Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Cooter  (Read 7123 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #60 on: May 03, 2013, 10:49:09 AM »
ReplyReply

German highways: It is true there are a lot of crazy people. If any other technology would cause so many deads as driving, it would be instantly forbidden.Fortunately there are also girls who prefer the old fashioned way: Girls like Barbarella or Marina.

Best,
Johannes


1.  You mean, like guns?

2.  You have got to be joking: Barbarella broke a friggin' machine; you think it fortunate to mess with someone like that?


Rob C


Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3980



WWW
« Reply #61 on: May 03, 2013, 12:05:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm told that the total budget of a music video is now around 10K Euro.
Not sure that really covers choreography rehearsals etc which is why I guess these things are mostly shot and assembled rather than really filmed. Of course, I'm sure that a woman and her EverReady Bunny, or Warhol Man in a close up can be done for less, which comforts my impression  that porn keeps getting better while music videos are going downhill Smiley

Edmund

Cool video. Great boys casting and concept. Enjoyed it.

I always find that still people going to motion have more hardtime in the editing aspect (and audio). Image are generally well acheived but montages are way too slow,
specially when mixed with music, they generaly lack rythm, percussion and election of takes and planes are "out" the story telling. (following a pattern of composition)
Don't know if this video has been done by "still crew" but it smells like. (the cutting doesn't always match what the music-emotion transmits and it's very typical)
This song and video have very powerfull editing options but it looks more like still pros work because they were not fully exploited in the motion lenguage during the entire lengh.
There are very good parts, right on the money, but then weak parts that break the buzz and look a little out or added at the last moment.
(maybe it's a motion crew, I don't know but reminds me more of dejà-vu with pros freshly to motion)

I've seen this in 99% of still imagery people going to motion, even after years.

That's why good editors are keys people within the pipeline, and not "photographers that use their studio FC" and are used to control everything, it doesn't work.
I would say that a good sound tech and a good editor are the 2 pilars, even more important that image quality or cc itself because it's generally the weakest always,
even with experienced crews.

Good example for inspiration study and not doing the typical "weaknesses" of still imagers, Take a look for ex at this dude: http://www.jonasakerlund.com/

That said: zzzzzzzz


 

Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 791



« Reply #62 on: May 03, 2013, 12:14:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm told that the total budget of a music video is now around 10K Euro.
Not sure that really covers choreography rehearsals etc which is why I guess these things are mostly shot and assembled rather than really filmed. Of course, I'm sure that a woman and her EverReady Bunny, or Warhol Man in a close up can be done for less, which comforts my impression  that porn keeps getting better while music videos are going downhill Smiley

Edmund


The average here is in between 7.000 and 20.000 for normal prod of musical clip (counting 4 minutes), so yeah, 10K is in the middle-low.
(1500-5000 per minute)
Of course this can jump fast to 100k to millions, but with the crisis...
« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 12:20:31 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1095


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #63 on: May 03, 2013, 12:36:21 PM »
ReplyReply


I always find that still people going to motion have more hardtime in the editing aspect
 


Fred to most extent I agree with you though . . .

I think it's difficult to paint everyone with a broad brush.  Some directors, dps, clients hell even professional editors should never be allowed to construct a story.

On the other hand, some of the very best directors know the story and script better than the writer so they offer a lot when it comes to the editorial process.

Anyone that goes into motion imagery should learn the basics of editing.  Not to become a professional editor, but to understand what it takes to build a story and if anything how much footage it takes to build an interesting story.

Every director I've respected spends as much time in the editorial bay as they do on set, probably more, because that's where the story comes together.

Where photographers have issues in editing their own video is the same issues we have in editing our portfolio, we are too invested in the imagery.  

The most difficult shot might not fit the story and probably should hit the floor, but since we are so attached to it, we can't help but insert it.  

So this may sound trite but to edit you have to get out of yourself and not look at the edit as the dp, director, editor, or client.

You approach the edit as the viewer.

A good director also has to be involved in the script, along with the dp, probably more involved than the writer.

Writing it on paper and making it come out on film are way different processes and sometimes just don't transfer.

A few years ago we shot a celeb for a beauty brand.  Great talent, great presence on set, but we never had a full script.  The client wanted to do "talking points".  After the shoot, we had days of footage but none of if it came together.

I called the client and said you have probably 15 good 15 second spots but not one cohesive story.  The client said said yes they did, so we transcribed the footage send 4 copies and I asked the client to take a pair of scissors, start cutting it up and construct a story.

After a week, they called and said we going to shoot another day with a script.

--------------------------------

The last two weeks I've spent in the editing bay, putting together an anamatic (moving storyboard) for a project we have coming up in June.

We used a small amount of our own footage but most of the footage, about 105 clips we bought from stock.

It was the most enlightening edit I've ever done, because I wasn't involved or attached to any one scene, (since I didn't shoot it).  To me working with the editors hat, all I cared about with the story and if the visuals fit the story.

It was never personal and produced the most on target edit out studio has ever done.

It was a great lesson.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 12:40:16 PM by bcooter » Logged

fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 791



« Reply #64 on: May 03, 2013, 01:40:04 PM »
ReplyReply



Every director I've respected spends as much time in the editorial bay as they do on set, probably more, because that's where the story comes together.

Where photographers have issues in editing their own video is the same issues we have in editing our portfolio, we are too invested in the imagery.  

The most difficult shot might not fit the story and probably should hit the floor, but since we are so attached to it, we can't help but insert it.  

So this may sound trite but to edit you have to get out of yourself and not look at the edit as the dp, director, editor, or client.

Absolutly. I think it's really a key point.

I also noticed that editing is a "god's gift". There are people born with natural capabilities for that, as in every craft and they can shine easily in it, while others
may learn during years and years, know all the rules and they never end to be really good at it.




A good director also has to be involved in the script, along with the dp, probably more involved than the writer.

Writing it on paper and making it come out on film are way different processes and sometimes just don't transfer.


Yeah, that's where I find generally the weakest parts (even in video crews). In the end, an editor can only work with the takes done. Going back to this music video,
watching it, I had "obvious takes" in mind that were "missing". Now...maybe they were missing because they were not shooted. That's the problem. So script
and pre-production are really keys in order to get the takes nailed for the story. (and that's where 4K red can be good to save lack of plans because we can crop)

What I find that is generally very weak with still imagery background pros, is a very limited sense of plans and angles in relation to storytelling and a really problematic
and recurrent problem with audio and music matching that is there in 99% of the prods that comes from still world. The cuttings are in general too slow, way too slow,
they tell or too much or not enough, or out of context (specially when rythm is needed) and they are more preocupated with this sacro saint
"image quality" and color corrections. They lite quite well, they color quite well but they have hardtime when it comes to motion lenguage and keep the buzz according
to the story intended, instead it's shy and too much time on similar takes.

Then, there is another issue wich is "trying to do it too well" under pressure and that's when things get bad and cutting end to be boring for too much conservatism
and desire to not failure. Precisely, the worry of not failing makes the failure guarantee.

It does not happen in high-end video or cine crews because they are used to big chalenges and pressure and it's done within a "daily routine". It happens more
to still crowds because they aren't confident enough and they want to make it good, forgetting the necesary fun and distance.

I still find that probably your best editing (published, don't know the unpublished) is the car race with the 5D2. And I think it's because you kept it fresh, fluid, organic,
and no pressure to client X or Y. So in the end, it's your intuition and not reason(able) that was involved. You had fun.

Ps: and it's funny, in the end, we can discuss gear, lenses and so on, but I never watch a movie with the "image quality" in mind. If it's a 5D2 or a Red or Aaton or Gopro.
It really doesn't matter. What yes matters is the audio and the cutting.
A bad audio and a bad cutting would completly ruin the experience, while a Red vs Alexa would be completly irrelevant.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 02:11:53 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 859



WWW
« Reply #65 on: May 03, 2013, 01:44:38 PM »
ReplyReply

"The most difficult shot might not fit the story and probably should hit the floor, but since we are so attached to it, we can't help but insert it.  "

Absolutely. You get precious and hang on to things that aren't needed. I always show a rough edit to a friend in the business and he will imidiately spot what needs to go and is quite ruthless but the end product is always better for it.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1095


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 03, 2013, 05:09:30 PM »
ReplyReply



Ps: and it's funny, in the end, we can discuss gear, lenses and so on, but I never watch a movie with the "image quality" in mind. If it's a 5D2 or a Red or Aaton or Gopro.
It really doesn't matter. What yes matters is the audio and the cutting.
A bad audio and a bad cutting would completly ruin the experience, while a Red vs Alexa would be completly irrelevant.

I agree it's all about the story, or better put if the story is the catalyst.

I just viewed the Jeff Nichols film Mud and the story, acting, directing, editiotial was to me almost flawless and I honestly can't remember what the film looked like, other than I guess if someone asked I would say pretty. . . I think.

We usually can't get away with that in still photography.   With stills we don't always have to tell a story but we do have to do something visually interesting, though obviously it's better if we can tell a story and be visually compelling.

Where motion imagery without a story seems rather hollow.

I do know that making the transition from stills to motion is hard and requires volumes of time.

Motion imagery is the black hole of time.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 05:18:07 PM by bcooter » Logged

jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


« Reply #67 on: May 03, 2013, 05:34:19 PM »
ReplyReply


1.  You mean, like guns?

2.  You have got to be joking: Barbarella broke a friggin' machine; you think it fortunate to mess with someone like that?

Rob C

1. –> Not guns, but if an electric drill or a cell phone would cause so many deadly accidents, it would be forbidden.

2. –> I think it would be worth a try ;-) She had those pills for "intellectual sex" (in the scene with David Hemmings), but preferred the old fashioned way. At least she said so in the movie.

Best,
Johannes
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad