If you think it's a viral for GTA 5, you obviously didn't see the uploader's other videos. He just posts a bunch of stuff from Live Leak and other random things.
OH GOD MY EYES NEAR THE END, SO MUCH CRACK
Definitely not a race thing. I could see white people doing that too.
haha he needed a drag off a cigarette.
I remember watching this on Liveleak last week.
The comments were wonderful.
Wow, some people must be really desperate to actually pay her fat ass for sex.
She's so fucking ugly.
Good for her, not taking any shit
STAND UP FO YOSELF GURL
Respect what she did but jesus, who'd want to fuck a hooker that looks like that :v:
i like the little urkel kid dancing in the background
Well she probably got beat right back into her place. Not that she deserved it but thats how these things go.
[b]YO GE' MAH PEEEYLS BROOOH, GET MAH PEEYLS BROH[/B]
mah peeeeeeeeyls
nice depth of field
As a last resort he could have burnt her with the cigarette. If it's either that of jail I know what I would do.
[editline]9th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sanius;33631344]nice depth of field[/QUOTE]
I hate the way narrow depth of field is abused by DSLR filmmakers and general owners.
A blurry background isn't fucking artistic. You don't see that shit in older or professional films for a reason, the location and surroundings play just as big of a part in they story as the characters.
They actually put effort into big beautiful sets and shot composition rather than some "edgy", out of focus, handheld look.
Imagine if Woody Allen filmed "Manhattan" with this style of shooting, that famous scene under the bridge would just be two people sitting on a seat in front of a whole bunch of blurry lights.
[QUOTE=SuckerPunch;33634694]As a last resort he could have burnt her with the cigarette. If it's either that of jail I know what I would do.[/QUOTE]
Yah I was on the edge of my seat waiting for that
[QUOTE=SuckerPunch;33634694]
I hate the way narrow depth of field is abused by DSLR filmmakers and general owners.
A blurry background isn't fucking artistic. You don't see that shit in older or professional films for a reason, the location and surroundings play just as big of a part in they story as the characters.
They actually put effort into big beautiful sets and shot composition rather than some "edgy", out of focus, handheld look.
Imagine if Woody Allen filmed "Manhattan" with this style of shooting, that famous scene under the bridge would just be two people sitting on a seat in front of a whole bunch of blurry lights.[/QUOTE]
It's not that simple actually. For this technique to work you'd have to let the audience know what type of surroundings they're in first. Then they focus on the characters. And its something pretty new so you can't take such a thing to the past because people used to think differently in the past.
And that scene focuses on background and foreground. Of course I'm not going to blur the background when it has as much importance as the foreground
Ew
That was nasty.
At times, it was hard to tell if he was calling her Tits or Tiff.
[QUOTE=D3TBS;33635514]It's not that simple actually. For this technique to work you'd have to let the audience know what type of surroundings they're in first. Then they focus on the characters. And its something pretty new so you can't take such a thing to the past because people used to think differently in the past.
And that scene focuses on background and foreground. Of course I'm not going to blur the background when it has as much importance as the foreground[/QUOTE]
Have you seen some of these DSLR films? While I agree it can be another technique to help you tell your story when used in the right way but most of these videos produced with DSLR's simply show the subject in frame and everything else completely out of focus giving you no sense of atmosphere or context at all.
I don't think that your average DSLR filmmaker would consider the backdrop of New York to play such a big part as Woody did when they are so accustomed to isolating the subject from the background.
Film is a visual medium so why make 80% of whats in shot impossible to make out when you can use the whole frame to give the audience pieces of information such as where they are and whats going on around them?
Video is down, anyone know somewhere else I can find it?
[editline].[/editline]
Nevermind found it
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzGSRdTGgA[/media]
[QUOTE=SuckerPunch;33636319]Have you seen some of these DSLR films? While I agree it can be another technique to help you tell your story when used in the right way but most of these videos produced with DSLR's simply show the subject in frame and everything else completely out of focus giving you no sense of atmosphere or context at all.
I don't think that your average DSLR filmmaker would consider the backdrop of New York to play such a big part as Woody did when they are so accustomed to isolating the subject from the background.
Film is a visual medium so why make 80% of whats in shot impossible to make out when you can use the whole frame to give the audience pieces of information such as where they are and whats going on around them?[/QUOTE]
because its what people like nowadays. And naturally it will be overused to a point where they realise it's not cool anymore and new techniques will be developed. And that happens with all other fads and everything. And if "Manhattan" was remade today, from scratch, maybe that shot wouldn't be done, maybe the background would be blurred, but the shot would be completely diferrent, so you can't really apply that to something older than the time it started because again, diferrent mentalities and everything. Nor can you compare amateur DSLR users with Woody Allen or any todays big directors.
7 minutes of loud ear rape and annoying sounds
black people in a nut shell
That's a nice freakin' camera.
[QUOTE=D3TBS;33639512]because its what people like nowadays. And naturally it will be overused to a point where they realise it's not cool anymore and new techniques will be developed. And that happens with all other fads and everything. And if "Manhattan" was remade today, from scratch, maybe that shot wouldn't be done, maybe the background would be blurred, but the shot would be completely diferrent, so you can't really apply that to something older than the time it started because again, diferrent mentalities and everything. Nor can you compare amateur DSLR users with Woody Allen or any todays big directors.[/QUOTE]
All I'm saying is most of these DSLR filmmakers misuse a narrow depth of field.
They don't have a good reason to use it other than it "looks cool" or it shows they have a decent camera that is capable of a narrow depth of field and are somewhat professional but you don't see real professionals like Gordon Willis (the DOP on Manhattan) doing it because they are more concerned with the best possible way to tell the story rather than showing what they can do with their camera which is why they are noticed and are able to make a profession out of it, that doesn't just apply to depth field that can apply to any fancy camera trick, sometimes simplicity is better for the sake of the story.
The people that make the films may like it but an audience watching a two hour film will just find it obnoxious very quickly.
I think I can compare amateurs to big directors in the way that deep down at the core they are both story tellers trying to tell the best story they can, granted big directors have millions of dollars to spend they too started out as amateurs but the big difference is they really knew how to tell one hell of a story rather than show how good their camera was and what they could do with it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.