music video- stock HVX

[Ash Greyson]

If a clear story is the point of a music video, then 99.99% of the videos on MTV fail. I always tell bands the WORST thing you can do is try to weave in a heavy narrative because by the time you get band coverage in there, your story wont come thru.

Jason you are digging too deep here. Music videos are not meant to be stories, some are...but that was never the intent of the genre. It is to showcase the band...NOT THE DIRECTOR! They are not short films, you simply are attaching stimulating, pretty, interesting, visceral, etc. images to a song.

Music videos CAN be articulate narratives but that is certainly the exception, not the rule. Most of the best music videos are more about creativity, not story.




ash =o)

[Mike Quick]

I've been reading this thread and as music video director I have to say you did a great job. MV's are an expression, they don't always have to have a story. As a matter of fact I think it's harder to make a video that has so many different things coming at you. It's interpretive. It forces you to be more creative so that you can keep the viewer engaged. People that had all the criticisms probably don't like the music anyway, which can play a big part. I'm just more blown away that you did this with a stock camera. No lens adapter? Kudos. Any particular plug-ins? Red-giant? Or mostly good color correction?.

Anyway, I liked it and want to know more of how you did it. I'm going to go back and read to see if you let us in. If not, then how about it?

[Benjamin Hill]

Mike, thanks for acknowledging my approach to the task. Appreciate the feedback.

No plug-ins that I know of. I used a few free FCP filters, if there's a certain effect you're thinking of I can find out which filter and where I got it.

I did spend a lot of time on color correction. I wanted the video to have an identity, on an aesthetic level. Obviously there wasn't a story in the traditional sense, but I still tried to convey that something happens. There still is an arc, events do transpire, but we don't have the details, just sort of the visceral/emotional evidence. I tried to use color timing to support this.

I also just wanted something that would look pretty solid and consistent, on TV or web or whatever. So that technical issues wouldn't be a barrier or a distraction for viewers. At least that was the intention.

[Mike Quick]

funny, my reply didn't stick. Anyway, I totally get what you said. A video does have to go somewhere. I'm impressed and have watched it multiple times. Seeing all of the stock images people are getting, it makes me almost wish( I said almost) that I hadn't bought the M2 adapter. Your stuff has a crisp look. Almost like 35mm. Now before anyone give me a two page thesis on the fact that it really doesn't, I did say almost.

What does it look like on a TV? Does it still hold true. Sometimes, I have experienced it looking better on a computer.

[Benjamin Hill]

It holds up OK on TV, I was spoiled by the HD display.

DVD encoding quality made the biggest difference. I've only seen it on a tube TV, interlacing sucks, but my theory is that if your end product still looks (and sounds) good when you play it on a crappy system, you'll be OK.

[Dennis Hingsberg]

WOW - Who needs a @#$&'n 35mm adapter anyway?

Man that was awesome.. and don't worry what people say about "story". Not every video needs a "story".

By the way are those in camera gamma curves or post effects?

[Benjamin Hill]

Originally Posted by Dennis Hingsberg

By the way are those in camera gamma curves or post effects?

Thank you Dennis. It's a combination of both. The band footage was heavily processed in post, but started out with a pretty hard look. Overall it was probably 30% in-camera, 70% post. I wish I had determined the look more at the acquisition stage but hindsight is 20/20. I can say that the stuff I tweaked more during the shoot looks better.