Jump to content


Photo

Lorde "Green Light" music video super16


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Danyal Khan Niazi

Danyal Khan Niazi

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 26 September 2017 - 02:00 PM

Hey guys, does anyone have any info on this Lorde music video that was shot on 16mm? I'm trying to find out what lenses Steve Annis used if anyone has any info. Maybe someone with a keen eye can hesistate a guess... I'm thinking panchros or superspeeds? Thoughts? I know a lot of DP's avoid diffusion filtration on 16mm but maybe it was cleaner lenses coupled with that?

 

 


  • 0


#2 Nojus Drąsutis

Nojus Drąsutis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Lithuania

Posted 26 September 2017 - 04:21 PM

i'm guessing It's Hawk V-Lite 16mm anamorphics.


  • 0

#3 Robin Phillips

Robin Phillips

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles / San Francisco

Posted 27 September 2017 - 07:00 PM

judging from the contrast, and lens distortion (or lack there of), my money is on arri/zeiss Ultra16s. these are the successors to the zeiss s16 superspeeds. they're arguably the sharpest 16mm lenses ever made, all T1.3.


  • 0

#4 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3551 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 September 2017 - 02:17 AM

Yea, I'd bet Superspeeds as well. It's too crisp for anamorphic and the scan from film to video was also REALLY good.
  • 0

#5 Danyal Khan Niazi

Danyal Khan Niazi

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 28 September 2017 - 02:28 AM

Yea, I'd bet Superspeeds as well. It's too crisp for anamorphic and the scan from film to video was also REALLY good.


Do you think the anamorphic flaring is filtration then? Also in many places the bokeh looks either anamorphic or just like distortions from field curvature? I think the above poster might've been on to something. But yes! Fantastic scan. Thanks for the reply
  • 0

#6 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3551 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 September 2017 - 02:37 AM

Do you think the anamorphic flaring is filtration then? Also in many places the bokeh looks either anamorphic or just like distortions from field curvature? I think the above poster might've been on to something. But yes! Fantastic scan. Thanks for the reply


I didn't see anything that stood out and I did pay attention to the bokeh quite a bit. 1.3x anamorphic is harder to tell then 2x anamorphic via the bokeh, but the edge distortion still remains and there is NONE. So that leads me to believe it's standard ol' Super 16 slightly cropped from 1.66:1 to whatever the aspect ratio it's presented in (looks like 1.85:1 to me), which isn't anywhere near 2.40:1 which is what 1.3x super 16 anamorphics would give you.

Plus with those nice night shots... them being so crisp... that's a REALLY good lens and even the Hawks would struggle doing that all the way open.
  • 0

#7 Danyal Khan Niazi

Danyal Khan Niazi

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 28 September 2017 - 02:43 AM

I didn't see anything that stood out and I did pay attention to the bokeh quite a bit. 1.3x anamorphic is harder to tell then 2x anamorphic via the bokeh, but the edge distortion still remains and there is NONE. So that leads me to believe it's standard ol' Super 16 slightly cropped from 1.66:1 to whatever the aspect ratio it's presented in (looks like 1.85:1 to me), which isn't anywhere near 2.40:1 which is what 1.3x super 16 anamorphics would give you.

Plus with those nice night shots... them being so crisp... that's a REALLY good lens and even the Hawks would struggle doing that all the way open.


So you think it's superspeeds and not ultra16's? I thought it could've been superspeeds just judging by the quality of some of the flaring and blooming.
  • 0

#8 Danyal Khan Niazi

Danyal Khan Niazi

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 28 September 2017 - 02:45 AM

I didn't see anything that stood out and I did pay attention to the bokeh quite a bit. 1.3x anamorphic is harder to tell then 2x anamorphic via the bokeh, but the edge distortion still remains and there is NONE. So that leads me to believe it's standard ol' Super 16 slightly cropped from 1.66:1 to whatever the aspect ratio it's presented in (looks like 1.85:1 to me), which isn't anywhere near 2.40:1 which is what 1.3x super 16 anamorphics would give you.

Plus with those nice night shots... them being so crisp... that's a REALLY good lens and even the Hawks would struggle doing that all the way open.


So you think it's superspeeds and not ultra16's? Just judging by the quality of some of the flaring and blooming I was thinking superspeeds but it was just so sharp.
  • 0

#9 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1536 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 28 September 2017 - 07:23 AM

It's pretty obviously widescreen - 2.40:1 or thereabouts.

The last shot (fairly close portrait with out of focus headlights in the background) definitely looks anamorphic, plus there are a number of blue horizontal flares. I'd guess Hawks.

A lot of the shots where the Bokeh is neutral are probably because the focus is fairly distant and so the background isn't that out of focus.
  • 1

#10 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3551 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 September 2017 - 12:53 PM

So you think it's superspeeds and not ultra16's? I thought it could've been superspeeds just judging by the quality of some of the flaring and blooming.


Ultra Primes, but I don't think it's S16 glass, I think it's the standard ol 35mm glass. 1.3x anamorphic S16 Hawks are so much rarer and they aren't that crisp all the way open, which you'd NEED a super fast lens all the way open to get that night stuff, PERIOD.

The flaring to me looks like Ultra Primes as well, though I will admit, I haven't used them at night before.
  • 0

#11 Danyal Khan Niazi

Danyal Khan Niazi

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 28 September 2017 - 02:28 PM

Ultra Primes, but I don't think it's S16 glass, I think it's the standard ol 35mm glass. 1.3x anamorphic S16 Hawks are so much rarer and they aren't that crisp all the way open, which you'd NEED a super fast lens all the way open to get that night stuff, PERIOD.

The flaring to me looks like Ultra Primes as well, though I will admit, I haven't used them at night before.

 

What makes you think its the 35mm glass, and what is the difference? Thanks for all your input.


  • 0

#12 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3551 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 September 2017 - 07:37 PM

I've been super busy, so I didn't have much time to really dissect until this exact second.

I saw a few things at full screen that I didn't see upon first viewing. One of which was the oval bokeh during the final shot. Another was how much the stock was pushed during the night exterior material. Thus, they wouldn't need that extra speed on the Super or Ultra speeds.

For some reason my computer not full screen, wasn't showing the correct aspect ratio as well. Full-screen it looks like 2.40:1 right on the nose.

So yea... I'm thinking 1.3x Hawks now.

Sorry about my previous comments, I should have watched it full screen before. My bad.
  • 0

#13 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7075 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 29 September 2017 - 08:27 PM

Personally I think it was a mix of Super-Speeds and possibly some regular super speeds (or Optar Illumina S16mm lenses) with Anamorphic. Some of the flares didn't "feel" like hawk flares to me at all; and were very similar to my old illuminas. Might've had 2 bodies on the show, one set with the de-squeeze and one not. 

 


  • 0

#14 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1536 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 29 September 2017 - 09:20 PM

Yeah I'd thought that too Adrian. Wasn't sure if swapping between anamorphic and cropped sherical on S16 might have been visible with different grain, but its very clean - maybe some grain reduction was done in post?
  • 0

#15 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7075 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 29 September 2017 - 09:36 PM

Wouldn't surprise me if they did. It's not a video wanting for budget, I'd say and how much is a button press these days?


  • 0

#16 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3551 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 September 2017 - 03:07 AM

So maybe the exterior stuff at night is anamorphic and the interiors are spherical. That would kinda fit the flares and stuff.
  • 0

#17 Robin Phillips

Robin Phillips

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles / San Francisco

Posted 30 September 2017 - 02:44 PM

I've been super busy, so I didn't have much time to really dissect until this exact second.

I saw a few things at full screen that I didn't see upon first viewing. One of which was the oval bokeh during the final shot. Another was how much the stock was pushed during the night exterior material. Thus, they wouldn't need that extra speed on the Super or Ultra speeds.

For some reason my computer not full screen, wasn't showing the correct aspect ratio as well. Full-screen it looks like 2.40:1 right on the nose.

So yea... I'm thinking 1.3x Hawks now.

Sorry about my previous comments, I should have watched it full screen before. My bad.

how far would you venture they pushed the stock? just one stop or 2?


  • 0

#18 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3551 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 September 2017 - 07:58 PM

how far would you venture they pushed the stock? just one stop or 2?


For sure one stop.. two probably wasn't necessary. They may have also under exposed and brought it up in post, not sure.
  • 0

#19 Stefano Stroppa

Stefano Stroppa
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 01 October 2017 - 07:13 AM

Quoting from an article I read a few months back:

 

- For her first video in several years, both wanted to make a clean break from Lorde's previous videos, which led to the bold artistic choice to shoot it on 16mm film rather than on the compact digital rigs typically employed these days. "To me, 16mm film has a thickness to it, and it feels timeless to me," Singer said. "And that was really important: to not make it feel like a video made in 2017, but to me the quality of the film, the music video itself feels more timely, and that was definitely intentional, at least on my part."

 

Though they didn't share anything about lenses used.


Edited by Stefano Stroppa, 01 October 2017 - 07:16 AM.

  • 0

#20 Daniel Klockenkemper

Daniel Klockenkemper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 01 October 2017 - 05:13 PM

Why doesn't someone just ask Steve Annis, instead of offering baseless speculation?  

 

His e-mail address is at the bottom-right corner of every page on his website.  http://steveannisdop.com/contact/


  • 0


Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

CineLab

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab