It's pretty, but it's annoying me on several levels. For one thing, Yosemite isn't "the range of" anything. It's a place in a mountain range, the Sierra Nevada, and it's John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, who christened the Sierra Nevada "The Range of Light". Beyond that, while a great deal of the film is indeed shot at Yosemite, either in the valley, on the valley rim, or in the high meadows, quite a lot of it is not. We have, for example, a couple scenes of Joshua Trees, which are high desert plants, not mountain plants. And Bristlecone Pines, which are native to the Eastern slope of the Sierras, not where Yosemite is.
So, in short, it bugs me how the thing is titled. Then, to top it off, most of those star-filled skies seem to be added to the foreground scenes in post; I can't see any other way of explaining some very unnatural effects. So I feel a little cheated by the whole presentation.
Well I have yet to have the pleasure of spending a few days out there so this will have to do for the time being. I'm still in awe as to how much effort and work go into these 5 minutes videos.
So, in short, it bugs me how the thing is titled. Then, to top it off, most of those star-filled skies seem to be added to the foreground scenes in post; I can't see any other way of explaining some very unnatural effects. So I feel a little cheated by the whole presentation.
Beautiful country up there, though. I miss it.
R.
I didn't see what you are talking about. The lighting is moonlight if that was your concern. IF they were added in post it would be an even stronger tour de force. Could you imagine how many frames you'd need to do it to?
I didn't see what you are talking about. The lighting is moonlight if that was your concern. IF they were added in post it would be an even stronger tour de force. Could you imagine how many frames you'd need to do it to?
Maybe you're right. The color just seemed so wrong...
