Music Video Cinematography

I am no expert, but, if I had to guess, I would bet they ran it through after effects. It looks like they could have used a tilt shift lens for a number of the shots, but I bet that was just AE as well. And then they also did some time remapping. If they shot with a varicam, its possible they were undercranking but shooting 60p and not native, to get that staccato look from the slow motion shots. Dolly/Handheld/Steadicam? Maybe a combo of all three? Maybe they did none of those, but if I were to mimic it, thats how I'd do it.
 
it doesn't look like varicam to me - and most vids have no cash for production at all so that would kill the idea of shooting varicam...

my guess is that they shot on the roof with something like an sony ex1/ex3 (that's what I'd use anyway, maybe hvx200, the only thing that makes me wonder is the last shot of the guy in the wet - but if they were using a d90 they could have got that shot in d-movie mode, or just the ex3 well lit...). And - as grimrebes said - messed with the whole thing masses in after effects. The stuff on the street looks like they got a dslr that shoots at a high rate -- the d90 does 4.5fps in still mode for instance. And once again, you take it into after effects (or even photoshop nowadays...) and play with it a LOT. You could shoot the video like that for $2000 easy. Crew of 2 or 3, shoot on a roof with minimal lighting, run the song a bunch of times with the camera locked off on a tripod. Take you a few hours, if that - notice the rooftop stuff goes from day to dusk to night. Then have the lead wander around outside the photo studio on the street (it's all shot around 7/8th ave 32-42nd street and there's lots of photo studios there) and a couple of weeks in after effects. You could do the shoot in an afternoon/evening for nothing - even if you did have to rent equipment, and I doubt they did...

the smooth motion video stuff on the roof when they're playing is all on tripod, it looks to me. my guess is everything else is a handheld dslr.

I've shot an slr like that using film and that's pretty much the effect you get (minus all the blurring - grimrebes is right about all the after effects). I morphed my 3fps shots together and it looked pretty good. i didn't bother doing it again because it's tough to get the smooth look I wanted and it's way too much grunt work (this was in 2002). But kids with AE experience are cheap, dp's that can shoot a film camera aren't...
 
Last edited:
It looks like a low shutter speed with heavy editing. Sure they may have used a tilt/swing lens but I find that unlikely since its pretty easy in post.
 
They might have been shooting through some weird glass, I only say that is because the lens flare is consistent with the movement and breaks up the same way in each direction. The street stuff is low frame rate, long exposure.
 
Lens baby on a 35mm adapter -- I recognize the hunting-for-focus look. Some shots look like there's a filter over the lens smeared with water. At 2:02 and 2:23 you can see the inside of the lens-baby as it's pulled too far.

The motion effects look like it was shot at low speed and then stretched to fit the timeline frame rate, so every frame is doubled or tripled. Some shots don't stretch, so you see the original fast-motion effect.

There's also a min-max (like a blur) effect on some of the shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top