Travel videos and 'Staff Picks'

[Gregormannschaft]

I like a good travel video and Vimeo has seen it's fair share of incredible travel videos that have been chosen as staff picks. Watchtower of Turkey sticks out in my mind as an example where, as I was watching, I had my mouth agape wondering how the hell they'd got some of these incredible shots. The relationship between visual, sound effect and music was seamless. Brandon Li's Gateway to the Ganges is another favourite, with incredible visuals and a narrative contained within those visuals that propels you along a thematic journey.

I just checked out the latest travel video staff pick though and had to say I was hugely disappointed.

 

 

Rising ​China. The team did a great job at collecting drone footage but it's pretty underwhelming. The music (a riff on an Interstellar track) feels totally out of place, the sound effects added in feel fake and don't give any sense of place and the visuals are overly sharpened to my tastes. And drone footage. Great, used sparingly. But there is no story here, no motivation to the movement.  I don't want to taint the team's work, obviously they've worked hard at this and the staff pick is a big win, so maybe I'll just ask this instead:

What makes a good travel video now that drones are a common filmmaking tool?

[The Chris]

Drones = boring. That video looks like a bunch of stock footage. There's no connection to the subject when you're zooming around hundreds of feet in the air. There's no detail, anything more than a couple of shots and its monotonous. I'm a big fan of closeups, I like detail. I watch lots of travel videos because I'm planning an extended trip and will be shooting all the countries I visit. Good videos are always a mix of people, scenery, food, landmarks, culture and those things you won't see anywhere else - whatever makes destination X unique. Sound is so important, it really adds texture, sets the mood and pulls the viewer in - nat sound gives travel videos so much life. You get no sound from a drone outside of buzzzzzzz. I find videos from exotic locations with no sound to be very disappointing.

Just my opinion.

[Gregormannschaft]

Agree in some respects. I quite liked the Thailand drone video that Philipp Bloom did, there was some heart in there and the moves he made in that short were cinematic somehow. A lot of videos though just have drones for drones sake. Their best use is probably bringing fancy establishing shots to the masses.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

 drones for drones sake.

 

-​Shallow DOF for Shallow DOF's sake

-Focus pulling for Focus pulling's sake

-High ISO for High ISO's sake 

-HDR for HDR's sake 

-4K for 4K's sake 

-Flat Log for Log's sake

-Slow motion for ​Slow motion's sake

-Gimbal for Gimbal's sake

-Drones for drones' sake

 

It's something that's inherent to the introduction of any new technology, lasts for about two years approximately,

Then people realize this fact,

and spend about two other years going the other extreme direction (shallow DOF is for amateurs, slow-motion is for kids, HDR is for fakes)

Then, and only then, after about 3-4 years, it equalizes, and people realize that all new technology should be used in a neutral manner, not too excessive usage for the sake of it and not complete abandoning usage for the sake of it.

[Gregormannschaft]

 

-​Shallow DOF for Shallow DOF's sake

-Focus pulling for Focus pulling's sake

-High ISO for High ISO's sake 

-HDR for HDR's sake 

-4K for 4K's sake 

-Flat Log for Log's sake

-Slow motion for ​Slow motion's sake

-Gimbal for Gimbal's sake

-Drones for drones' sake

 

It's something that's inherent to the introduction of any new technology, lasts for about two years approximately,

Then people realize this fact,

and spend about two other years going the other extreme direction (shallow DOF is for amateurs, slow-motion is for kids, HDR is for fakes)

Then, and only then, after about 3-4 years, it equalizes, and people realize that all new technology should be used in a neutral manner, not too excessive usage for the sake of it and not complete abandoning usage for the sake of it.

​Totally agree, balance is always best and each is just another tool to tell a story.

Did you like the video?

[Damphousse]

What makes a good travel video now that drones are a common filmmaking tool?

​I dunno.  Maybe try not to repeat the same kind of shot over, and over, and over again.  Also try not to just shoot the same statue, bridge, etc over and over again.

You can have repetition with a kind of shot if it is something like a slow pan or static shot if you have quick cuts.  But when you have a dramatic shot it should be used judiciously.  You can eat eggs, bacon, and toast every day and no one will notice... except maybe your doctor.  But if you are eating some spicy exotic food every day you will eventually get sick of it.  Dramatic wide sweeping establishing shots are just that.  They are not meat and potatoes.  I mean how many drone elevator shots did he put in that thing?  How many wide sweeping shots of the same statue did he cram into that thing multiple times?  That bridge?  He could have picked the best sweeping shots of each of those and been fine.  Instead you just get the feeling a really uncreative guy got a drone.  There are over a billion people in China and he has three drone shots of the same statue... hmmm...

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Did you like the video

 That's what I think about it.

 

I mean how many drone elevator shots did he put in that thing?  How many wide sweeping shots of the same statue did he cram into that thing multiple times?  That bridge?  He could have picked the best sweeping shots of each of those and been fine.  Instead you just get the feeling a really uncreative guy got a drone.  There are over a billion people in China and he has three drone shots of the same statue...

 

It's technically not badly executed, just not creative, there's nothing to keep me watching.

Kudus for the maker though and his ability to get attention and get staff picked,

he's done something correct with marketing there and that matters a lot. 

[Julian]

Interesting topic/subject, but why only highlight the 'bad' example?

I agree a travel video is usually better when it consists of more than a collection of beautiful land/cityscapes. Usually I like road trip videos better, even if their production value might not be as awesome as some of the travel videos.

Some examples I like:

This is just a guy travelling with some friends, a GH4 + 12-35mm 2.8 and a DJI Phantom 2. Simple, but great atmosphere:

 

 

Simple action cam footage, but nothing gets me more into the travel mood than a video like this. And for some reason it makes me want to buy a Nikon

 

 

[Volker Schmidt]

Thanks a lot for the WILD link. It´s just great!!!
It really surprised me, that it was filmed with the GH4!
This Clip has reconciled me with this Camera:), thanks!

[Gregormannschaft]

 

Interesting topic/subject, but why only highlight the 'bad' example?

Included two in the opening post but didnt embed, here they are:

 

 

 

I ​ really like both, especially Watchtower of Turkey and it's use of...that technique where you float and zoom into thing...I have NO idea how to do that and it's an incredible use of the technique.

I'll throw my Tasmania roadtrip video in here just for good measure, had a lot of fun filming it although in hindsight I'd scrap the music and put together a soundscape. At the time I was all about the visuals though.

 

 

 

[Sekhar]

These are all visually appealing in their own way, but I'm not sure any of them was really telling any story. "Rising China" had great drone shots (almost like a demo reel for a drone company); "Watchtower of Turkey" had some interesting visuals and novel cutting; "Gateway to the Ganges" had some exotic images, especially appealing to the western audience. In fact, this is pretty much the norm in the travel shorts I see posted these days: they are all about visual appeal. I guess eye candy usually works when time is short, but it isn't satisfying.

[fuzzynormal]

What makes a good travel video

Anything with some semblance of a story, really.  Combine that with good cinematography and it should be a winner.

[fuzzynormal]

had to say I was hugely disappointed.

These types of wonderful technological shots are great and impressive.  Now.  

To us in 2015 they're pretty, full of DR, sharp high resolution images.  Looks cool, right?  Well, here's where I project into the future a bit and make a prediction that might seem weird and off base, but here it goes:  None of that tech stuff is going to matter in a handful of years.  Your 14 year old nephew, who was born yesterday, is going to have at his fingertips the exact same capabilities you just witnessed in that video...and millions of other kids and motion picture enthusiasts will have that same capability.

That jaw dropping IQ and DR and color science just won't matter because it'll be readily available at Wal-Mart for $200.  The drone to fly it will cost $145, $110 after manufacture's rebate.  Let's not overlook the reality that this younger generation armed with this technology from the time they leave the womb is going use the narcissistic-social-media-shit out of it.  They'll probably spend less time OFF camera than on it.

So, we can all go ga-ga over how nice the video looks, and it does, (It's a nice video. I'd be proud of it if I did it) but without a good story behind it, all we're witnessing a glorified contemporary slideshow.  Which is fine, for the moment.

I firmly believe that those of us that hang their hat on the fact that they can attain technically superior images are going to be in trouble when that capability is so commonplace it's irrelevant.  But, that's my opinion.  Really really great IQ is reaching a democratization. 16K? 50 stops of DR?  That'll rival human eyesight, so where do you go then?  3D?  I dunno.  Maybe; not sure.

Regardless, what story you decide to actually tell with that capability is going to be the only thing that is important because the tech stuff just won't have the same value.

Hey, I could be totally wrong.  But I just feel it's going to be how you use the tool rather than the fact you have it.

Also, editing.  People that are good and inventive at editing.  Man, they're going to have an incredibly in-demand skill set. View "Watchtower of Turkey" to see how that ability harmonizes with inventive visuals.

[Gregormannschaft]

Edit: Crap your last video had a lot of trees in it.... THAT VIDEO IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!

Edit again: Sorry I had a Rockstar, a Coca Cola, and a Monster today.

Hah, I hadn't really realized until you said it but, I guess Tasmania does have a lot of trees. 

[User]

Nice topic Gregor.

I love films that take us to far away places. I think it's understood that it's the people in these places that pull us in and give us something to relate to in this our shared human experience. They make us feel in a way that a mountain or fluttering leaf on a tree can't.

Contra the heard and focus on character development.

 

[The Chris]

 

I partly agree, but I got a chance to see China differently. Use drones sparingly, you don't need a Peter Jackson shot for everything. I would like to see some people talking about China. I like to picture movie shots like music. Give it a good rhythm. Bring a shotgun mic with you, find some people to talk to, edit it together and I think it would look even better. Do not use the overused sad hipster piano music or perhaps the overused dull surprise look because its about as much as a cliche as boat noises in movie trailers.  

Drones are great for showing vistas and unique angles that you can't get from the ground - use them for establishing shots, cutaways and for the occasional different perspective - but a few minutes of endless drone shots, yawn. I have no problem adding them to the mix. But geez, the vertical takeoff shot, the fast flyover, the looking straight down, the circle around something, the zoom out selfie - rinse, lather, repeat - it gets old quickly. In the China video (and Blooms which also bored me) the drama of that unique perspective is just becomes blase. Again, just my opinion, but I don't find four different drone shots of the same subject to be interesting.

[Sekhar]

Regardless, what story you decide to actually tell with that capability is going to be the only thing that is important because the tech stuff just won't have the same value.

Hey, nobody is going to argue that story isn't the most important thing. But let's get real. If you grab attention even for a month these days, you have a win. If people talk about your video for a year, you've hit it out of the park. The attention span is so short these days, it doesn't really matter if your work has a shelf life of one year or one decade. Of course, we all want to make masterpieces that last a century or more, but that ain't gonna happen.

So, what do you do? You use gimmicks and technical wizardry. There was a night-for-day short posted recently that shot the whole thing in moonlight and looks like a day shot, except with stars. Gimmick? Absolutely. But it got coverage. In terms of story, there are a dime a dozen other shorts like that, and I doubt it would have grabbed any attention (it did have some good acting though).

I'm afraid we'll be seeing more and more of the technical showpieces, especially in short work, where you don't have much time to build up a story. Imagine this. If you have two minutes to grab people's attention, which do you think will succeed? (a) Gorgeous Victoria's Secret models in lingerie doing nothing but walking on the runway (b) Two average looking dudes building up to a powerful story? There is no way people will sit and watch the models walking for 90 minutes, but for 2 minutes, sure!

[fuzzynormal]

Hey, nobody is going to argue that story isn't the most important thing. But let's get real. If you grab attention even for a month these days, you have a win. If people talk about your video for a year, you've hit it out of the park. The attention span is so short these days, it doesn't really matter if your work has a shelf life of one year or one decade. Of course, we all want to make masterpieces that last a century or more, but that ain't gonna happen.

So, what do you do? You use gimmicks and technical wizardry. There was a night-for-day short posted recently that shot the whole thing in moonlight and looks like a day shot, except with stars. Gimmick? Absolutely. But it got coverage. In terms of story, there are a dime a dozen other shorts like that, and I doubt it would have grabbed any attention (it did have some good acting though).

I'm afraid we'll be seeing more and more of the technical showpieces, especially in short work, where you don't have much time to build up a story. Imagine this. If you have two minutes to grab people's attention, which do you think will succeed? (a) Gorgeous Victoria's Secret models in lingerie doing nothing but walking on the runway (b) Two average looking dudes building up to a powerful story? There is no way people will sit and watch the models walking for 90 minutes, but for 2 minutes, sure!

sure, you can play that game, but if you're an earnest filmmaker you wouldn't want to.  

As for average looking people in a 3 minute film:

http://youtu.be/uaWA2GbcnJU

cheesy and simple, but more powerful than T&A. 

 

[Gregormannschaft]

Here's the latest and greatest travel video staff pick from Vimeo. I like it! But still missing that personal element. The camera movement is great though, reminds me a lot of Brandon Li's stuff. Off to Croatia next week and am going to give a travel video another go but try and add some more human stories in there.

http://www.vimeo.com/134719869