You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Plant and trees dying

Posted: Wed, 15th Jul 2009, 10:08pm

Post 1 of 36

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Hey all, I need some advice on a video I have to make. It's for a video contest about saving water. So after thinking for a bit I think I know what I'll be doing.

I need to show plants and trees dying as people waste water, but I have no idea on how I'd do that(show plants and trees dying). So if anyone has a good idea please share it. thanks
Posted: Wed, 15th Jul 2009, 10:17pm

Post 2 of 36

Tommy Gundersen

Force: 530 | Joined: 25th Jan 2005 | Posts: 471

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Find some tree-like pot plant, do a stop-motion like video of it over a few days as it dies because you "accidentally" forgot to give it anything? smile
Posted: Wed, 15th Jul 2009, 11:38pm

Post 3 of 36

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

You could show a stylised desertification by morphing similarly composed shots of greenery with stock shots of deserty scrub?
Posted: Thu, 16th Jul 2009, 12:25am

Post 4 of 36

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

both good ideas, thanks.
PDRG, where would I find such images?
Posted: Thu, 16th Jul 2009, 12:50am

Post 5 of 36

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Not allowed to kill real trees for a film. Lol, jk.

How about people dying as they waste water. Maybe a good excuse to show the desert scene from Don Knotts' "The Shakiest Gun in the West".
Posted: Thu, 16th Jul 2009, 5:30am

Post 6 of 36

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Normally I wouldn't suggest a compositing approach, but I think if you treat this like stock footage you shouldn't have many problems. Setup up a few potted plants that aren't perrenial or just ones that die easily when not taken care of, then just snap some time lapse of either plan on a daily basis for a two weeks, and composite in those dying plants into your frame.

Or just hit up a stock footage website and spend like 10 bucks buying captures of withering flowers, etc and composite that in.
Posted: Thu, 16th Jul 2009, 1:41pm

Post 7 of 36

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think time lapse is the way to go with this shot. The morphing wouldn't be that convincing because of all the details you would have to morph.If you need like a forest, get those fake plants that they sell a Walmart, then go out and find a dead twig that has a similar shape, and fade between it. If you keep it in the background, it might look convincing.
Posted: Thu, 16th Jul 2009, 2:59pm

Post 8 of 36

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

yea all great ideas. since there will be many shots I think i'll do a mix of all your ideas. see what works. thanks again
Posted: Thu, 16th Jul 2009, 4:24pm

Post 9 of 36

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm sure you can find some Creative Commons licensed images that will help - http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Content_Directories may act as a starting point?
Posted: Fri, 17th Jul 2009, 1:34am

Post 10 of 36

voiceoverwizard

Force: 931 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 465

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

How do people waste water? Where does it go, since wasting it indicates that it is gone? If it is not gone what has it become since it must not be water anymore?
Posted: Fri, 17th Jul 2009, 2:08am

Post 11 of 36

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Don't ask those questions please. It will start an argument.
Posted: Fri, 17th Jul 2009, 2:28am

Post 12 of 36

voiceoverwizard

Force: 931 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 465

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

Richard III wrote:

Don't ask those questions please. It will start an argument.
Well I suppose it might start an arguement with some who is closed minded but I will refuse to argue with anyone over those questions unless they can answer them, really answer them.
Posted: Fri, 17th Jul 2009, 4:06am

Post 13 of 36

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

well, according to savewater.com.au , only 3 percent of the earth's water is clean. And only one third of 1 percent of these 3 percents are available to humans. So my guess is when people pump up water and people waste it, it's not guaranteed that the 'wasted' water will come back to human reach. That's why people should stop using their toilets as trash cans and stuff like that.
Posted: Fri, 17th Jul 2009, 3:02pm

Post 14 of 36

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm curious, is this for a scholarship program? A friend of mine wanted me to do an Anti-Nuclear energy video with him for a scholarship. I said yes even though I think we should pursue nuclear energy. We never got around to making the video though sad.
Posted: Fri, 17th Jul 2009, 3:14pm

Post 15 of 36

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rockfilmers wrote:

I'm curious, is this for a scholarship program? A friend of mine wanted me to do an Anti-Nuclear energy video with him for a scholarship. I said yes even though I think we should pursue nuclear energy. We never got around to making the video though sad.
not really a scholarship. You do win money but you don't have to use it for college or anything. It's just a contest a water-saving company does every year.
Posted: Sat, 18th Jul 2009, 12:07am

Post 16 of 36

voiceoverwizard

Force: 931 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 465

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

well, according to savewater.com.au , only 3 percent of the earth's water is clean. And only one third of 1 percent of these 3 percents are available to humans. So my guess is when people pump up water and people waste it, it's not guaranteed that the 'wasted' water will come back to human reach. That's why people should stop using their toilets as trash cans and stuff like that.
Well, actually what it says is 3% of the Earth's water is "fresh" as in not salt water as opposed to not clean, and only one percent is available for human use at any given moment. But salt water, which makes up the other 97%, also evaporates and becomes rain which resupplies bodies of fresh water so there will be 1% available tomorrow as well.
In addition my question was how do people waste water where does it go or what does it become, and your answer is they waste it and since it was wasted it may not come back?
Posted: Sat, 18th Jul 2009, 2:29am

Post 17 of 36

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

voiceoverwizard wrote:



Well, actually what it says is 3% of the Earth's water is "fresh" as in not salt water as opposed to not clean
ya that's what I meant. Couldn't remember the wording.
Posted: Sat, 18th Jul 2009, 2:29pm

Post 18 of 36

voiceoverwizard

Force: 931 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 465

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -7

Where does it go?
What does it become?

If you don't know just say:

That you don't know.

That you have jumped, like a lemming, on to the bandwagon of some Enviro/political cause that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, but that you have no factual scientific basis for doing so.

That you have no concept of how the "water cycle" works.

That all you know is someone(with their own agenda)has told you that the evil humans are "killing the Earth", and if you don't do something that, "conicidentally" will either give them more money or more political power,or both, the Earth will cease to exist.
If you are doing what they say to do or not to do they are exercising political power over you.
Posted: Sat, 18th Jul 2009, 4:39pm

Post 19 of 36

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +4

voiceoverwizard wrote:

you have no factual scientific basis for doing so.

That you have no concept of how the "water cycle" works.

Do I sound like I care about the water cycle or scientific facts? The prize for the winner is 6000 dollars, so unless you gonna give me that 6000 I don't see the point of this discussion.
Posted: Sat, 18th Jul 2009, 7:37pm

Post 20 of 36

voiceoverwizard

Force: 931 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 465

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

No you don't sound like you do, and that is fine.
Now that I realize that I wish you the best of luck in making your video and winning the contest.
I apologize I am just sick and tired of people who know nothing about a subject screaming to fix this problem that they don't understand, some how they know the solution and it always requires us to give them money(taxes or otherwise) or give up some more of our freedom, and as always if we don't the Earth's destruction is imminent.

Again good luck with your film.
Posted: Sat, 18th Jul 2009, 8:38pm

Post 21 of 36

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

But salt water, which makes up the other 97%, also evaporates and becomes rain which resupplies bodies of fresh water so there will be 1% available tomorrow as well.
This is true, but I think you're miscalculating the amount of time that it takes to replenish fresh water supplies. Yes, the salt water in the sea will become freshwater through the rain cycle - but it won't necessarily become immediately available for human consumption.

Currently, we're over-stressing groundwater, using it up faster than it can be replenished naturally. We're pumping it out of the ground faster than it can be re-absorbed (thanks to the fact that we've covered vast areas of our earth with non-porous surfaces like concrete), leading to the depletion of aquifers.

If you need scientific proof of that, you just need to look at the dramatic rate of falling water tables occurring across the globe. In some countries like Yemen, it's believed that the water table is dropping by as much as 2 meters per year, as demand for water far outstrips the earth's ability to replenish itself. The US Department of Agriculture has calculated that the water table has dropped over 100 feet in areas of the US - meaning that it's more costly (in terms of money AND energy) to retrieve water from the aquifers.

Add to this the fact that human development is not only affecting the level of water that's immediately available, but also the *quality* of the water that exists. By constantly flushing chemicals and contaminants into the water system, we're saturating the entire cycle. If we use our water more carefully, we pollute it less quickly, which means we'll have fresh clean water for longer than otherwise we would have.

Plus, the more water we waste, the more waste water there is to be treated before it's safe for us to drink again. And treating waste water uses energy - which in turn contributes to using up the earth's finite energy resources. Bear in mind that water and water treatment facilities account for 30% - 35% of municipal energy use in most communities, which isn't a trifling amount!

And that's not even getting into the knock on consequences to overpumping of groundwater, such as how falling water tables directly contributing to falling harvests...

And think about it - if there's only 1% of the world's water available every day, but our consumption keeps on increasing, and the world's population keeps on increasing, then we're going to end up with water shortages.

At the end of the day, people taking note not to waste water by doing simple things such as turning the tap off whilst brushing your teeth, or having showers rather than baths is going to have a beneficial effect at very little personal cost.

I don't see how people taking a few measures to reduce their water usage gives anyone any undue political power or costs you any money (on the contrary, it SAVES you money).

So if, as you seem to think, conserving water has no positive effects, what have you really lost?
Posted: Sat, 18th Jul 2009, 10:20pm

Post 22 of 36

voiceoverwizard

Force: 931 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 465

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Well you certainly packed alot in to your post Arktic and it would be too much to try to address all of them.

But first let me say that not one thing I posted indicates that there is no positives of conserving water and saving energy would certainly be the biggest of those, so thanks for telling me what I think but if you don't mind I'll decide what I think.

Speaking of which your statements of "Scientific proof" should not include the phrase "it's believed that..." that is a hypothesis not a fact.

The time it takes for salt water to become rain and become available fresh water, I have not miscalculated anything, as it is a constant process which started millions of years ago so even if it takes 1000 years the rain that fell 1000 years ago would be available today, and the rain of today available 1000 years from now.

Lastly this discussion started by a film maker wanting to show plants and trees dying due to the lack of water, as if to suggest that if I didn't drink a glass of water or wash my car this tree would not die. Well unless I take that glass or bucket of water and pour it on the tree, the tree still dies thanks to nature not man.
Posted: Sat, 18th Jul 2009, 11:13pm

Post 23 of 36

DavidLittlefield

Force: 1905 | Joined: 10th Oct 2006 | Posts: 469

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

voiceoverwizard wrote:

Lastly this discussion started by a film maker wanting to show plants and trees dying due to the lack of water, as if to suggest that if I didn't drink a glass of water or wash my car this tree would not die. Well unless I take that glass or bucket of water and pour it on the tree, the tree still dies thanks to nature not man.
Wow, don't you think you're assuming an awful lot? Why did you even start this voiceoverwizard? This is really not the place. Don't bring up more confrontations than are already present.

Anyways, I agree with most people that the time-lapse would be the best, most effective approach. I don't know what your deadline is, but I would take time into account; it's going to take more than a few days for a healthy plant to wither up and die. I look forward to seeing the finish product, I haven't seen a lot of time-lapse shots on amateur videos. You probably won't be able to release it for a while, if at all, but let us know how it goes!
Posted: Sat, 18th Jul 2009, 11:30pm

Post 24 of 36

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

even if it takes 1000 years the rain that fell 1000 years ago would be available today, and the rain of today available 1000 years from now
Wrong. If we're taking water out of the ground faster than it can be replenished then that water will, at some point, run out. That's just basic maths.

Speaking of which your statements of "Scientific proof" should not include the phrase "it's believed that..." that is a hypothesis not a fact.
No, falling water tables are an empirical, verifiable fact. The rate is debatable, but to quibble over that is avoiding the main issue: the water tables are falling across the globe because of excessive ground-pumping to meet consumer demand - which would be reduced if we all made an effort to save on water wastage.

Lastly this discussion started by a film maker wanting to show plants and trees dying due to the lack of water, as if to suggest that if I didn't drink a glass of water or wash my car this tree would not die. Well unless I take that glass or bucket of water and pour it on the tree, the tree still dies thanks to nature not man.
Just because RodyPolis has chosen to use plants dying as a visual metaphor, don't try to hide behind that. Remember, we're film-makers, not everything we show is a literal version of events.

And your attitude of "well, if I waste some water, it's no big deal" is exactly one of the reasons that so much water is wasted. The average American uses more than 150 gallons of water per day for household and municipal use (excluding agricultural and industrial usage). That's massively more than is necessary - and if everyone cut down on wastage, we'd be preserving the water supplies for future generations.

not one thing I posted indicates that there is no positives of conserving water ... so thanks for telling me what I think but if you don't mind I'll decide what I think.
My apologies, I agree that you didn't say that there were no benefits; however I do think that saying condescending things like "you have jumped, like a lemming ... but that you have no factual scientific basis for doing so" or "people who know nothing about a subject" suggests that you think that people who believe in conserving water are somehow being ridiculous.
Posted: Sun, 19th Jul 2009, 4:30am

Post 25 of 36

voiceoverwizard

Force: 931 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 465

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

First let me say that this will be my last post in this thread I just really can't devote anymore time to it.[quote="Arktic"]
even if it takes 1000 years the rain that fell 1000 years ago would be available today, and the rain of today available 1000 years from now

Arktic wrote:

Wrong. If we're taking water out of the ground faster than it can be replenished then that water will, at some point, run out. That's just basic maths.
Where does my quote say that it won't run out, it doesn't, everything in my quote is 100% correct.

Speaking of which your statements of "Scientific proof" should not include the phrase "it's believed that..." that is a hypothesis not a fact.

Arktic wrote:

No, falling water tables are an empirical, verifiable fact. The rate is debatable, but to quibble over that is avoiding the main issue: the water tables are falling across the globe because of excessive ground-pumping to meet consumer demand - which would be reduced if we all made an effort to save on water wastage.
The water tables falling in some places(and they are) does not necessarily mean they are falling every where(for example where I live the rivers have been at or near flood stage the majority of the last 2 yearsYES 2 YEARS) and certainly doesn't automatically mean that the drop is caused by pumping now before you get all worked up about the obvious answer that we are pumping it out and the level is going down.... What if we weren't pumping it out at all would it be contiuously rising and if so then why was for example, America not completely submerged when it was first discovered and no one had been pumping any water out of the ground for millions of years HMMM I guess there must be some other way for the water tables to be regulated, though clearly pumping the water out can and would contribute and I am not saying it wouldn't. I am just saying that it is an assumption not an established fact that the tables are going down exclusively due to pumping by humans.

Lastly this discussion started by a film maker wanting to show plants and trees dying due to the lack of water, as if to suggest that if I didn't drink a glass of water or wash my car this tree would not die. Well unless I take that glass or bucket of water and pour it on the tree, the tree still dies thanks to nature not man.
Just because RodyPolis has chosen to use plants dying as a visual metaphor, don't try to hide behind that. Remember, we're film-makers, not everything we show is a literal version of events.

Arktic wrote:

And your attitude of "well, if I waste some water, it's no big deal" is exactly one of the reasons that so much water is wasted. The average American uses more than 150 gallons of water per day for household and municipal use (excluding agricultural and industrial usage). That's massively more than is necessary - and if everyone cut down on wastage, we'd be preserving the water supplies for future generations.
I don't actually remember saying any such thing about wasting water, but again thanks for deciding what I think, by the way I agree that is more than is necesssary and I think we should use less but that does not mean someone should be able to force us to.

not one thing I posted indicates that there is no positives of conserving water ... so thanks for telling me what I think but if you don't mind I'll decide what I think.

Arktic wrote:

My apologies, I agree that you didn't say that there were no benefits; however I do think that saying condescending things like "you have jumped, like a lemming ... but that you have no factual scientific basis for doing so" or "people who know nothing about a subject" suggests that you think that people who believe in conserving water are somehow being ridiculous.
While you may find it condescending the simple fact of the matter is I was right, though his motivation was a $6000 prize the fact remains, as he stated that he doesn't give a crap about the facts behind this subject, so I was wrong about it making him feel all warm and fuzzy like most people who are activists but none the less the facts are irrevelvent to him and yet he is making a film about it which the people sponsoring the contest will be more than happy to use to support their cause.
Finally the ground water levels are not relevant to plants or trees dying which are obviously above the water table, unless we pump it up. So his film should have a conclusion that we need to pump up more water to save these plants and trees.
I am out.
Posted: Sun, 19th Jul 2009, 7:51am

Post 26 of 36

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Where does my quote say that it won't run out
By saying that the rain of today will be available in 1000 years, it suggests that you think that it's a resource which will NOT run out in the next 1000 years (which isn't right - the UN have predicted that by 2025, 2.8 BILLION people will be suffering from water scarcity, and that figure will only ever go up, if we don't start doing something about it).

I am just saying that it is an assumption not an established fact that the tables are going down exclusively due to pumping by humans.
I agree - it's not exclusively due to ground-pumping, but there are many other factors involved in making water a dwindling resource; such a water pollution, importing water from countries where it's scarce, building in areas which affects the rain cycle, etc etc. I was just using ground-pumping as one aspect, which you agree, has an effect on the availability of water (it is the most relevant, in my opinion, to why we should conserve water).

again thanks for deciding what I think, by the way I agree that is more than is necesssary and I think we should use less but that does not mean someone should be able to force us to
Well, if we're on that kind of a kick - where did I say that someone should be able to force you to save water? Or have you just decided that I think that? Thanks smile

While you may find it condescending the simple fact of the matter is I was right
No, you're wrong. You don't think that the availablity of water is an issue we have to worry about for '1000 years'; which is incorrect.

Finally the ground water levels are not relevant to plants or trees dying
I've NEVER said that plants and trees dying has anything to do with ground pumping. Again, thanks for being a hypocrite and telling me what I believe.

You know, at the end of the day, believe what you want. But if you still want to go around not caring about water waste, then it's YOUR children who will suffer the consequences of living in a world with water scarcity.

Best regards,
Arktic.
Posted: Sun, 19th Jul 2009, 11:06pm

Post 27 of 36

voiceoverwizard

Force: 931 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 465

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Seriously after this if you want the last word go ahead but you are doing exactly what most of the Left wing radical enviromentalists do which is to read in facts that don't exist in order support their case and just disregard any actual facts which do not. I say this not to offend you but simply because that's the way it is see below as to how.

Arktic wrote:

Where does my quote say that it won't run out

Arktic wrote:

By saying that the rain of today will be available in 1000 years, it suggests that you think that it's a resource which will NOT run out in the next 1000 years (which isn't right - the UN have predicted that by 2025, 2.8 BILLION people will be suffering from water scarcity, and that figure will only ever go up, if we don't start doing something about it).
I said if the cycle took 1000 years, if the cycle took 10 days then todays rain would be available in 10 days, regardless whether or not it would be adequate to meet the demand which of course no one knows what it will be 1000 years from now.

I am just saying that it is an assumption not an established fact that the tables are going down exclusively due to pumping by humans.

Arktic wrote:

I agree - it's not exclusively due to ground-pumping, but there are many other factors involved in making water a dwindling resource; such a water pollution, importing water from countries where it's scarce, building in areas which affects the rain cycle, etc etc. I was just using ground-pumping as one aspect, which you agree, has an effect on the availability of water (it is the most relevant, in my opinion, to why we should conserve water).
I agree with most of this I don't know about the building affecting the water cycle, I repeat I don't know, not I deny this.

again thanks for deciding what I think, by the way I agree that is more than is necesssary and I think we should use less but that does not mean someone should be able to force us to

Arktic wrote:

Well, if we're on that kind of a kick - where did I say that someone should be able to force you to save water? Or have you just decided that I think that? Thanks smile
Well that comes from earlier in the discussion refering to taking of political power, for example when the "authorities" decide we can't wash our car or water our lawn etc. Not refering to anything yuou said nor indicating that.

While you may find it condescending the simple fact of the matter is I was right

Arktic wrote:

No, you're wrong. You don't think that the availablity of water is an issue we have to worry about for '1000 years'; which is incorrect.
Well we already covered what I actually did say about the 1000 years and this is certainly not it.

Finally the ground water levels are not relevant to plants or trees dying

Arktic wrote:

I've NEVER said that plants and trees dying has anything to do with ground pumping. Again, thanks for being a hypocrite and telling me what I believe.
Well this of course refers to the original post in this thread and nothing that you said so I don't really feel I need to apologize for something that I didn't do,

[quote"Arktic"]You know, at the end of the day, believe what you want. But if you still want to go around not caring about water waste, then it's YOUR children who will suffer the consequences of living in a world with water scarcity.
I will say 3 things about this statement
1) You have once again decided what I think/believe and once again misstated it
2)With the exception of a few gallons that have been lost in space since
we began traveling there the water on the planet has not changed in quantity only location and it is cyclical
3) Perhaps we could melt the polar ice caps to get some more water since it seems that is where most of the fresh water is. I apppreciate your civility in this discussion.
Thanks,
Sean

PS if you choose to reply that is ok I will read it but I will not reply, I hope our next conversation is about films
Best regards,
Arktic.[/quote]
Posted: Sun, 19th Jul 2009, 11:25pm

Post 28 of 36

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

voiceoverwizard wrote:

I hope our next conversation is about films
If I'm not mistaken, the whole topic was about filmmaking until you changed it into an enviromental argument. confused

Anyways, back to the topic and the suggestions on how to do the shots - regardless of the content.
Posted: Mon, 20th Jul 2009, 12:31am

Post 29 of 36

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

So I started planning the video and I think there will be more to it then just stuff dying. I'm gonna add a little 'Dynamite' to it cause I can't do some boring preachy stuff smile
I think I should be able to find a fun way to deliver the message. I'll try to see if it's possible to show the you all the video, if not then it should be up the contests website next year. Thanks again
Posted: Mon, 20th Jul 2009, 12:36am

Post 30 of 36

voiceoverwizard

Force: 931 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 465

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

voiceoverwizard wrote:

I hope our next conversation is about films
If I'm not mistaken, the whole topic was about filmmaking until you changed it into an enviromental argument. confused

Anyways, back to the topic and the suggestions on how to do the shots - regardless of the content.
Well, I guess, you could say that, but I just asked a couple of simple questions related to the subject matter of the film, which by the way no one ever even attempted to answer. I suppose I should have done what I said I would and refused to argue with anyone without them answering them, but I didn't.
Posted: Mon, 20th Jul 2009, 2:38am

Post 31 of 36

Tim L

Force: 580 | Joined: 4th Aug 2006 | Posts: 297

Windows User

Member

(Back to the filmmaking question...)

RodyPolis: I'm a little bit late to this thread as I've been out of town, but if you want to try to do a timelapse of a plant withering and dying, it can be greatly sped up if you use a herbicide like RoundUp on it. Depending on the plant and the dosage, some plants start to wither within hours if out in the hot sun. Might be totally dead and brown in just a few days time.

But... I don't know what to expect if doing this with a bluescreen and doing it indoors with controlled lighting so that you can composite the timelapse onto something else.

Tim L
Posted: Mon, 20th Jul 2009, 3:02am

Post 32 of 36

DavidLittlefield

Force: 1905 | Joined: 10th Oct 2006 | Posts: 469

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

You could film it against bluescreen, but I think part of the dramatic effect is seeing the shadows change and the sun change positions in the background. Both of which would be lost if you have controlled lighting and a composition. However, it's a stylistic choice and depends on the other things you have in mind for the video. Just something to think about!
Posted: Mon, 20th Jul 2009, 3:32am

Post 33 of 36

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ya i'm about to hit Wal Mart the next week. I'll be needing more then just a a plant cause I got some cool ideas coming in. Thanks you all for your help.
Posted: Mon, 20th Jul 2009, 3:35am

Post 34 of 36

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Consider a bonsai tree. They look awesome.
Posted: Mon, 20th Jul 2009, 10:33am

Post 35 of 36

Nutbar

Force: 530 | Joined: 13th Aug 2006 | Posts: 373

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

voiceoverwizard wrote:

Sollthar wrote:

voiceoverwizard wrote:

I hope our next conversation is about films
If I'm not mistaken, the whole topic was about filmmaking until you changed it into an enviromental argument. confused

Anyways, back to the topic and the suggestions on how to do the shots - regardless of the content.
Well, I guess, you could say that, but I just asked a couple of simple questions related to the subject matter of the film, which by the way no one ever even attempted to answer. I suppose I should have done what I said I would and refused to argue with anyone without them answering them, but I didn't.
Water wastage does not refer to water disappearing, but rather to available supplies at any given time reducing.

Say the population is 1000, and they all drink a liter of water a day which takes 100 years to circulate. And the population increases by 10 every year.

Ok, thats 365000 liters used in the 1st year.
368650 used in the 2nd year. And so on

So, by the time the 1st years (365000 liters) water is available for use again we as a population are drinking 730000 liters during the year. That means we have used 365000 liters more in year 100 than have been refreshed.
Posted: Sun, 26th Jul 2009, 1:32am

Post 36 of 36

Limey

Force: 547 | Joined: 11th Sep 2005 | Posts: 752

Gold Member

I think some time lapse of plants dieing and rotting would be good with the right music and I think you could fit it in nicely.