Wow! A world first in music video production?

Not sure about the music as I can't get sound at work, but check out the production of this video, (geek alert....in 3.....2.....1) the lighting looks incredible!

http://www.profoto.com/pro-8a-video

Awesomeness.

shouldn't this have warning - flashy flashy.

yeah - looks amazing....nice style.

shame its being used on such a lame band/song.

I think this is one for the photographers/camera geeks among us. Video looked pretty gash to me.

Hmm, interesting process, but they don't really seem to have achieved an original or unique look on the final video though.

+1 spins

I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of that process is. The effects on that video could quite easily be reproduced in post with normal HD footage. unless it's something to do with the depth of field but that just depends on how good the lens you get is...

I think this is one for the photographers/camera geeks among us. Video looked pretty gash to me.

Totally, the video itself is shit, it was more for the unique way the lighting was carried off, and the way they managed to do it with a comparatively low budget.

Hmm, interesting process, but they don't really seem to have achieved an original or unique look on the final video though.

At first glance you would be correct, but the type of lighting you see here, on the same scale, done using video with continuous lighting, would cost an unbelievable amount to re-create, we're talking a lighting budget of insane proportions in comparison to your average lowish budget video, something that the likes of only Jay-z, Madonna etc could afford.
Whereas here they pulled off something identical in terms of the technical aspect with a comparatively low budget, utilizing an innovative technique that would have not been possible a few years back due to portable flashes of this power that recycle at this kind of speed not being available.

Yes this is a geek-out of major proportions, I thought some of the other geeks here might appreciate it to :)

I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of that process is. The effects on that video could quite easily be reproduced in post with normal HD footage. unless it's something to do with the depth of field but that just depends on how good the lens you get is...

Pretty much this:

The type of lighting you see here, on the same scale, done using video with continuous lighting, would cost an unbelievable amount to re-create, we're talking a lighting budget of insane proportions in comparison to your average lowish budget video, something that the likes of only Jay-z, Madonna etc could afford.
Whereas here they pulled off something identical in terms of the technical aspect with a comparatively low budget, utilizing an innovative technique that would have not been possible a few years back due to portable flashes of this power that recycle at this kind of speed not being available.

Yes this is a geek-out of major proportions, I thought some of the other geeks here might appreciate it to :)

fair enough

After all that overly geeky bullshit director speak i was expecting something alot more...
Looks naff
Sounds naff

Naff to the power of Faff.

haha i loled

After all that overly geeky bullshit director speak i was expecting something alot more...
Looks naff
Sounds naff

Naff to the power of Faff.

I know the video itself is pretty wank, and I haven't even heard the music but can guess looking at the numpties who are singing it, this post was purely to do with the lighting and production technique, one for the geeks....not for the music fans!

@ CJ - Yeah, maybe, but the lighting and production technique result didn't live up to the talk.
Stop frame single photos to make a sequence shot "the normal way" looks more effective imo.

YouTube - Hiroshi Fujiwara - Levi's CM

Tickled pickle ? ha!

A far more simple*, yet highly effective technique...
Skoota in full mutha-fuggin' flow:

YouTube - Royksopp - 49 Percent

*asides from all the rotoscoping.

This is well Lit

YouTube - Lit - My Own Worst Enemy

^ I see what you did there.
Grispin Clever.

A far more simple*, yet highly effective technique...
Skoota in full mutha-fuggin' flow:

YouTube - Royksopp - 49 Percent

*asides from all the rotoscoping.

An interesting video, but nothing impressive lighting wise, the FX are cool, and the time lapse stuff mixed with some interesting fx is also pretty neat, but like you said some of it is pretty over-done, it doesn't do it for me.

On the flip side, have you seen Inglourious Basterds yet?
My god......whoever did the lighting for that film should win an award, especially the seen where she is sat by the window in the Red Dress, WOW!
I dare not say more because I don't want to spoil anything for people that haven't seen it yet.

An interesting video, but nothing impressive lighting wise, the FX are cool, and the time lapse stuff mixed with some interesting fx is also pretty neat, but like you said some of it is pretty over-done, it doesn't do it for me.

On the flip side, have you seen Inglourious Basterds yet?
My god......whoever did the lighting for that film should win an award, especially the seen where she is sat by the window in the Red Dress, WOW!
I dare not say more because I don't want to spoil anything for people that haven't seen it yet.

And the thing with the Royksopp vid is that there is no "lighting".
and...No I haven't.

Totally, the video itself is shit, it was more for the unique way the lighting was carried off, and the way they managed to do it with a comparatively low budget.

At first glance you would be correct, but the type of lighting you see here, on the same scale, done using video with continuous lighting, would cost an unbelievable amount to re-create, we're talking a lighting budget of insane proportions in comparison to your average lowish budget video, something that the likes of only Jay-z, Madonna etc could afford.
Whereas here they pulled off something identical in terms of the technical aspect with a comparatively low budget, utilizing an innovative technique that would have not been possible a few years back due to portable flashes of this power that recycle at this kind of speed not being available.

Yes this is a geek-out of major proportions, I thought some of the other geeks here might appreciate it to :)

It just watches like an extended ad for profoto which delivers an empty promise with the end product. Yes, there probably was a bit of a saving in terms of power but they weren't shooting with just one light (looking at some of the 'making of' stuff) and similar spaces could've been lit fairly cheaply with available film lamps these days.

*asides from all the rotoscoping.

Can we please refrain from the 'r' word Shoots, I still have nightmares about some of the jobs/shots I've worked on...

By the way I'm just in a bit of a grumpy mood today, normally I'm all for peeps trying new stuff.

Ha ha...
Client:
"So for our next video, we were thinking about Rotoscoping the whole thing..."
Spins:
"NooooooooooooooO..."

And the thing with the Royksopp vid is that there is no "lighting".
and...No I haven't.

Yuh I know, one of my flatmates does funky stuff like that with 3D fx and time lapse stuff, no doubt he knows how to do all that rotoscoping stuff as well from what I remember.
I respect the fact its a skill in itself and usually pretty time consuming to create,
I guess it just doesn't interest me as much as sculpting light and cool camera work (one thing this vid was definitely lacking).
Spins you're right, it is basically an ad for profoto....but the point of it was that it was done with up to 10 profoto's per shot, rigged and portable, in an actual building not a studio set, and to recreate the same effects with continuous lighting and normal video would have cost a lot more than even double what it would probably cost to rent this kind of kit, its nothing really to do with power saving.....Its more to do with money saving, portability, ease of use etc, big budget with a small budget cost, less crew and so on.
In that respect I think its pretty groundbreaking, because ordinarily you would need a huge budget, a lot of setup time, a bigger crew, additional transport/generators etc etc, and a lot more time to do the same thing with continous lighting, thats what makes it so cool to me....despite the end video being pretty shit!

Hmm, interesting process, but they don't really seem to have achieved an original or unique look on the final video though.

yeah i'm pretty sure you can do this on an EVS with little effort

Spins you're right, it is basically an ad for profoto....but the point of it was that it was done with up to 10 profoto's per shot, rigged and portable, in an actual building not a studio set, and to recreate the same effects with continuous lighting and normal video would have cost a lot more than even double what it would probably cost to rent this kind of kit, its nothing really to do with power saving.....Its more to do with money saving, portability, ease of use etc, big budget with a small budget cost, less crew and so on.
In that respect I think its pretty groundbreaking, because ordinarily you would need a huge budget, a lot of setup time, a bigger crew, additional transport/generators etc etc, and a lot more time to do the same thing with continous lighting, thats what makes it so cool to me....despite the end video being pretty shit!

I'm inclined to disagree that you would need anymore crew or setup time than what was already used on this set. It may well have been shot on location but they would still need power from somewhere. Having a brief look on the profoto website suggests the unit they mentioned could run from mains power, unsurprisingly there are equally powerful continuous film lights that will run from the mains (and not give the crew an eppy each time you shoot a scene). Portability would also not be anymore of an issue than with the profoto units.

Regarding budget, I think it would be cheaper than you imagine. Very, very few promos today are made with budgets of more than a few thousand pounds and people are still creating great vids. Anyone of us could rent the necessary kit for next to nothing for a weekend with about 4 phone calls.

I agree that attempting to shoot stills to achieve a look otherwise unobtainable on a film camera, or as you say with an original lighting scheme or camera work is admirable and arguably will move film-making on but this doesn't achieve that.