Hello! My name is Jacobi. I made Eyecandy. I'm appreciating seeing suggestions. Is there anything you want me to try on the website? Anything I could improve?
Gifs have large file sizes and poor image quality. Replace them with videos and you’ll improve page load, reduce bandwidth costs (for yourself and your users), and have better quality.
You can configure HTML video to (by default) show no controls and auto-loop so they’ll be indistinguishable from gifs on a first look, but better in every other way.
One thing they're not great for though is shareability. With gifs, you can generally just drag & drop them between most apps and they'll behave as you expect. Not true with videos.
It's such a delight. It is overwhelming and in the best possible way.
The only thing I might suggest is adding some tagging for additional ways of rummaging. I love your existing approach to categories and I think you should keep them primary. But it would be great to browse by, say, director. E.g., I have enough of Edgar Wright's movies in my head that I'd love to see what clips you have from him and whether it's worth submitting more. I happened to find one here: https://eycndy.com/fourth-wall
That's in the works! I want to incorporate a search bar into the site that uses a complex array of hand-done (and A.I. categorized) tags. So that you can search (for e.g.) by director, color, time of day, composition, genre, etc. In the works.
It's a visual technique library for the creative industry. Ad-folk, Directors, Cinematographers, Editors, and Creatives in general. It's a compilation (library) of all the best techniques categorized by type.
This was super cool to click around on the various techniques and see the examples.
(Questions/Thoughts)
- I was looking to see if there was a Steadicam group, wondering if I would see a gif of Henry and Karen walking into the Copa, that's got to be one of the most famous shots in film in the last 40 years (not a critique, totally possible it's there under a different name I'm not aware of as a layperson, I didn't peruse every group.) [Edit note added]
- "Fourth Wall" should include a gif of "The Big Short", breaking the fourth wall was a great way to get the minutiae of the financial subject out of the way and return to the characters.
- Bonus upvote for finding a shot from "Halt and Catch Fire"! (dolly zoom)
Edit: I knew I was forgetting the proper term for my question about Goodfellas, it's a tracking shot. I didn't see the movie in there though, I think it should be added :)
Love that idea. I'm starting to roll out pages dedicated to each shot (when you click on it) that go into detail about it. The crew, the story, and eventually BTS and 'how to's' on how to make it.
And for an example of the camera placement examples, check out the subreddit r/praisethecameraman (I think it’s called), sometimes shows the camera crew and rig and how they work their magic to pull off cool effects.
Personally I'd like a "table of contents" where you get the title, a summary and an example. Then you could scroll and learn a bit about all techniques, clicking in one that piqued your interest.
I'm not sure if that's easy or not. Let me know if I can help.
Hi, my only suggestion I immediately had is that if you're paging the content on mobile scroll, then for client performance reasons you could be unloading the older pages from the very top otherwise my experience ends at nearly few scrolls where my cpu says it is done.
Hi Jacobi. I love the content but the design is too busy for me. I can't concentrate on one clip because the others distract me. How about allowing to switch to a style where only one clip is shown and I can scroll down to see more? I wouldn't want to click to advance (like it is now when I zoom in on a clip), just endless scroll like you did it with one clip on the screen at any time.
Initially thought it was a giphy alternative (still kind of is). Maybe add a subtitle or CTA (at least on mobile) to make sure someone clicks into a gif to learn.
'Click to view film style'
'Select to find related gif'
...
May be overkill, but could change first impressions
I clicked on a a technique, then I clicked on an example, and it went fullscreen. Neat.
I pressed escape, and it went back to all the examples of the technique. I pressed escape again to go back further, and got a Square Space login screen?
There's one. technique I've been wondering about for a while but don't see on the page. Say there's one or two people who are the primary focus, and they stay in focus, but the background shifts so it comes closer even though the primary character(s) don't move. Not sure what it's called, would love to know.
Is there an explicit name for tracking shots whereby the camera passes through objects impossibly (a subset of "Object Portal" in your website but I'm referring to shots that don't transition to a difference setting)?
Really great site would make solid Tik toks and YouTube shorts one technique a minute long. No joke can see this being useful for prompt engineering like for people making AI memes. It’s about knowing what to ask for.
My monthly mobile data plan consumed in seconds. I hate html video autoplays, especially on mobile! Unfortunatelly it appears that it is currently not possible to disable it in Kiwi browser... EDIT: someone on Reddit suggested AutoplayStopper extension
I'm saddened that in the 4th wall examples they didn't add Leslie Nielsen from Naked Gun walking around the prop door. I thought that was the classic example.
Hi, this is unrelated, but I was trying to find the source video for Bruton Stroube - STL Jersey (2022). But I can't find it anywhere! Could you share the title of the film?
Apparently the animator eschewed keyframes entirely, opting to "just do it correctly" frame by frame. I haven't seen weight conveyed quite like like that.
nota bene, there's no "correct" way to do it. Pose to pose vs straight ahead have both pros and cons, with latter more suited for fast-paced and/or fluid (as in fx/water) type of animation.
Wow, this is great for getting a glimpse of various video techniques in cinematography... just found out I could click it to see bigger video. This also reminds me of https://shotdeck.com, which is a paid service.
The color palette is so vibrant and inviting, and everything just seems to pop off the screen. I could spend hours scrolling through the different sections, admiring the gorgeous graphics and typography. It's clear that a lot of thought and care went into creating this site
Most of them have descriptions (which I've enjoyed because I previously lumped all "weird camera tricks" together). But https://eycndy.com/frame-division seems to just show the home page over again.
Really like it but it feels very sluggish which I assume is due to the size of the content. Clicking on FPV Drone seems to result in 192 mb being fetched. Despite this, clicking on a thumbnail still takes time to fetch the full size. I don't know if a more optimised format would be enough or a TikTok layout would be better suited but it does impact the experience negatively. Love the project though.
Yea, using gifs for videos is probably not the best idea in 2023.
The page source is also interesting with 147 CSS classes defined on the <body> tag... XD
It's the small screen since the site loads as many images as is required to fill it. On a full-size monitor, it's a lot more and hence takes a lot more time.
Datamoshing is one effect that I don't think I'll ever process as an effect instead of an error (and as a result, I don't like it). My brain simply won't process it as "effect". I think it's from my history of downloading videos that had errors which produced the effect. Especially back in the slower less-reliable internet days, it was always soooo annoying to have spent hours downloading something only to have a glitch that caused the datamoshing effect. Plus, now all video I ever watch is digital, so I'm never totally sure that there wasn't a streaming issue or if it was intentional, unless it's being used heavily as an effect over and over and I see it enough in the same video to realize it's intentional.
At least the comment is correct: "It's used to add a touch of psychedelic flair to your shots or to hide the fact that you accidentally deleted half of your footage."
This isn’t a criticism, but the examples are mostly from very recent films. As a casual fan, I’d be curious to learn about some of the seminal uses of each technique as well.
I can't wait for the day I can make photo-realistic full length movies with spoken dialogue and different camera effects entirely using an AI-generation / AI-enhanced tool. I have a feeling those days are coming soon.
I don't mean to be flippant, and I wish you the best of luck in your creative endeavors, but I think the emergence of this sort of functionality will solidify the role of professional artists in our society. If you compare the work of art school freshmen with art school seniors, it's pretty apparent that using tools to physically create media is a pretty small part of what they learn.
And they've been drilled by experienced creative professionals full-time for four years. Many of the creative controls these generators abstract away are the most consequential, and they will never be more than an amalgam of what they've already seen. Smooth? Sure. Polished? Yes. Visually striking? Absolutely. Will every detail be considered, reconsidered, pored over, lightly massaged and then reconsidered by a team of people who've dedicated their professional lives to using images to elicit precisely crafted emotional responses in people? No.
That said, SyFy Originals and Hallmark Channel movies will probably operate much differently than they do now.
2027, Netflix has regressed to an Amazon-like platform where each movie search yields a long list of movies "fulfilled by netflix" made by lkmmfffrrx movie store, with 100% positive feedback.
In which I can make my own movies? I don't have the technical capability but I have the interest, why would it be terrible for me to have tools at my disposal that can take my creative interests and make them a reality? I'm not suggesting all films be made like this. I just want tools that I can use, myself to make something that I would enjoy and perhaps others might enjoy as well.
I’m all for tools to empower deliberate creation. An end to end AI generated movie, while intriguing to see what it might think up, falls flat to me. What is the point of watching it other than fascination. There is no conscious decision, direction. Merely a recycled reflection of past input.
It's fascinating to me how ~80% of the population of the atheist-dominated parts of the Internet seem to have found religion as soon as they started thinking about the implications of AI passing the Turing test in varying degrees in the present and near future.
Here's what I'd like. I have an idea for a script. I have a story line, with an arc, and a real compelling story. I have absolutely no skills for camera work, editing, directing, production, lighting, audio, any of that. So basically, without a cast, crew, and skills I can't make my idea for a film happen. This is where I'd like the assistance of tools that can help me make my film idea a reality. I don't want algorithmically generated movies with random and disconnected plot lines. i just want tools to help me achieve my goals when I don't have the tools or skills available. Isn't that what technology should be all about?
There's potential, sure, but it won't make everyone into a filmmaker just like Microsoft Word didn't make everyone into an author and Photoshop didn't make everyone an artist.
Movies to me are an art of thoughtful composure. A deliberate creation. Nothing seems more soulless and boring to me then some generated sludge born out of an AIs unconscious peephole view of the human experience.
What if I want a tool that will help me with my own creativity? I never said I wanted randomly generated AI art. I just want a tool that will help me create when I'm not a cinematographer, actor, editor, or any of those things. Why can't I have the augmented intelligence assistance I'm looking for? Not sure I understand this perspective on technology and tools.
Probably only two more papers down the line... maybe a year, maybe two. But like anything new it'll be expensive at first.
My prediction is that within 20 years we'll be making full length high quality movies, automatically. Everyone will be a production house, in a of themselves. You'll subscribe to people's individual streams of movies like we subscribe to netflix.
I'd never really considered it before, but people replacing a large portion of their media consumption with self-made media could buttress, if not accelerate the echo chamber effect.
I think people would consume less media if they could make their own. I know I care less for things I can make myself. When you have a nagging feeling you could always go back and improve the thing you'll start noticing each imperfection then get bored after a hour of tweaking
I thought it was nothing but photos because there was no motion while scrolling. Had scrolled through several pages before I stopped long enough for any motion to be apparent. Not sure if that can be fixed/optimized.
That "Nothing more exiting in your life than looking at 'About' pages on the internet?"-banner on their 'About' page made me feel slightly embarrassed :)
A catalog of various (usually) camera-created visual affects. It gives names to all the weird angles, pans, and tilts that you might see in film.
A lot of them are pretty extreme and would overwhelm if over-used, but are eye catching in short amounts, such as ads, music videos, or short bits in longer format film.
My old Android phones used to look like this site's format. I had a theamer (called theamer as I recall) and set one up with mostly gif tiles for folders and it was good looking and functional two thumb clicks to almost anywhere. Android UI options today are way less cool.
How is it that this site hasn't succumbed to the HN Hug of Death, yet text-only pages linked on the HN front page often seem to easily collapse under a lot of traffic?
