Forgetting about Biden's hands for a second, It would be impossible to combine all the other elements in the scene and have it be consistent and believable due to the variation of things like subject to camera distance, changing the lens length and shot composition. Not to mention doing all that with two different cameras as we can see footage from both WaPo and The Hill.
The reason people are confused is because they think the mics are smaller than they are and closer to the camera than they are. This is because shooting on a long lens flattens the image and makes it difficult to determine the distances of elements in the scene.So if the image is flattened and the mic is actually bigger than one might think, it would look like the mic is between the camera and his hands when it is really between Biden and his hands, which can be confirmed in the WaPo footage.
Anybody trying to tell you it can be done in After Effects doesn't know the complications involved in doing everything BUT Biden's "hand glitch" to make it look convincing.
It is a trick of perspective caused by a lens probably between 50mm and 70mm.
Yeah I see it now from that second angle you posted. That amount of compression has to be higher than 70 or my experience with full frame slr does not apply.
Yeah I think you're right. Although I might be technically correct because Cine/news cameras are usually Super 35, so 50-70mm lens would have the FoV of an 80-120mm FF, I was estimating in terms of full frame. To me it looks to be approaching normal width by the time he stops walking, but if I were to put money on it, I'd say around 70-85mm FF. 100mm seems high, but I could be wrong.
Most of the stuff you are describing, especially the movement, is done by shooting a wide wide shot, then moving and bobbing the zoomed in portion. It looks like it is being hand held, but it's static and you are only seeing the smaller frame shaking. Is that not possible?
I've watched about 50 videos of people doing that, but maybe it's different somehow here.
So are you saying its virtually impossible which is why it glitched or that it is perfectly normal video since it would be impossible to fake?
Forgetting about Biden's hands for a second, It would be impossible to combine all the other elements in the scene and have it be consistent and believable due to the variation of things like subject to camera distance, changing the lens length and shot composition. Not to mention doing all that with two different cameras as we can see footage from both WaPo and The Hill.
The reason people are confused is because they think the mics are smaller than they are and closer to the camera than they are. This is because shooting on a long lens flattens the image and makes it difficult to determine the distances of elements in the scene.So if the image is flattened and the mic is actually bigger than one might think, it would look like the mic is between the camera and his hands when it is really between Biden and his hands, which can be confirmed in the WaPo footage.
Anybody trying to tell you it can be done in After Effects doesn't know the complications involved in doing everything BUT Biden's "hand glitch" to make it look convincing.
It is a trick of perspective caused by a lens probably between 50mm and 70mm.
dude if you look at the FULL video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBPmaf7ffg8
you can clearly see it's 1 big studio green screen, from the start where he walks out the whitehouse, all the way into the chopper.
then they greenscreened the chopper in another place and pretended to get him on the plane.
I'm actually impressed they got the plane airborne in a green screen studio though, it's clear the dems are masters of the deepfakes
Lol. Indeed; must have been a big sound stage.
Yeah I see it now from that second angle you posted. That amount of compression has to be higher than 70 or my experience with full frame slr does not apply.
Yeah I think you're right. Although I might be technically correct because Cine/news cameras are usually Super 35, so 50-70mm lens would have the FoV of an 80-120mm FF, I was estimating in terms of full frame. To me it looks to be approaching normal width by the time he stops walking, but if I were to put money on it, I'd say around 70-85mm FF. 100mm seems high, but I could be wrong.
Most of the stuff you are describing, especially the movement, is done by shooting a wide wide shot, then moving and bobbing the zoomed in portion. It looks like it is being hand held, but it's static and you are only seeing the smaller frame shaking. Is that not possible?
I've watched about 50 videos of people doing that, but maybe it's different somehow here.