Wow... this is always so good, I just assumed it was a ten second-delay, at least. I mean, anticipating the thank you cut-aways, getting Steve Martin right when he stands up?! ...crazy skill and focus.

Brilliant, but how many times did he cut away too early?

His Harrison Ford is quite convincing as well.

I'd like to see more of each of these performances without cutting away so that I can get a better feel for what he's offering.

Also, is that supposed to be George Clooney at the end? 'Cause I can kinda see that.

>> ^vex:

>> ^TheSluiceGate:
OK, 2 things really suspicious about this video:
1) I'm pretty sure I can hear autotune artifacts (I work with audio / vocalists a lot) and a vocal that is consistently too in pitch.
2) Notice at 2:49 the microphone is absolutely miles from her mouth and the vocal is still entirely consistent, no evidence of a change in level or tone that you'd expect a microphone to display (re: proximity effect) - this hints to me at the vocal being pre-recorded. They also cut away at this point which makes me even more suspicious.
Also:
3) The US version of the same show, produced by the same production company, has admitted using autotune: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050
This coming from a person who got goosebumps for the amazing TV debut performances of both Alexis Jordan and Bianca Ryan who were both imperfect, but utterly thrilling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEo5H97CLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xno4Y7r8Ov8

1. I think you're hearing things. Specifically, some of her high to low runs and a couple rising melodies beginning with low notes at the bottom of her range are slightly off key. The way she leads into notes using the back of her throat creates a slight buzz that makes her voice sound autotuned.
2. The beginning of the word "butterflies" comes out at a lower volume as she brings the microphone to her face.


1) It's the texture of the audio of the vocal and not the pitching that leads me to believe it's auto tune. Autotuning has a sound, and it's not necessarily to do with the pitching of the note. A bit like how tape or MP3s of even a specific type of pre-amp has a specific sound carachteristic.

2) I think that any slight dip in volume is because it's a low note outside of her range, but my point was not to do with volume, but to do with proximity effect. With the exception of omni-directional microphones the frequency response of a microphone changes with distance from the source of the sound- simply put: the further the mic is away from the person's mouth the thinner and less bassy it becomes. Even a change in gain / volume will not mask this.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

OK, 2 things really suspicious about this video:
1) I'm pretty sure I can hear autotune artifacts (I work with audio / vocalists a lot) and a vocal that is consistently too in pitch.
2) Notice at 2:49 the microphone is absolutely miles from her mouth and the vocal is still entirely consistent, no evidence of a change in level or tone that you'd expect a microphone to display (re: proximity effect) - this hints to me at the vocal being pre-recorded. They also cut away at this point which makes me even more suspicious.
Also:
3) The US version of the same show, produced by the same production company, has admitted using autotune: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050
This coming from a person who got goosebumps for the amazing TV debut performances of both Alexis Jordan and Bianca Ryan who were both imperfect, but utterly thrilling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEo5H97CLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xno4Y7r8Ov8


1. I think you're hearing things. Specifically, some of her high to low runs and a couple rising melodies beginning with low notes at the bottom of her range are slightly off key. The way she leads into notes using the back of her throat creates a slight buzz that makes her voice sound autotuned.

2. The beginning of the word "butterflies" comes out at a lower volume as she brings the microphone to her face.

OK, 2 things really suspicious about this video:

1) I'm *pretty sure* I can hear autotune artifacts (I work with audio / vocalists a lot) and a vocal that is consistently *too* in pitch.

2) Notice at 2:49 the microphone is absolutely miles from her mouth and the vocal is still entirely consistent, no evidence of a change in level or tone that you'd expect a microphone to display (re: proximity effect) - this hints to me at the vocal being pre-recorded. They also cut away at this point which makes me even more suspicious.

Also:

3) The US version of the same show, produced by the same production company, has admitted using autotune: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050

This coming from a person who got goosebumps for the amazing TV debut performances of both Alexis Jordan and Bianca Ryan who were both imperfect, but utterly thrilling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEo5H97CLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xno4Y7r8Ov8

I had no idea what he was really making until the end of the video. For the record, he's making jello shot orange slices, with jello shot replacing the edible part of the fruit.

I'd improve the design by cutting away the top rim of the peel before slicing so the jello is flush with the peel and it looks more like a real orange slice.

My only gripe with the show is the "Cut Away" scenes. In this case, the chick pressing the "MAGNET" button, while peeking out from behind the curtain.

No, that didn't actually happen for ANY of them, and other than to show what's going on the first time, I see them as completely irrelevant.

How did you carve that beautiful horse? Start with a block of wood, and cut away anything that doesn't look like a horse. (older than dirt)>> ^Trancecoach:

this is an old joke

I didn't find the existence of the cuts to the judges annoying, but they cut away to expressions of awe when he was doing the LEAST IMPRESSIVE THINGS.

>> ^Esoog:

>> ^artician:
I am pretty sick of the television-directorial trend of frequently cutting away from the point of interest so they can show you the reaction of these vapid, know-nothing observers. I don't know if it's for audience emotional-cue or host ego-stroking, but it makes whatever interesting elements there to begin with completely unwatchable for me.
I don't watch TV, I get almost all my exposure through the net, but if I were to gauge it by the sampling I get I'd almost guess that was 90% of the programming. Watch people watching other people. WTF.

Completely agree. It drives me crazy! I hate the cutaways to the judges and crowd.


On the other hand the viewing audience will get bored of the image if they showed a 3 minute non-interrupted shot of the act. Little variety is needed to save people from getting bored. But I hear you guys on that they're doing it way too excessively.

>> ^artician:

I am pretty sick of the television-directorial trend of frequently cutting away from the point of interest so they can show you the reaction of these vapid, know-nothing observers. I don't know if it's for audience emotional-cue or host ego-stroking, but it makes whatever interesting elements there to begin with completely unwatchable for me.
I don't watch TV, I get almost all my exposure through the net, but if I were to gauge it by the sampling I get I'd almost guess that was 90% of the programming. Watch people watching other people. WTF.


Completely agree. It drives me crazy! I hate the cutaways to the judges and crowd.

I am pretty sick of the television-directorial trend of frequently cutting away from the point of interest so they can show you the reaction of these vapid, know-nothing observers. I don't know if it's for audience emotional-cue or host ego-stroking, but it makes whatever interesting elements there to begin with completely unwatchable for me.
I don't watch TV, I get almost all my exposure through the net, but if I were to gauge it by the sampling I get I'd almost guess that was 90% of the programming. Watch people watching other people. WTF.

These fan edits can be amazing. The original Two Towers purist edit saved that film for me, and I've been meaning to investigate these.

As a LOTR fag it's tough to imagine anything could make Star Wars watchable, but cutting away 80% of the running time is probably its best chance.

Yeah I got to wonder about this one, the way it's presented is odd. If it were me I would have included the original audio and done a second pass showing an unedited zoom in of the action outside. And not made the music and cut-aways to the text as the dominant features in this clip.

But maybe it's real and he's just a lousy editor.