New OK Go music video shot on Panasonic GH4

[JackHorror]

Why the video is so "shaky"? Gh4 doesn't have stabilization?

[eleison]

OK Go, the band that only exists because of its capacity to make gimmicky viral videos.

 

Actually, OK Go exists because of young girls who watch and buy their tracks.  The band doesn't care about middle age video camera snobs who yell, "the music video is shaky!!!"... :-)

[Andrew Reid]

Whilst you lot have created..... what...

 

A bunch of astounding negativity on a forum!?

[Willy Busfield]

Someone is ripping off Temptation by New Order pretty hard.  I like the lack of super clean stabilization.  Rough edges, practical effects, men and their technology.  What's not to like.

 

[dafreaking]

This video is AMAZING! (yes it deserves caps) as far as creativity and execution is concerned. Just wow! Very well planned. It doesn't matter even if they shot this with an iPhone. People dissing it's creativity need a reality check. 

 

Now as far as pimping it as being awesome because it was shot on the GH4 is concerned. From the BTS it looks like it could have been done with any camera, BUT the GH4 probably had the weight advantage and the electronic look that they desired. 

 

Also that subspace warp type of effect is the only thing visually that I found distracting. (The rolling shutter, though noticeable, isn't their throughout)

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Absolutely loved it. Only bad thing is the post stabilization, it looks horrible. Otherwise, well executed and very creative. 

[FilmMan]

Like it!  Cheers.

[nazdar]

... Give the pixel peeping a rest on this one guys.

 

When is all picture so shaking that it kills my eyes its not about pixel peeping its just messed up. Maybe when you are watching it on some small screen or laptop you dont care, but on the 40" TV its unacceptable. Watching optical illusions on horribly shaky video doesnt work.

[fuzzynormal]

Watching optical illusions on horribly shaky video doesn't work.

 

This is a legitimate concern.  

 

They obviously decided to incorporate the rough movement of the camera as a feature of the aesthetic...but I can see how an ultra-smooth "float" of the image would have made the illusions more seamless.  That sort of rigging would have been ridiculously troublesome and expensive.

 

Look closely at what the camera does and see if you can even begin to contemplate how to fly the camera smoothly through that path.

 

However, it's still a VERY good vid, bumps and all.  I don't have the creativity to pull this off...do any of you?

[Orangenz]

Well that was rather impressive. The hit at the end when you realise that every optical illusion is actually part of a grander illusion affecting the entire set is amazing.

[francislaferra]

My buddy showed me this video last week, so I came at it from a non-video-snob perspective, and I had two initial thoughts:

 

1. This is the greatest thing of all time. Maybe my favorite music video ever.

 

2. What the hell is that gross jello effect when they place the camera on the tripods? Are they shooting this on a cellphone?

 

So to sum up this forum dicussion: Yes, the post stabilization is gross. No, it doesn't matter.

[nazdar]

Also pacing was too quick. I still cant recognize what they want to show at certain posts even if I stop the video... :)
But even if it is not executed and directed very well and it really sound like New Order too much I still enjoy it.

[hmcindie]

Horrible stabilization. Appalling, I can't watch it! Is something wrong with me? Have I been pixel peeping too much?

 

If they had just bumped up the shutter speed to 1/100 it would've been cleaner (now even when it's stabilized it blurs) and there is an option on Warp Stabilizer that disables that warping effect (I don't think it's 100% from the rolling shutter). They should've disabled it and just used regular position stabilization. Or maybe just get a better rig, they obviously had the budget?

 

Looks more like an artistic decision that they made afterwards. During shoot they're like "Hey, looks great!" and afterwards they're like "We need to smoothen this".

[TimFok]

I am all for forgetting tech, immersing oneself into a video. Ignoring the 'they should have shot it like this' or 'how did they do that' voices circling in my head. 

 

With that said, and after reading the comments on here I really wanted to just enjoy this video for what it was, but I have to agree with others (at a somewhat less negative level) - I found this hard to watch.

 

I appreciate the rough-around-the-edges effect, it works great in a lot of productions. But there's also a threshold, and a thin line between "rough around the edges" and bad camera work (for use of a better term).

 

I think exploring a gimbal device may have worked well here, using it this intimate run and gun style it would have created the rough-around-the-edges effect whilst not distracting the viewer from the subject, which is what I felt - distracted. It was really hard to make out any of the cool DIY setups they'd gone to the effort in making, I found myself pausing the video a lot to grasp what I was viewing and avoid the camera shake.

 

 

 

 

[Damphousse]

I'm pretty tolerant of the "shaky cam" intentional effect on movies like Cloverfield, but there is something professional about that "shaky cam."  I don't know what it is.  It's better than when amatuers do it.  I think this video looked "digital" vs "video."  My three big problems with DSLR video is moire/aliasing, lack of global shutter, and weak codecs.  Line skipping is an issue too.  moire/aliasing has been minimised in a lot of new cameras and weak codecs are being addressed.  The line skipping issue has been eliminated in some models.  That leaves rolling shutter.  I assume that is what is causing the issue.  Global shutter can just handle the jarring movements a lot better.  One of the big issues in the movie is they seem to set the camera down which causes a burst of reverberating shudders within the camera.  It's fast movement with a rolling shutter so can't be cleaned up easily in post.  Even if you want to leave the shake from placing the camera down in as an effect it just doesn't look good on a rolling shutter CMOS.

 

The reason I turn my nose up at manual lenses and no IS is I've had little shudders ruin too many shots. Yes I use a tripod when I can and yes I even bought a steadicam which I now use as an improvised shoulder rig (still haven't found the time to balance and learn it).  But there are times I need to shoot hand held and IS saves the day.  I love my nonIS 50mm 1.4 in low light but I really have to brace myself or use a tripod/shoulder rig to avoid shot ruining shudders.

 

Overall I don't think the GH4 was the right tool for the job.  The GH4 is amazing and that didn't really come through in that video.  A black magic production cam or some other global shutter machine might have been noticably better.

[Tim Naylor]

I think the video's brilliant and the camera a perfect choice. I can't believe people are harping on about stabilization and less than perfect execution. It's like complaining about their earlier videos because they're not professional dancers. 

 

We should be celebrating the attempt to do something different and intriguing rather than the usual mind numbing video tripe. I'm currently working on a movie and my gaffer, Jordan Bell, was also a grip on this video. They paid well and had the money to make it Movi smooth. They spent a couple weeks just rigging effects. It was lit by overhead space lights. Never was the intent to make it big budget slick.

 

If you don't get the video and think it amateurish, you can't be helped.

[Tim Naylor]

Horrible stabilization. Appalling, I can't watch it! Is something wrong with me? Have I been pixel peeping too much?

 

Yes. See a doctor.

[j.f.r.]

The warp stabilization was driving me crazy......

 

Amazing directed and executed video, they obviously cared about stabilization as they mounted it to a Fig Rig, I just think they had the wrong lens on there. A Panasonic 12-35mm with OS on I would think would look much better, not sure if that's the lens they used but I just can't believe it was.

 

Regardless it was an excellent and very creative project, I do feel that a more stable image not necessarily smooth perfect would have made the project look better.

[Inazuma]

When I first watched the video, I was about 8 feet away from the monitor so didn't notice the shakiness much. All I felt was that it was a brilliantly executed video.

 

Now that I'm looking at it more closely, I can see there's something strange going on. Some of it is warping as if they've used a post stabilizer or an ineffectual lens IS. I can see why you guys as video enthusiasts feel it's off-putting, but I honestly don't think it matters that much. It does in a way add to the spirit of "Hey we're just a couple guys trying to execute a great idea".

 

At the end of watching the video, I felt that really the camera choice was one of the least of their worries. However I can see why they would have chose it:

- MFT sensor; deeper depth of field.

- Smaller than most pro video cameras, so easy to fit on a rig.

I guess they could have used a BMPCC to achieve the same thing, but hey they didn't. What are you gonna do..

[Mozim]

We should be celebrating the attempt to do something different and intriguing rather than the usual mind numbing video tripe. 

 

Thanks for this. I couldn't have said it any better! 

 

Let's not forget that the people behind this video most likely were very well-aware of what they were doing, how they were shooting the video and how they edited it. I'm sure they wanted the video to look exactly like it does. In addition to that, the technical "flaws" that some were pointing out - such as the horrible warp-effect - actually helped to create a very fitting, distinct feel to the video that fit the music perfectly. And it's great to see tools that don't cost an arm and a leg are used to create big-budget stuff. So why all the negativety?