Edited by dustwaterwindfire, 13 June 2006 - 12:37 AM.
Jump to content
Music Video, please check it out and comment
12 replies to this topic
Posted 13 June 2006 - 10:26 AM
99 problems but the clip ain't one, if you know what I mean.
Pretty nice for a newcomer! Cinematography-wise, the only thing that would have made it better is if you could have used a few different focal lengths, but I'm guessing you may have been limited to the one fixed lens on the camera. But even with a fixed lens, you can vary the shot size more simply with proximity.
You could also have gotten a few stronger B&W compositions if you'd been able to defeat the auto-iris, which again I'm guessing you couldn't. But there is some really nice stuff in there. I really liked the shot outside the truck cab looking in, with the reflection in the window.
Some nice editing, but needed even more "texture." I liked the soft focus shots at the beginning, but felt like I wanted even more flash frames, lens flares and such to keep the lo-fi aesthetic going.
How did you transfer the super8 to video?
Posted 13 June 2006 - 12:49 PM
thanks for all the great insight. I had the film transfered here in atlanta at cinepost. A few (when I say a few I mean like two really short clips) were transfered here at the crib off a condenser lens.
Yeah I shot pretty much all of it with my canon 814 xls. It was a experiment from the beginning to see if I would enjoy super 8 and filmaking enough to really go further with it. I have to say I am hooked and I want to learn some real techniques now. thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
Posted 13 June 2006 - 02:16 PM
Pretty freakin cool man, what are the tech. specs? stock, number of rolls shot, etc.? how big was the crew? lt
looks like you got a good head on your shoulders, keep it up.
Edited by Kircules, 13 June 2006 - 02:16 PM.
Posted 13 June 2006 - 03:26 PM
Thanks, it was just me and a freind holding the boombox. We shot 15 rolls all plus-x reversal at 24 fps.
Posted 14 June 2006 - 12:47 PM
I think its greatest strength is that you picked a subject that leant itself to the medium.
Posted 14 June 2006 - 06:50 PM
Nice work man. My only editing ideas would be to:
1. Make the opening sequence snap together a little quicker. It's cool you have the old boom box, just clean up the heads and tails a little. One or two of the shots seem acted because they will press a button then have there fingers in the frame for awhile. Also, I think it would kick in the song better to have some quick cuts of the boom box.
2. Did you shoot the whole song in the different locations. Such as the street with the cars on both sides, it would be cool to mix some of those shots in earlier, if you shot the whole song at each location.
3. The portrait shots are also very cool and add a great feel. It may be cool to add one or two in earlier.
My overall suggestion: Copy your edit to a different timeline and try messing around. Maybe delete some of the dissolves or add more film spinning etc... If you have time it's a good technique. I do it on all the projects I edit if time/budget is available. Make sure you start on a fresh day so you can step back a little and look at your creation.
Overall It was great work, good camera work, and defiantly had a rugged feel. I didn't turn it off like other samples I've seen.
Posted 17 June 2006 - 12:19 AM
thanks so much for the great ideas. I am already working on it.
Posted 18 June 2006 - 11:51 PM
I have to say, I was very impressed with this shot.
Film Theory: I couldn't help but contrast this with Mark Romanek's "99 Problems". I don't know if that's the allusion the above poster was making, but the resemblance is uncanny (and perhaps in a good way). However, I think Romanek's contrast of black and white works better "99 Problems" because of the gritty urban feel given off by the city. With the setting of "When Heaven Scrapes the Pavement", the black and white doesn't seem to have the same effect as "99". It looks like you have some cool shots in there that might have been nice to see with rich color (assuming a color shot would have come out with the same amazing quality the b&w did). But maybe I'm just a victim of mainstream color music videos with white rappers attacking the camera while montages of literal dogs barking at girls in bikinis at carwashes play intermittently throughout the video. If you were trying to avoid that whole scene, then I applaud you altogether!
Technical: The quality of this piece is amazing. If it weren't for the deep focus photography, I probably wouldn't beleive this were super8. Somewhere in the middle of the video, there's a shot of the lyricist wearing sunglasses in front of a wire fence. The blacks are so black and the whites are so white. The whole thing is unbelievably sharp and I loved it. I'm curious as to what you shot this with. Care to shed any light?
Posted 19 June 2006 - 04:08 PM
I have seen the 99 problems video once, the only thing I remember is that it was very good. Yes I definitely wanted to avoid the dogs barking at girls in bikinis or anything remotely close to that. the band is kind of anti-rap-bling to the core so making something lo fi was the only way to go. I shot the whole thing using a super 8 canon 814xls. I used plus x and shot everything outdoors. Not really having edited or shot any film before I am really encouraged that some of you experienced guys find it at least interesting. I am a musician by trade, and now have a secret itch to go further down this road. Once again thanks for taking the time to give feedback it really does make a difference for the beginner. also what does "deep focus photography" mean? still just learning.
Posted 19 June 2006 - 05:33 PM
I think your artistic instincts have carried over into this new medium. As I commented to a friend who's also seen your clip, I think your visual approach is a perfect complement to your musical approach. You're basically already doing visually what you've done musically. Keep it up!
Since you want to learn more technical stuff, we can start with "deep focus." That simply means that everything is in focus, from near to far. That's the opposite of "shallow focus" where only a small portion of depth or distance from the lens is in focus (like if someone's face is in focus, but the background is blurry like in a lot of TV or movies).
You should check out some basic photography books about lenses, optics, film, and so on. The basics of still photography and motion picture photography are the same.
Posted 19 June 2006 - 10:26 PM
I have started reading a bit already and I am finding a lot of it interesting. Is it possible in the super 8 realm (i guess with fixed lens cameras like canon and nizo which are both fixed) to defeat everything being in focus? i guess i ll find out sooner than later as I read and understand.
Posted 20 June 2006 - 02:22 AM
Well, as you'll see by reading the depth of field depends on three things: focal length, aperture, and distance to subject (where the focus is set). To get the most shallow depth of field, you need a longer focal length, a larger aperture (smaller f-stop number), and shorter distance to subject.
The problem with Super-8 cameras with one lens is that you may not be able to get apertures wide enough, focal lengths long enough, and a minimum focus distance short enough to give you a shallow depth of field.
You managed to get some soft focus shots in your clip (at least one car shot at the begining); how was your focus set for that?
By "fixed" lens I mean what's called a "prime lens," or one that has one focal length only. It doesn't mean that the lens is permananently attached to the camera. Many Super-8 camera have "attached" lenses that are still zooms, giving you a small range of focal lengths to work with.