Entertainment desk
< October 24	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 25

TV ad with bug on the lens

[1]

Look just right of the man's face, by the basketball hoop, in the first few seconds. That's a fly on the camera lens, right ? Can't they take that out in post-production ? Seems like very sloppy production to leave that in. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no fly. I see a basketball in the background going in the hoop. And if it had been a fly, what sort of reference would you like us to provide? --Jayron 32 00:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reference showing whether a fly on the lens can be removed in post-production editing. Something about the way it moved made it look more like a fly crawling on the lens, than a basketball, to me. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. here is one way. --Jayron 32 01:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is like a moment in the TV series Brain Games. If you focus on the background instead of the foreground, it's clear that it's a basketball. But as Jayron indicates, there are many things that can be done in post-production to alter whatever's on the screen. Like a moment late in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where a fly very visibly crawls into one of the actor's mouths. Either they didn't see it in the rushes, or they just decided to leave it in rather than fixing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which actor had multiple mouths? I must have missed that part. P.S. The grammar police never sleep. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be actors'. My keyboard messed up. And it was Paul Freeman (actor) in this scene.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even "one of the actors' mouths" is troublesome. That could mean that individual actors are not necessarily restricted to one mouth each. Best to go with "the mouth of one of the actors". (The grammar police must pay due obeisance to the pedantry police.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call out the army! The pedants are revolting! Clarityfiend (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Or better yet, Paul Freeman's mouth (or Beloq's). I wasn't coming up with his name when I wrote it originally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler: "an actor's mouth". —Tamfang (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]