what was this shot on?

John Sellar · January 6, 2007

this is a silly question, I know: has anybody seen the video by the band "ok go" where they dance on the treadmills?

Here is why I need to know:

An artist's manager wants me to shoot a video for her on a very low budget. I said it can be done, but I think we should shoot on 16. She said plenty of videos are shot on video, and I agreed with her. She then sent me the link to this video:

I told her it looked like it was shot on film (but I am not sure, the quality is low and they were clearly going for a low budget look).

I couldnt' find any production info online. What do you guys think?

Nicholas Jenkins · January 6, 2007

It's been a while since I've seen it, but I do remember thinking it looked like video as opposed to film. Have you considered renting something like an XL-H1 or the JVC GY-HD? They're both relatively (RELATIVELY) inexpensive HD cams. You get native 24p and native 16x9 at a resonable budget.

John Sellar · January 6, 2007

It's not a question of how good video can look. It can look good, very good.

I'm just really trying to push 16mm on these people...

I want to be able to say..."I told you so, lady, film is what we're used to seeing"

Phil Rhodes · January 6, 2007

Hi,

Point of order - you don't get native 24p on an XLH1; if you're finishing SD it might be good enough though.

Phil

Alessandro Machi · January 6, 2007

this is a silly question, I know: has anybody seen the video by the band "ok go" where they dance on the treadmills?

Here is why I need to know:

An artist's manager wants me to shoot a video for her on a very low budget. I said it can be done, but I think we should shoot on 16. She said plenty of videos are shot on video, and I agreed with her. She then sent me the link to this video:

I told her it looked like it was shot on film (but I am not sure, the quality is low and they were clearly going for a low budget look).

I couldnt' find any production info online. What do you guys think?

(New answer after seeing the video)

One piece of critical infomation you left out was that it was a one shot music video, no editing at all. That is a huge piece of information to know because the more set?ups one has to shoot, the more video might be viewed as the "safer" alternative. Sometimes I can't bring myself to watch UTube because it's ghastly out of sync and poor quality, but in this instance it was critical.

It kind of looks like film to me, however the image appears to have no judder at all, so it could be video. If it's going to be a one shot deal in which you set up the camera and let them do their thing, I'd bring both formats along. As soon as you get a good video take, then fool around and do a few takes on 16mm as well.

(Old answer before seeing the video)

If you can create a list of very well known music videos that were shot on film, especially if any of them are somewhat similar to what this manager wants, I would consider going that route. I think there are other issues going on here, the manager is creating a situation in which she wants what she wants, but she wants to dictate to you how to do it. That's really not her call to make, it's yours. Which leads me to think she may be incredibly frugal and figures that if it's done on video, the costs can be kept way down.

Unless you two are very close on what the budget of this project will be, I would make a very short test shot one in film, one with video, and then decide. It might be worth her spending 500 bucks for the test and really doing it on the cheap before commiting to a much bigger budget.

If you end up not doing the project, and she gets someone else to do it, she will probably end up loving it no matter how it comes out just to spite you. :ph34r:

Nicholas Jenkins · January 6, 2007

Hi,

Point of order - you don't get native 24p on an XLH1; if you're finishing SD it might be good enough though.

Phil

Really? They're lying about their product then? CRAP! So then the major difference between the XL2 and the XLH1 is res? Ick.

Keneu Luca · January 6, 2007

On youtube, black n white 35mm can be confused for pxl 2000.

Taken from here, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/24/1156012675806.html, I found this quote, "Officially it was $5, which was the cost of the videotape," says Kulash. "But the truth is we also bought a lot of coffee that week to keep us going, so if you include the catering budget, it was probably about 30 bucks."

The first time was an accident, but when the time came to make a real video for Here It Goes Again, Kulash called his sister to see if she had any ideas on how they could top A Million Ways. She thought for a moment and said: "Well, there's always the treadmills."

So, the video format reference, I believe, is to the previous music video Kulash shot, not this one on youtube you linked us to, but if they had switched to film, this most certainly would have been mentioned in the article.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Keneu

Andy_Alderslade · January 6, 2007

It's not a question of how good video can look. It can look good, very good.

I'm just really trying to push 16mm on these people...

I want to be able to say..."I told you so, lady, film is what we're used to seeing"

I've heard this situation and encountered it my self several times before, low level bands wanting music videos for 'nothing' and not 'nothing' (under a £600 nothing) but actually NOTHING! I find this very bewildering, a music video is such a superfluous entity anyway, why not spend a little to make it look good?

Especially considering the bulk of proffesional music videos are shot on 35mm, super16 and now also on HDCAM. Okay I understand why some people make music videos on DV, super8 or even Pixelvision but thats going for a very specific look, and thats a whole other issue.

The link she sent you is blatantly video, and not brilliantly shot video at that, but it works so well because the coreography is so brilliant and perfect, infact the general 'crappyness' of DV video kinda adds to the supprise affect. I don't know why she would use that as an example.

There are numerous advantages to shooting 16mm or super16 for music videos specificly which you could mention:

1. Gives you real slow motion (and as i'm sure you know its extensively used in music videos.)

2. Perfect resolution for TV and Web broadcasting, plus latter when HD delivery is required you can rescan the original negative for an HD master.

3. More flattering to the talent (just mention that The OC, Sex in the City, One Tree Hill were shot on super 16)

4. Music videos arn't reliant on sync sound, so you use a lot less film as you don't necesarily have to slate, infact you could even use say a Bolex and with good lenses achieve good results, and those cameras are extremly cheap to borrow or rent, and creatively versatile. (This was even shot on a K3 http://www.jameswestbrook.co.uk/kitashton.htm)

5. A versatile Depth of Field, the 16mm depth of field is small enougth to be seletive when necessary and large enough not to be a burden, if you want a similar DOF in video you would probably have to use a proffesional ENG camera with a 2/3' chip - this may cost your more than expected in rental.

6. Carefully rehearsed and planed you don't need to use that much film at all, achieving a level of quality on a restricted budget. That level of quality may prove to stand out considerably from other bands that have only videos and footage on miniDV.

Anyhow if you do have to do it on video, if you're creative and inventive with it I'm sure you can still make it look good.

Best of luck, Andy

John Sellar · January 6, 2007

This lady seems very, very cheap and uninformed. She said she only wants to spend $500 on it...the whole thing. I told her that the kind of video she wants can't be done well on that budget, even if we shoot on video.

She kept saying how she didnt have money now, but in nine months everybody in the Latin hip hop community will know who this artist is...her song will be featured in the new Queen Latifah movie...blah blah blah. (she dropped many questionable names)

This is why I should just stick to cinematography...to avoid dealng with people like this.

Andy_Alderslade · January 7, 2007

This is why I should just stick to cinematography...to avoid dealng with people like this.

You will most definatly meet worse.

If there's no hope of shooting it on film, then bite the bullet and shoot it with the best video kit you can get for budget available. If you shoot it carefully it may turn out quite good, and if you want the experience or the material for your showreel then why say no?

I'm slightly embarrased to show these, but they are stills from a music video i shot for friends of friends, they had absolutly no budget. It was shot on a one-chip camera, that had a lens so small i couldn't attach a Cokin filter holder to it, instead i hade to tape the holder with a diffuser to the front. All i had to control lighting was photographers diffuser, and reflector. Dispite the camera being unable to render natural skin colours, some of it came out fairly decent.

Alessandro Machi · January 7, 2007

......The link she sent you is blatantly video, and not brilliantly shot video at that, but it works so well because the coreography is so brilliant and perfect, infact the general 'crappyness' of DV video kinda adds to the supprise affect. I don't know why she would use that as an example.....

Geeze, the only reason I thought it might be video was because I didn't see any film registration movement at all, however, for a wide shot, the resolution on the faces is pretty good, which is why I wasn't sure.

On a seperate note, the colors came out nice as well.

Brad Grimmett · January 7, 2007

She said she only wants to spend $500 on it...the whole thing. I told her that the kind of video she wants can't be done well on that budget, even if we shoot on video.

Yeah, at that point it's a question if you can even get a camera for that price. And how is she going to pay you? Sounds like a waste of time unless you really like the song and would like to have the piece for your reel. But really, how good is it going to be on your reel when you have no money to do anything? Maybe it's worth it to you, or maybe it's not.....

Joseph Winchester · January 7, 2007

"Hi,

Point of order - you don't get native 24p on an XLH1; if you're finishing SD it might be good enough though.

Phil"

FWIW, you do in fact get true '24p' on the XLH1. It is called '24F', however. It's just semantics. FCP and other NLEs capture, edit and output this as '24p'. Same thing.

Nicholas Jenkins · January 7, 2007

"Hi,

Point of order - you don't get native 24p on an XLH1; if you're finishing SD it might be good enough though.

Phil"

FWIW, you do in fact get true '24p' on the XLH1. It is called '24F', however. It's just semantics. FCP and other NLEs capture, edit and output this as '24p'. Same thing.

AHA!

Jonathan Bowerbank · January 7, 2007

I told her it looked like it was shot on film (but I am not sure, the quality is low and they were clearly going for a low budget look).

I couldnt' find any production info online. What do you guys think?

It's video, perhaps with a prosumer HD camera but just using all the factory settings and a simple unprofessional lighting setup.

Their previous homemade video is another fun one called "Million Ways"

M Joel W · January 13, 2007

A $500 budget is impossible to begin with, but if you were to shoot 16mm MOS this is even more true. You would need a decent timed telecine, the cost of stock itself, then the camera rental.

For my money, an HVX200 is the best bet for someone who wants to shoot something very cheap and "kind of like film." The P2 workflow and variable frame rates feel really magazine-like to me, Panasonic has made this thing produce really pretty colors at the cost of some grain and the footage doesn't feel too different from a lot of medium speed (200ISO) 16mm I've seen and wide open f2.8 it has a similar depth of focus to 16mm at like f5.6 or something. Also the lens is surprisingly sharp wide open. It's also super fast to use; I worked with one recently and we shot for next to nothing, did a ton of set ups, and most of them actually looked pretty good, even without any color timing in post. I'd see if there's some way you could get an HVX, tripod and a softbank light kit for cheap. But $500 really isn't going to cut it; that's barely enough for food...and what locations are you using? If you already have a 24p camcorder, go with that and focus on lighting and composition, which are what really matter. Good luck.