music videos, what makes them tick? at DVinfo.net

October 2nd, 2002, 03:53 AM

what format do music videos usually use. Are the cameras used usually HD cams that range above 20k. I noticed the depth of focus and color tones u get are pretty nice in music videos. Can you achieve close results with the new minidv HD cam from jvc or the panasonic ag-dvx100 or the GYU-5000U.

Henrik Bengtsson · October 2nd, 2002, 04:56 AM

Well.. You can do pretty much with a normal DV/DVCAM aswell, you do not need to flesh out $50k on renting a HDTV 24P system.

I just finished a music video using a PD100A where short focal length was imperative to blur out the white & black background. This so you didn't see creases and wrinkles in the background. Did this by zooming in (ie. tele lens) and manually set the focus.

Of course, if you have the cash to rent (or buy :) a mini35 adapter then you can use 35 mm cinelenses with all the added focal depth benefits but still work with DV format.

Imho, what makes a music video "tick" is it's rythm and if it conveys the image of the artist/talent.

Remember that a Music video is a commercial for the artist/talent. If it doesn't help the artists image and (hopefully) their record sale, it has failed imho.

Regards,
Henrik "HuBBa" Bengtsson
DocuWild

Paul Sedillo · October 2nd, 2002, 08:48 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by DocuWild :

Imho, what makes a music video "tick" is it's rythm and if it conveys the image of the artist/talent.

Remember that a Music video is a commercial for the artist/talent. If it doesn't help the artists image and (hopefully) their record sale, it has failed imho.
-->>>

Great comments. I completely agree with your statement regarding the fact that a video is a commercial for the artist.

Dylan Couper · October 2nd, 2002, 10:26 AM

Don't forget lots of booty. Can't have a music video these days without booty. Tons and tons of booty.

Rik Sanchez · October 2nd, 2002, 10:42 AM

Although the booty is a nice effect sometimes, I think the more booty they use, the more they are trying to compensate for the lack of creativity on the part of the director and/or artist.

Why work hard at making a good video when you can take the easy road and just use booty shot. That seems to be the way a lot of videos are made nowadays.

I don't see much MTV anymore, no cable in my area, but is it just me or are almost all rap/hip-hop just one big booty shot?

Martin Munthe · October 2nd, 2002, 01:37 PM

Since neither the JVC HD or the Panasonic 24p has hit the market yet no one knows...

Record companys (the clients) likes the word 16mm. They like the word 35mm better. Using the word DV will usually make the client go elsewhere.

Never use the word DV around record company clients. You'll end up making no budget videos for buddys producing CD's out of their garages.

Hope that answers the question.

Joe Carney · October 2nd, 2002, 03:49 PM

>>Remember that a Music video is a commercial for the artist/talent. If it doesn't help the artists image and (hopefully) their record sale, it has failed imho<<
docuwild, I've read about a group in England trying to go above and beyond the MTV/commercial aspect of Music Video and create short musical films. don't know how they are progressing, but I wish them luck.

Joe

Barry Goyette · October 2nd, 2002, 05:02 PM

A friend of mine owns couple of telecines in LA...From his perspective, most music videos are still shot on film, then transferred for editing and delivery. (and I'm sure he hopes it stays that way for awhile.)

Barry

Henrik Bengtsson · October 2nd, 2002, 05:33 PM

Jojolimited. There are several examples of artists creating a visual & musical production that is not related to selling more records. But that is not a musicvideo as per my very personal definition. Can a musicvideo be artistic? Of course it can. But the main goal for a musicvideo is still to promote the artist. If it's not related to the artist in any way and does not promote the artist, it will most likely not be aired.

Barry & Martin, There is definately a big bias towards shooting on film. Especially from people who are not working with it. Actually, it was Your pictures Martin, showing the 2.35:1 method that sold the idea of shooting it on DV to the band. They wanted to do it on 16 mm first aswell since they had heard that was what you should do it on. But with no budget and me claiming that you can do pretty good things with a video camera aswell (as i mentioned in a previous post, its the end result that counts) they finally relented. And in the end everyone (including the record company =) was happy.

But if a client wants it done in 16 mm or 35 mm, i will do it in that format. The budget will be higher aswell of course with the added costs involved in this.

I think we will all have to fight this "it must be shot on film or it is crap" mentality a few years more until you either have everything shot digital or your client actually starts to trust you to use the best media for the production.

The same discussion happened a few years in the VFX business actually. If it wasn't done on Silicon Graphic machines it wasn't worth doing was the general consent. Then the Amiga with Lightwave 3D came along and we saw shows like Babylon 5 and Seaquest. When they came along they did amazing effects, rivaling the high end systems used for cinema effects. And this on a TV Show budget & schedule. That kinda revolutionized the entire VFX scene and today no one is interested if you do it in Maya/Softimage/Lightwave or 3DSMax. But there were a time when the studios who used Alias WF/Softimage 3D could charge about 30-50% more than the studios who used Lightwave & 3DStudio. Thank god those times are over =)

And maybe we'll get there with video vs film aswell :)
/Henrik

Martin Munthe · October 3rd, 2002, 04:15 AM

Henrik,

I agree the rejection of video as a medium is silly. I think one of the major reasons video has a bad rep is that video is traditionally a "shooters" medium and not the cinematographers medium. All that is slowly changing. When great DP's put their knowledge into video we are going to see some awsome stuff shot on SD and HD. Lighting is lighting. Even on video.

I'm happy the band liked my images. Would be cool to see your video.

Henrik Bengtsson · October 3rd, 2002, 04:30 AM

Well, if you have the download time, you can view it at http://www.docuwild.com (under mainstream section).

I have no air dates yet for european/swedish channels.

/Henrik

Josh Bass · October 3rd, 2002, 11:23 AM

What's the 2:35:1 method?

Martin Munthe · October 3rd, 2002, 11:32 AM

http://www.operafilm.com/dvscope.html

This is the 2.35:1 method for PD150P cameras I've been fiddling around with. I finished a feature film last week using this method.

October 2nd, 2002, 03:53 AM	#1
GreenRubberPlant Posts: n/a	music videos, what makes them tick? what format do music videos usually use. Are the cameras used usually HD cams that range above 20k. I noticed the depth of focus and color tones u get are pretty nice in music videos. Can you achieve close results with the new minidv HD cam from jvc or the panasonic ag-dvx100 or the GYU-5000U.

October 2nd, 2002, 08:48 AM	#3
Paul Sedillo Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 607	<<<-- Originally posted by DocuWild : Imho, what makes a music video "tick" is it's rythm and if it conveys the image of the artist/talent. Remember that a Music video is a commercial for the artist/talent. If it doesn't help the artists image and (hopefully) their record sale, it has failed imho. -->>> Great comments. I completely agree with your statement regarding the fact that a video is a commercial for the artist. __________________ Paul Sedillo Image::Studio http://www.image-studio.com Houston, Texas

October 2nd, 2002, 10:42 AM	#5
Rik Sanchez ChorizoSmells Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 424	Although the booty is a nice effect sometimes, I think the more booty they use, the more they are trying to compensate for the lack of creativity on the part of the director and/or artist. Why work hard at making a good video when you can take the easy road and just use booty shot. That seems to be the way a lot of videos are made nowadays. I don't see much MTV anymore, no cable in my area, but is it just me or are almost all rap/hip-hop just one big booty shot? __________________ ChorizoSmells Video Barrio Tamatsukuri, Osaka, JAPAN

October 2nd, 2002, 01:37 PM	#6
Martin Munthe Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 331	Since neither the JVC HD or the Panasonic 24p has hit the market yet no one knows... Record companys (the clients) likes the word 16mm. They like the word 35mm better. Using the word DV will usually make the client go elsewhere. Never use the word DV around record company clients. You'll end up making no budget videos for buddys producing CD's out of their garages. Hope that answers the question. __________________ Martin Munthe VFX Supervisor/DP/Director

October 3rd, 2002, 04:15 AM	#10
Martin Munthe Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 331	Henrik, I agree the rejection of video as a medium is silly. I think one of the major reasons video has a bad rep is that video is traditionally a "shooters" medium and not the cinematographers medium. All that is slowly changing. When great DP's put their knowledge into video we are going to see some awsome stuff shot on SD and HD. Lighting is lighting. Even on video. I'm happy the band liked my images. Would be cool to see your video. __________________ Martin Munthe VFX Supervisor/DP/Director

October 2nd, 2002, 04:56 AM	#2
Henrik Bengtsson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Borås, Sweden Posts: 167	Well.. You can do pretty much with a normal DV/DVCAM aswell, you do not need to flesh out $50k on renting a HDTV 24P system. I just finished a music video using a PD100A where short focal length was imperative to blur out the white & black background. This so you didn't see creases and wrinkles in the background. Did this by zooming in (ie. tele lens) and manually set the focus. Of course, if you have the cash to rent (or buy :) a mini35 adapter then you can use 35 mm cinelenses with all the added focal depth benefits but still work with DV format. Imho, what makes a music video "tick" is it's rythm and if it conveys the image of the artist/talent. Remember that a Music video is a commercial for the artist/talent. If it doesn't help the artists image and (hopefully) their record sale, it has failed imho. Regards, Henrik "HuBBa" Bengtsson DocuWild

October 2nd, 2002, 10:26 AM	#4
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Don't forget lots of booty. Can't have a music video these days without booty. Tons and tons of booty.

October 2nd, 2002, 03:49 PM	#7
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	>>Remember that a Music video is a commercial for the artist/talent. If it doesn't help the artists image and (hopefully) their record sale, it has failed imho<< docuwild, I've read about a group in England trying to go above and beyond the MTV/commercial aspect of Music Video and create short musical films. don't know how they are progressing, but I wish them luck. Joe

October 2nd, 2002, 05:02 PM	#8
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	A friend of mine owns couple of telecines in LA...From his perspective, most music videos are still shot on film, then transferred for editing and delivery. (and I'm sure he hopes it stays that way for awhile.) Barry

October 2nd, 2002, 05:33 PM	#9
Henrik Bengtsson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Borås, Sweden Posts: 167	Jojolimited. There are several examples of artists creating a visual & musical production that is not related to selling more records. But that is not a musicvideo as per my very personal definition. Can a musicvideo be artistic? Of course it can. But the main goal for a musicvideo is still to promote the artist. If it's not related to the artist in any way and does not promote the artist, it will most likely not be aired. Barry & Martin, There is definately a big bias towards shooting on film. Especially from people who are not working with it. Actually, it was Your pictures Martin, showing the 2.35:1 method that sold the idea of shooting it on DV to the band. They wanted to do it on 16 mm first aswell since they had heard that was what you should do it on. But with no budget and me claiming that you can do pretty good things with a video camera aswell (as i mentioned in a previous post, its the end result that counts) they finally relented. And in the end everyone (including the record company =) was happy. But if a client wants it done in 16 mm or 35 mm, i will do it in that format. The budget will be higher aswell of course with the added costs involved in this. I think we will all have to fight this "it must be shot on film or it is crap" mentality a few years more until you either have everything shot digital or your client actually starts to trust you to use the best media for the production. The same discussion happened a few years in the VFX business actually. If it wasn't done on Silicon Graphic machines it wasn't worth doing was the general consent. Then the Amiga with Lightwave 3D came along and we saw shows like Babylon 5 and Seaquest. When they came along they did amazing effects, rivaling the high end systems used for cinema effects. And this on a TV Show budget & schedule. That kinda revolutionized the entire VFX scene and today no one is interested if you do it in Maya/Softimage/Lightwave or 3DSMax. But there were a time when the studios who used Alias WF/Softimage 3D could charge about 30-50% more than the studios who used Lightwave & 3DStudio. Thank god those times are over =) And maybe we'll get there with video vs film aswell :) /Henrik

October 3rd, 2002, 04:30 AM	#11
Henrik Bengtsson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Borås, Sweden Posts: 167	Well, if you have the download time, you can view it at http://www.docuwild.com (under mainstream section). I have no air dates yet for european/swedish channels. /Henrik

October 3rd, 2002, 11:23 AM	#12
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	What's the 2:35:1 method? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

October 3rd, 2002, 11:32 AM	#13
Martin Munthe Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 331	http://www.operafilm.com/dvscope.html This is the 2.35:1 method for PD150P cameras I've been fiddling around with. I finished a feature film last week using this method. __________________ Martin Munthe VFX Supervisor/DP/Director

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search