New music video for British legends "The Damned", shot on GH5

[Kieran]

@Oliver Daniel thanks for sharing all of that info. Appreciated. 

[TwoScoops]

On 28/04/2018 at 12:29 PM, jindrich said:

The video looks really great, and to be shot and finished by a single person in such a short time is quite an achievement. But the image still looks "digital" to me, which is mostly the main problem with ANYTHING but ARRI, under artificial lighting. 

I just watched Walking Dead season 1, followed by Fear the Walking Dead season 1. One is an all time classic, one... isn't.  Anyway, it's interesting how digital FTWD (shot on Alexa with vintage anamorphics) looks at times after watching TWD, which is obviously shot Super 16. It also made me realize how over-rated shallow DOF is for narrative. You need some separation yeah but as a viewer I actually preferred the lesser background blur of S16 on medium shots. 

 

Sorry for the off topic, the video is fantastic. 

[deezid]

4 minutes ago, TwoScoops said:

I just watched Walking Dead season 1, followed by Fear the Walking Dead season 1. One is an all time classic, one... isn't.  Anyway, it's interesting how digital FTWD (shot on Alexa with vintage anamorphics) looks at times after watching TWD, which is obviously shot Super 16. It also made me realize how over-rated shallow DOF is for narrative. You need some separation yeah but as a viewer I actually preferred the lesser background blur of S16 on medium shots. 

If Arri looks "digital" then I'm fine with it. But it doesn't. It's just that 16mm looks garbage in most cases when compared to 35mm or even bigger film stock.
An ARRI (RED, Varicam, Blackmagic Cameras, RAW from C200/C300/C700/FS5/FS7/FS700 etc.) wouldn't have shown any digital looking processing, since they simply don't have any after debayering.

Here's a good comparison between the EVA-1 and some consumer Panasonic cameras like the GH5. You can easily see how much more organic the EVA-1 looks in comparison.

 

[TwoScoops]

Yeah I know all this. Of course. There was still more of a digital look in the end product of FTWD regardless. 

[Kisaha]

21 minutes ago, TwoScoops said:

Yeah I know all this. Of course. There was still more of a digital look in the end product of FTWD regardless. 

I have watched everything TWD related, and right now the Fear is 5 times better ,story/script wise, than the TWD. Maybe it is better to stay in Season 1 and do not go any further in TWD, while you can skip FearTWD season 2 and start watching from the seasob 2 double finale episode and on!

Shallow DoF is, almost, a gimmick that happened just after the 5DmkII revolution. It wasn't really a thing before. This is heavily discussed for years on unlimited threads in every video forum. I am aesthitically and practically against razor thin DoF, and I am really happy with the one I can achieve on APS-C or S35 cameras.

[TwoScoops]

1 minute ago, Kisaha said:

I have watched everything TWD related, and right now the Fear is 5 times better ,story/script wise, than the TWD. Maybe it is better to stay in Season 1 and do not go any further in TWD, while you can skip FearTWD season 2 and start watching from the seasob 2 double finale episode and on!

Shallow DoF is, almost, a gimmick that happened just after the 5DmkII revolution. It wasn't really a thing before. This is heavily discussed for years on unlimited threads in every video forum. I am aesthitically and practically against razor thin DoF, and I am really happy with the one I can achieve on APS-C or S35 cameras.

I've seen all of TWD. Was just re-visiting S1 to see how far it'd fallen. I'm halfway through Fear... season 2 right now and kinda meh towards it. I'll take your word it gets better. 

[anonim]

1 hour ago, deezid said:

If Arri looks "digital" then I'm fine with it. But it doesn't. It's just that 16mm looks garbage in most cases when compared to 35mm or even bigger film stock.
An ARRI (RED, Varicam, Blackmagic Cameras, RAW from C200/C300/C700/FS5/FS7/FS700 etc.) wouldn't have shown any digital looking processing, since they simply don't have any after debayering.

Here's a good comparison between the EVA-1 and some consumer Panasonic cameras like the GH5. You can easily see how much more organic the EVA-1 looks in comparison.

 

As I can see, in this comparison, in side by side test of two guys on the bridge,  Eva1 has very noticeable less amount of discerned details (and no, I'm not confusing it with "sharpness") than both GH5 and GH5s, even with closer field of view of EVA1. Some subtle details on the forehead of man with beard ate not at all registered - for example, little bulge is discernible just in case of GH5, which obviously has more saturated image ooc, at least in that example.

[jonpais]

Shallow depth-of-field may be a gimmick, but soon all manufacturers will have large format sensor cinema cameras, boasting of 'immersiveness', shallow depth-of-field and 'three-dimensionality'. 

[anonim]

I found that prominent shallow depth of field is just effect which has to be used sparingly. Or, at least in movie oriented creation (contrary to photo/portraiture oriented), it is as secondary element deeply subordinated to the logic and content of composition - more often it interrupts and distracts narration than adding to it as amplification of some particular impression. It seems to me that it is tool that go in pair mostly with medium+ to close up shots - or in psychological very specific creative decision (sort of effect of subject alienation)... But I know that I'm not at all original in these remarks - I repeat it just as sign of revolt against shallow depth of field as a priori rule of beauty or quality

[Kisaha]

1 hour ago, TwoScoops said:

I've seen all of TWD. Was just re-visiting S1 to see how far it'd fallen. I'm halfway through Fear... season 2 right now and kinda meh towards it. I'll take your word it gets better. 

If you had the courage to watch everything of TWD, then spend some more time on the Fear, it is a much better series right now, with real characters, believable action and - almost - an interesting plot (still there are some wtf?! moments script wise, but the original is full of them, and only!).

Shallow depth of field is another sentence of the filmic language. One of the latest jobs I did as a focus puller it was a nightmare to pull focus on a C300mkII, and in most movies I have worked, DoP were commonly using 5.6f, and working around there. After 5DmkII, anyone that could afford 30$ to rent a 5DmkII were making videos with a 50mm with the shallowest depth of field possible, and were calling that "art". Something similar is happening now with the "pseudo-bokeh", on mobile phones, which is a great selling point for most companies (I bought a mobile phone with a ultra wide lens as a second lens, instead of a fake bokeh effect, way more useful for me). As I said there are unlimited threads about it, and I am way off topic.

 

[mercer]

Shallow depth of field is a storytelling tool. Some people went overboard with it and most were do to lens tests on YT but for filmmaking... the reasons discussed here have missed the best argument for it for the low budget filmmaker.

The beauty of the 5D2, t2i, and other larger sensor cameras that started the DSLR Revolution, wasn’t only that more people had access to inexpensive cameras, it’s that low to no budget filmmakers could shoot with shallow DOF and blur the background. It hid the flaws in amateur sets, and hid the public during guerrilla shooting. For the first time, a no budget filmmaker could take a camera into a restaurant and look like a tourist while they shot a dialogue scene.

Sorry... but to say it’s overused, is like saying you don’t like a two shot because most dialogue scenes open with them.

And sorry again, but how can anyone find FTWD better than TWD? I like both for different reasons but there really isn’t a comparison in filmmaking, acting and story. Saying one is more ridiculous than the other is an argument that isn’t allowed in a story about the zombie apocalypse. 

And finally, I agree about the digital look of FTWD compared to TWD... especially when they are on back to back. I love the Alexa, it is the best digital image on the planet... and in my opinion nothing comes close to it. But the S16 on TWD is just in a different league. I was actually curious why? S16 has always looked kinda meh to me, even when done right... but TWD cinematography looks like an epic.

[Kisaha]

22 minutes ago, mercer said:

Shallow depth of field is a storytelling tool. Some people went overboard with it and most were do to lens tests on YT but for filmmaking... the reasons discussed here have missed the best argument for it for the low budget filmmaker.

The beauty of the 5D2, t2i, and other larger sensor cameras that started the DSLR Revolution, wasn’t only that more people had access to inexpensive cameras, it’s that low to no budget filmmakers could shoot with shallow DOF and blur the background. It hid the flaws in amateur sets, and hid the public during guerrilla shooting. For the first time, a no budget filmmaker could take a camera into a restaurant and look like a tourist while they shot a dialogue scene.

Sorry... but to say it’s overused, is like saying you don’t like a two shot because most dialogue scenes open with them.

And sorry again, but how can anyone find FTWD better than TWD? I like both for different reasons but there really isn’t a comparison in filmmaking, acting and story. Saying one is more ridiculous than the other is an argument that isn’t allowed in a story about the zombie apocalypse. 

And finally, I agree about the digital look of FTWD compared to TWD... especially when they are on back to back. I love the Alexa, it is the best digital image on the planet... and in my opinion nothing comes close to it. But the S16 on TWD is just in a different league. I was actually curious why? S16 has always looked kinda meh to me, even when done right... but TWD cinematography looks like an epic.

1) it is overused.

2) Fear is better than TWD for the last couple of years (first and second season of Fear wasn't very good).

3) I do like the TWD look, but also like that they did something different for the spin off.

[mercer]

9 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

1) it is overused.

2) Fear is better than TWD for the last couple of years (first and second season of Fear wasn't very good).

3) I do like the TWD look, but also like that they did something different for the spin off.

1) Where exactly is it overused? If you’re referring to YT videos, then you’re probably right. But can you name specific films where it is overused and not a convention of the storytelling?

2) FTWD is only in the beginning of its 4th season... so you liked the last season of FTWD better than the last season of TWD?

3) I don’t hate the look of FTWD, I just think TWD looks better. This season of FTWD looks pretty bad though... in last night’s episode, I think they just threw an M31 LUT on the footage. But I do like the desaturated shots they do for the time jump sequences.

[Kisaha]

2 hours ago, mercer said:

1) Where exactly is it overused? If you’re referring to YT videos, then you’re probably right. But can you name specific films where it is overused and not a convention of the storytelling?

2) FTWD is only in the beginning of its 4th season... so you liked the last season of FTWD better than the last season of TWD?

3) I don’t hate the look of FTWD, I just think TWD looks better. This season of FTWD looks pretty bad though... in last night’s episode, I think they just threw an M31 LUT on the footage. But I do like the desaturated shots they do for the time jump sequences.

1) YT!! Professionals are using it right mostly, like 95%, but there is a tense in the market of shallow depth of field. People born late 80's or 90's, which are 30 or more years old right now, consider very shallow depth of field the norm, so they change the whole perspective of the industry. I am not sure if it is going to stick, but top professionals and story tellers definitely do not overuse it.

2) The WD is disappointing for 3-4 seasons now (it may be even before, I just can't remember that back in time, maybe I have to watch the first 3 seasons again), and the last one was a complete mess. I could explain a few things, but it is already way off topic, but most characters and their actions are not believable or constistent, I did like the Eugene shenanigans in the last episode though! Rick and Michonne, worst couple ever, doesn't make sense, shouldn't have happened, lazy script writing. There is a new person in charge for next year, so I hope she will make things a little better.

The last couple of years, the "real" WD is the Fear for me, it is the one I am waiting for.

3) I didn't say you hate it! I said I liked them both, preferred TWD, but I liked the artistic choice to create something different for the newer series.

[sanveer]

On 29/04/2018 at 4:08 PM, Oliver Daniel said:

We didn't have a big crew, only 4-5 inc make up artist! 

Seriously Kickass !!!

On 29/04/2018 at 4:08 PM, Oliver Daniel said:

Bulk of the lighting was balanced via a lighting desk which controlled the entire stage, took a while to get it right for video use. 

The holograms were filmed against a Chromaflex on location, using Vinten Flowtech 75 tripod. (awesome gear!)

The GH5 was shot in V-log, monitored using the standard Panasonic Rec.709 LUT. 

B-roll was Sony A6500 shooting in S-log 2, using the 18-105mm f4. 

The portable lighting was Aputure Lightstorm and Lupolux LED's. 

Lenses were Sigma 18-35mm, 50mm ART. A few Olympus 40-150mm f2.8. 

Stock footage and voices were supplied via the public domain. 

Edit, grade, and VFX all done in FCPX - using Chromatic for the grade (FAR FAR better than Color Finale). 

Gimbal was the Zhiyun Crane V1. 

Thanks for sharing this information. 

[jindrich]

On 29/4/2018 at 12:38 PM, Oliver Daniel said:

 

There was no budget for an Arri I'm afraid, plus a larger setup would have slowed down the process a lot. We didn't have a big crew, only 4-5 inc make up artist! 

Thx for your answer. The MINI isn't like an ALEXA classic, which indeed weights a ton and slows everything down. If this production couldn't afford an additional  £700 for a MINI (INCLUDING in the £700 a set of CP primes, tripod, follow focus and Mattebox), then that was really a micro-budget project. It's Sign O' times, I guess, when Producers think they can produce professional content for peanuts. For everything I know shot professionally, Camera rental cost is essentially negligible, as the bulk goes to crew, location, insurance, props, hotels, travels, etc etc, with LIGHTING being the solely technical item that might require quite some €€ (HMIs, 150kva trailer and crew).

[Dogtown]

Lovely work Oliver!

[Dogtown]

 

Oliver, what was your playback sync method? Did you use timecode for playback.

[webrunner5]

On 4/29/2018 at 6:12 AM, Teemu said:

Great work, nice images! This was done under Jäger Music right? I noticed the Jäger logo in the beginning. Could you share what kind of budget that Jäger Music was providing if involved. But I understand if you can’t share that information.

Shot on what glass?

My experience to fight against this a lot talked about ”digital look” is done by choice of lenses to use. Quite obvious. But that, lighting and art design makes a big difference. My recent musicvideo shot with GH5 with Kowa anamorphic:

 

That is an awesome music video. MTV worthy!

[UncleBobsPhotography]

The video looks good. I am not used to uploading to vimeo, so I have one question about the process. Did you add black bars on the top and bottom, or is vimeo unable to present wide screen properly? I find it annoying to have this black box around the video: