Lorde "Green Light" music video super16

[Danyal Khan Niazi]

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?

 

 

[Nojus Drasutis]

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

[Robin Phillips]

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.

[Tyler Purcell]

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

[Danyal Khan Niazi]

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

[Tyler Purcell]

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.

[Danyal Khan Niazi]

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.

[Danyal Khan Niazi]

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.

[Dom Jaeger]

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.

[Tyler Purcell]

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.

[Danyal Khan Niazi]

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.

[Tyler Purcell]

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.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

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.

 

[Dom Jaeger]

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?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

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?

[Tyler Purcell]

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

[Robin Phillips]

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?

[Tyler Purcell]

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.

[Stefano Stroppa]

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 October 1, 2017 by Stefano Stroppa

[Daniel Klockenkemper]

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/

[Samuel Berger]

The Youtube compression makes the video look awful.

[Dom Jaeger]

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

 

Where's the fun in that? And it's not entirely baseless, it's a sort of detective game..

 

But feel free to ask Steve and tell us what he says!

[Daniel Klockenkemper]

Well, it comes across less like a detective game and more like a wine tasting where no one can tell the difference between the $15 bottle and the $150 bottle.

So far there have been guesses for Zeiss Superspeeds, Zeiss Ultra 16, Optar Illuminas, and Hawk V-Lite 16 1.3x. I suppose there's no possibility it could be Cooke SK4s? Or that a Canon or Angenieux HR super 16mm zoom were used? Since I've added those possibilities, now someone in this discussion must be right, since every possible option has been mentioned.

I have no interest in contacting Mr. Annis personally, as the answer is unimportant to me. But in the face of an easy way to determine the answer to a straightforward question, does this community prefer to know the answer, or to sniff aromas and muse over the je ne sais quoi?

[Dom Jaeger]

Hmm, just let me swirl that thought around before I spit it back into the vast swill bucket that is the internet.. ;)

 

Sure, it's somewhat speculative, but the collective mind here has narrowed down the most likely scenarios, and your contribution gives the original poster a sure-fire way to find the answer, so together we've come up with something he can be happy with!

 

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the odd guessing game or list of favourite somethings or some other diverting topic is there?

 

I do like your analogy, but you know some $15 bottles of wine can be really good!

Edited October 2, 2017 by Dom Jaeger

[Mark Kenfield]

And... Nojus is the winner! :D

I just reached out to Steve, and it was all Hawks 1.3x

Stock was all 500T.

He used lots of diopters, which he reckons is probably what threw people off.