It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
-
So much Aliasing, noise,blown out highlights and shaky footage but its better than 99% of anything I have seen posted on here.
I've said it many time in the past on camera/filmmaking forums but I wish more discussion was based on the art of filmmaking not pixel peeping/tech discussion. There should be a section on film discussion, theory, what works etc...
-
I wish more discussion was based on the art of filmmaking not pixel peeping/tech discussion. There should be a section on film discussion, theory, what works etc...
I mentioned that in another thread. There are a lot of cameras coming out so it draws people's attention. This is reassuring since I'll be 90 before I get all the technical stuff figured out.
-
I would go further than just content is king. I would say the art of filmmaking is about putting everything together in a way that creates meaning and art. Many of the 'ugly' images are actually beautiful images. There is definitely an obsession with perfect images rather than putting images together perfectly in a way that is artistic and says something.
The very freeing thing is we don't need perfect cameras or perfect images in fact maybe we should if we have limited resources focus on interesting images rather than perfect ones and so we need to work on bringing it all together. Its opens things up cause instead of dotting all the 'i's' on exposure, focus, framing we can be creative and be more original in our style. The director is a photographer who interned under Anne Leibovitz, I think that artistic skill shows through.
*Note also that the sound isn't messy, people can accept a lot of scrambled images but not shit sound.
-
but are most viewers really that interested in this kind of artistic camera work?
also, if you're shooting in any kind of non-controlled environment, half the time you should count your blessings just to get any kind of shot. i was taking a video outdoors once and a guy behind me was joking about taking my camera away from me. i'm just glad i got the shot off without getting mugged.
-
Exactly - it's an ad... '"NY-Z" - an ABSOLUT collaboration with Jay-Z'... LOL! You're amazed that this is impactful??? Um, no offence Sherlock, but this is called "branding" and you can bet your bottom dollar that this was heavily worked. This is not some "artistic" work, and it definitely is NOT a "documentary" - LOL! - it's a branding video, just as McDonald's or Burger King or whoever might do. It's a big, big, big Vodka company part of the French conglomerate Pernod Ricard - which they bought for some $6 Billion dollars. What brands do, is take the product and pair it with a famous performer. Pepsi did it with Michael Jackson. Many liquor companies like to co-brand with famous performers.
Which is fine. But the key take-away is that Jay-Z here is pitching his brand and the Absolut brand and they're helping each other. Both were heavily involved in creating and approving this content. There is not a frame of this footage that has not been approved by Jay-Z's people and by the suits and brand image consultants and advertising executives at Absolut - this was definitely not an "artistic" vision of the director - the director's contribution was there, but only to the extent that any director contributes to the making of a TV commercial - the content is not his, and the execution is heavily controlled by the client. To call it a "documentary" is a joke. It's definitely not.
For all that, it clearly worked on some, because people bought it wholesale. To say it's a documentary is as funny as if you thought an informercial on TV selling an exercise machine was "news", just because it has an "reporter" seeming asking "questions" and talking about the product... LOL!
-
@RottenCarcass etc
You actually make yourself look stupid not me for stating that, are you aware water is wet and babies come from women tummies?
NO-ONE watching it would not realise its a hook up between Absolute and Jay-Z its bloody stated in the video. My point was about the visuals not some anti Capitalist rant that you seem to want. The fact is the images were messy and probably no high end camera was used cause even in the higher quality sections that had heavily aliasing, no RED cam, C300 would of done that, anyway that beside the point, which you obviously brilliantly missed. It is filmed documentary style, no reason to think otherwise, its clearly not scripted but it does include an Absolute marketing man so sure they are going to be positive to the link up. DUH!
Plus dissing generally other forms of media especially adverts is foolish, some stunning work is done by directors in advertising including names like Ridley Scott, Tony Kaye, David Fincher to name a just few. Their style and artistic vision absolutely come through the work. Thats what they are flipping hired for!!! You also overestimate the amount of artistic vision that is allowed from directors generally in movies, which is always a battle between vision and commercial interests.
-
Thank you for sharing. I think there is a future in longer form youtube videos and branded content that works for the creator, the brand and the viewer. This is a fairly low key sell see also Anthony Bourdain's 'Raw Craft' web-series. We've always had to sell to someone or the other, why the hell not like this. Great mini-doc, and frankly I think it is beautiful, which is an important distinction...we aren't saying 'ugly is ok with great content' (although it probably would be), we are saying 'non-technically correct camera decisions' that make beautiful images with great content is ok.
-
@kellar42 Bingo!! someone gets it.
Art is art wherever it comes from. What is a music video but a short advert for a bands song. Probably some of the best visual artist today are working in advertising, photographers and filmmakers.
Actually what really interests me is trying to learn from what I see and discuss how it is put together and why it works. This style isn't for everything but for Doc work a music video at least and some indie movies it could work. Pi is basically a similar black and white contrasty style and I heard the director is doing quite well these days. ;) if all we got is cheaper tools I don't see why we can't use them to our strengths. Too many of us are trying to make a blockbuster on prosumer cams and no budget when we should be making visually interesting work and taking risks cause it costs nothing.
A few observations, I tried out the layering and found it worked if the main layer was on top and the images you want coming through under the track with the top obviously opacity toogled down, the other way around which logically would work didn't look good at all. Its funny but that kind of layering, opacity thing in my mind is the worst thing I see in amateur work but it works somehow in black and white and with these particular visuals, I would use this technique only very rarely to honest, it could looks shit if not used appropriately.
The actual structure was textbook really, interview cut aways, interview, cutaways then maybe a short segment, interview, cutaways etc. And followed the textbook of show what they say i.e. if the interview is talking about Madison Square gardens then show Madison Square gardens!, its not quantum mechanics. The cut aways tended to be the more imperfect images, I think it works when combined with a more pro looking interview. I don't know but possibly some or all is actually film, 8mm, 16mm. but I'm guessing its just video roughed up a bit. I wondered how they got the out the window interview shots without blowing them out, I'm guessing it was later in the day or as I said its film which could handle it a bit better than video. I would love to know what cameras were used.
All in all I think I learnt about 3 things I can use possibly at some point...We should be pulling apart work and seeing how the elements work so we can replicate and learn more IMHO.
-
@suresure123, simmer down there, captain. My objection was to calling this a DOCUMENTARY in the very title of your post - nothing else. No, it is not a documentary. Would you call an informercial a DOCUMENTARY? It may be a "documentary style" as you put it, but neither a commercial nor informercial or branding video is a DOCUMENTARY. Documentaries are a specific genre and calling a branding video a documentary is a wrong and an injustice to people who devote their lives to documentaries. It also makes you look naive.
My points were not anti-Capitalist nor political at all - just stating the facts, that this branding video is between a top extremely rich entrepreneurial performer known for promoting his brand, and a multi-billion dollar vodka company. The point being, this is not some small-money little indi operators who made a "documentary" - this is a sophisticated highly controlled top level commercial branding video. I didn't object to the fact that they did it - that's why I put in the sentence "Which is fine." My objection was wholly to calling this a documentary, when it is CLEARLY NOT, a documentary being its own genre.
And from that point of view, yes, it makes a difference to the artistic criteria - these people had unlimited resources compared to most people reading these boards or making genuine documentaries out there. The artistic choices were also far more restricted and had to pass through many layers of approval by branding consultants and advertising executives decisions - that's what you are seeing. It doesn't mean there is NO artistic contribution by a director AS I STATED IN MY FIRST POST - just as Ridley Scott has much less scope for artistic decisions while shooting a commercial compared to shooting a feature film (or someone shooting their own documentary). It says nothing about how "stunning" work on commercials can be - that's all YOUR straw man you are attacking... I never said anything else. I just pointed out the obvious. You are upset I pointed out the obvious - but apparently I had to because you WRONGLY mischaracterized this as a DOCUMENTARY and therefore you wrongly assessed the artistic context of the choices made by the filmmaking team here... the team was controlled wholly by branding people - NOT the case with documentaries, which is why it is important to correct your WRONG characterization, and therefore the artistic choices were also within that universe.
Rather than attack a fellow poster on this site, thank them for correcting your MISTAKES for which no one is responsible but you - attacking the messenger is bad form.
-
well, there are some nice shots.
Is it a brilliant doc? No. But thats just me. It might be for you. For me it looks like a day in the life of Jay-Z, that's its.
Whats a good doc for me? Something that surprises you, shocks you, inspires you, opens your eyes to something new, or something that is just plain stranger than fiction. This video did none of that for me.
Docs that I think are great: Hoop Dreams, Spellbound, Murderball, Impostor(this is awesome, blending doc with narrative)
Do the video's 8mm looking shots look nice? YES.
Did they have unlimited resources regarding people? YES. There is a long list of people in the end.
Did they have unlimited resources regarding equipment? YES. These guys have done Gap commercials. This is a video with Jay-Z and Absolut vodka.
Can I do something that looks like this with less than $10000 in equipment? Probably YES.
Can I do something that looks like this with less than $10000 in equipment when it was shot in 2010? Probably NO. Canon 5D mark 2 was only 2 years old then, Sony F3 at $16k came out November that year, no one knew who Blackmagic were, and our beloved GH2 was released Aug 2010 and hacked by Vitaly mid 2011.
In 2010 would I chose a 5D mark 2 and shoot directly at a person sitting on a big glass window with bright sunlight like the way they shot the MSG persident at 2:18 and risk getting a blownout shot while the Absolut ad executives were watching behind the set? NO. I would get a 14dr $$$ sony f35, alexa which came out in 2010, or at least the new sony f3 ($23K) and bring bring big ass lights on the set just in case and maybe a graduated filter.
So basically I don't think its a brilliant doc.
I learned that 8mm black and white like footage is good for b-roll in certain portions when you want a gritty look, but you mostly want clean footage when shooting talking heads.
These guys for sure used a large amount of equipment that i could never afford BUT I can replicate this now since its 2015 not 2010.
On a side note. I think watching music videos is a great way to see lots of different styles. Some awesome videos out there from some amazing people doing risky stuff and bending the rules.
-
@suresure123 for high dr situations in case you are curious here are some nice tips:
http://noamkroll.com/5-ways-to-capture-stunning-video-on-a-low-dynamic-range-camera-without-lights/
-
The description of the thread was decided in a nano second, I could of called it a music promo, an advert, a viral clip or just some black dude selling Vodka its pretty irrelevant to the point I was making but whatever. I wish people would put some energy into discussing the clip and not the bloody title worded wrongly or not.
The images are very much possible with cheap cameras and limited resources which is my point. I think its false that many here are separating themselves from this kind of work suggesting they need a 10 man team and a million dollars. Yes quite a few people were involved but in terms of images there is nothing that couldnt be done with the cheap tools we have today. Its kind of like making excuses for yourselves rather than saying HEY I COULD DO THAT, just need to improve my knowledge rather than I need loads of money and a quest for the perfect camera which is lets face it 99% of what this forum focuses on.
My point is simply as filmmakers we should focus on what we do as an art form not as a technician. Nothing wrong with learning technical stuff but in the end our viewers won't care about a bit of aliasing, noise etc especially at many of us our level which is lets face it 90% amateur professional.
Something I have recently been inspired by is the fact Kubrick was an accomplished photographer long before he was a filmmaker and learned much of his craft in photography. I highly recommend this youtube channel The Art Of Photography by Ted Forbes. It has tons of resources that you can take into your filmmaking.
-
It's not a brilliant doc. It focuses too much on style and the substance is not that compelling. But many of your points are valid. Kubrick is in a league of his own precisely because he had content and style to the highest levels of mastery. By the way, there's a documentary about Kubrick on Youtube that talks about why he filmed certain scenes a certain way and also The Making of The Shining filmed by his daughter? (can't remember. sorry, it's been a while)
-
I've watched most of the docs on him, A Life in Pictures is the most famous.
-
@suresure123 "We should be pulling apart work and seeing how the elements work so we can replicate and learn more IMHO".
If you want to stand out from the crowd and not be another filmmaker clone, don't copy. Develop your own techniques. Copying styles is why there is so much good-looking but meaningless media at the moment. I'm not criticising the posted video as it's basically ok. It's also ok to investigate how certain techniques are created, but don't copy, you'll disappear into the crowded media landscape.
I have been editing for over 30 years now and in my experience, watching a finished product will inform you of style, but not technique. You will not see the lighting or post effects that have been added to create a natural looking shot. I know; I do it all the time.
Book in to a film making class; you will learn twice as much in half the time.
-
@suresure123 @caveport is right its hard to see what went on behind the scenes just by looking at the final video.
Your example video or whatever you want to call it was just a bad example for us who don't have a big crew or access to every piece of equipment. We know they had a big crew and a big budget. Can we duplicate that look? Sure. But its a bad example plus for me its not mindblowingly good.
Why not use a video/film that looks awesome but was shot on DSLRs and tell people doesn't this look awesome even though it was shot on 2 crappy 5d mark 2s like indie game the movie(another fine doc). There were some awesome shots in that movie.
Or if you want push the agenda of we can do it with cheap equipment then you could have just used this video and called it a day
Shot with a canon 5d mark 2 and canon 7d. Again, hard to tell from the final product how they even produced this short just by looking at the final product. A lot of skill and experience involved in the vfx.
-
@Caveport I couldn't disagree more. So much of filmmaking is learning from what others have done, so I imagine when Martin Scorcese talks at length about other movies that have inspired him and how he has used certain technique or shots or cuts or whatever he has no future in Movies? I'm actually halfway through The Filmmakers Eye by Gustavo Mercado which uses a constant stream of examples to show a technique etc. Just a silly opinion sorry, most filmaking books are really a collections of examples of others work. The point is you learn fro other and make something unique that is yours from the elements, same in music, same in almost all Art. No filmmaker invents the wheel.
@ipcmir You argument against what I'm saying is I should of used only an example you like? Anyway just cause DSLR's are used doesn't mean its that low budget or not a colossal hassle to make, it had stuntmen for goodness sake in it. Plus it was just another pensive horrible out of focus dslr short, yawn.(and I did sit through it all out of respect for your point) And to be honest I think it looks like a low budget version of a high budget flick. If I went to that much expense and bother to have stuntmen I certainly would of hired a RED camera. If I hired someone to do that level of VFX you can guarantee it would no longer be a low budget short, I assume someone worked a lot of hours on a computer for no pay. Thats the nature of VFX its brain power as most of the software used in even big budgets is available to all.
I think you think I was suggesting hey we can make great stuff with shit equipment so it looks 75% as good as the mainstream. My point was about the art of filmmaking, about the craft,i.e. bringing together elements that collectively are worth more than the sum of the parts... not aping big budgets with shitty equipment. My point is about being creative, yours is about being cheap when really you want the big budget. Not even the same conversation....
The problem I really am talking about is when you said oh there are a few great shots in that short. Its not about nice shots, thats where I think all these forums fall down. People trying to make pretty pictures that communicate almost nothing. Its like hey I bought this cool 12mm SLR Magic Lens so I got to use load of wide shots in my short with almost no thought to why...
-
@suresure123, Stephen King would agree with you. In his book 'On Writing', he said (loosely paraphrasing) if you don't read a lot don't even bother trying to be a writer. I think it's the same concept for film.
-
hahaha I agree with the point but you aren't to know I'm after a childhood of reading Stephen King am struggling with my love of Kubrick and the fact Stephen King disses him so much.
If you weren't aware of the troubles between the two:
Its crazy cause even though I love SK I'm not sure I can put him on the par of Kubricks genius or at least I can't agree with him being against the Shining but loves universally all the awful adaptions of his books.
*One thing in the Kubrick doc I mentioned is Kubrick with his producer would binge watch other movies and apparently even saw things he could use from really cheesy bad movies.
-
The Shining was one of the creepiest horror movies ever. Maybe Stephen King doesn't like the liberties he took with adapting the original story.
There's actually a doc called 'Best Worst Movie'. Some 'bad' movies become classics and achieve cult status.
I was just on Youtube. Here's the little video about The Shining. Not sure if you'll be interested, but here it is fyi:
How Stanley Kubrick used Escher-styled spacial awareness & set design anomalies to disorientate viewers of his horror classic The Shining.
ps: this is getting off-topic, but the same guy who made this video also made a video about Kubrick having hidden messages in his movie about the Federal Reserve and gold (hence the gold rooms in the film). Thought that was an interesting coincidence since you were talking about gold in another thread a while back. but sorry, that's way off-topic.
-
@suresure123 I said there were some nice shots in there because that's all there was in that absolut vodka ad. Absolutely no substance. Just jay-z saying he is an artist first and Madison square garden saying they are the epicenter of the performing arts universe. What else is there to say?
So what was great about it? What was brilliant about it?
"My point was about the art of filmmaking, about the craft,i.e. bringing together elements that collectively are worth more than the sum of the parts... not aping big budgets with shitty equipment."
--- ok still don't get it. What are the parts you are talking about? the parts that's go into this video are the people, equipment, actors/characters, money. They had unlimited people, equipment, and whole bunch of money. They had the most famous rapper maybe of all time as the subject and had access to MSG and the president of MSG. So was the video greater than the sum of the parts? Were they able to tell a compelling story?
-
@suresure123, you might find this quote interesting.
" When people ask me if I went to film school, I tell them 'No, I went to films'. " -- Quentin Tarantino
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- Topics List23,964
- Blog5,723
- General and News1,342
- Hacks and Patches1,151
- ↳ Top Settings33
- ↳ Beginners254
- ↳ Archives402
- ↳ Hacks News and Development56
- Cameras2,361
- ↳ Panasonic990
- ↳ Canon118
- ↳ Sony154
- ↳ Nikon96
- ↳ Pentax and Samsung70
- ↳ Olympus and Fujifilm99
- ↳ Compacts and Camcorders299
- ↳ Smartphones for video97
- ↳ Pro Video Cameras191
- ↳ BlackMagic and other raw cameras121
- Skill1,961
- ↳ Business and distribution66
- ↳ Preparation, scripts and legal38
- ↳ Art149
- ↳ Import, Convert, Exporting291
- ↳ Editors191
- ↳ Effects and stunts115
- ↳ Color grading197
- ↳ Sound and Music280
- ↳ Lighting96
- ↳ Software and storage tips267
- Gear5,414
- ↳ Filters, Adapters, Matte boxes344
- ↳ Lenses1,579
- ↳ Follow focus and gears93
- ↳ Sound498
- ↳ Lighting gear314
- ↳ Camera movement230
- ↳ Gimbals and copters302
- ↳ Rigs and related stuff272
- ↳ Power solutions83
- ↳ Monitors and viewfinders339
- ↳ Tripods and fluid heads139
- ↳ Storage286
- ↳ Computers and studio gear560
- ↳ VR and 3D248
- Showcase1,859
- Marketplace2,834
- Offtopic1,319
