Hey I got a question. How do you do these shots? Is it a steadicam, or a dolly? What is it? I have been told to get more stabilized shots and such and I really want to know how you get these smooth shots. Oh, and the lighting in the hallway is amazing! Is any of that doen in post production with filters and effects?
I don't mean that in disregard to any other technical aspect of it, but you sure can edit. Lighting is very nice also, and the girl is beautiful. But i find the scene where she is messing with her breasts a little tacky. I would make it a little more real. Not to say it's not amazing work however. Keep us posted when the final clip is done.
[quote author=taubkin link=board=Clips;num=1090481775;start=0#6 date=07/22/04 at 06:29:14]i find the scene where she is messing with her breasts a little tacky.[/quote]
I don't think it's tacky enough
That chick is blazing and so is the video; you have the MTV pacing down. The weakest thing is the song.
"I've got to go...
but you don't know...
I rhyme real slow."
Ok, I made that up, but that guy needs to dig a little deeper into his rhyming dictionary.
Ptpiz, the moving shots are entirely hand-held or are pans and tilts using just a tripod with a bogen 501 head. The next sequence in the video has even more impressive motion, but more stuff was used to film it.
Btw, I saw some of this footage as it was recorded (post color corretion) and even then it looked fantastic--as must post work as was obviously done, you have to start with good footage. I'm convinced it's all in the lighting and in smooth camera movement (and in keeping continuity).
That rocked!!! I can't believe that it was shoot with DVX 100. Is color correction really hard to do? Is there a editing program(Avid claims it) that has auto color correct and look like that?
Nice work
Great work Matt, you have developed yet another original look & treatment . . . I think that the originality says just as much as the clean exposure, framing and shooting. I love your stuff, keep it up. I also would tend to put a note in as per the messing shot comments. MTV has enough of that stuff going for itself already. :-/
Ptpiz, he uses vegas for the most part, and occasionally after effects when he wants to do more specific work. He said that in one scene a bag was too red so he used levels in AE, I think.
Don't take this the wrong way, but before worrying about color correction, I'd worry about lighting, framing, etc. I've seen some of your work and while it shows an understanding of narrative, it's not the tightest in terms of editing and there are plenty of blown out highlights and dull looking areas. Matt lights 99% of his shots (with 30 dollar home depot lights, btw) and spends a long time setting the lights up. There was also a sequence where windows on one side of a room were totally blown out so he chose to keep them out of frame by doing some pretty impressive framing tricks. And I can't remember a shot that had fewer than 3 takes (I was only on the crew for a couple days, though, and even then only helped with a few shots.) He told me that such a video usually spends at least a month and a half in post, as well. The reason his footage looks so good isn't luck, nor is it raw talent--although after meeting him I'm convinced talent has a lot to do with it--it's largely time spent getting things looking perfect and an uncompromising attitude (and an apparent lack of need to sleep.) Of course, shooting like this requires at least a small crew, a small budget, and a lot of scouting locations....on top of obscene amounts of work. It's often more fun to just get some friends together and shoot whatever comes into your head, but if you do you shouldn't expect results that look like Matt's videos. But for a lot of movies how they look is secondary to the story, etc. so how much work you put into technical aspects is totally up to you. Heck, even when I do put a lot of work into something, my videos never even approach looking half this good.
One other reason why it looks so good is a century optics wide angle lens, btw, but like anything else, that will only get you so far. Anyhow, don't take anything I say too seriously since it's all second hand and I haven't seen any more of the video than you guys have, but I figured I'd give what insight I could into how this stuff was made. I, too, am really looking forward to seeing the final.
[quote author=Policar link=board=Clips;num=1090481775;start=0#14 date=07/22/04 at 10:14:32]One other reason why it looks so good is a century optics wide angle lens[/quote]
You mean a 16:9 Adapter lens not a wide angle lens as in fisheye right? Where is the cheapest place that I can get one, and does it truly improve image quality? I use the widescreen mode on the DVX which reduces resolution, but does anyone have samples of some shots comparing this feature on the DVX with an anamorphic adapter?
good stuff as usual. can't wait to see the finished video.
hey, just curious matt...just read your faq and you mentioned that you've reached the dvx100's limitations and maybe going w/ an xl2. what limitations are you referring to that you feel the xl2 can accomplish that the dvx can't? thanks.
[quote author=Policar link=board=Clips;num=1090481775;start=0#14 date=07/22/04 at 10:14:32] One other reason why it looks so good is a century optics wide angle lens, btw, but like anything else, that will only get you so far. [/quote]