New Vid and Potential for More!

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
NJinflation90
New Vid and Potential for More!

A new body inflation video has emerged! It's all CGI on a live model and the editting is a bit rough, but it's only a test to see if they will make any product off of videos like this. The channel is looking for feedback so if we show support for the vid, they will definitely develop more! Future vids may end up being pay content so enjoy the freebie with a very cute model.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbbDcyUnR2E

slayer

CGI sucks! Use props.

Hi my name is Tom. I run the inflatable chicks yahoo group

Blue_Eyes
Blue_Eyes's picture

I apporove!

Those of you who volunteered to be injected with praying mantis DNA, I've got some good news and some bad news. Bad news is we're postponing those tests indefinitely. Good news is we've got a much better test for you: fighting an army of mantis men.

Blue_Eyes
Blue_Eyes's picture

I apporove!

Those of you who volunteered to be injected with praying mantis DNA, I've got some good news and some bad news. Bad news is we're postponing those tests indefinitely. Good news is we've got a much better test for you: fighting an army of mantis men.

Somedude

The visuals need work, but CG videos don't get enough love. Keep trying.

NJinflation90

I'm definitely on the pro side of CGI stuff only because I've seen far too much of the props. If they just improve the morphs to the point of say... Taylor's freebie in tribute to Quantum FX, that would be awesome. Also, I assume this was quickly put together to get the feel for the technology since it was the first vid of its kind for them. They look for a little more feedback than "CGI sucks" though lol be helpful and be nice! Me, I take what I can get and I hope they continue with improving their work. Hope you guys enjoyed or will enjoy for those who haven't seen it!

nineteenthly

I'm wondering if it's not a case of either/or, actually. The problem with this video, i think, is not so much the CGI as a discrepancy between what the actress was saying and the visuals, though i recognise it's just a test. I think this comes from not being properly in the role because of not in fact, say, wearing an inflated suit, and that is to do with CGI - also one reason i prefer the earlier Violet movie scene to the later.

So i'm thinking that maybe one answer is to combine suits and props with morphing and CGI. Then it's easier to get into the role convincingly and the visuals can then be enhanced by computer. I've found my male pregnancy videos come quite naturally to me because i haven't got a cushion stuffed up there - my belly is actually big and round and it affects my movement, my breathing and others' reactions to me. Method acting.

http://www.youtube.com/user/nineteenthly

 

nineteenthly

Oh, sorry, afterthought: there is another intermediate way you can go with this: wide angle lenses and spherical aberration. If your belly is close enough to the camera, the physical processes of refraction and perspective will do some of the work for you because they will make you look rounder than you would if you were further away. So maybe part of the answer is something like a fish eye lens.

http://www.youtube.com/user/nineteenthly

 

Delacroix

Cute model, but the CGI really needs some work...

nineteenthly

I'm thinking speeded-up real inflation, then props, then morphing, then proper CGI.

http://www.youtube.com/user/nineteenthly

 

nineteenthly

I'm thinking speeded-up real inflation, then props, then morphing, then proper CGI.

http://www.youtube.com/user/nineteenthly