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

You previously quoted from my original post citing "Nickle Boys" as a good example of 4.3 aspect ratio - before I posted a link to the trailer. I assumed you would have remembered the content of a post you had quoted from. Maybe you didn't read all of it.
Maybe you should do a workshop on "simple courtesy".
I
 
Back to the OP. He captured what he could with the limited equipment that he had under the imperfect conditions that were available.
Was the result perfect - no. But he used what he had to produce a video that's evocative of the mood and atmosphere of the event. That's quite a big positive in my opinion.

And I think the 4.3 aspect ratio was a good call in this case.
 
Tim Peck said:
Maybe you should do a workshop on "simple courtesy".
Click to expand...
Why, do you feel like you need a refresher? I'm afraid you wouldn't learn anything from it if I did.
BTW, you're the only one on the thread who has his panties in a bunch and has felt the need to get personal. I don't like 4x3, why is that so threatening to you? Lighten up, Francis.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Why, do you feel like you need a refresher? I'm afraid you wouldn't learn anything from it if I did.
BTW, you're the only one on the thread who has his panties in a bunch and has felt the need to get personal. I don't like 4x3, why is that so threatening to you? Lighten up, Francis.
Click to expand...
Yup. That's enough. I'm not paid to listen to this rubbish.
 
Tim Peck said:
Back to the OP. He captured what he could with the limited equipment that he had under the imperfect conditions that were available.
Was the result perfect - no. But he used what he had to produce a video that's evocative of the mood and atmosphere of the event. That's quite a big positive in my opinion.

And I think the 4.3 aspect ratio was a good call in this case.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the "defense"!

And I do appreciate the vigour, folks! Nice to see that much activity on DVXuser again :)

And Doug, I have no problem with you not liking it given of all the reasons you listed. That is, as have been noted, your prerogative :)

But.. I can quote the response from the poet (Robert Botn) that was in the video (the guy at the piano)
"The video perfectly caught the mood of the night"
I'm happy with that.
 
It is always nice to get those kinds of compliments from the participants. At the end of the day, that's really who matters most.
 
My view is that my nice big expensive flat screen tv is design to be full of image. I find old BBC 4:3 very strange. You forget it with decent old programmes, but when you get the odd high quality modern one with black bands it irritates. Even worse is wobbly vision. Viewed on a pad or phone its not too bad, but on a big screen shakes are more difficult to actually process with your eyes. The occasional wobbly movie always gets panned because the shakes are almost painful to watch. Plus, of course, it looks like it was shot by a 12 year old on their first phone.
 
paulears said:
My view is that my nice big expensive flat screen tv is design to be full of image. I find old BBC 4:3 very strange. You forget it with decent old programmes, but when you get the odd high quality modern one with black bands it irritates. Even worse is wobbly vision. Viewed on a pad or phone its not too bad, but on a big screen shakes are more difficult to actually process with your eyes. The occasional wobbly movie always gets panned because the shakes are almost painful to watch. Plus, of course, it looks like it was shot by a 12 year old on their first phone.
Click to expand...
I dont know the point of saying that it looks like it was shot by a 12 year old. Seems more rude than necessary.

Other than that I appreciate the comment.

I really like 4:3 for some projects. I also like shaky cam when the occasion calls for it.

I went for a style. Like alot of the videos on DVXuser in 2009-ish. I understand that this style is not for everyone.
 
"We just need 40 seconds of the band for socials"

To shoot thins is a massive pain. And something I cross a lot.

Id suggest a 40s shot of the main player/singer and then you gotta have Broll. to paste on . but you gotto know how to shoot the broll that is not (badly) off synch.

So shoot from the drum kit towards the audiance back of the saxaphone guy.

Maybe get two performances of the same song then the otehr band members wiggle better in time even though they are off synch.

One must approach single camera concert shooting with a very specific plan. Or twist the client to fork for three cameras and a sound recordist.

S
 
tommetass said:
I dont know the point of saying that it looks like it was shot by a 12 year old. Seems more rude than necessary.

Other than that I appreciate the comment.

I really like 4:3 for some projects. I also like shaky cam when the occasion calls for it.

I went for a style. Like alot of the videos on DVXuser in 2009-ish. I understand that this style is not for everyone.
Click to expand...
 
No offence meant - but the snag is that while producers and production people see some processes as art, the consumers often see them as mistakes or, like I said, shot on a budget my kids or first year media students. I totally get it that there artistic reasons, but at media colleges and universities, the key feature is understanding the audience. What is it people watching expect. Being ancient, I remember the Money for Nothing video. Nowadays kids can create wonderful animations, so that video back then looked awkward and crude and many 'ordinary' people hated it. However, they had hit the audience just right. How about that WW1 war film with that amazing long continuous shot. I'd suggest the audience would have rejected wobbly cam.

What criteria do you use to justify hand held footage difficult to watch and then put it up against some of those terrible you tubes and tik toks. One audience only cares about content, not quality but another put image quality very firmly up front.

The music video arena has severe scrutiny now, people on quests to find autotuned or audio replacement, and anything non-sync makes people think it's been fiddled with. Instead of listenimng to the music, they're watching the drummer, or seeing if the sax player is playing the correct notes. Music consumers are crazily picky and very demanding.
 
Maybe I'm desensitized because I watch anywhere between 100-200 short videos per day - usually from young people, and usually from Threads and YouTube - and my brain is loaded with variety, but shakiness would be one of the last things on the list as criticism from me.

I mean, everyone dislikes micro jitters and rough footage, but it's way exaggerated in this thread.

As [also] already mentioned, the out-of-sync parts is by far what bothers me the most - but any normal person with a good head on shoulders who was there that night or part of this whole thing would love the video (especially if it was just for fun/memories).
 
I watched it without sound. I have no issues with 4:3. For the room, it was probably an advantage. The wiggly camera was distracting and unmotivated. There was a lot of framing like below that I don't understand.

Chopping the singer off and leaving all the room behind the piano player - ok, maybe that's artistic, but as a guy that directed TV broadcast musical acts, I'd be saying "pan left" to the camera person. It bugs me. Also, if you're going with the big headroom to get the sign in the shot and show the room for an establishing shot, ok, but why go any higher than necessary. I'd want to balance that with some more audience by lowering the shot to just clip the sign.

Screenshot for DVXuser.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot for DVXuser.jpg
    Screenshot for DVXuser.jpg
    81.7 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
(Note: Not necessarily talking about this video).

Too many people do things incorrectly or in a non-mainstream way because they are lazy or unskilled. And then they bush it off as "art" or being "creativite". Well, ANYTHING can be explained with that excuse . . . "It's my art and I like it that way". But then they still seem surprised when other people don't like the results or don't buy into the explanation of why things were done in a half-assed way.
 
Last edited:
I shot and edited a 5-camera two-hour stage performance (singing, dancing, comedy) this week as a solo pro bono project for a local group. I think it's the 4th year in a row I've helped document the show. The video is **** and I wouldn't want to be associated with it professionally. But the participants will love it, as they always do. But it's still **** because the show itself was ****. And their opinion doesn't change my opinion because obviously their judgment is flawed or they wouldn't be on stage at all -- and they'd fix all the technical shortcomings. I just smile and tell 'em how great it was. If dozens of people (and their families) are happy, then I figure I did something worthwhile. But I don't call it art or make excuses. :)
 
Last edited:
Just have to say that I like this discussion.

I enjoy everything from indy films to major blockbusters, from shaky cam to steady tripod shots.

I wouldn't use the "It’s my art" argument. I find that too often to be a cop out for lack of skill.

This night was an impulsive shoot with a lot of friends in the audience as well. It felt right to make the video impulsive and kind of raw.

I understand the criticism though. I went for something, and it is not beyond reproach.
 
I've never been implusive or wanted raw? Perhaps that's a flaw in my process - but to be honest all my career I have been in teams split into creatives and production, and I really struggle in the productions I do where creativity is expected, usually settling back into 'interesting' techniques I've tried abd know work, and then pretending I just thought of them!

I edited this from the memory cards from a bunch of random camera - the show was out of the truck all set up and working for the evening show, and by mistake, one case was still there from a different job - so I charged all the batteries, notted cameras all over the place - stage edge, taped to mic standssitting on top of an unused follow spot. For me the biggest thing was sync and I nearly got it right - one of the gopros was dropping frames so sync on that one kept shifting. I was pleased with the media the cameras produced. All in focus and not that noisy. They were my worries really. It would have been great to have moving c ameras of course but we had the kit but no people.
 
Last edited:
Paul, it looks very nice for this type of production. I'd love to try the auto-framing feature of my Z200 and Osmo3 to add some movement to my unmanned cameras, but I haven't had a situation where I could risk it all going to hell in a hand basket if I wasn't able to override it. One of these days I'll probably volunteer to shoot something where it won't matter if nothing turns out right. In my testing, the auto-framing is pretty impressive.
 
paulears said:
I've never been implusive or wanted raw? Perhaps that's a flaw in my process - but to be honest all my career I have been in teams split into creatives and production, and I really struggle in the productions I do where creativity is expected, usually settling back into 'interesting' techniques I've tried abd know work, and then pretending I just thought of them!

I edited this from the memory cards from a bunch of random camera - the show was out of the truck all set up and working for the evening show, and by mistake, one case was still there from a different job - so I charged all the batteries, notted cameras all over the place - stage edge, taped to mic standssitting on top of an unused follow spot. For me the biggest thing was sync and I nearly got it right - one of the gopros was dropping frames so sync on that one kept shifting. I was pleased with the media the cameras produced. All in focus and not that noisy. They were my worries really. It would have been great to have moving c ameras of course but we had the kit but no people.
Click to expand...
Oh I didn't mean to insinuate that you've never been impulsive or raw. Don't know where you got that from.

If the video you posted there is meant as a comparison then I will have to say that this is a very different context. I wasn't hired to shoot this concert. I just attended and shot it, since my friends (and brother) were performing. Totally unplanned.

But if you meant to say that in your context you had to think on your feet and work with what you had.. which in some case can be similar to my situation.. then I understand you.

I however wasn't trying to "show the show", I was just trying to catch the vibe of the night.
 
No - it was irony really, not upset - I just don't think I have that gene that you have. I take photographs but I'm not a photographer - me 'eye' isn't there. I can draw plans, diagrams and technical drawings - but a face or even a tree is beyond me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top