Jump to content

Is this pro shot interview as terrible as I think?


Dustin

Recommended Posts

I'm a Kings of Leon fan (as well as a fan of many other bands/artists). I found this interview about their new album. Now i'm not one to criticize work but considering it was on apple I would assume it to be pretty good quality. Yet it was very, very distracting for me to watch, not so much due to the actual shots but the motion. It seemed almost as it had bad warp stabilizer applied or bad rolling shutter? I couldn't put my finger on it but I almost feel some of the camerawork was a bit unwatchable for my tastes. Thoughts anyone?? Curious to hear!

 

 

Also additional note: 1) I like handheld style footage as well as stable, locked down footage. But some of this seems like it could've benefited from a monopod as some of the shots feels really shot on the fly but I personally don't love it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Policar said:

The only thing you need to be a professional is a client.

This is true of many fields. I'm just another guy with a camera like the rest of us but when I saw this I was kinda blown away by the lack of quality here

41 minutes ago, Michael Coffee said:

yup - horrible post stabilization effects for me too - really nauseating! Yuk! I think to stabilize effectively in post, you need to shoot at a higher shutter, and or framerate - add blur in post.. tweak the settings.. overshoot the frame for crop room - anything to stop it looking like this! 

I will say shooting at 60p and the higher shutter rate seems to smooth out the handheld bumps for me when doing slow mo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Coffee said:

yup - horrible post stabilization effects for me too - really nauseating! Yuk! I think to stabilize effectively in post, you need to shoot at a higher shutter, and or framerate - add blur in post.. tweak the settings.. overshoot the frame for crop room - anything to stop it looking like this! 

The nauseating factor (warping) is not avoided with a higher shutter speed or framerate, that would just compensate for the excessive motion blur resulting from stabilizing (or slowing down) what originally was a faster movement.

If you plan to shoot a whole project handheld you should plan how to stabilize your shots beforehand (gimbal? steadicam? monopod?). Post stabilization can save a shot if necessary, but it is a botched job and should be considered a patch, not common practice.

What doesn't work for me in that interview is that:

a) The "concept" and camera work is too repetitive. It's OK if you don't want every segment to be sitting down, properly lit and with tripods, but the hand held group shot thingy gets boring after a little while, not to mention that obviously this impromptu style means some shots are horrible framed and/or horribly lit. It also limits your freedom to edit, and in an interview most of the time there's a lot empty small talk to get rid of.

b) Too much Zane Lowe. What happens with "celebrity" interviewers is that either them or the producers sometimes forget that an interview is a dialogue between the interviewee and the audience; the interviewer should be as invisible as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Location, the camera movements, and camera angles doesn't make sense.  If you muted the sound, you might guess they are planning for some criminal heist.

One thing that they are clearly doing that they shouldn't be is making sure every shot is in motion.  Doesn't fit this interview at all.  I'm guessing the purpose was to add energy.  Many ways they could have done this rather than have the camera always moving on mostly still subjects.

The first half of the interview, do they explain why they are standing in a junkyard or what seems like an abandoned house?  Had they explained why they were standing there by introducing the location, maybe it would have worked better.  

A tripod, slider shots, maybe a more lively location for the first half, and cuts to live concert footage would have been much more fitting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Ma said:

Location, the camera movements, and camera angles doesn't make sense.  If you muted the sound, you might guess they are planning for some criminal heist.

One thing that they are clearly doing that they shouldn't be is making sure every shot is in motion.  Doesn't fit this interview at all.  I'm guessing the purpose was to add energy.  Many ways they could have done this rather than have the camera always moving on mostly still subjects.

The first half of the interview, do they explain why they are standing in a junkyard or what seems like an abandoned house?  Had they explained why they were standing there by introducing the location, maybe it would have worked better.  

A tripod, slider shots, maybe a more lively location for the first half, and cuts to live concert footage would have been much more fitting. 

I think they mentioned it was a house they bought recently but I feel like it would've been cooler to see them in front of an audio console in their studio, or in front of instruments. You guys are right, the shots, movement and location also don't make sense

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dustin said:

I'm a Kings of Leon fan (as well as a fan of many other bands/artists). I found this interview about their new album. Now i'm not one to criticize work but considering it was on apple I would assume it to be pretty good quality. Yet it was very, very distracting for me to watch, not so much due to the actual shots but the motion. It seemed almost as it had bad warp stabilizer applied or bad rolling shutter? I couldn't put my finger on it but I almost feel some of the camerawork was a bit unwatchable for my tastes. Thoughts anyone?? Curious to hear!

 

 

Also additional note: 1) I like handheld style footage as well as stable, locked down footage. But some of this seems like it could've benefited from a monopod as some of the shots feels really shot on the fly but I personally don't love it. 

It looks like a bad case of individuals trying too hard to be the star of the show. I can already hear the interviewer asking the camera man for "some cool like slowmo shots like following me up to this mansion all like dreamy and stuff, very epic you know?". Then the cameras during the interview are swaying around with arbitrary movements like the last two getting kicked out of the bar when the ugly lights come on. The motions aren't related to the content or the emotions of the interview, in fact they are so obnoxious that they actually distract the guys being interviewed (you can see them looking over at the cam wondering if he's going to fall over into a whiskey coma). IBIS can only do so much! Rig it up and stand the f*** still!

Those silly zooms at 2:00. OH boy, didn't watch much past that but racked a little further and they just pop out again. Very good.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Policar said:

The only thing you need to be a professional is a client.

Being "professional" can be compared to being a chef. Just because you are paid to cook food does not mean that you are one. I think we can all agree that the person who cooks food at a five star restaurant is a chef. But the guy who flips burgers at MacDonalds is not. Both however are paid for preparing food and make their living that way.

Photography/videography is the same. Just because you are paid to do it does not make you a professional. There are real professionals and then there are the "burger flippers" who are doing it simply to make a buck to get by.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members

The chef analogy doesn't work. A chef is a person who is highly skilled at varying types of cooking.

Being a chef does not make you a professional. A sallary does.

The guy at McDonald's is a professional burger flipper unlike a guy who flips one at home for the fun of it.

"A professional is a member of a profession or any person who earns their living from a specified professional activity."

So yes, all you need is a client, that pays you.

The videographers that do it just to make a buck are professional. Its their profession.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, tugela said:

Photography/videography is the same. Just because you are paid to do it does not make you a professional. There are real professionals and then there are the "burger flippers" who are doing it simply to make a buck to get by.

Agreed, in my opinion these guys were the burger flippers. Or maybe they were just trying to hard. Either way. Yuk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only lasted a few seconds and switched off. Abysmal.

You want to see some of the rubbish that passes for Professional Wedding Videography in the UK. Yet many have hundreds of clients and have to turn people away. They charge £650 to £750 and you would be just as well off using the footage from the CCTV. Everything on sticks, except a few slider shots of flowers and champagne glasses, no emotion, no storyline, crap music, yet they are raking in £35k a year. 

I can't even get a gig for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members

No one said professional = good.

Lots of ball players that suck on espn, lots of bad rock bands that are huge. Michael Bay is definitely a pro even if I would rather watch the wedding videos you talk about. 

Professional = sallary

Good = good

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...