Seriously, check out the video. :-)Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Seriously, check out the video. :-)
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.
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.
Last edited by Agilulfo; 06-14-2012 at 07:12 PM.
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.
Mark - Flickr
************************
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.
Last edited by M_Six; 06-14-2012 at 08:28 PM.
Mark - Flickr
************************
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:
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.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
Bob
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote