My First Music Video... feedback? at DVinfo.net

Christopher Velasco · November 3rd, 2004, 11:16 PM

www.fadedsoul.com/THEAWAKENING.wmv

Just looking for some feedback... I kind of know what I want to tweak...

Christopher V

Rob Lohman · November 4th, 2004, 04:31 AM

I thought the opening etc. was great. I disliked it going back to
a video look with the band playing (I'm not sure if it would work
better with the exact same look as the rest of the footage, but
I did find the obvious video look distracting in those sections).
I think it would've been nicer to have the band play in one of the
area's of the short little movie (ie a bit more interesting setting).

Otherwise it looked great!

Cody Dulock · November 4th, 2004, 02:04 PM

not trying to bash or anything, just giving my opinion.

i agree if you would have stayed with the same look throughout the video it would have been more pleasing to the eye. maybe trying new editing techniques that involve more movement would also keep someone watching. if the band was playing in more locations that would have added a little more attention grabber to it... other than that it was cool.

maybe take the vocals out of the whole song and it would be waaaay better :) just as they say audio is 50% of everything you see.

Christopher Velasco · November 4th, 2004, 03:50 PM

Thanks for the feedback guys...
The difference between the looks of the story and the performance are intentional and play to the story as a whole.
Same thing with where they're playing. These differences were exactly what I was going for... So I'm glad they're so evident.
CMV

Jesse Bekas · November 5th, 2004, 01:04 PM

I watched it at school so I didn't have sound, and can only assume that the song the video is for is a studio recording and not live. If this is the case, the band doesn't need the equipment outdoors like the mic, mic stand, amps, and guitar cords. Unless they have giant Marshall stacks behin them and are on big stage, you rarely see that kind of equipment in professional videos. Guitars and drums are all we need to see.

The other thing is that too many people were wearing sunglasses. You don't want to obstruct the artists eyes, as people use them to connect with the perfomers.

So I think it looked good, but lose the extraneous equipment, and the all sunglasses (for a reshoot, or next time). Oh yeah try to match the footage a little better between the performance and the rest. One looked interlaced and the other deinterlaced. Obviuosly that is not the case, but they had that kind of "feel" to them.

Christopher Velasco · November 5th, 2004, 03:45 PM

I do appreciate everyone's feedback... I guess I just feel differently about a few things...
I don't think that you have to lose equipment/etc to make it look like professional videos... I don't think anybody should set out to shoot something trying to conform to what would be considered "professional." In a sense of "art" I think you should shoot to your story/idea/feeling etc.... I think the minimalism of the equipment plays to the story and our ideas so I shot it that way.

As for the different looks between story and performance, that's purposeful (though both aren't entirely exclusive). And I actually like the way the performance turned out - its shot 30p with a higher shutter speed to emphasize motion. The story parts are shot 30i to assist with smooth slow motion. Separate post production filters were used - a saturated "cool" look for the performance and a warm archival look for the story.
I also tried to get a nice shallow DOF for most of the story closeups - which involved lots of far away, high zoom, large aperture shots.

What I don't really like is that pesky sun... which kept coming in and out of the clouds the day we shot - I shot over a 6 hour period or so with an all volunteer crew... so, I just had to get the shots, with or without the sun. So, some of the lighting between the different pieces is a bit different.

I guess I think what's interesting is that the criticism I've read (which is very constructive and appreciated :) are exactly the things that I like about the video... and the features that I was aiming for.

I guess, what I was looking for is some thoughts on whether you found the "substance" Interesting. The story was very specific on paper - but with an all volunteer crew and a fixed timeline, you don't always get everything you need to fully "feed" the audience the story - but in hindsight I do like how the story is a bit aloof. In the end, I hope that someone watching it will say "hey, that's interesting" or perhaps, someone else watching it will say - "Hey, that's interesting.... but wait a minute... something deeper is going on there... what is really going on there? What is the band and director trying to say?"

I love this forum - but sometimes i think we get so lost in the techno blah blah involved in this art form. How many times do you go see the latest slickly filmed blockbuster that left no impression on you - who's lack of substance squashed any sort of neat cinematography (and please excuse my spelling) or slickly professional production. And yet, how can a simple wobbly home movie or other visual touch you... make you think, or feel? Is that not the goal of this medium?

In the end, I hate to get all philosophical - but I know why I go to the theater... and I know why I love this medium. And in creating, I try to speak to those like souls.

Jesse Bekas · November 5th, 2004, 11:40 PM

I think you have to understand that some people might not follow the story, and the artistic decision of having the band look like they're in an average jam session (with mics and cables, etc...), will be lost on them (myself included).

I'm all about ignoring convention for art's sake, but when doing an independent music video, one of the things that makes it "better" to the average viewer is that in some ways it does conform to convention. So when they see a mic in front of the singers mouth, or guitar cables running into little amps, if they don't get the artistic reason for it, it will detract from the quality of the video for them, as it did for me.

That is the problem with convention. It's a necessary part of conveying ideas in different media, but in some artistic cases must be ignored. In the end you had a reason to do it, and I was expressing that it was unclear to me.

I also understood that you wanted the different sections to have a different feel, but the band playing looks very home movie-ish only because the shutter speed effect was not pronounced enough in comparison to the smoother other footage. I think the difference in color tones (greens and blues versus oranges and yellows) already set the footage apart very well. If you had to do an effect with shutter speed changes, I think it would have looked better if it was more pronounced (1/30 vs 1/500?). What were the speed differences?

Cody Dulock · November 6th, 2004, 08:58 AM

actually about 99% of rock videos show guitar cables mics and all the extra gear running because they want people to feel like they're actually at that show. but when it comes to rap, pop, etc... all they do is lipsync so it doesnt matter. but maybe its just me that thinks this... anyways...

another opinion: if you are making a music video you want people to watch, you cant make it for yourself... in other words you can keep your artsy looks and what not but remember that you are not going to be the only person watching it.

good luck,
Cody D.

Federico Dib · November 6th, 2004, 01:41 PM

Hi,

I think that I understand (after reading this thread) what you tried to accomplish with the distinct looks of the video.

And I guess that If it had been the video of a known established band most people would have at least known it was intentional.

But since it´s a not famous band or Director.. then most of us will think there is something wrong.
And let me explain why (IMO).

I really like the story look. It´s very appealing to me.
The Playing Look, is also good, but I think you could have gone further on the difference between those two. That will set straight that the director was intentionally going for a distinct look for each section.

Also I think the location of the playing part is distracting and cliched. Add to that the look, and I guess that is what screams "amateur".

I also would have liked to see more motion (camera and musicians) on the playing part.

But this is just a critique.. overall I feel the video is very good. And very well done. And for a First Video.. you´ve done great.

Jesse Bekas · November 6th, 2004, 06:40 PM

I said that rock bands sometimes did have equipment (speakers, mics, cables) in shots with them, but that's is when they have full stacks of speakers, and basically a full stage setup. Because these guys wree outside, it obviously was not supposed to be like you were at a show, so I would have lost those items and made it look organic. Also the little 2x12 amp helps make the band, and thereby the video look more amateurish. If you leave in that kind of equipment, it has to be big badass stuff, otherwise, leave it out. The abundance of sunglasses (especially on the singer) is really what bothered me the most.

Christopher Velasco · November 14th, 2004, 11:25 PM

Thanks again for everyone's input! I'm actually very happy with the way it turned out - including the various aspects that were discussed. And like I said - it was my first... hopefully the first of many.

November 3rd, 2004, 11:16 PM	#1
Christopher Velasco Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 32	My First Music Video... feedback? www.fadedsoul.com/THEAWAKENING.wmv Just looking for some feedback... I kind of know what I want to tweak... Christopher V

November 4th, 2004, 04:31 AM	#2
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I thought the opening etc. was great. I disliked it going back to a video look with the band playing (I'm not sure if it would work better with the exact same look as the rest of the footage, but I did find the obvious video look distracting in those sections). I think it would've been nicer to have the band play in one of the area's of the short little movie (ie a bit more interesting setting). Otherwise it looked great! __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

November 6th, 2004, 01:41 PM	#9
Federico Dib Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Barcelona Posts: 312	Hi, I think that I understand (after reading this thread) what you tried to accomplish with the distinct looks of the video. And I guess that If it had been the video of a known established band most people would have at least known it was intentional. But since it´s a not famous band or Director.. then most of us will think there is something wrong. And let me explain why (IMO). I really like the story look. It´s very appealing to me. The Playing Look, is also good, but I think you could have gone further on the difference between those two. That will set straight that the director was intentionally going for a distinct look for each section. Also I think the location of the playing part is distracting and cliched. Add to that the look, and I guess that is what screams "amateur". I also would have liked to see more motion (camera and musicians) on the playing part. But this is just a critique.. overall I feel the video is very good. And very well done. And for a First Video.. you´ve done great. __________________ Messenger Boy : The Thessalonian you're fighting, he's the biggest man I've ever seen. I wouldn't want to fight him. Achilles : That is why no one will remember your name.

November 4th, 2004, 02:04 PM	#3
Cody Dulock Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: arlington, texas Posts: 420	not trying to bash or anything, just giving my opinion. i agree if you would have stayed with the same look throughout the video it would have been more pleasing to the eye. maybe trying new editing techniques that involve more movement would also keep someone watching. if the band was playing in more locations that would have added a little more attention grabber to it... other than that it was cool. maybe take the vocals out of the whole song and it would be waaaay better :) just as they say audio is 50% of everything you see.

November 4th, 2004, 03:50 PM	#4
Christopher Velasco Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 32	Thanks for the feedback guys... The difference between the looks of the story and the performance are intentional and play to the story as a whole. Same thing with where they're playing. These differences were exactly what I was going for... So I'm glad they're so evident. CMV

November 5th, 2004, 01:04 PM	#5
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	I watched it at school so I didn't have sound, and can only assume that the song the video is for is a studio recording and not live. If this is the case, the band doesn't need the equipment outdoors like the mic, mic stand, amps, and guitar cords. Unless they have giant Marshall stacks behin them and are on big stage, you rarely see that kind of equipment in professional videos. Guitars and drums are all we need to see. The other thing is that too many people were wearing sunglasses. You don't want to obstruct the artists eyes, as people use them to connect with the perfomers. So I think it looked good, but lose the extraneous equipment, and the all sunglasses (for a reshoot, or next time). Oh yeah try to match the footage a little better between the performance and the rest. One looked interlaced and the other deinterlaced. Obviuosly that is not the case, but they had that kind of "feel" to them.

November 5th, 2004, 03:45 PM	#6
Christopher Velasco Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 32	I do appreciate everyone's feedback... I guess I just feel differently about a few things... I don't think that you have to lose equipment/etc to make it look like professional videos... I don't think anybody should set out to shoot something trying to conform to what would be considered "professional." In a sense of "art" I think you should shoot to your story/idea/feeling etc.... I think the minimalism of the equipment plays to the story and our ideas so I shot it that way. As for the different looks between story and performance, that's purposeful (though both aren't entirely exclusive). And I actually like the way the performance turned out - its shot 30p with a higher shutter speed to emphasize motion. The story parts are shot 30i to assist with smooth slow motion. Separate post production filters were used - a saturated "cool" look for the performance and a warm archival look for the story. I also tried to get a nice shallow DOF for most of the story closeups - which involved lots of far away, high zoom, large aperture shots. What I don't really like is that pesky sun... which kept coming in and out of the clouds the day we shot - I shot over a 6 hour period or so with an all volunteer crew... so, I just had to get the shots, with or without the sun. So, some of the lighting between the different pieces is a bit different. I guess I think what's interesting is that the criticism I've read (which is very constructive and appreciated :) are exactly the things that I like about the video... and the features that I was aiming for. I guess, what I was looking for is some thoughts on whether you found the "substance" Interesting. The story was very specific on paper - but with an all volunteer crew and a fixed timeline, you don't always get everything you need to fully "feed" the audience the story - but in hindsight I do like how the story is a bit aloof. In the end, I hope that someone watching it will say "hey, that's interesting" or perhaps, someone else watching it will say - "Hey, that's interesting.... but wait a minute... something deeper is going on there... what is really going on there? What is the band and director trying to say?" I love this forum - but sometimes i think we get so lost in the techno blah blah involved in this art form. How many times do you go see the latest slickly filmed blockbuster that left no impression on you - who's lack of substance squashed any sort of neat cinematography (and please excuse my spelling) or slickly professional production. And yet, how can a simple wobbly home movie or other visual touch you... make you think, or feel? Is that not the goal of this medium? In the end, I hate to get all philosophical - but I know why I go to the theater... and I know why I love this medium. And in creating, I try to speak to those like souls.

November 5th, 2004, 11:40 PM	#7
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	I think you have to understand that some people might not follow the story, and the artistic decision of having the band look like they're in an average jam session (with mics and cables, etc...), will be lost on them (myself included). I'm all about ignoring convention for art's sake, but when doing an independent music video, one of the things that makes it "better" to the average viewer is that in some ways it does conform to convention. So when they see a mic in front of the singers mouth, or guitar cables running into little amps, if they don't get the artistic reason for it, it will detract from the quality of the video for them, as it did for me. That is the problem with convention. It's a necessary part of conveying ideas in different media, but in some artistic cases must be ignored. In the end you had a reason to do it, and I was expressing that it was unclear to me. I also understood that you wanted the different sections to have a different feel, but the band playing looks very home movie-ish only because the shutter speed effect was not pronounced enough in comparison to the smoother other footage. I think the difference in color tones (greens and blues versus oranges and yellows) already set the footage apart very well. If you had to do an effect with shutter speed changes, I think it would have looked better if it was more pronounced (1/30 vs 1/500?). What were the speed differences?

November 6th, 2004, 08:58 AM	#8
Cody Dulock Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: arlington, texas Posts: 420	actually about 99% of rock videos show guitar cables mics and all the extra gear running because they want people to feel like they're actually at that show. but when it comes to rap, pop, etc... all they do is lipsync so it doesnt matter. but maybe its just me that thinks this... anyways... another opinion: if you are making a music video you want people to watch, you cant make it for yourself... in other words you can keep your artsy looks and what not but remember that you are not going to be the only person watching it. good luck, Cody D.

November 6th, 2004, 06:40 PM	#10
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	I said that rock bands sometimes did have equipment (speakers, mics, cables) in shots with them, but that's is when they have full stacks of speakers, and basically a full stage setup. Because these guys wree outside, it obviously was not supposed to be like you were at a show, so I would have lost those items and made it look organic. Also the little 2x12 amp helps make the band, and thereby the video look more amateurish. If you leave in that kind of equipment, it has to be big badass stuff, otherwise, leave it out. The abundance of sunglasses (especially on the singer) is really what bothered me the most.

November 14th, 2004, 11:25 PM	#11
Christopher Velasco Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 32	Thanks again for everyone's input! I'm actually very happy with the way it turned out - including the various aspects that were discussed. And like I said - it was my first... hopefully the first of many.