C300: Architecture Film

Fantastic work and great in-depth bts. This will actually be quite helpful for me as I continue looking for ways to improve my own work. Thanks!
 
Great work and I love the BTS. Really helpful as I shoot for a construction company at the moment and am trying to break into doing some more architecture video/photo work.
 
Jon:

Outstanding stuff. I love your documentation too, very helpful as I have been having some questions about the motorized sliders, how to use them and the finer points. Think I am going to get a Ronin-M before, but I like how you used the slider with the TS lenses, very nice work. If I ever need this sort of work on the east coast, I will keep you in mind, you never know.
 
puredrifting said:
Jon:

Outstanding stuff. I love your documentation too, very helpful as I have been having some questions about the motorized sliders, how to use them and the finer points. Think I am going to get a Ronin-M before, but I like how you used the slider with the TS lenses, very nice work. If I ever need this sort of work on the east coast, I will keep you in mind, you never know.
Click to expand...

Thanks! In terms of the slider & motor combo - the only difference at this point, if one is within the Kessler world, is the Second Shooter option. I got one but haven't full tested it yet. It makes the ramping controllable and allows for repeatable 3-axis moves. I wish I had it for the project.

I've got another architecture film here and here's a sample of people based promotional doc work.

That is the one difference vs. a Ronin/Helix/Movi, etc, repeatable moves but I'm going to look at the Ronin-M, too, and the Helix Jr. Hard not to at this point.
 
Last edited:
If I can offer some CC. First, a pet-peeve of mine which I've mentioned elsewhere, the idea of filming clean, C300 sharp, 1080p, on expensive, sharp lenses, and then uploading it on Vimeo which defaults to 720p without taking 10 seconds to upgrade it to 1080p, drives me nuts. Shoots like these would look much better at 1080p. Youtube allows 1080p uploads to be played at 1080p, but Vimeo defaults them to 720p; so, I'm always at a loss why people spend so much money on equipment to get a sharp image (among other benefits, obviously), and then destroy the image detail in their online distribution because they don't want to take 10 seconds to upgrade the video to 1080p on Vimeo. Everything looks blurry on my 17.3" 1080p laptop screen since it is 720p.

I see you're using what looks like a Rode shotgun mic for the interior interviews. Typically you'd want to use a small diaphragm condenser mic for interior dialog to minimize reflections that are present in shotguns, and they have better tonal qualities than lav mics. For example, Steven Holl is getting quite a bit of reflection in his audio which could have been reduced by using a better microphone such as the Scheops CMC641, which based on your equipment would be within your budget. The audio from his interview was actually rather poor so I'd suggest in addition to a better microphone to either try to pad down the room some, or probably better, to use a different room with better acoustics. Having a lav visible in the shot is another pet-peeve of mine, and when there is enough time to do a proper overhead boom setup I don't see a need to have the lav visible. For me seeing the mic in the shot often takes me out of the story; sometimes it's the only choice, but here you had an overhead so the lav could have either have not been used or have been carefully hidden. A lot of people use a lav as their A-mic for indoor interviews (and thus would understandably not want to risk rustling by hiding them) when also using a shotgun overhead as a B-mic because the shotgun's reflections are more so than the lav; but the real mistake is using the shotgun in the first place when the small diaphragm condenser should have been used as an A-mic, then making the lav the B-mic which means you can then afford to risk rustling noise on your B-mic.

I don't think the interview locations were the best choices. Steven Holl is in a small office with already noted bad acoustics; it's generally good to have at least 10 feet behind the interviewee to give a nice depth to the shot, where here you have about four or five feet; I get that that may be his office, but his office isn't that great looking and I'm sure there would have been plenty of places around campus that look nice and fit within the idea of architecture (such as outside or in a large cool looking room). Ronald McCoy's location looks like a lobby or waiting room with the chairs behind him which I'm not sure is sending the right message; it looks a lot nicer than Steven's interview location but I feel like there would still be more interesting architectural places around campus to have filmed his interview.

The shot choices on Steven Holl's interview didn't work well for me. The difference between them needs to be more, as the cut looks like a jump cut since they are similar, in which case I'd suggest going tighter on the tight shot. The wider shot also had an odd angle, looking down on him, which I didn't like, and I feel like if you're going to try going off-axis to make the shot different, it needs to be more off-axis compared to the other shot.

The part where Steven Holl has some designs and is talking while standing up is a bit jarring for a couple reasons. First, it's the only handheld shots in the video, which goes against the smooth motorized nature of the rest of the footage. Not too much of an issue. Secondly, I think the bigger issue is you don't know who he's talking to. If the person is going to talk off-screen like that (he looks at both the camera and someone off camera, which is also odd) there needs to be context for who they are talking to, otherwise it is an interview, and if it is an interview, then it should be properly setup, with him looking in the proper lead room direction (which he is not there), and, well, you already set up an interview for him, so if he's going to say something without a context of who he is saying it to, it should only be footage you got from the interview. Also, the lav could probably be placed higher on his shirt to get closer to the source for the standing section, and if it was me I'd have hidden it at the risk of clothing rustle, but that's me.

Ronald McCoy's medium shot has his eyes too high per the rule of thirds and is cutting off the tip of his head, which for a medium shot you generally don't want to do. This gets a little worse later in the video as either he (probably he) or the camera got moved. Ronald's tight shot could probably be tilted up just a tad and panned just a tad right as well to give him a little more head room and look room, getting his left eye (our right) closer to the cross section for the rule of thirds. I also personally find Ronald's face a bit too orange, while Steven could use some more vibrance or contrast to make him pop.

The panning shot at 0:57 seems too fast both in general, and in relation to the speed of movement of the other shots in the video.

I generally don't like the idea of using photos as b-roll in a video when you're a videographer making a video, not a photographer doing a slideshow. Perhaps they didn't have the time or money to pay you to film some footage of the musical arts being done and wanted that in the video. Though, for example, when he says "and see someone playing the piano" you could have simply found a piano on campus, brought in the LED lights, and filmed someone, maybe in slow motion with dramatic lighting, playing the piano, and thus have gotten some artsy b-roll without taking too much time, which probably would have looked better than using still photos.

As for the good, I love the motion of the motorized slider and the b-roll footage look good too. I have a 2 ft. Kessler Stealth and have looked into various options for going motorized. I've considered the Edelkrone motorized solutions which seem simple and straightforward. Kessler's motorized options always seems a bit more complicated for run n' gun work, particularly for multi-axis moves. Are you able to set up the motion in the controller pretty quickly?
 
Last edited:
Eric - constructive criticism is always welcome so I'll address your points as they come along. One thing I'll start with is that in picking this apart you've made inaccurate assumptions from the get-go and as I'm sure you know full well in many productions like this not everything is 100% within the filmmakers control. You make the best of each situation when issues arise....

If I can offer some CC. First, a pet-peeve of mine which I've mentioned elsewhere, the idea of filming clean, C300 sharp, 1080p, on expensive, sharp lenses, and then uploading it on Vimeo which defaults to 720p without taking 10 seconds to upgrade it to 1080p, drives me nuts. Shoots like these would look much better at 1080p. Youtube allows 1080p uploads to automatically be played at 1080p, but Vimeo defaults them to 720p; so, I'm always at a loss why people spend so much money on equipment to get a sharp image (among other benefits, obviously), and then destroy the image detail in their online distribution because they don't want to take 10 seconds to upgrade the video to 1080p on Vimeo. Everything looks blurry on my 17.3" 1080p laptop screen since it is 720p.
Click to expand...

I often find on Vimeo that 1080P can be slower to load on many systems. So, more often than not, for my account I default to 720p. That said the video was delivered to the client in 1080P to be shown internally in presentations. So, yes, it fulfilled its purpose as did the equipment used to create it. Your statement finds fault but misses the actual end-use the video was created for.

I see you're using what looks like a Rode shotgun mic for the interior interviews. Typically you'd want to use a small diaphragm condenser mic for interior dialog to minimize reflections that are present in shotguns, and they have better tonal qualities than lav mics. For example, Steven Holl is getting quite a bit of reflection in his audio which could have been reduced by using a better microphone such as the Scheops CMC641, which based on your equipment would be within your budget. The audio from his interview was actually rather poor so I'd suggest in addition to a better microphone to either try to pad down the room some, or probably better, to use a different room with better acoustics. Having a lav visible in the shot is another pet-peeve of mine, and when there is enough time to do a proper overhead boom setup I don't see a need to have the lav visible. For me seeing the mic in the shot often takes me out of the story; sometimes it's the only choice, but here you had an overhead so the lav could have either have not been used or have been carefully hidden. A lot of people use the lav as their A-mic for interviews when also using a shotgun overhead because the shotgun's reflections are more so than the lav; but the real mistake is using the shotgun in the first place when the small diaphragm condenser should have been used, then making the lav the B-mic 9 or more times out of 10.
Click to expand...

You are right in that a Rode shotgun was used and, yes, I am aware of other mics like the Schoeps. Do I own one? No, not currently. Are those types of mics always better? No, they are not. I was on a shoot this week where we tried both and the shotgun was the much better choice.

What would have been my choice? Easy, having a sound op on set.

What about hiding the lav mic? Well, in the case of first interview filmed the subject, once on set, was not open to having the lav hidden on him. Period. The client was fine with the lav being seen and preferred having the backup of the lav w/the shotgun. Leaving the lav in visible sight was the best scenario given the situation.

Padding down the room was not an option.

So, again you are making assumptions about the production that are off-base to the actual situation.

I don't think the interview locations were the best choices. Steven Holl is in a small office with already noted bad acoustics; it's generally good to have at least 10 feet behind the interviewee to give a nice depth to the shot, where here you have about four or five feet; I get that that may be his office, but his office isn't that great looking and I'm sure there would have been plenty of places around campus that look nice and fit within the idea of architecture (such as outside or in a large cool looking room). Ronald McCoy's location looks like a lobby or waiting room with the chairs behind him which I'm not sure is sending the right message; it looks a lot nicer than Steven's interview location but I feel like there would still be more interesting architectural places around campus to have filmed his interview.
Click to expand...

Wow, again you are wildly off-base.

Holl's office is Holl's office. It's not on campus. It's at his firm. We had the option of his office or a slightly larger conference room. The latter had worse sound (it was more echo prone & had more noise [adjacent construction site]) and was far less interesting visually. It also would have had light issues (large windows which could not be blacked out.) Outside was not an option as his office is adjacent to off/on ramps in NYC for the Lincoln Tunnel.

McCoy's location is one the most well known spaces on PU's campus and was the client's preference for location. It's instantly recognizable to students, faculty, administration, and alumni. The latter was the intended audience for the film. The space is known for its architecture and alcoves which the setup shows in the background. The audience knows it's not a lobby or a waiting room but one of the original buildings and study spaces on campus. It sends the right message to them, the perfect message.

The part where Steven Holl has some designs and is talking while standing up is a bit jarring for a couple reasons...
Click to expand...

Everyone loves this part because he is so engaging here. No one has a disconnect with whom he is addressing. If you don't like it, that's fine. It's one opinion. McCoy's framing was shot looser, with breathing space around the head, but this framing looked better.

I generally don't like the idea of using photos as b-roll in a video when you're a videographer making a video, not a photographer doing a slideshow. Perhaps they didn't have the time or money to pay you to film some footage of the musical arts being done and wanted that in the video. Though, for example, when he says "and see someone playing the piano" you could have simply found a piano on campus, brought in the LED lights, and filmed someone, maybe in slow motion with dramatic lighting, playing the piano, and thus have gotten some artsy b-roll without taking too much time, which probably would have looked better than using still photos.
Click to expand...

Really?! You feel it's necessary to say this when, again, you weren't privy to the production or the approval process. You don't know the parameters the client set or what was feasible and what was not. The stills are all from past productions within the program which will occupy the new building. Not showing past productions was not an option, it was a required part of the video.

I'll leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
I personally love the photos in this piece as it shows all the work into the designs for the building. It really works well with architecture in my opinion. Jon mind me asking how you get these architecture projects? I enjoy the small amount of architecture work I have done (both photo and video) and would like to do more. Currently been working on a 3 year project documenting the building of a huge site and it's really made me realize how much I like the field. I'll have to check out the other video you linked too later tonight as well.
 
Okay, well take my criticisms as criticisms as to what would have been ideal without knowing the parameters you were given. To say we shouldn't criticize because we don't always know what parameters there were is a bit one-sided. Maybe the client wanted the rule of thirds to be off, or the skin tones to be orange, etc. It doesn't mean the client is right, or anyone offering constructive criticism on a piece can't criticize not just your choices, but the client's choices as well, or your choice to let the client make those choices if they were indeed not good choices.

I must be lucky, because most of my clients give me full creative control, and I'd probably turn down work from them if they didn't, at least for creative type pieces; I also put in my contract that I have full creative control and any re-edits (assuming they weren't mistakes on my part) that the client wants will be charged for, but I very rarely get requests for re-edits after delivering a product and always send them the first cut saying something like, "Here is the finished video."

I've had clients request using still photos in their videos and I simply tell them that since it's a video still photos won't look good, and thus we won't be using still photos. I haven't gotten much fuss from them after I told them that. Of course there are exceptions where still photos work well or make sense to use; I just did a video and used some still photos of famous paintings rather then flying to Europe to capture video of it, plus the video was a basic educational video and not a more creative promo piece. Or when you used photos of some buildings that may have made sense; I primarily thought the photos of the performances would have looked better as video. But choices like that and parameters often come down to how one handles their clients and the types of clients they have; probably the bigger the budget the harder it is to maintain control in many cases. You can turn down work if a client refuses you creative control, or you can take the pay.

What my contract states: "Control of Product: It is understood that the client is hiring Two sense Films for their technical and artistic expertise and, therefore, Two Sense Films is granted full production and editorial control by the Client regarding all aspects of pre-production, production, and post-production."

I'm always open to suggestions from my clients, just as long as they understand they are just that, suggestions. Otherwise you risk the quality of your videos being dictated by your clients instead of you, and then some guy on DVXuser (or much more importantly, future clients) jumping to false conclusions about your work based on parameters they don't know about.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying my approach to clients is better, just that that's the way I prefer and it has worked for me.

Yeah, 720p on Vimeo can load easier. On the flip side, Youtube at 480p loads even smoother than 720p on Vimeo, so if smoothness if your priority, I think Youtube works better. Plus, since Youtube starts at 480p with the option to view at 1080p, that gives the best of both worlds. Vimeo is better because the image is generally cleaner and shaper at 1080p (plus the lack of ads), but Vimeo at 720p vs Youtube at 1080p, I'll take Youtube any day. Since this was posted here for video geeks to view, a 1080p version would have been much nicer.

Sorry for anything that came off as harsh or overly assumptive. Maybe next time I post a video here you can tear it to pieces. :)
 
Last edited:
Love it, Jon- beautifully done!

Literally, the only thing I'd agree with of Eric's many, many, many points was the difference in framing between Holl's interview shots.
Definitely wasn't enough to "take me out of the story", just my preference is for a closer close up, with resulting shallower DOF.
What lenses were the interviews shot with- the TS's were for the b roll, correct?
(well, OK, the 1080 point, too. But if that's done for technical concerns in playing it safe for quick playback, it's your call).

Loved the blog, and your detailed preps working with the angle/location of the sun, resulting in shots like the sun peeking/disappearing over the building.
Of course, we could all get that shot, but not many would be at the right place at the right time through planning.
And that beautiful warm slash of sunlight in the lecture hall- gorgeous on all that wood!
I've used Sun Seeker a couple of times- but in a much more general way than this.

Loved the music. And the use of photos, especially on an empty campus during the summer is not only understandable, but works, too.

One question- what LEDs?

Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing.
 
groveChuck said:
One question- what LEDs?

Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

Oh good question. I've been thinking of selling off a lot of my lights that would be for more narritive work to get some LEDs and maybe a small lowel kit since most of my work doesn't call for the bigger lights and on the rare cases it does I will just rent.
 
ReelFilmGeek said:
I personally love the photos in this piece as it shows all the work into the designs for the building. It really works well with architecture in my opinion. Jon mind me asking how you get these architecture projects? I enjoy the small amount of architecture work I have done (both photo and video) and would like to do more. Currently been working on a 3 year project documenting the building of a huge site and it's really made me realize how much I like the field. I'll have to check out the other video you linked too later tonight as well.
Click to expand...

There's no real secret to it - the Frank Lloyd Wright house project (the other video) - the client came to be specifically because of my experience shooting architectural stills and my video work.

The client for the project in this thread knows me for similar projects and I have worked with them for a long time.
 
groveChuck said:
Love it, Jon- beautifully done!

Literally, the only thing I'd agree with of Eric's many, many, many points was the difference in framing between Holl's interview shots.
Definitely wasn't enough to "take me out of the story", just my preference is for a closer close up, with resulting shallower DOF.
What lenses were the interviews shot with- the TS's were for the b roll, correct?
(well, OK, the 1080 point, too. But if that's done for technical concerns in playing it safe for quick playback, it's your call).
Click to expand...

I can re-upload in 1080. That's easy enough to do though I've been meaning to post everything on YT as well. So, maybe that route.

Fair enough on the framing.

The interviews were shot with a 24-70 II on one body and a 24-105 on the other. Nothing shallower than 50mm. I'm usually in the 50-70mm range.

Loved the blog, and your detailed preps working with the angle/location of the sun, resulting in shots like the sun peeking/disappearing over the building.
Of course, we could all get that shot, but not many would be at the right place at the right time through planning.
And that beautiful warm slash of sunlight in the lecture hall- gorgeous on all that wood!
I've used Sun Seeker a couple of times- but in a much more general way than this.

Loved the music. And the use of photos, especially on an empty campus during the summer is not only understandable, but works, too.

One question- what LEDs?

Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Appreciate it.

In the case of this - for the interviews I was using Litepanel 1x1's. I have since switched to Litepanel Astras due to the better color & their increased output.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
Okay, well take my criticisms as....
Click to expand...

Eric - I've got no problem with criticism (the grading, framing, camera movement) all are on me and all fall within that.

Beyond that though you continue to make comments that are way off the mark and that are, frankly, pretty insulting and arrogant. All your second post has done is dig a deeper hole. I'm not going to continue this online.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
If I can offer some CC. First, a pet-peeve of mine which I've mentioned elsewhere, the idea of filming clean, C300 sharp, 1080p, on expensive, sharp lenses, and then uploading it on Vimeo which defaults to 720p without taking 10 seconds to upgrade it to 1080p, drives me nuts. Shoots like these would look much better at 1080p. Youtube allows 1080p uploads to be played at 1080p, but Vimeo defaults them to 720p; so, I'm always at a loss why people spend so much money on equipment to get a sharp image (among other benefits, obviously), and then destroy the image detail in their online distribution because they don't want to take 10 seconds to upgrade the video to 1080p on Vimeo. Everything looks blurry on my 17.3" 1080p laptop screen since it is 720p.

I see you're using what looks like a Rode shotgun mic for the interior interviews. Typically you'd want to use a small diaphragm condenser mic for interior dialog to minimize reflections that are present in shotguns, and they have better tonal qualities than lav mics. For example, Steven Holl is getting quite a bit of reflection in his audio which could have been reduced by using a better microphone such as the Scheops CMC641, which based on your equipment would be within your budget. The audio from his interview was actually rather poor so I'd suggest in addition to a better microphone to either try to pad down the room some, or probably better, to use a different room with better acoustics. Having a lav visible in the shot is another pet-peeve of mine, and when there is enough time to do a proper overhead boom setup I don't see a need to have the lav visible. For me seeing the mic in the shot often takes me out of the story; sometimes it's the only choice, but here you had an overhead so the lav could have either have not been used or have been carefully hidden. A lot of people use a lav as their A-mic for indoor interviews (and thus would understandably not want to risk rustling by hiding them) when also using a shotgun overhead as a B-mic because the shotgun's reflections are more so than the lav; but the real mistake is using the shotgun in the first place when the small diaphragm condenser should have been used as an A-mic, then making the lav the B-mic which means you can then afford to risk rustling noise on your B-mic.

I don't think the interview locations were the best choices. Steven Holl is in a small office with already noted bad acoustics; it's generally good to have at least 10 feet behind the interviewee to give a nice depth to the shot, where here you have about four or five feet; I get that that may be his office, but his office isn't that great looking and I'm sure there would have been plenty of places around campus that look nice and fit within the idea of architecture (such as outside or in a large cool looking room). Ronald McCoy's location looks like a lobby or waiting room with the chairs behind him which I'm not sure is sending the right message; it looks a lot nicer than Steven's interview location but I feel like there would still be more interesting architectural places around campus to have filmed his interview.

The shot choices on Steven Holl's interview didn't work well for me. The difference between them needs to be more, as the cut looks like a jump cut since they are similar, in which case I'd suggest going tighter on the tight shot. The wider shot also had an odd angle, looking down on him, which I didn't like, and I feel like if you're going to try going off-axis to make the shot different, it needs to be more off-axis compared to the other shot.

The part where Steven Holl has some designs and is talking while standing up is a bit jarring for a couple reasons. First, it's the only handheld shots in the video, which goes against the smooth motorized nature of the rest of the footage. Not too much of an issue. Secondly, I think the bigger issue is you don't know who he's talking to. If the person is going to talk off-screen like that (he looks at both the camera and someone off camera, which is also odd) there needs to be context for who they are talking to, otherwise it is an interview, and if it is an interview, then it should be properly setup, with him looking in the proper lead room direction (which he is not there), and, well, you already set up an interview for him, so if he's going to say something without a context of who he is saying it to, it should only be footage you got from the interview. Also, the lav could probably be placed higher on his shirt to get closer to the source for the standing section, and if it was me I'd have hidden it at the risk of clothing rustle, but that's me.

Ronald McCoy's medium shot has his eyes too high per the rule of thirds and is cutting off the tip of his head, which for a medium shot you generally don't want to do. This gets a little worse later in the video as either he (probably he) or the camera got moved. Ronald's tight shot could probably be tilted up just a tad and panned just a tad right as well to give him a little more head room and look room, getting his left eye (our right) closer to the cross section for the rule of thirds. I also personally find Ronald's face a bit too orange, while Steven could use some more vibrance or contrast to make him pop.

The panning shot at 0:57 seems too fast both in general, and in relation to the speed of movement of the other shots in the video.

I generally don't like the idea of using photos as b-roll in a video when you're a videographer making a video, not a photographer doing a slideshow. Perhaps they didn't have the time or money to pay you to film some footage of the musical arts being done and wanted that in the video. Though, for example, when he says "and see someone playing the piano" you could have simply found a piano on campus, brought in the LED lights, and filmed someone, maybe in slow motion with dramatic lighting, playing the piano, and thus have gotten some artsy b-roll without taking too much time, which probably would have looked better than using still photos.

As for the good, I love the motion of the motorized slider and the b-roll footage look good too. I have a 2 ft. Kessler Stealth and have looked into various options for going motorized. I've considered the Edelkrone motorized solutions which seem simple and straightforward. Kessler's motorized options always seems a bit more complicated for run n' gun work, particularly for multi-axis moves. Are you able to set up the motion in the controller pretty quickly?
Click to expand...
Wow! Don't know what to say. You're videos must be ''perfect'' to criticize this much on what I think is a great video. But who am I to judge.
Jon, great job! Your slider moves were great! Really, very good usage of the slider.
 
will drop another stone..... some moments in that video looked soft to me, or even out of focus......
 
anatusa said:
will drop another stone..... some moments in that video looked soft to me, or even out of focus......
Click to expand...

Nothing that was filmed is out of focus - so, I'd be curious to know what you see as out of focus.

A few of the renderings provided were lower resolution & had to be rez'd up (another reason for keeping the video at 720.)
 
Doug_EX said:
Wow! Don't know what to say. You're videos must be ''perfect'' to criticize this much on what I think is a great video. But who am I to judge.
Jon, great job! Your slider moves were great! Really, very good usage of the slider.
Click to expand...

Thanks Doug!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top