Un officier de police abat un homme nu en train de manger le visage d’un autre à terre… Ignorant les avertissements du policier, ce dernier se lève et se dirige vers lui. L’officier tire, il continue de marcher… Il faudra plusieurs tirs pour l’abattre…
Voici un usage rare et intelligent de la 3D au cinéma : Pedigree vous propose de faire un don à leur fondation lorsque vous allez au cinéma voir un film en 3D.
Si vous ne faîtes pas de don, vous verrez un long spot publicitaire qui vous montre la (malheureuse) vie d’un clébard sans votre don.
Si vous donnez, vous recevez des lunettes 3D différentes et verrez la vie de ce même chien recevant de l’aide de la fondation Pedigree…
Le principe repose sur la diffusion d’un même film mais que les spectateurs ne percevront pas de la même façon s’ils portent des lunettes différentes…
Au delà de l’action caritative, cela laisse à rêver des films qui seraient différents pour « chaque » spectateur!
Pedigree – Unrescued
Pedigree – Rescued
Dog food brand Pedigree launched its new 3D campaign in support of pet adoption drives. The company offers moviegoers the option of giving a small donation to the Pedigree Adoption Drive and receiving a special pair of 3D glasses that enables viewers to watch an advertisement before the movie began. Those who didn’t purchase the 3D glasses will continue using the glasses that the theater offers but instead will watch the same ad, but with a completely different story. The campaign, designed by Colenso BBDO, Auckland, adapted 3D technology to enable viewers to screen two different films on the same cinema screen. One showed a dog that was lucky enough to have been rescued, and the other showing one that was not as lucky. Those who wear the special glasses will get to watch the benefits of their donations while those who didn’t donate will screen a more emotional version. Check out the two versions of the ad below.
via PSFK: http://www.psfk.com/2012/05/abandoned-dog-lies-in-moviegoers-donations.html#ixzz1wGCcS7N3
Quel charte pour l’outil?
Voici un long article sur la création de la charte graphique de la Adobe Creative Suite :
Goals & Requirements
Below you’ll find what Adobe wanted to accomplish from an experience standpoint:
Expressive. The product splash screens for CS3 and CS4 were basically extensions of the product icons. This helped establish the powerful color system that we now rely on for our brand. Having done this for two releases, there was some leeway in CS5 to do something a little different, and we had an opportunity to push it even further for CS6. We wanted to get back to the more expressive nature of pre-CS Adobe products while keeping what we loved about the past few iterations.
Interaction with the desktop. Our work lives in and interacts with the OS. We were interested in what ways we might exploit the parameters and limitations of those interactions. Back to squares. The folded-plane icons of CS5 were a reaction to the splash screens. While we liked the aesthetic, there are a ton of reasons to avoid non-square forms for brand assets. For instance, the CS5 icons tend to be awkward as avatars for social media and don’t translate to mobile environments.
Creating a Creative Suite brand segment. After we launched CS3, the default move for Adobe applications was to simply throw them on a square and give them a two-letter designation. That worked great when we had 20-ish products, but we’ve now got well over 100 and have long abandoned this practice. We wanted to create something that would be unique to Creative Suite.
A more cohesive connection to marketing imagery/packaging. More on this later, but in a nutshell, we wanted to partner as closely as possible with our marketing department and external agencies to try to make the two experiences relate to each other.
Shawn Cheris explains further:
Our work is functional and must be optimized for the contexts in which it will be consumed. There’s a lot of ins and outs, but the basic requirements are fairly straightforward:
Legible. Application icons should be distinguishable from one another at small icon sizes, on file icons, and in the OS. Icons must be differentiable beyond color and should be legible for color blind persons via shape, letter-forms, tone, or other method.
Differentiable. Application icons must be visually distinguishable from the previous two version’s icons since many customers run concurrent versions of a product on one machine.
Flexible. There must be enough flexibility in the branding system to accommodate the variations across the product line and allow for appropriate icons for products, product line extensions, technologies, servers, and a large range of file types.
Credible. The branding system must be credible to our creative audience. This doesn’t mean everyone has to like it, or that it is non-controversial. It means that it adheres to core design principles around typography, color, composition, etc. In other words, we should make something we’re proud of.
Consistent. The equity of our brand is built through consistent execution. While allowing for the occasional technical limitation, the icons, splash screens, and other high-visibility branding areas should vary as little as possible from product to product or should vary in a highly prescribed way. Each product is part of a system, the sum of which defines our brand experience.
LEAP montre, mais explique peu, son impressionnante interface de mouvement disponible pour 70$ pour Mac:
Amazingly, that box is available for preorder right now. It’s called the Leap, and it works with your Mac.
The Leapmotion team behind the box (and of course its clever software backend) claim that the Leap is “200 times more accurate” than any rival and “can distinguish your individual fingers and track your movements down to a 1/100th of a millimeter.”
It sounds impressive, and the video certainly backs this up. But the information is vague, and even the FAQ on the Leapmotion site only offers fuzzy explanations.
Les mathématiques des copyrights restent toujours mystérieuses : LimeWire, pour avoir permis le partage de 11 000 chansons, pourrait être condamné à payer une somme entre 1 milliard et … 75 trillions de dollars, soit plus d’argent qu’il n’en existe d’argent sur terre.
The music industry wants LimeWire to pay up to $75 trillion in damages after losing a copyright infringement claim. That’s right . . . $75 trillion. Manhattan federal Judge Kimba Wood has labeled this request « absurd. »
You’re telling me. To put that number into perspective (I bet a lot of you didn’t even know « trillion » was a real number), the U.S. GDP is around 14 trillion — less than one fifth of what the music industry is requesting. Heck, the GDP of the entire world is between 59 and 62 trillion. That’s right, the music industry wants LimeWire to pay more money than exists in the entire world.
Un journaliste a demandé à visiter des mines de pétrole bitumeux canadienne… Toutes ont refusé. Il a loué un cesna et a survolé une des nombreuses installations présentes dans la région d’Alberta…
Ça fait peur…
Les professeurs d’éducation sexuelle du Tenesse ne peuvent plus parler de … sexe! C’est trop bête : il peuvent aborder le baiser, le fait de se tenir la main, mais pas de contact d’autre partie du corps et encore moins de pénétration, fellation, masturbation… (je vous laisse finir la liste.)