Printable View
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/...iversary-photo
It's clear a lot of post-processing went into this, either a ridiculously well straightened wide-angle shot, or several small angle shots all "panorama"d together.
The stars present are insistent that they were all there and that "it is not photoshopped".
I'd argue it simply has to have been "photoshopped" to get all the lines straight (especially without distorting any people), right?
Could have been a large format camera and/or a tilt-shift lens.
No, the shot doesn't necessarily have to have been photoshopped. Movie studios have huge studio spaces at their disposal. In those studios, they have massive lighting rigs. In order to get the resolution, they probably shot it with a medium/large format camera capable of producing a very high resolution image. They may, however, have individually photoshopped the subjects to make them look their best, but overall, the shot looks well choreographed. Paramount Pictures may be one of only a handful of organizations with enough clout to have pulled this off.Quote:
Originally Posted by ham
There are a number of primes with very low distortion. Not necessarily a wide angle lens used. To have that kind of DOF it would be easier to move back in order to maintain a reasonable aperture and shutter speed with a longer lens that is nearly distortion free. Given the apparent height of the camera I'd say that the photo was taken from a distance, not close up.
Edit: Should point out that Art Streiber, who took the shot, is a photographer.
So do we think this actually one shot and not a composite? I just think it has a very odd feel to it.
To clarify, I don't think there's anything wrong with it being a composite (I'm ignoring facial composites to ensure no blinking, I mean composites in the angle-of-view sense).
I think a great photoshopped composite image. I think even Paramount could not have got all those people together on the same day.
Watch the video on the page with the picture. They were all there at the same time. It really is extraordinary.
I vote for a composite, vertical and horizontal panorama with a tilt-shift lens, but that's a guess.
That's probably hard with people though, if someone moves.
Cool Shot though!
Sean, I'm not denying that they're all there at the same time, just how he's got the picture looking as it does.
I'm tempted to think the same as Richard.
I would think Paramount Pictures would have the tools and the technology to take such a picture. They have also been editing pictures before "Photoshop" was even invented. They probably invented many of the techniques used for editing.
But really we are impressed by the technical aspects of the picture?
If all of this talent was really on one stage at one time together, that is the true miracle of this picture.
Personally I doubt they were all there at one time. After all ... It’s Hollywood ...
Seriously, check out the video. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Cool, I didn't even notice the video. But it was still a Hollywood trick, they just rolled out a red carpet and all the stars ran right to it. They couldn't help themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Here you can see the whole picture. The size is only 4987 x 2000 px. As 2.000 is and odd height, I think it's simply a crop.
For sure it must be taken with a good camera and lens, but many DSLR can make a picture this width, no necessarily a medium format camera.
William Shatner, George Takei, Patrick Stewart, great!
Yes, also Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, not so great.
Upon a closer look, I can definitely see signs of photoshop composite work. In fact, there are at least a couple of examples where the compositing was not very well done. Oh well...
Sean, since you pointed out the video, and then watching it with all of its multiple flashes going. I wouldn't doubt that it is a composite of many pictures and cameras.
Seriously, I know these actors are professionals but with 116 of them at least one has to throw up some rabbit ears.
Too many perfect smiles. No way you get everyone looking at the camera and smiling flawlessly like that. I'd go with a composite. Some of the people look a little odd, too. Look at Megan Fox standing next to Jamie Lee Curtis on the far right. Doesn't Megan look off scale-wise? She's probably shorter than Jamie Lee, but she looks like she's almost further away, like the scale is not proportionate. I think there are several people like that.
Karl Urban (Bones), Simon Pegg (Scotty), and Anton Yelchin (Chekov) are in there, too. And Zoe Saldana (Uhura) and John Cho (Sulu). Plenty of Trekkies for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agilulfo
I found this article on PopPhoto that describes the process of getting the image:
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/06...ss-six-minutes
Sean, This is a great article----when I originaly started reading this thread and looking at the photo, the first thing that came to mind wasn't wheather or not it was photoshopped or if actors were pasted in or even what lens and camera combo did he use? My first thoughts were WOW what kind of lighting setup did they use? After reading the article that you posted above I had my answer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Although there is much more to the shot and the lighting set-up, This gives you a little taste of what went in to it.Quote:
But that six minutes of shooting was the product of days of preparation. Art’s crew of 10 assistants used 57 Profoto heads, and gridded 34 of those heads with Magnum P50 dishes as the key light for the 40-foot stage.
As for the question "was it photo-shopped?"---Does it really matter? Don't we all "photo-shop" or use some other image editor to get the best from our photos? I guess the only time I am really interested in whether or not an image is "photo-shopped" is in photojournalism where an image might misrepresent the truth or otherwise be decieving to the viewer.
So, for me, if he had to paste in a smile over a frown or open eyes over closed eyes; or if he had to dodge and burn some sections of the image, adjust highlights and shadows or contrast and sharpness---even if he did a panoram and stitched them together(which he did)---this is a fantastic shot and warrants applause not scrutiny.
Bob
Well said Bob!Quote:
Originally Posted by bob williams
I would bet that Art Streiber was paid more for this one shot than all of my equipment cost combined, and still you could throw in the cost of my pick up truck new. He may have even been paid enough to pay off the mortgage on my house, but in all fairness it is almost paid for. Not bad for 6 minutes of work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Who said there was no money in being a pro photographer, and all he had to do was set his Hasselblad on P for professional. (I wonder if it has a P setting?)
My only question, for my own sanity and intrigue, was whether he'd stitched it in several sections. The answer is yes, as I suspected.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob williams
It's obvious with that many people that some face-swapping needed to be done, but that's why you set up on a tripod and have your lighting exactly the same for each shot.