(no subject)

Date: 2005-05-03 12:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] torrain.livejournal.com
It's a bad sign when I look at what is clearly a multiple-exposure shot of the skey and think "Ha. Photoshop.", right?

(no subject)

Date: 2005-05-03 12:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
Not a bad sign at all. How on earth would you get that red glow when the *SUN* is one of the 4 objects rising, there?

This is multiple exposures of Sun, Moon, Jupiter, and Venus, taken at that location, superimposed on a dawn shot of the location. So, yes, Photoshop is involved.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-05-03 01:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] torrain.livejournal.com
> Not a bad sign at all. How on earth would you get that red glow when the
> *SUN* is one of the 4 objects rising, there?

I couldn't tell if it was sunrise or sunset, and thought that if the place where the red glow used to be was dark enough, it might not change the colour of the aforementioned red glow.

(This is based on my vague recollection that one of the old ways of getting a split screen was by filming the first location with half the lens shielded, then filming the second location with the other half of the lens shielded. Hence I am left with the impression that film taking a picture of "not enough light" will not catch a picture, and can be filmed over.)

(no subject)

Date: 2005-05-04 12:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] corruptedjasper.livejournal.com
This one might actually be possible done physically, but it's much easier and more failsafe just take lots of separate frames and digitally superimpose them.

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Feb. 6th, 2026 08:30 am