OTHER: Concert Footage - Lumix S5 - Sigma 35mm f/2.0

tommetass

tommetass

Well-known member

Had the privilege of attending a wonderful concert at Kafe URO in Tønsberg again. Prestefrua, Doydank and Robert Botn shared the stage and changed between performances. Prestefrua with her indy, jazz vibe, Doydank with the hard hitting, yet smooth beats, and Robert Botn with some calmer tones mixed with some clever and incisive poetry.

Video shot on the Panasonic Lumix S5
Shot in V-log
Sigma 35mm f/2.0 (mostly at f/2.8)
Nisi Black Mist Filter
Colour graded and edited in Adobe Premiere.


Audio track used with permission from Prestefrua. The song is called "Inderlig". Check her out on Spotify:
Prestefrua's Spotify

Check out Doydank on Spotify:
Doydank's Spotify

Check out Robert Botn on Spotify:
Robert Botn's Spotify
 
I'm afraid that as a musician, I did not like it. It's very pretty, but every shot where people were singing and playing and turning knobs was not what we heard, so all the mouth movements, fingers and knob turning non- sync stuff made it very difficult to watch. Probably if you don't play, it won't bother you, but it's very important that what we see matches what we hear and it didn't. The only sync part was her speaking? Why did you not try to sync any of it up? You clearly have the eye for the aesthetics - but we would hear a piano and his hands were not playing what we hear, or the singer was singing a totally different part - and even the knob turns were not doing what we were hearing. The impression was some bits we saw were not even the same song? Audio was very good, but the excellent pictures seemed totally unlinked? Is the audio from the audio track on Spotify? I'm a bit lost on what was actually happening
 
paulears said:
I'm afraid that as a musician, I did not like it. It's very pretty, but every shot where people were singing and playing and turning knobs was not what we heard, so all the mouth movements, fingers and knob turning non- sync stuff made it very difficult to watch. Probably if you don't play, it won't bother you, but it's very important that what we see matches what we hear and it didn't. The only sync part was her speaking? Why did you not try to sync any of it up? You clearly have the eye for the aesthetics - but we would hear a piano and his hands were not playing what we hear, or the singer was singing a totally different part - and even the knob turns were not doing what we were hearing. The impression was some bits we saw were not even the same song? Audio was very good, but the excellent pictures seemed totally unlinked? Is the audio from the audio track on Spotify? I'm a bit lost on what was actually happening
Click to expand...
Thanks for the comment.

I understand what you're saying. But I actually am a musician, and I'm from a family of musicians. My brother is the one playing the beats (on the SP404). And almost all over the music that played where he is on his SP404, that is him playing live. There is one clip of him turning some of the nobs which is from a different clip.

As for the music in general, this was just a concert I filmed. I didn't have an external microphone, so the audio from the internal mic would be varying in quality.

So the audio, or the studio recording that is used in most of the video is an audio track is from Prestefrua, however, all of the audio from the internal mic when she was singing live turned out unusable.

And the pianist is actually not playing with her, but his own (only) piano pieces while performing poetry.

As you can also hear, some of his audio is synced, but not all.
 
Well, I'm not a musician and I also found the lack of synchronization between the audio and video to be really strange. Combined with the tilted camera angles, unsteady handheld shots, non-16x9 aspect ratio, and lack of attention to focus and exposure make the video unwatchable. Sorry for the critical comments, but I assume you posted it to get honest feedback.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Well, I'm not a musician and I also found the lack of synchronization between the audio and video to be really strange. Combined with the tilted camera angles, unsteady handheld shots, non-16x9 aspect ratio, and lack of attention to focus and exposure make the video unwatchable. Sorry for the critical comments, but I assume you posted it to get honest feedback.
Click to expand...
Sure. And I appreciate it!
 
On a positive note - I think the video suits the mood of the event quite well - and I don't see how shooting a 4.3 aspect ratio makes the film unwatchable.
Last year's "Nickel Boys" was shot in 4.3 aspect ratio and it has some of the best Cinematography I've ever seen. The 4.3 aspect ratio makes the film feel more focused and intimate.
Nickle Boys is the best film I have seen btw.
 
Last edited:
Tim Peck said:
On a positive note - I think the video suits the mood of the event quite well - and I don't see how shooting a 4.3 aspect ratio makes the film unwatchable.
Last year's "Nickel Boys" was shot in 4.3 aspect ratio and it has some of the best Cinematography I've ever seen. The 4.3 aspect ratio makes the film feel more focused and intimate.
Nickle Boys is the best film I have seen btw.
Click to expand...
Thanks mate!
I can understand the criticism. I should have brought my zoom h5 and recorded audio.
So I had to be a little creative with it.

As for 4:3 I really enjoy it. It reminds me of old DVX100 videos.

And the color science of the Panasonic lumix s5 is very in line with the old cameras IMO.
 
I re-watched with the sound down, and it actually works - I figured it's just me who hates wobbly-cam, but Dough said the same. I think with music subjects it is because you are watching with intent - the hands, the instruments, setting and anything that gets in the way detracts rather than enhances?
 
paulears said:
think with music subjects it is because you are watching with intent - the hands, the instruments, setting and anything that gets in the way detracts rather than enhances?
Click to expand...
I agree. My favorite music videos or concert videos are the ones where the cutting isn't too fast. Where the director purposely lingers on each shot for a few seconds so you can actually see the musician fingering the instrument and/or the singer singing several words in a row. I want to see them doing their magic. Whenever I see a video (not the one in this thread) that is cut so fast you only see a syllable or two before they cut to a new angle, or the mic is held so close you can't see their lips moving, or the singer is usually on a wide-shot (watch almost any Guns & Roses concert video) I know instantly that I am not watching a true "live" performance and the editor had difficulty making the audio match the video. I can't even watch videos like that for more than a few seconds.

Pink Floyd's "Live at Pompeii" concert film is an absolutely great video if you want to see the instruments being played. THAT is the way you show musical artists at work. Not through fast cuts, fancy camera work, and crazy lighting cues.

Any of Roger Water's Lockdown Sessions from during COVID are also excellent examples of letting the music and musician shine. The less bullshit camera moves the better.
 
Last edited:
Tim Peck said:
I don't see how shooting a 4.3 aspect ratio makes the film unwatchable.
Click to expand...
Maybe not "unwatchable" for that one reason alone, but when combined with the other shortcomings, it doesn't help. Human vision is widescreen. And that's how I prefer modern films and videos to be produced. For folks who routinely film vertically with thier phone or enjoy TikTok videos and Fecebook rubbish like that, maybe it is not a big deal. But count me out. However, I do make exceptions for classic films and pre-16x9 television and music videos. But for modern stuff, it better be at least 16x9.
 
Tim, did you produce this film? If so, congratulations, it looks great despite the unfortunate aspect ratio choice. May I ask why you didn't choose to shoot it in 16x9?

On the other hand, if you had nothing to do with the production of this film, what's the point of posting it with no explanation of why you posted it? Please explain. That's how forums work.
 
Last edited:
If you look at my previous message - I put that up as an example of a feature shot in 4.3 aspect ratio. It was Oscar nominated for best picture.
There are others - Tarkovsky's "Stalker" for example.
Our field of vision is wide but we often process that information in a micro managed way. A 4.3 aspect ratio can make a film feel more focused, intimate and personalised.
 
Thank you for the explanation. You should have said that when you posted the clip, otherwise we are forced to guess at the point you are attempting to make. The last thing I want to do is make any wrong assumptions as to what your point is. Better to let you make your points directly.

But, with that said, your point is lost on me. The fact that a few producers choose to use non-standard aspect ratios as a gimmick in no way changes my opinion of it. Guess what? I could post links to even more films that are done in 16x9 or even wider. It would prove nothing. 4x3 is a stylistic choice that I don't care for. You are welcome to embrace it and emulate it your own work, but you're not going to change my mind -- or the mind of most viewers. Also, please don't waste your time posting links to other people's videos with crooked camera angles, out of sync audio, and out of focus shots, because those aren't going to cause me to change my opinion of those stylistic choices either.
 
I've got nothing against
Doug Jensen said:
Also, please don't waste your time posting links to other people's videos with crooked camera angles, out of sync audio, and out of focus shots, because those aren't going to cause me to change my opinion of those stylistic choices either.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware I've posted any such thing.
I haven't used a 4.3 aspect ratio since the 90s - and I don't have any issues with 16.9 or Scope ratios.
The fact that you can use different canvases to evoke different emotional and psychological responses makes sense to me. If that isn't your cup of tea - that's your prerogative.
Tarkovsky did not decide on a 4.3 aspect ratio as a gimmick. It was an artistic choice - the same as Ramell Ross with Nickle Boys.
In the same way, I think the OP used 4.3 as an artistic choice and I think it works well.

By the way - if you want to be confrontational, I'll probably refrain from further discourse with you. I don't much care for your manner.
 
Well - I think he's accused me of doing two things I didn't do - post a link to a video with no explanation (Nickle Boys) and -
"Also, please don't waste your time posting links to other people's videos with crooked camera angles, out of sync audio, and out of focus shots, because those aren't going to cause me to change my opinion of those stylistic choices either" - I don't know what video that is referring to.
 
Tim Peck said:
Well - I think he's accused me of doing two things I didn't do - post a link to a video with no explanation (Nickle Boys) and -
"Also, please don't waste your time posting links to other people's videos with crooked camera angles, out of sync audio, and out of focus shots, because those aren't going to cause me to change my opinion of those stylistic choices either" - I don't know what video that is referring to.
Click to expand...
Well, I am referring to the fact that you disagreed with my comments about the OP's video being unwatchable because it is 4x3 -- which is your prerogative. But since I also made comments about focus, exposure, crooked camera angles, etc., I thought I could save you some time in case you were thinking of digging up examples of mainstream videos that also use those "creative" choices. It was for your benefit.

Also, did you really expect people to scroll through all the previous posts to unravel the mystery of why you posted the Nickle Boy video? Whatever your reason for posting it was, it would have been helpful to have some explanation in the same post. Who posts a video with no explanation as to why? If your posts were back-to-back, okay, no problem. But there were several posts in between. Simple forum courtesy, my friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top