Comments on: Harry Potter IMAX Poster Ad Breast Enhancement

By: Nikii

Nikii — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:58:36 +0000

I am so late…
As far as I can see, it’s an issue of retouching. Both use the same photo. The actual promo photo has darker lighting around Emma, making her breasts appear smaller. They also made her hair longer so she isn’t blocking “Neville”‘s face and retouched her face to make it looks as if she’s wearing make-up. So in a way, they are pigs…Just not pervs.

Cause if they can make Susan Boyle a hottie on YouTube, retouching Emma can’t be that hard…

By: Fredo12

Fredo12 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:20:08 +0000

i think that she is a diffrent position then before and the other poster is just way to diffrent from the imax one the imax one look like it is a normal poster

By: ron

ron — Thu, 31 May 2007 02:00:04 +0000

images today are so tampered with i wonder how much is real in any advert. her face is different,body line is different,hair has been moved slightly,hate to say but it looks like they made her boobs bigger,in the ad for the 3d show…thats funny in a horrible way

By: Joanie

Joanie — Thu, 24 May 2007 23:09:44 +0000

Perverted

By: Marc Daneker

Marc Daneker — Tue, 22 May 2007 01:14:52 +0000

She has more hair in the IMAX poster too, people. These are composite posters, each person was photographed seperate and photo-shopped together. The first poster they too off her hair as well. It’s not that they made her breast larger for the IMAX poster, it’s that they cut them off in the first one. They didn’t augment her, they fixed the mistake.

Again, check out the hair and you’ll see thet cut her entire side off in the first poster.

This is so dumb I feel bad commenting on it but to set everyone straight.

By: John Harding

John Harding — Sat, 19 May 2007 16:12:57 +0000

Is it just me or does Daniel Radcliffe’s wand look a little thicker in the IMAX poster?

By: munoz

munoz — Wed, 16 May 2007 15:45:11 +0000

its enhanced, I do that stuff for a living. Its pretty obvious I think. Her posture doent change enough to warrant that kind of increase in size. If you overlap the image on top of each other you see that they actually increase size slightly and then they slim down her stomach to a curvier shape to accent her chest.

By: Fortyseven

Fortyseven — Fri, 11 May 2007 06:55:29 +0000

Here you go:
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4205/potterimaxcj4.gif

By: Jonas Grumby

Jonas Grumby — Thu, 10 May 2007 18:54:06 +0000

Well, if you look at her hair in the second poster, that HAS been altered. If they merely changed the “lighting” of the second poster, as James Mauler suggests, how would you explain that difference?

By: JamesMauler

JamesMauler — Thu, 10 May 2007 17:44:54 +0000

Simply, yes it is two diffrent looking photos, but the thing that makes her look “enhanced” is the fact that the lighting is so much brighter. Therefore curves are “enchance” — DUH!

By: hulkvsspawn

hulkvsspawn — Thu, 10 May 2007 05:45:47 +0000

also, the P in Potter is right over harry’s penis.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 10 May 2007 03:23:40 +0000

It is the first picture that has been modified – the intenal line of hee hair hanging on her right (our left) is identical. The outerline isn’t – some one deleted hair in the first image; this may have made her look odd so the ‘re edged the rest of her to match – reducing breast size.

The IMAX picture has had less re-touching.

By: tosky

tosky — Wed, 09 May 2007 22:43:09 +0000

I’d like to add that she has makeup on in one picture, and no makeup in the second.

By: Dk

Dk — Wed, 09 May 2007 19:57:07 +0000

Her hair is not arranged in the same manner. Look at the ends near her shoulder for an obvious difference. It appears to be a different picture of Emma superimposed on the art rather than a pure digital edit. Given the difference in lighting and the different angle of her torso, it might not even be a ‘digitally enhanced breast’ picture.

Call me a skeptic…

By: tosky

tosky — Wed, 09 May 2007 18:20:26 +0000

Examine Emma’s portion of the photo for a minute….you’ll see her hair a little more ruffled, her head is tilted just a little bit more, and she’s been moved a little closer in to the group.
It’s my opinion that “they” just took a secondary picture and photochopped it into the ad and she just happens to be standing at a slightly different angle making it appear she has a slightly larger rack, add a few shadows and BAM!…rack for days.

…Or the internet sheeple are right and Warner Bro’s are pigs.

By: bananachicken

bananachicken — Wed, 09 May 2007 16:47:09 +0000

They also modified her hair. In the second pic (with enhanced mammory glands) her hair is covering more of the face of the kid behind her. There are other changes too. Reminds me of PhotoHunt.

By: SorryJones

SorryJones — Wed, 09 May 2007 15:56:37 +0000

Look close, it is two completely different photos of Emma. The hair is quite different. So it is quite possible she was just in a different position for the one in the IMAX poster, and no “digital enhancement” was performed.

By: Loz

Loz — Wed, 09 May 2007 15:35:27 +0000

Lol gutted Emma

By: DFragmentor

DFragmentor — Wed, 09 May 2007 15:17:47 +0000

They aren’t marketing it to children. They are marketing it to perverts LOL

By: drevil

drevil — Wed, 09 May 2007 14:29:35 +0000

Duh, that’s because the IMAX one is in 3d. The added dimension adds volume!

Fucking pathetic.