Jump to content


Photo

new music video


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 29 April 2007 - 02:35 PM

let me know what ya'll think! :)....about anything! :)


http://thinkmonkeymedia.com/tg1/
  • 0

#2 Ronney Ross

Ronney Ross
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2007 - 07:34 PM

I love the look and the fleshtones just wondering about some of the effects you used i.e. the soft focus and camera shake. Other than that I like it.

-Ronney Ross
  • 0

#3 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 29 April 2007 - 08:09 PM

hey thnks ronney! much appreciated.
the subtle blurs were used to try and keep the song moving.....but we're starting to wonder if its just more of a distraction.

the shaking camera here and there is to keep the energy up so it doesn't become so much of a stale video like a lot I see anymore.

:)
  • 0

#4 giap vu

giap vu
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 April 2007 - 10:16 PM

hey thnks ronney! much appreciated.
the subtle blurs were used to try and keep the song moving.....but we're starting to wonder if its just more of a distraction.

the shaking camera here and there is to keep the energy up so it doesn't become so much of a stale video like a lot I see anymore.

:)


the the over subtle blurring was a bit distracting but all in all, good job!
  • 0

#5 Bill Totolo

Bill Totolo
  • Sustaining Members
  • 698 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 29 April 2007 - 11:35 PM

Looks great, very impressive for SD miniDV.
Did you use a lens adapter or anything else on the lens, filters, nets?
  • 0

#6 sergio cassini

sergio cassini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Switzerland

Posted 30 April 2007 - 07:18 AM

i like the warm colors and the overall look.to me it's a little to sharp and i would have avoided the reflection of the lights in the windows and in one shot the dancer in the back has like a spotlight on her and this distracts me from looking at the singer.anyway,good job.
  • 0

#7 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 30 April 2007 - 09:32 PM

thanks everyone! some valid points mentioned here. I felt that the footage was SO sharp that we decided to
put a blur of 1 on everything just to soften it up a bit....it looked a bit too video'ish, and it seemed to do
wonders for this particular context.
I used a fisheye lens for a couple scenes on the city roof scene. and then a wide-angle lens for a few of the
shots in the brick warehouse...but 80% of everything was done with just the DVX100 lens.

a lot of the quick blurs we added in post just to keep the rhythm going.....some like, some dont.

keep it comin ya'll,
thnks
  • 0

#8 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 06 May 2007 - 01:52 PM

different link:

www.thinkmonkeymedia.com/tg2


like to hear more input/opinions on it, thnks ya'll.
  • 0

#9 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 08 May 2007 - 04:11 AM

Looks good overall, especially for DV.

I didn't really care for the lighting inside the loft. I'm not a big fan of front lighting in general, and the two-point lighting in that space make the scene go a bit dull. Everything's mid tone and equally lit; lacking contrast. You could have accented the dancers in the rear differently (maybe using those great china-hat practicals with PAR bulbs, or some par cans clamped to the beams), and then front lit your singer separately. And the reflection of the Chimera in the window made me cringe! (sorry)

For a glamour look, you're usually better off with softer frontal lighting extremely close to the lens -- usually above and below, rather than from either side.
  • 0

#10 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 09 May 2007 - 01:03 AM

Looks good overall, especially for DV.

I didn't really care for the lighting inside the loft. I'm not a big fan of front lighting in general, and the two-point lighting in that space make the scene go a bit dull. Everything's mid tone and equally lit; lacking contrast. You could have accented the dancers in the rear differently (maybe using those great china-hat practicals with PAR bulbs, or some par cans clamped to the beams), and then front lit your singer separately. And the reflection of the Chimera in the window made me cringe! (sorry)

For a glamour look, you're usually better off with softer frontal lighting extremely close to the lens -- usually above and below, rather than from either side.



Thanks Mr.Nash. I appreciate it! :)

Yeah, I'm not real happy with the loft lighting myself, but its not bad. However, no matter what we tried, becuase of moving around with the camera so much...it was impossible to not see the Chimera at some point in time. What would've you had done? Just lift them super high, I guess...but we had limited stand extension.
  • 0

#11 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 09 May 2007 - 07:05 PM

Thanks Mr.Nash. I appreciate it! :)

Yeah, I'm not real happy with the loft lighting myself, but its not bad. However, no matter what we tried, becuase of moving around with the camera so much...it was impossible to not see the Chimera at some point in time. What would've you had done? Just lift them super high, I guess...but we had limited stand extension.


It always depends on what equipment you have, but my first instinct would have been to light it a different way from the get-go, so that there wouldn't be reflections. But assuming the fill light was where you wanted it, I would have tried to set a flag near the light. If that cut too much of the fill light, I would have looked to see if I could have set a couple different lights for fill, each with their own siders to control the reflections.
  • 0

#12 Shane Bartlett

Shane Bartlett
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Nashville

Posted 17 May 2007 - 08:09 AM

Hey, I know that old warehouse. Worked on many projects there.


I agree about the lighting. In general, the footage is very lit. Aside from killing the reflections, I would have topped the lights with flags or blackwrap to keep the light off of the ceiling and the higher reaches of the walls. Given the large space to work with and the high sensitivity of the dvx100, I would have considered bouncing the front light, and flagging as needed (using the remainder of your lights for background dancers and the set). A 4x8 sheet of bead board can be had from Citation for $15. If 4x8 is too big, you can always cut it in half and tape the edges (be sure to overlap the silver side, as it will begin to peel).
  • 0

#13 Joseph Arch

Joseph Arch
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Director

Posted 24 November 2007 - 12:05 AM

I loved it. Really well done for that budget you had. I always applaude people who try and make something out of a small budget then those who have a bigger budget and make nothing out of it.

Great job.
  • 0


Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Opal

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Visual Products