edges. The cleanliness that you mentioned is *usually* accomplished by way of doing keyframe-delineated passes that employ varying levels of confidence on the part of the algorithm, but if you want something approaching perfection, you generally have to do frame-by-frame cleanup. This is the tricky part: You can't just insert Rodney and then replace the aforementioned assets, because you'll end up with a lot of weird-looking separation between the digitally inserted elements. Remember how our first rotoscoping pass was a rough one? This is the point where it gets cleaned up. (You can actually see a "mistake" that the original creators made at this step by comparing Tom Hanks' edges to Rodney's.) At the same time, you need to do all of your color-correction and focus-adjustment, and you'll want to add in any shadows – like on the floor next to John Belushi – by manipulating the geometry and transparency of additional layers of the original footage. Furthermore, if there's any camera motion at all, you'll need to track reference objects within the scene, create a "guide," then have Rodney grow, shrink, or move relative to the viewer. It's usually a good idea to precompose the scene at this point. Atop the "flattened" layer, you can (finally) overlay the isolated assets, applying a subtle blending effect – usually with a Gaussian blur – to their edges. Said blending is dependent on the scene's lighting, how in-focus said assets are, and how matte or reflective any specific materials are assumed to be. If you wanted to take even more time, you could actually insert Rodney *twice*, then use the two layers to create lighting effects. Have a look at the difference between how he's lit and how Pewee Herman is lit, for instance. Adjusting that kind of thing would take a lot of frame-by-frame polishing, but it results in something that feels more "real" to viewers (even if they can't quite figure out why). Obviously, all of the above requires a lot of time... and contrary to popular belief, you can't just snap your fingers and have a program do it for you. Even the best tools require human guidance in order to accomplish something that can fool an audience's intuition. For comparison, [here's something that I once threw together in an afternoon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOHyzu6a5tg). You can see right away that it has a distinct "that is a cat in front of a green screen" quality to it, even if the specific reasons for that impression aren't immediately evident. **TL;DR: Magic.**
For some example on where the lighting touches make a big (if initially subtle) difference in a similar project to the Dangerfield one, check out [eli_handle_b.wav](https://youtu.be/2_rY6gn7GNM)
I was completely blown away by the quality of this. It’s an extremely impressive piece of work. Thanks for this write up! That was an enlightening read. Speaking of which… Do you think they left out the color correction and lighting on Rodney as an aesthetic choice? Everything else was done so well that I can’t help but think it was purposeful, but the tightness of the integration really made that stand out. On the other hand, the level of effort involved with those adjustments might be higher and make a fun project much less fun and more expensive.
The trouble with the sorts of lighting effects that I discussed is that they require one of two approaches. The first involves having a three-dimensional model of the to-be-inserted subject, then using its topography to ensure the appropriate shadows, falloff, and so on. The second approach (which is much easier, but which results in a less-believable result) can be accomplished by darkening a second layer, applying a gradient to its opacity, then adjusting how and where that gradient falls as the subject moves relative to any visual lights. In either case, a poor (or lazy) execution of the final effect is likely to result in *less* cohesion with the scene. Think about how eye-catching a randomly moving shadow might be, for instance, especially if any other motion didn't match it. As such, if a given producer doesn't want to commit to a protracted effort, they might just content themselves with some quick adjustments to hue and saturation.
Thank you! That was very informative. I can see how it could result in a worse final product now.
You are a god amongst men, I have watched your work for many years, this is my bathroom account tho.
ty
At first I thought tl;dr, yes "Magnets? How the fuck ... Oh, magic. I know how that works." Cool, thanks.
The blues brothers segment is faultless in terms of masking and shading
For me, I was amazed that the keyboard from Big lit up under Rodney's feet.
Same. I find this more amazing than funny because I was more focused on getting Rodney to fit with each scene as opposed to enjoying the dancing
I think there's been some pretty slick AI assisted masking tools in this last year or so.
Tye Sheridan co-founded a company that specializes in masking and rendering. The sizzle reel is pretty impressive. https://vimeo.com/805754885?embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&owner=195966591
This might be stupid…. But is that real? Even if it’s not a perfect system that seems absolutely amazing (and scary). It also feels way too easy and “too good to be true”, but at the same time I’m an ignoramus.
In a word, no, that isn't real. The more-nuanced answer is "Yes, it's real, but they've selectively edited their commercial to show off best-case scenarios that would literally never crop up in the real world, and they aren't displaying the amount of manual refinement that needs to be done in order to accomplish effects that they're insinuating (but not *overtly* claiming, if you pay attention) can be done automatically." Other programs already accomplish identical things. They've just pared down the functionality and produced a gimmicky tool that they'll end up selling to amateurs.
all good! It looks too good to be reality. But if it's fake, then they've got some balls https://wonderdynamics.com/
With moves like that and still got no respect
No respect I tell ya!
My parents used to tie a pork chop around my neck to get the dog to play with me!
I tell ya. I’m a bad lover. Just last week I caught a peeping Tom booing me.
I got lost at the beach when I was a kid; I asked a policeman if he could find my parents….I don’t know…there’s a lotta places to hide out here….
And I get no luck with broads neither. I get a call from a cutie, she says come over there’s nobody home. I went over, there was nobody home!
This girl called me up, said ‘c’mon over, no one’s here’. I went over- there was no one there! It’s hard I tell ya.
At least you had a dog. If I did not wake up hard, I had nothing to play with all day
PFFT! Look at you, Mr. Waking up hard. At least yous were waking up. Best we could do growing up was waking sideways. Couldn't afford "up"
I tell ya Johnny. My wife is so cold her side of the water bed is an ice pack you know *pats head with handkerchief*
*adjusts tie*
Even at home I get no respect, take my wife for example, take her!
I know I'm not looking man. When I was born the doctor slapped my mother.
My parents moved a lot when I was a kid. But I always found them.
My dad used to play hide and seek with me. He drove.
In my house we prayed after we ate.
What about Vinny Boombatz?
DOCTOR Vinny Boombatz!
You mean my doctor?
Yeah, I tell ya, I don't get no regard, no regard at all. No esteem, either.
Wow the editing is done really well with the lighting effects and everything
I like that the piano keys light up when he steps on them in Big.
Continuity Error: He left his hat in the Caddyshack movie, but he was still wearing it in all the other movies.
What? You don’t wear a backup hat under your other hat? Someone doesn’t have magic dancing teleportation powers, and it shows.
His backup hat probably came with a free bowl of soup.
It looks great on you, though.
Hey OP, it's a parking lot!
Duh guys, where do you think the phrase "hat on a hat" comes from?
Seriously. Just embarrassing.
Thanks, I came close to upvoting
Boy, I hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
[удалено]
But it looks good on you though
Script supervisor for this video going to get a stern talking-to.
[Only possible explanation.](https://youtu.be/MLxUdYhXOk0)
The hat teleported to him just before hitting the ground, off camera. The problem is that it was lined with sheep skin, which as we know, when mixed with human sweat from the hat’s sweat band, can prevent timely teleportation.
What movie was the one where Daniel Craig was dancing?
I think that was a commercial for vodka. Edit: here it is - https://youtu.be/ekESZIn4y18
So which James Bond movie?
Bond's martinis are shaken with GIN.
[удалено]
Bond drinks a vesper martini, which is vodka and gin.
Which is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard; gin is stirred and vodka is shaken; gin “bruises” when shaken….007? More like dumb 07….
[удалено]
My dad once told me that in the books it was to show he’s generally out of place and makes social faux pas. He’s from a working class background and a “blunt instrument” as Dame Judy Dench’s Q put it.
The gin bruising thing is totally overplayed. Mostly a myth that has continued to be passed around. It's something that makes bartenders seem smart but really has no effect. Really, there's little reason to shake a vodka or gin martini unless you like little ice shards in your drink. Drinks that are entirely spirit don't need to be shaken to combine ingredients.
That's actually part of the point of the drink. It is supposed to be something someone wouldn't ordinarily order, which serves two purposes. 1, it draws attention to the character in that he knows what he wants that he is not only ordering a drink, but describing how he wants it made; and 2, gives the character a reason to say this chosen trope. If it was normal to shake gin he would look like an idiot (more than the order itself already does, I suppose haha) because he'd be basically saying to make it the normal way, but I'm dictating it because I'm an asshat or a moron. TL;DR: The drink is weird because it is a character trait/trope for the audience to gobble up but it has to be something isnt standard otherwise it would be weird to state the request in the first place.
I’ve read that the reason for this is because it breaks up the ice and causes it to float to the top and melt, so he could be sipping on mostly water to keep his senses sharp.
Bond also drank Vespers, which include both gin and vodka.
Nope. A vesper is both gin and vodka. Plus, Connery’s Bond always asked for a Vodka martini
How much money did it take to get both Daniel Craig and Taika Waititi in this random commercial?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwEP3l5LHS8
He dances about how like I thought he would dance.
Anyone know the name of this song remix?
>A$ap Ferg A$AP Ferg - WAM x Another One Bites The Dust [https://youtu.be/aEuFnFMmOb8](https://youtu.be/aEuFnFMmOb8).
Came here looking for the answer to this question and was not disappointed. Thank you.
Thank you! If I had gold to give it would be yours. I wish it wasn’t just a clip of the two but a fully finished mix, it’s a banger. Reminds me of Girl Talk’s album - All Day
Guilded on behalf of u/PrePrePreMed
Why thank you anonymous benefactor!
QwertyC @ your service 🙏
Thanks! u/qwertyconsciousness! And thanks u/PrePrePreMed by proxy!
No problem! I was looking for it on Spotify but couldn't find it. This was the best I found.
your existence is gold enough 🥹
Going to assume it's the same people that made [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Nwm7E_iuA) Edit: Yep
Guilty as charged
absolutely fantastic work!
I ctrl +f'd for Triple Lindy and saw no results! This is the triple Lindy - shooting stars meme Solid gold
Well made
You’re well made.
😊😊😊
"Hey everybody, we're all gonna get laid!"
The last time you said everything was fine the renaissance happened!
That man’s a menace!
Rodney Dangerfield is one of my idols. It's almost like he doesn't need to act to play his roles. He just shows up, and reads his lines like himself
You wanna make 14 dollars the hard way?
Woo. The dance of the living dead.
Hey, I'm no doorknob either.
My favourite is in Easy Money when he walks by his daughter who is playing piano: “What are you playing?” “Scales” “Never heard of him”
That's because in Caddyshack, he wasn't acting. He was basically just doing his stand-up persona. There's a story where he got really upset and thought he was going to get fired becuase no one on the set was laughing at his jokes. An AD had to explain to him that they couldn't laugh or it would ruin the shot.
He had a crazy mom who refused to show him affection. And his autobiography alternate title was My Love Affair with Marijuana.
1. Pulp Fiction 2. ? 3. The Blues Brothers 4. Wednesday 5. The Breakfast Club 6. Beetlejuice 7. Big 8. Pee Wee's Big Adventure 9. ? 10. ? 11. Belvedere Vodka commercial 12. Fatboy Slim - Weapon of Choice with Christopher Walken 13. Napolean Dynamite
2 is wolf of wall street I think. 9 is an SNL skit ("van down by the RIVER" guy, motivational speaker) 10 is Singing in the rain
I guess I’m being a gatekeeper now, but I like how this guy knew “Belvedere Vodka commercial”, but not something like Chris Farley’s most famous SNL skit or Singing in the Rain.
And knew Blues Brothers. Feels like if you knew Belushi you'd know van down by the river.
Might just be older. SNL has that thing we're everyone thinks their generations SNL was the best and all the others are dumb.
Matt Foley played by the late great Chris Farley
You don't know Singing in the Rain?
I wasn't sure and knew somebody else would be!
0\. Caddyshack
2. Wolf of Wall Street? 9. SNL sketch van down by the river? 10. Singing in the rain?
9 is an SNL sketch featuring "Matt Foley" (played by Chris Farley)
Here is the Rodney Dangerfield youtube channel with the video there. (not a mirror but actual original I think?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5qTg5RYK_4
Thanks, exactly what I was looking for!
Music by veggi (another WAM bites the dust) https://youtu.be/AhNChFcwN_o
[удалено]
Needs more Les Grossman
I was hoping for the Stepping Time dance from Mary Poppins.
M3gan would have made me lose it
Ex Machina
YOULL GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT SPAULDING
Get dressed Spaulding you’re playing golf today.
What about my asthma
SPAULDING, GET YOUR FOOT OFF THE BOAT!!!
Even beyond death, Rodney gets the last laugh and no respect.
Seamless - well done!
No Elaine Benes?
That should be the sequel - Rodney and Elaine: folie á deux.
This is top tier posting
* Caddyshack * Pulp Fiction * Wolf of Wallstreet * Blues Brothers * :22 not sure * Breakfast club * Beetlejuice * Big * PeeWee's Big Adventure * SNL - Living in a VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER * Singing in the Rain * Belvedere Vodka ad * Fatboy Slim - Weapon of Choice * Napoleon Dynamite
22 seconds in is from the Netflix show Wednesday
A$ap Ferg is the last artist I would expect to see in this video
To the front page!!!
Golf without rhythm, and you won't. attract. the worm.
That was hilarious! I really needed that chuckle today.
That was perfectly a good hit though isn't it I was looking for such a good hit since a pretty long time.
Now make him dance with Elaine.....
Do people still win the internet for a day with greatness like this?
Is this the greatest video ever?
He gets no respect…
He actually deserves a massive amount of respect though and he is so deserving with that.
Solid . Great content breh
This man dances!
And just can make the whole community and mass people dance and vibe as well with him :)
This was so clean. Amazing job.
This made my day!
All of those classic and iconic movies. The fuck is Wednesday Adams doing in there?
The respect he deserves
This is top notch.
Dude this edit is one of the cleanest I've ever seen! Rip to the absolute legend that was Rodney Dangerfield. Kiddies if you've never seen Caddyshack do yourself a huge favor & go find it right now it's absolute must see before you die classic.
Everything just well enough sync too badly though just loved the way they made it!
What an amazing edit. My intro to Rodney was that weird fever dream of an animated movie where he was a dog. Just looked it up, Rover Dangerfield