High and Low Tech Effects
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:26 am
Of the many improvements I have noticed over the past 20 years or so regarding our fetish...
in the area of video effects (FX) and CGI many of the productions have reached the same level of
quality as anything coming out of Hollywood.
Most of the higher tech effects are mostly involved in making types of shooting scenes (guns, arrows, spears... exc) .
Over the past few years some of the producers kept improving on their art to give us some really awesome scenes!
Leading the pack is John M from PKF with his own brand of visual magic. (check out “Hooker Shootout”)
But, I feel like any good tool... it is only good if used well.
Which brings me to the discussion... High Tech vs. Low Tech effects.
Over the decades of film and video, I have seen many very effective death scenes done by directors only using clever
use of low tech effects and film/video editing . (I.E. We see person shooting arrow or gun then cut to victim with arrow or bullet hole already in her or... a victim has her back to us in foreground and we see killer shooting a gun at her in
background so bullet squibs don’t need to be used/shown.)
An example of a great low tech scene...
Angelique Pettyjohn scene from “The G.I. Executioner”
or
High Tech... Shannon Tweed in “Possessed by the Night”.
What I am trying to say here is... I welcome high or low tech effects... I am also saying to some of the producers out there
please do not think you have to spend a lot on FX to still get what ever effect you want to get across to us viewers.
Of course one other major ingredient is needed to make the scene effective... “good acting”.
I do not care if one uses the best CGI effects or most clever low tech editing... without good acting the scene will never
become a “Keeper”.
Obviously... over all, I feel the purpose of any good death fetish video is to “EFFECTIVELY” stimulate us the viewer.
Most of the producers have done well in both areas (high or low tech effects) with good acting.
Again, I feel the key to low or high tech death scene is always will come down to a fine performance.
in the area of video effects (FX) and CGI many of the productions have reached the same level of
quality as anything coming out of Hollywood.
Most of the higher tech effects are mostly involved in making types of shooting scenes (guns, arrows, spears... exc) .
Over the past few years some of the producers kept improving on their art to give us some really awesome scenes!
Leading the pack is John M from PKF with his own brand of visual magic. (check out “Hooker Shootout”)
But, I feel like any good tool... it is only good if used well.
Which brings me to the discussion... High Tech vs. Low Tech effects.
Over the decades of film and video, I have seen many very effective death scenes done by directors only using clever
use of low tech effects and film/video editing . (I.E. We see person shooting arrow or gun then cut to victim with arrow or bullet hole already in her or... a victim has her back to us in foreground and we see killer shooting a gun at her in
background so bullet squibs don’t need to be used/shown.)
An example of a great low tech scene...
Angelique Pettyjohn scene from “The G.I. Executioner”
or
High Tech... Shannon Tweed in “Possessed by the Night”.
What I am trying to say here is... I welcome high or low tech effects... I am also saying to some of the producers out there
please do not think you have to spend a lot on FX to still get what ever effect you want to get across to us viewers.
Of course one other major ingredient is needed to make the scene effective... “good acting”.
I do not care if one uses the best CGI effects or most clever low tech editing... without good acting the scene will never
become a “Keeper”.
Obviously... over all, I feel the purpose of any good death fetish video is to “EFFECTIVELY” stimulate us the viewer.
Most of the producers have done well in both areas (high or low tech effects) with good acting.
Again, I feel the key to low or high tech death scene is always will come down to a fine performance.