HVX Music Video "Breathe Out"

Gruzman,

That's exactly what I was looking for, and it helped me judge the footage a lot more accurately. Thank you for taking the time to post such a file; I wish more HVX shooters would get in the habit of doing so.

Nice work on your video; it is obvious you put some time and effort into this.
 
nvsurly said:
Nice work, man! I disagree with the previous "overexposure" and "shadow" comments. Uhhh... ever hear of style? And declaring a "no no" in the world of Music Videos? Are you for real? You better be Mark Romanek or Spike Jonze, to be throwin that kinda talk.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about ?
So you just tell the director it's stlye when you pull a bad shot then ?
Try telling that to Chris Cunningham and see how fast he kicks you of the set !
wake up !
 
4mat,

Gotta say you're way off on this. Experimental filmmaking and music video production techniques are expressly interwoven - have been since the very beginning of time.

Flashing, scratching, overexposure, jump-cuts, smash edits, dissolution of act structure are all hallmarks of the music video aesthetic. What might've qualified as technical flaw twenty years ago is now mainstream technique not only in music video, but feature, network narrative and commercial work.

e
 
BTW, Gruzman - that is exactly what I was looking for. This video shows perfectly the grain versus noise concept that I talk about so often when showcasing the HVX.

Nice stuff.

e
 
overlandfilms said:
4mat,

Gotta say you're way off on this. Experimental filmmaking and music video production techniques are expressly interwoven - have been since the very beginning of time.


e
Click to expand...
You are missing the point of what i'm saying.
Experementation is greate if it gives a good result but if you get a bad result then don't fanny around saying it's cool !
You just got to know the differance between good and bad stlye and it seems a few people on here just don't have a clue about good stlye.
 
Last edited:
(let the page load to see screen grabs)
Over exposed + Bad stlye
01.jpg

Correct exposure + Good stlye
02.jpg


Shadows covering face + bad stlye
03.jpg

Am i right ?
04.jpg
 
Last edited:
First grab - disagree based on the basis of stylistic election. Second grab - agree completely. That's a little sloppy. Still doesn't significantly take away from the greater piece in my mind.

e
 
6society said:
Loved the lighting in the kitchen scene. Is that natural light??
Click to expand...


The Kitchen Scene we used a ton of lights to get that look.
We shot inside a house that was still under construction, but was close to move in time. So we had to dress everything in the kitchen and bedroom scenes, not to mention cleaning.
 
Is that the hacker guy fron the first 24 series...?
Anyhow, really nice looking, the blown out sky is at the limit for my taste (especially because you also have well exosed sky w/ singer shots in there...)and I personally hate glow effects but they work here I guess...
Even without an adapter you pulled the "big money video" look quite well!
May I ask around what was your budget and how big was the crew?

One note: maybe you should put an "adult content" advice in your headline, some people here only use their cameras for recording church services and creationist mokumentaries and thus might get offended ;O)
 
We spent around $1,300.
Crew was: DP, AD, Makueup/Hair/Wardrobe, Production Designer, Gaffer, Producer, 3 PA's... and Me.
Spent $500 on a great grip/lighting/gaffer included truck that my friend owns, that normally goes for 4K a day. The rest of the money went to paying people a few bucks, food, and miscellaneus petty cash purchases.
But, in case anybody else asks, this video had a budget of 45K :)
Ryan
 
The Music: Had a 90's sound to me....
The Look: Solid. As mentioned before, a bit too blown out at the start (yes, I understand it's a "style" just not a good one..LOL) and the girl's body kept you interested in the video, hoping it would show up again. Only a couple times did it look just too "video" for me, I think it was in the one-shots where he played guitar in the t-shirt
The Editing: Fine
The Result: A Good Job.

Was this a one day shoot?
 
Last edited:
Zig_Zigman said:
Only a couple times did it look just too "video" for me, I think it was in the one-shots where he played guitar in the t-shirt
Click to expand...
If you refer to the ones in the room with all the boxes in the BG - i consider them to be the best looking, most filmic shots in the vid...
interesting...
 
For 1,300 bucks, it's pretty good. That's a tiny amount of dough, so if that's actually what it cost, then good job.

My constructive criticism is this:

Too many shots of the singer singing in first 16 seconds: He's in 3 different places. It was too much. Out of those three, i liked the soft focus (moving boxes) best.

To me, the dark band stuff doesn't work well in the verses. I'd wait for the song to rock to put it in, then cut back to it throughout.

Tons of settings can work in certain cases, but i don't think it works for this video and budget. I'd have just picked the best look for the beginning then stayed with it.

I'd have let some of the acting shots linger. If it's a heavy emotion the guy is feeling, risk letting the shot go for a while.

I do like the energy of the camera in the dark band setting. That’s cool. It picks up the song.

Her tit hanging out so quickly in the video kind of made me laugh. It didn't come across as hot or steamy. You need to build that. It kind of had a vibe like it fell out and nobody wanted to say anything cause we're all horny dudes who want to see free tit.

But for 1300 bucks, good job.
 
I think the real thing were trying to say with the "overexposed" sky, was that everything else looked SO good, and that just seemed to draw attention. If the video SUCKED we would have never mentioned that..

Keep up the great work!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top