>> ^noizy:
those two side-by-side slides that they do at 2:39 and 2:45 just defy belief.


I was shocked by the 2:45 one too, and from what it seems to me, the two cars aren't touching one another (in both stunts). Just absurdly skilled drivers.

This is my favourite piece of advertising. There is no CGI on display. Abel and Associates only used computers to figure out angles and control camera moves. I love how they've wrapped people in textureless grey body suits in order to simulate shaded computer models.

PS everyone who failed to upvote this when it was in the queue should be ashamed of their self. Makes me question the wisdom of this crowd.

parts of my brain died watching this, but no CGI monsters were harmed by the cgi bullets.

THe point people might be missing is that no CGI or post-processing is done to create these illusions. They're done in-camera by exploiting tricks of perspective.

I think you're really thinking of the Isuzu video: http://www.videosift.com/video/Dancing-Isuzus-in-Paris-incredible-stunts-with-80s-cars-and-no-CGI-used

This one is like a "how to" or "making of video" for the former, although it looks like it's newer.

first published post -

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dancing-Isuzus-in-Paris-incredible-stunts-with-80s-cars-and-no-CGI-used

congratulations Krupo!

*molartastic

$6 million price tag. 3 months to shoot. 606 takes. No CGI (except for small stuff like lighting).

Read the whole story here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cog_%28television_commercial%29

k dag, he never said no cgi, and even so, it isnt cgi, to real, just a switch illusion

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

He claims no CGI trickery, but pretty amazing if so.