Digital Fakery in "Trance"

​

Snagged from a cap posted HERE on phun

Now that we get a good quality clip of Rosario in Trance you can easily see it's a digital edit job from post production.

 

The pussy caps from the clip post above.

​

 

Nah, it's her pussy. Stop trying to ruin greatness

 

hahah that's what I was thinking, let me dream it is her! haha

 

Like I said in the other thread, CG is expensive. Compositing is expensive. This was a low budget feature. Budget is everything on those. The easiest explanation is the right one, Director Danny Boyle convinced his girlfriend to do full frontal.
The end.

 

I bet she could take anything you give her. She probably devours huge cocks and intentionally gags all over them.

 

its likely just a touch of airbrushing to erase some stubble

 

When a woman gets turned on and her pussy gets wet, it expands to make room for cock. It causes a little mound to grow, when seen from the outside. This fact alone could easily account for the difference in light and shadow you're seeing.

 

Yeah, the creation of this thread is the most amazing exercise in negative wishful thinking in the history of history.

There's no digital fakery. There's an OP who has no understanding of female anatomy and a weird desire to convince himself he's not seeing the most glorious bit of hot-A-list-Celeb nudity in history.

For anyone still even considering this hogwash...

http://www.vulture.com/2013/04/rosario-dawson-calls-her-vagina-the-general.html

"Waxing hurts!" she told Vulture when we saw her at the Cinema Society premiere of the film last night. "I wasn't thrilled about that. The General, she was angry with me for a little while!" Then, clearly embarrassed, Dawson put her clutch bag up to her mouth — and kept talking. "I should say ... hold on ... Oh, I'm so embarrassed! ... I was thinking, it would be like she was gnarly. She was mad. I don't know. I can't think of it. I'm going to get myself in trouble." Since the Trance shoot, Dawson has given the General a break. "Got the winter do going on," she told us of her now-full bush. "I'm happy."

You gotta love her calling it "The General!" Makes perfect sense, because you know, any "Little Soldier" will stand at attention and salute when The General is on the scene.

 

I'm open to arguments, show me just one instance of female genetalia that looks like that and you'll have an argument. Make sure it's got the same smudge tool marks, the same gaussian blur tool edges and the initial patch layer showing as clear as this one.

You guys dont even have a technical argument. "Oh, dont ruin my fantasy" isnt an argument or evidence, that's just refusing to pull your head out of your own ass. Go ahead, post up some actual graphic evidence proving it is real. And actresses saying one thing while promoting a movie doesnt mean shit. Probably, Rosario DID get waxed for the movie, doesnt mean we're looking at it here. Explain square corners on a womans pubic mound. This is a porn forum, if there are other women this way it should be easy for you to find.

 

It's one thing to do a still, it's quite another in motion. I have experience in this and while not impossible, it's time consuming and hard and in this case, highly unlikely.
As for your Photoshop tool marks, she's wearing body makeup most likely, or like some people who shave, the skin underneath is darker than the hairless area around it. The mound of a woman's vulva is often rectangular and the blur anomalies you claim can be because the subject is walking towards camera which is shooting at 24 frames per second, likely on 35mm film (if they didn't use digital) so anything moving will be blurred somewhat. Anything moving less, will be blurred less, i.e. the thighs being more blurred than the vulva itself.
As for finding other examples, as fun as that would be, it's damn near impossible. Too many variables. no two women look alike, lighting conditions, film stock...
I know it's the nature of the internet to suspect conspiracy but really, is it that hard to imagine she just dropped her robe and shot the scene?

 

You're never going to find a picture where the lighting is exactly the same as it is in this movie scene. But what you are seeing is her mons (example below), combined with the light and shadows created by the way the scene is lit.

 

I don't think an A-lister would willingly say she showed nudity that explicit unless it was true, she would literally have nothing to gain by saying it was her and everything to lose. That would be like Chloe Sevigny saying the blowjob in The Brown Bunny was real and then it turning out to be a prosthesis, there would be no reason for her to lie and say it was her, it is more likely to do damage to their career the more explicit they are so they have no reason to lie.

 

There are no "smudge tool marks" or "gaussian blur." There's a nice, plump Mons Veneris being looked at by a guy who clearly has no understanding of the anatomy of the female vulva.