Discuss Cinematography in this Awesome Rihanna Video

H

Homunculus

Carbonite Member
Wow, just saw this vid. I thought it was extremely powerful and well done from a cinematography standpoint.

I have some questions hopefully some people can try to answer

1. firstly, the aspect ratio seems compressed and there are the tell tale lens flare of an anamorphic lens towards the end. Does this pretty much confirm that this was shot in anamorphic?

2. anyone have any idea what camera this was shot on? Are there tell tale signs anywhere or does anyone have insider info? Is this 35mm? Kind of looks like Red to me for some reason (dunno just looks digital to me).

3. Scenes such as the main russian roulette scene between rihanna and the other guy such as at 2:04 (here you can see it at a wider angle with better view), notice how just their faces and upper bodies are lit and exposed and the table top, the light falls away everywhere else. How is such a strictly controlled light done? Is there some dilluted source like light in a softbox above them being flagged off somehow or as simple as a fresnel above with barndoors controlling the light to that specific spot?

4. And how about the scene at 2:10 when she is sitting alone under that huge light. How did they manage to control that big light enough where only she is lit and everything else is pitch dark everywhere around her?

by the way apparently the director is the same that did this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVA-xTBeHyM

"Run this Town" video. Another recent video that I thought was particularly nice. This guy is very talented! Anyone else agree?
 
3. yes, large softbox with grid inside and skirt (if necessary) to even further block the spill.

4. You can see details inside the fixtures meaning what you are seeing is a large light source with a skirt around (with white on the inside), thus what you see in the frame are the "leftover"of the light source that's higher above the frame - thus no spillage as it's all controlled.

Personal note - i found this video very boring, which just shows the gamut of potential experiences when it comes to art.
 
cool thanks for the bts. still couldn't tell what cam they used but possibly can see a cartridge in the back of the cam for film so I'm assuming it was 35mm, might be wrong though
 
Yep, that films alright,

Eminem's new video with Rihanna "Love the Way you Lie" is shot on RED with Hawk Anamorphics, there's a thread over on REDuser.net with the DP talking about lighting and shooting it
 
Homunculus said:
cool thanks for the bts. still couldn't tell what cam they used but possibly can see a cartridge in the back of the cam for film so I'm assuming it was 35mm, might be wrong though
Click to expand...

That looked like an ARRI film cartridge to me... But it there was a video camera on what looked like a Libra head too. Not sure what they had on the steadicam.
 
Erik, could you see what was on the Steadicam? A 235 would be a good choice there too. Somebody spent real money on this production...
 
yeah i figured that was a red lol the Arri makes the Red look like a DSLR. especially the outdoor shots with the sun behind Eminem.

For the first time recently I've started seeing with my own uneducated eyes how a Red doesn't compare to real film but it's still an amazing cam that I'd sell my internal organs to own ...
 
Homunculus said:
yeah i figured that was a red lol the Arri makes the Red look like a DSLR. especially the outdoor shots with the sun behind Eminem.

For the first time recently I've started seeing with my own uneducated eyes how a Red doesn't compare to real film but it's still an amazing cam that I'd sell my internal organs to own ...
Click to expand...

Get the same DP shooting both RED and film, and then you can say you can definitely tell the difference...

Different lighting styles make you believe different things

.... I'm not bashing because you mentioned RED, I'd do the same if you said, looks like 7D, without explanation
 
Zacatac said:
Get the same DP shooting both RED and film, and then you can say you can definitely tell the difference...

Different lighting styles make you believe different things

.... I'm not bashing because you mentioned RED, I'd do the same if you said, looks like 7D, without explanation
Click to expand...

it just seems to me with those field shots that the dynamic range of the Red is giving it away a lot, making the footage look like a DSLR compared to film. I mean this is Red MX supposedly that has even higher DR but I'm assuming even MX Red DR doesn't compare to film.
 
Homunculus said:
but I'm assuming even MX Red DR doesn't compare to film.
Click to expand...

There's a fundamental issue here. Film is a moving target, just like sensors. So when people say this doesn't compare to film or that doesn't compare to film, what film are you talking about?

My 550D has nearly as much range as the film I used early in my career. The RED MX has MORE dynamic range than the film I shot back in the late 80s. And the Alexa has more range than the best Kodak stock of only a few years ago. I can remember when Kodak Vision was released and people were bragging on it's 12 stops. Now both the RED and the Alexa can do that. Now Vision3 is claiming 14.5 stops. But the gap is closing RAPIDLY. Ten years ago, video cameras were only holding what film of 30+ years ago could. Now the best video cameras are holding what film did 4 years ago. I truly believe five years from now they'll be equal, or digital will surpass film for dynamic range. Of course, this is just one measure of performance.

I love both mediums for different reasons. But to be honest, I can't afford to shoot 35mm movie film. I just checked on some today. $700+ for 10 minutes of Vision3. Ten minutes... People want to know why all these smaller productions are moving to digital? It's because you're looking at investing $50k in film stock just to do a 20 minute short. You could BUY a RED for the same money.
 
Yeah I know this is the same reason that while I acknowledge that film does look better, I would never even CONSIDER bothering to waste my money raising tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for film stock, then processing it etc etc when for that same price I could PURCHASE a bloody MX Red and shoot infinite amounts with it.

Out of curiosity, what is the dynamic range in stops of the film hollywood uses and Red and GH1/Canon 7d/5d etc? I was under impression film is about 14-15stops, Red was 11 or so without MX, and the DSLR's were maybe 8 or 9 or less? Is this right or wrong?
 
There is a huge difference between considering film for a music video (that will most likely live mostly on youtube) and a narrative that might go many places. Yes, $50-75k is a lot of money but considering many hundreds of thousands that are spent on a typical low budget narrative it's really not that much all things considered.

The argument that with RED you can shoot and shoot... i mean it really doesn't make much sense because for a narrative you need specific things thus you actually don't need to shoot for ever-and-ever... More so, you actually need something to shoot other then pretty flares through some foliage and that "something" cost $, thus the money part of the camera/stock is only a small part of the equation.
 
Yes but mistakes, retakes, etc cost money on film. On Red they really don't. At least no where near as much. They will cost in terms of time lost etc, but so will the film PLUS the added fee of extra film which is gigantic. So yes if you're doing a low budget project with no deadline and all the time in the world then you can literally shoot forever on Red if you want whereas the film will bankrupt you.
And I'm talking from my own perspective and that of others like me, film is out of our reach and is not even worth considering due to its inherent costs whereas DSLR's and Red, etc, are very realistic ways of shooting.
I saw a post where some elitist once siad that if you can't afford to shoot on film you should "go back to writing poetry". I found that pretty funny.
 
I'd love to shoot film. And I probably will at some point. But for the work we're doing, it's absolutely unnecessary. That money can be MUCH better spent elsewhere on the production. When you commit to shooting film, you're committed to a very specific workflow. You're going to want dailies, which means you're going to want to fast turnaround on your development, printing, and a screening either in the field or at a facility. That's a bunch of expense. If you're shooting 35, you're committed to PL glass these days. And even the rental on those isn't a small sum considering you're likely shooting 3-8 weekends. You're committed to a camera package and lighting package which is likely going to be larger for some of these films than their digital equivalent.


@Homunculus, current Kodak Vision 3 stock seems to be about 14.5 stops. That's more than I'd ever need for anything I could fathom. I am so used to lighting to 7-9 stops, I don't even know what I'd do with all that room! I don't need to see the Sun and the shadows inside the car at the same time!
 
Most of the films I have seen that were entirely shot on Red have a specific look:

red1.jpg

red2.jpg

red3.jpg

I can't understand how projects that are entirely different, end up being so similar.

A colorful comic adaptation shot on film, no atmospheric 3wayCC endeavours in sight:

film.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top