Rihanna's Disturbia music video

Hi guys,

I'm trying to figure our what in this music video was created in camera, on set and in post.
All these colors, bleeding lights and other effects.

What is your impression? What are the things that jump at you and how were they created?

I would be very thankful for any kind of input.

Here's the link: Disturbia

Thank you,

Jan

So MTV still plays music videos...but only online? Sheesh...

Ugh...horrid makeup and costuming...so ugly.

But the light streaks were either in camera or during telecine to tape. I have done a few of those myself in telecine.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Everything was created in editing ... or is best left for editing.

There were many moody back-lit shots with smoke, etc., but I don't think they were shot monochrome to begin with.

There were a lot of double exposures and variable dissolves -- those are all created in the camera initially; but manipulated in the computer.

So if I were making this music videos, I'd shoot everything as it happened -- no variable rate in the camera or any special coloration applied (why limit the editors); I'd leave all of it to the editors.

It's not a case of we'll fix it in post; but why limit the creativity of the editors, because the best part of FCP and other graphics software is that you can do anything.

Totally disagree...although maybe some of these FX MAY have been done in camera, that by all means does not mean they shouldn't be done in post. All FX seen can be created in Post. Speed shots...light streaks...blending of shots (double exposure - actually a film dissolve in Post...easy to do). This looks like the handywork of Mark Romanek (Nine Inch Nails' "Closer" Music Video Driector)

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Not sure if you're watching the same thing, but I dug it up on


Youtube, as I can't watch it from the link due to copyrights. I gotta say, I realized i can hit play by hitting the space bar, not sure if it's a new feature in Safari 4.

Yea, I'm with the rest of the guys... A lot of it should be done in post- the double exposure, the speed effects, etc. The light effect on 03:05, may be done on set though, however you can probably do that in post too, by keyframing a vignette in Color.



www.strypesinpost.com

> I realized i can hit play by hitting the space bar, not sure if it's a new feature in Safari 4.

Nope, I'm using Safari 3.2.1 here and I've been able to activate Flash movies with space bar for at least four to six months, maybe even more. More likely to be a change in Flash. YouTube videos have been space-bar-activated for a long time, as long as you click on the image first (ie. right window/part of window selected).


www.derekmok.com

LOL. That's what I was saying too. It would be better not to do anything in the camera because it can be done in the computer at post. But since my comments were taken backwards, let me also add that many times it's best to shoot the scene exactly as you picture it to appear in the final product, because it's not always possible to explain what you want to the editors later, and sometimes certain effects are impossible to achieve in post.

The question one should ask is who is the artist, the filmmaker shooting the movie or the editor putting it together in post? Of course, opinions will clash at this point, but the question is important to the one putting his ass or her, ahem, whatever ... on the line. Sometimes it's worse to try and be polite

Certain effects are best left for post today- eg. double exposure, monochrome shots, etc... It really depends on the effect, as you don't want to limit your possibilities too early. Slow mo shots, should be done in camera. Light effects should be done on set, but not to extremes, or best, shoot with variation.

>The question one should ask is who is the artist, the filmmaker shooting the movie or the editor
>putting it together in post?

I won't agree with this point, though. The story tells me how to put it together.



www.strypesinpost.com

A music video is easier to get creative with -- such as we have with this video posted on this thread. I suspect it took the editor(s) a few weeks to complete it and get approval from everyone.

By the way I liked Rihanna's performance -- great voice too. But the effects ... too much. I mean what is the viewer-listener supposed to pay attention to? Music, the beat, the rhythm, the shots, the dancing, the special effects, the cutting? It's just looks like a hodge-podge or chop suey of visuals. I think the editing ruined a great song.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there; the main issue is the effects: should they be done in camera or left for post and computer special effects editing?

If you received this assignment with two hours of footage, what would you charge? Personally I wouldn't do it for under $25,000. But I have no idea of what they charged for doing this particular music video. I know they spend $500,000 sometimes (like the IBM commercials that played during the Super Bowl for example.)

I would shoot a feature film if it were my money. But if it was a highly creative feature film and a lot of the movie had to be created in editing, the cost of editing would be more than $25,000. Supposing I sent you 10 hours of footage and asked you to "make something of it"? And supposing there was really no traditional story line, what then? I suspect you'd want at least about $150,000 and 6 months time for editing.

I'm talking about similar effects in the feature film as there were in this music video.

vic,

Once again you are sending another thread off topic into a tailspin of filmmaking cost and ideology. Let's stay on topic please. Topic posted is what was done in-camera, what was done in post and how were they created.

IMHO, FX like this should be created nowhere else but in Post. Reason: Control. Once you shoot it w/embedded FX, you cannot change it. That way, you shoot raw clean footage that you can composite and "dirty up" all you want...without causing permanent damage to the original...this means if you record these FX in-camera...and you, the artist, Director, or the Director's niece hates it, you are stuck with it.

Drifting off topic again...

I agree with you Strypes...the "staff" has nothing to do with it...the story (song) is the thing. The Director sits down with the artist and gets their take on the music and it's message and what they want to convey. A good Director is a good a listener and is able to relay ideas into images based on what the story (song) impresses upon them.

I disagree that it was a "a hodge-podge or chop suey of visuals". It's not being submitted to film festivals or meant to watch with a bucket of popcorn. It's eye candy that is playing on monitors all around nightclubs and on MTV and it is just plain captivating and cool IMHO. I watched it 3 times...loved it.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

> IMHO, FX like this should be created nowhere else but in Post. Reason: Control. Once you
> shoot it w/embedded FX, you cannot change it.

Devil's advocate:
Some directors opt to do this stuff in camera, or otherwise with little flexibility, to prevent clients and producers from second-guessing them. For example, the extended non-coverage shooting of M. Night Shyamalan in The Sixth Sense.

But if you're going to do that, you better be very confident that it will work, and do the necessary homework (eg. tests) beforehand. If it doesn't work, the bridges are burned and you're in for a very expensive reshoot. More likely, if the client/producer/artist don't like it, they'll just can everything (including you) and start over, and they will likely not hire you again.

Complex effects tend to have to be done in post, anyway, and it's not just post -- you often have to shoot a certain way to prep the shots properly for post-production treatment.

You have to give them credit for daring to make Rihanna look so unattractive. The song is called "Disturbia", after all. I don't see an "early Mariah Carey" look working here. Rather this than some half-assed fashion-magazine look for a song that's supposed to be skewed in feel.


www.derekmok.com

Quote

Some directors opt to do this stuff in camera, or otherwise with little flexibility, to prevent clients and producers from second-guessing them...But if you're going to do that, you better be very confident that it will work

That is the thing, Derek - a stickler of a client might say "HATE IT - RESHOOT!!" and there's no "undo" on exposed film / recorded tape...there's just reshoot...and there goes the budget. Nah...I prefer the ability to control all aspects. We don't even shoot 24p or use camera filters any more...we take care of everything in post and love it that way.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Excellent points, Derek and Joey.

So, Derek, if it were your music video, you might wish to shoot certain effects in camera, because there is no client approval process to follow. My question then is: aren't there some effects that cannot be created in post? Ok, to stay on topic: in this music video that is posted?

And, Joey, thank you for dropping that last bit about not shooting 24p to allow for more options in the graphics later? Am I making the right assumption? Which of the effects in this music video would have been difficult to create in the editing if they were shot in 24p?

Quote

thank you for dropping that last bit about not shooting 24p to allow for more options in the graphics later?

Graphics & 24p? What do graphics have anything to do with this?

No...I said we don't shoot 24p anymore because we can convert all frame rates to other frame rates in Post (we mainly shoot 720p / 59.94 / DVCProHD with an HVX200. We are supposed to be getting in a Demo Ki Pro from AJA soon that will shoot straight to ProRes via the same camera). The client may not like the steppiness of 24p and if it was SHOT That way, then what?

Anyway...the point (for the original poster) is that you can achieve in-camera FX & sexy high contrast film looks in Post with the right tools.

'Nuff said

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Thanks, Joey. Ok, so:

Quote
Joey
The client may not like the steppiness of 24p and if it was SHOT That way, then what?

So shooting 1080i 60i can be handled the same way as the 720p 59.94? And to keep it on topic, would you have recommended for the photographer of the music video in question to shoot 60i or 59.94?

>And to keep it on topic, would you have recommended for the photographer of the music video in
>question to shoot 60i or 59.94?

You can't shoot 720i60. It doesn't exist.



www.strypesinpost.com

You convert 60p to 24p? Really? You're not talking about overcranking, right? You're talking about frame-rate conversion?

If you shoot 60i or regular old SD 29.97fps, you can simulate the 24p look with a variety of software. If you shoot 24p in-camera, that's it, the blurring and motion are there; you can't create frames out of thin air. 60i-24p is a one-way street, and if there's any doubt about which look is better, you shoot 60i.

Joe and I both own the Canon HF S10 camera, and we agree that its inherent "24p" mode sucks. Definitely a case where 24p should be done in post.


www.derekmok.com

Thank you Derek...well said

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Strypes, Jeff:

I'm talking about my Sony Z1U. It shoots 1080i 60i. Would it have been alright to shoot the music video in question as an HDV 1080i 60i and still get the same options for digital manipulation in post that Joey was talking about? Or is the HVX 200 720p 59.94 the better way to go?

I've been able to convert the 1080i 60i to other formats in FCP 5.04 Studio with Compressor 2.

vic,

Start another thread regarding your camera please.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Joey, a discussion of the potential of my Sony Z1U camera would be too narrow for an independent thread. I'd like to keep this discussion to the topic of this thread: how were the special effects of the Rihanna music video achieved? A lot of interesting pointers came out of the discussion; what to create in the camera and what to leave for editing.

Although I suspect the music video was shot in 35mm and telecined, it must have been shot at 24 frames per second and as such the telecine must have been to 29.97 fps, which was then, as Derek suggested, manipulated with FCP softwares. The frame rates were played around with and there were many super impositions and effects that can all be done in FCP.

Quote
Derek
If you shoot 60i or regular old SD 29.97fps, you can simulate the 24p look with a variety of software. If you shoot 24p in-camera, that's it, the blurring and motion are there; you can't create frames out of thin air. 60i-24p is a one-way street, and if there's any doubt about which look is better, you shoot 60i.

So the only thing left to clarify is if 60i would have been just as bad as shooting 24p, if the photographer of the music video in question had shot digitally.

What the hell...?


www.derekmok.com

I got nothin'.

...


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

______________________________

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Uh something going on with this thread I should know about?

Michael Horton
-------------------

Wow,
lot's of replies! Thank you everybody for caring.

Let me fill you in on my situation: I'm directing the video and I'm also going to DP it, at least partly since I'm going to have 1 or 2 camera operators. And I'm going to edit it as well.
I want to keep all my options open so I won't do to much work in camera. But I also think some things would be smart to do.We'll be using HVXes with lens adapters and I will conservatively adjust the scene file settings towards the attempted look. The HVX has great options and if you are carful there will be great results.
Another question is the frame rate. In the end, the video will be mostly played online so it's going to be 30fps progressive.
I was thinking shooting a lot of it overcrancked and speed it up in post, just because I will have more frames to work with and which will hopefully create smoother speedchanges (just an assumption). I prefer the look of 24p, but does it make any sense if the final product will be 30p? Derek: Are you sure Magic Bullet will be as natural as in-camera 24p?I need some help with this decision.

Otherwise, thanks again for all the input, all very helpful.
I try to think my projects through all to the end to avoid surprises ( although I might have a nice I don't know anything about)

Jan

I thought it was pretty clear...

ak
Sleeplings, AWAKE!

> Derek: Are you sure Magic Bullet will be as natural as in-camera 24p?

Test, test, test.

People often forget about this. Tiny bit of effort now to save you major headaches later. Just shoot the exact same thing, one at 60i to add a 24p simulation later, one real in-camera 24p. See which one you prefer. "Natural" or not is a purely subjective thing.


www.derekmok.com