>> ^wagthedog1:

>> ^ForgedReality:
Strange how a lot of the frames morph together like this was just a collection of individual photos blended together using semi-intelligent edge detection, as opposed to using, say, oh I dunno, A VIDEO CAMERA...?

Use of a cheap video camera explains why this slo-mo has big fail all over it. The camera man did absolutely nothing recommended in this guide to help the time remapping/frame interpolation filter in After Effects get a super slo-mo result. Also recommended practice is individual tuning of motion sensitivity when using such plug-ins.
If you want to see what a good frame interpolation plug-in can achieve slowing down regular video, type "Twixtor" into the search bar of your favorite video sharing site.


Holy crap dude. That's WAY too much analysis over a corgi in slow motion video.

>> ^ForgedReality:

Strange how a lot of the frames morph together like this was just a collection of individual photos blended together using semi-intelligent edge detection, as opposed to using, say, oh I dunno, A VIDEO CAMERA...?


Use of a cheap video camera explains why this slo-mo has big fail all over it. The camera man did absolutely nothing recommended in this guide to help the time remapping/frame interpolation filter in After Effects get a super slo-mo result. Also recommended practice is individual tuning of motion sensitivity when using such plug-ins.

If you want to see what a good frame interpolation plug-in can achieve slowing down regular video, type "Twixtor" into the search bar of your favorite video sharing site.

>> ^ForgedReality:

Strange how a lot of the frames morph together like this was just a collection of individual photos blended together using semi-intelligent edge detection, as opposed to using, say, oh I dunno, A VIDEO CAMERA...?


The difference being? I'm sure it was shot with a video camera and then slowed down using some optical flow tool. Pretty good results, too.

Strange how a lot of the frames morph together like this was just a collection of individual photos blended together using semi-intelligent edge detection, as opposed to using, say, oh I dunno, A VIDEO CAMERA...?

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?

Because they are not the same thing. The legal definition of marriage carries with it certain tangible rights and responsibilities that a civil union does not.
Are are you seriously implying that the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is in a name or that same-sex couples are merely quibbling over superficial differences for the sake of tooting their own horn?
You are very wrong.
Note the part where it says, "These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman." It would be disingenuous to say they want a complete overhaul of the definition of marriage; an addendum to an existing definition for further inclusiveness is not a redefinition but a modification. It's simply adding to the definition, nothing is being taken away. I'm talking legal definition, just to be clear.
Definitions morph and evolve all the time, I really can't think of one good reason why the legal definition of marriage shouldn't be modified to reflect the social progress that has been made since its inception.


I never suggested that civil unions have the same rights as marriages now do. I suggested that is what should be fought for by those wanting the same rights given to same-sex unions as are given currently to marriages. I argued for that over fighting to have marriage redefined, once again for the reason that redefining marriage implies that sexual orientation is a trait like race and not a choice.

Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?


Because they are not the same thing. The legal definition of marriage carries with it certain tangible rights and responsibilities that a civil union does not.

Are are you seriously implying that the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is in a name or that same-sex couples are merely quibbling over superficial differences for the sake of tooting their own horn?

You are very wrong.

Note the part where it says, "These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman." It would be disingenuous to say they want a complete overhaul of the definition of marriage; an addendum to an existing definition for further inclusiveness is not a redefinition but a modification. It's simply adding to the definition, nothing is being taken away. I'm talking legal definition, just to be clear.

Definitions morph and evolve all the time, I really can't think of one good reason why the legal definition of marriage shouldn't be modified to reflect the social progress that has been made since its inception.

Bryant Gumble somehow, over time, morphed into the Speaker of the House.

I thought it was horrible, as 1. zuckerburg or however you spell it has NO place on SNL, What the fuck has this show morphed into ? its disgusting lately how the segments are scripted and the skits are displayed. That guy has no place on SNL and thats that. ! !

I think it fell to the wayside in the aftermath of some unpleasantness - some people know what I mean. I certainly lost interest in doing them.

It was mainly kronosposeidon, rasch187 and myself that did them, as far as I remember - certainly others did some too. I'll be all for bringing them back, and I have considered doing it again earlier too, since there have been quite a few worth achievers lately.

It's sorta morphed into posts on a user's profile instead now, but it would be nice to get a big congrats poster on the sift talk again.

yes they are...

no homo.
>> ^gwiz665:

They're both hot...
no homo.

Most of what she's done is manipulate light and shadow, via the makeup, to accentuate bone structure: more prominent cheekbones, flattening the cheeks, the cleft nose...

But makeup can only go so far and some things are still going to stand out. Her jawline is still lower and more rounded, her neck is still thinner and longer, her ears are still smaller and higher. I'm guessing these are the visual cues you're picking up on.

*art *anatomy

>> ^Yogi:

I was amazed at how good of a job she did yet how a face can still look distinctively female. There's some inbetween sure but she has a very feminine looking face that shows through.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^therealblankman:

I've met Jared Leto... masculine is not an adjective that comes to mind.


It would've been a lot harder for her to look like him if he didn't wear so much damn makeup.

Your video, Pretty girl morphs into Jared Leto, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Phew! Glad it wasn't just me then...

>> ^Djevel:

At about the 2 minute mark I went from "yeah, I'd still hit that..." to "wtf...I'm confused with my sexuality."
Kudos.