Beyonce's Halo

And by the way this must be a new trend or something..Kanye West also has a similar video.When u watch it you'd think the lighting was off..The highlights look blown out etc.Will post the link soon as i remember the title..Anyone seen that video too?
 
thome said:
And by the way this must be a new trend or something..Kanye West also has a similar video.When u watch it you'd think the lighting was off..The highlights look blown out etc.Will post the link soon as i remember the title..Anyone seen that video too?
Click to expand...

idk if the phrase "new trend" is appropriate, because how many different ways is there to light a video?

Sure you can say, infinite, but the look here fit the story well, and it is possible for multiple videos made in the same year to have a similar conceptual idea behind lighting. I'm sure on TV or something it looks magnificent so props to those behind it.
 
xyouthx said:
idk if the phrase "new trend" is appropriate, because how many different ways is there to light a video?

Sure you can say, infinite, but the look here fit the story well, and it is possible for multiple videos made in the same year to have a similar conceptual idea behind lighting. I'm sure on TV or something it looks magnificent so props to those behind it.
Click to expand...

Agreed!But im talking about making it look sort of badly lit..Im sure we'll see more of this.Just watch!
 
thome said:
And by the way this must be a new trend or something..Kanye West also has a similar video.When u watch it you'd think the lighting was off..The highlights look blown out etc.Will post the link soon as i remember the title..Anyone seen that video too?
Click to expand...

That is your definition of badly lit. I thought it was very well done and looks far better than most indie "crap" I see daily. A blownout highlight doesn't equate to bad cinematography.

If the video was done with more color, the "cinematic" use of DOF (which indies read as <6inches in focus), would it have been better? Or would it have negatively affected the video you are watching.

Not lighting as per "convention" doesn't equate to bad. Maybe in your eyes and OPs eyes, but from the sounds of it here - they did a great job. In fact, the lighting was great in my mind.

Differences in opinion and perception.
 
Reminds me of that conversation about the nonexistence (well, existence if you happen to believe in it) of objective standards by which to judge art.
 
the name of the song is HALO, the video is beautiful. It is lit well and looks like they might have shot on a low contrast fuji stock. I 've always loved bangin lights into the lens..in todays day where we have lens which are so sharp and images which hold insane detail i find it very pleasing to soften things up a little especially when you are photographing attractive women.
My secret arsenal involves a bag of "bokeh curtains" and flashlights of various intensities, sometimes i will put a coupla flashlights on magic arms pointing towards the lens...they help create the most artistic flares and beautiful burnouts.
The bokeh bead curtains are made of different sizes , colors and translucence.Some are just a bunch of fake diamonds strung together.
Last summer i did a workshop with russell carpenter and his approach to lighting was all about how much energy a scene needs...he uses a source four lekos to throw in "punches of energy" in the background.

Jan i have so much fun with the HVX adapter combo, some of it is here http://www.youtube.com/user/wildkumar unfortunately when shooting wides i feel like it has some resolution issues, or it just doesnt handle enough detail.
Just did a three camera music video , arriSR3 advanced, HVX+adapter and nikon D300.I have shown the rushes around the studio and honestly no one has been able to pinpoint film vs HD. I shot on vision3 500T and the grain structure matches the redrock adapter very well, The only distinct advantage was the wide master shots had so much more detail than the HVX.

Visual taste is so subjective. My editor hates any footage which is soft or grainy!lol
some people probably feel storaro films are melodramatic lighting with loud tacky blues and reds.

I guess sometimes the bottom line is as long as the client/producer/agency/$$$ is happy with the end product its a job well done.:beer:
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Which wide adapter would that be? We don't sell one for the HVX200.

J
Click to expand...

HI Jan,
wow, great to get such a quick response!:) I have a coupla century optics wide adapters but i was referring to shooting with a 35mm adapter like the PStecknic/redrock/brevis and throwing a ziess wide angle in front.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Why not send your soft comment to them since it is not the camera or its stock lens causing the issue?

Thanks,

Jan
Click to expand...

hmmm...never said i had issues with the lens or image being soft "unfortunately when shooting wides i feel like it has some resolution issues, or it just doesnt handle enough detail"
but that doesn't change the fact that i love my hvx! its the most bang for buck camera in its time. I also said it was almost impossible to tell the vision3 footage and the HVX.
 
shivrajs said:
hmmm...never said i had issues with the lens or image being soft "unfortunately when shooting wides i feel like it has some resolution issues, or it just doesnt handle enough detail" .
Click to expand...

Problem with the English language. So you are saying that the reolution issue you have is there without the Adapters? To that I would say, well it is a 1/3" imager, rent a 2/3" for the day to BIG wide shots.

Glad you love the camera

Best,

Jan
 
thnx jan,
would love to rent a 2700 or a 3700 here but cannot seem to find a single rental house. for some reason they are stuck on sony and tape. a few varicams here but no 2700 that i know of.
would appreciate it if u could pm any info on P2 varicams rentals in mumbai.
I dont know of a panny rep here.
 
Mattykins said:
That is your definition of badly lit. I thought it was very well done and looks far better than most indie "crap" I see daily. A blownout highlight doesn't equate to bad cinematography.

If the video was done with more color, the "cinematic" use of DOF (which indies read as <6inches in focus), would it have been better? Or would it have negatively affected the video you are watching.

Not lighting as per "convention" doesn't equate to bad. Maybe in your eyes and OPs eyes, but from the sounds of it here - they did a great job. In fact, the lighting was great in my mind.

Differences in opinion and perception.
Click to expand...

what i meat was that some people would see it as its badly lit..And from other peoples comments ul see that thats the case.On my post just above this one you quoted i said i loved what they did.U misunderstood what i was trying to say.That style of lighting looks really good to me.
 
Well... For what it matters (and it's only IMHO), I think the cinematographers were ballsy against all odds here, and that's probably why people react in very different ways to it.

I like it but it's just a personal opinion. Besides that, I think the cinematographers attitude going against all preconceived notions of what it's good or bad photography deserves a price on it's own!

This discussion really remind me the ones about bad lit scenes when the firsts "low key", "blue" and "green" movies appeared in the screen. Now everybody loves Low Keys and try to make their movies blueish or greenish!

So what can I say? First: Let's remind us here that the music's called "HALO". Second: Well done!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top