Music Video - "No One Sees You Like I Do"

dougspice

dougspice

Veteran
I just completed a video for plus/minus (sometimes spelled +/-, sometimes plusminus... it's a mess!). About half of it was shot on the HVX, and the other half on Nikon SLRs with long, long lenses. I'm pretty happy with it overall, considering the microbudget and crew, and it feels great to call it DONE! Also feels great to do a video with NO PERFORMANCE FOOTAGE WHATSOEVER. (Actually there is one shot but I'll leave that to you to find). It's more like an easter egg.

http://www.psychicbunny.com/temp/plusminus/plusminus_NoOneSeesYou.web.mov
http://www.psychicbunny.com/temp/plusminus/NOSYLID.h264.mov (full res)

Love to hear any comments.
 
It is okay. Just okay for me.. no just joking, looks great. really good stuff I liked the editing, and it has a story, rare around these parts. :)

One thnkg that bugged me was it seemed very blown out when you see the boss through the blinds.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the comments. Yeah, I was dead-set on doing something that had a real narrative, and one that was appropriate to the song.

The blown out look was a choice I made in coloring. I think I might agree with you that I pushed it just a little too hard now, but the original footage was exposed just fine, and I chose to take it that way.
 
That was hot. Great edit, and nice to see a music video that not only has a story, but a story that works and keeps us interested.
 
A) most music videos are still 4:3
B) the still photos are closer to 4:3 than widescreen
C) most important: it seemed to fit the story to me. The idea is portray a sense of "reality". Putting the whole thing in a cinematic wrapper would have compromised that idea.

I often have to think long and hard about whether to shoot a movie in 1.85 or 2.35. This one was a really easy decision. Good question, though.
 
Very nice Short! I liked the editing and the grand depth of field on your still pictures... really nice.
 
dougspice said:
A) most music videos are still 4:3
B) the still photos are closer to 4:3 than widescreen
C) most important: it seemed to fit the story to me. The idea is portray a sense of "reality". Putting the whole thing in a cinematic wrapper would have compromised that idea.

I often have to think long and hard about whether to shoot a movie in 1.85 or 2.35. This one was a really easy decision. Good question, though.
Click to expand...

I think it's a big mistake to go 4:3 this day and age, I here what your saying about 1.85 or 2.35 but 4:3 is never an option for me. Have you seen how gay a 4:3 video looks (pillar boxed) on a 16:9 hd tv, it's so 1980's.
MTV never have a problem with any of my 16:9 videos and i've even asked them about it before. They told me they actually go out in 14:9 so 16:9 is the prefered format.
It seems like a contradiction to have a shollow depth of field and then wrap it up with 4:3 constraint. Shallow d.o.f is by its very nature cinematic as is any crafted moving image. If it's not cinamatic then its cheap and video'ish in my opinion.
 
I guess we'll disagree on this one, then.

Photographic technique isn't exclusive to cinema, and this video is about still photography. If you pick up a newspaper you're pretty unlikely to find many images in 16:9 anytime soon.

Normally I wouldn't shoot 4:3 but for this one it was an obvious choice.
 
4mat said:
I think it's a big mistake to go 4:3 this day and age, I here what your saying about 1.85 or 2.35 but 4:3 is never an option for me. Have you seen how gay a 4:3 video looks (pillar boxed) on a 16:9 hd tv, it's so 1980's.
MTV never have a problem with any of my 16:9 videos and i've even asked them about it before. They told me they actually go out in 14:9 so 16:9 is the prefered format.
It seems like a contradiction to have a shollow depth of field and then wrap it up with 4:3 constraint. Shallow d.o.f is by its very nature cinematic as is any crafted moving image. If it's not cinamatic then its cheap and video'ish in my opinion.
Click to expand...

how do you deliver your 16:9 videos to MTV? Digital Beta?
I think the 4:3 does fine in this case and when chosen deliberately for content reasons and not technical reasons then even more so. We still deliver mostly in 4:3 to broadcasters here. I think 90something percent of households still use 4:3 screens in mainland Europe. Not the new ones bought, but what´s really out there used. And it is enough. My sister got a new house and they bought a 62inch full HD (1920 px wide) plasma for 2,5 eurogrand and TV looks crap on it. Many signals are still 4:3 and have to be pillarboxed to look ok.
 
Yes digi beta normally :)
Are you delivering to terrestrial broadcasters or satellite/cable ?
 
Both, guys like Eurosport, but also BBC, ORF, ZDF (austrian and german terretrial networks) etc. For the stuff we do (sports mostly) they ask for 4:3 still. But slowly 16:9 Digi Beta sneaks in, although it is already old news being SD and all :lol

Hey, to the threadstarter: how did you make the "photo-to-video" cuts. Single frame keyframes with a corner-tracker? Nicely done.
 
Okay I have to say that was some GREAT EDITING! Great job. I really got into the story and could not stop watching it until it was over. With that being said I really did not like the look of the video. It looked more like a college student's first video project. I really felt that the video would benefit from some type of film look color correction applied to it. I really feel that some people might fast forward through it if it is on tv before they hear it because of the way it looks. I know that you chose this look but just try an alternate look that is more contrasty like a magic bullet filter. Again the editing was Amazing! If I had a real job and could hire an editor it would be you. Ever thought about editing a feature? You should look
into that.
 
is this for a music label? I like the montage, the track is pretty cool too. You said plus/minus, as in the label?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top