Good video doesn’t always need a great video camera. A still camera, imagination and a lot of hours can also get you there. Cesar Kuriyama, a New York animator and lighting technical director, has directed a visually arresting music video using an interesting technique.
Eschewing a video camera, he took 45,000 photographs with a Nikon D200 DSLR (digital single-lens reflex) camera and stitched them together to create the illusion of video. The music video was created for the band Fat City Reprise and premiered at their homecoming concert in Philadelphia. Kuriyama says he directed the talent in the video to move as best they could in slow-motion while he had his director of photography Tommy Agriodimas shoot JPG bursts with the Nikon D200. The duo were able to get about 60 images per burst at about four pictures per second. “Obviously we did many takes for each shot,” says Kuriyama. “Eventually one good take of them moving in slow motion would look great.”
It’s a slow load but well worth the wait.
Figured out the symbolism.
This is a creepy video about a 4Chan stalker.
I dunno….not so impressed. Seems to me making this the way they did really isn’t such a big deal. I doubt the shots were taken in any manner that much different from a video shoot, except there was some guy shouting “stop” again and again. The effect is pretty much that of clipping out a still every few seconds from motion video. Had he stitched together pictures taken in a less video-like way maybe it would have been interesting. I have no idea how that could work, but this is just video taken at a super low frame rate.
Why is anyone excited by this?
(video-wise, sure, it is interesting, but the technique is just not doing it for me)
I wish MTV still showed videos. There was a time when we would see a couple of truly creative new videos every month. Now there just doesn’t seem to be as much incentive.
As for this video, I agree that the technique is mostly just a low frame rate video. But I think the final result makes for a very compelling and entertaining video (of course, the looks of the blond don’t hurt either).
Another good example of this technique is the Smashing Pumpkins video for “thirty-three”, shot with still film cameras back in 1996 or so:
No too sure what the point is. I estimate the number of pix in the video to be less than 300. That means 44,700 shots were not used.
If you have to tell people that the method used to produce something was way more difficult than it looked,, maybe you did it wrong.
@#5: The video is 255 seconds long. 300 pics is one fps which would be slide-show territory in the extreme. From the rate of flicker in the shots I’m guessing it’s about 20fps. That’s 5100 photos which is a far cry from less than 300.
On the other hand, your point of a lot of shots not being used is very accurate. Any time you shoot something like this if you don’t throw out more than you use, you’re doing it wrong.
The reason they did it this way wasn’t just to make it difficult, though. It gives the video a unique feel that goes WAY beyond the low frame rate. The quality of the images you can take with a DSLR goes WAY beyond what you can do with the best digital video camera. As far as I can tell a huge majority of the shots would work as a well composed still image which you can’t say for pretty much any other music video out there. I’m betting this entire video was shot at 3872×2592 resolution using really nice lenses (or “good glass” as the photography snob in me wants to say.)
Beyond that, it’s an interesting artistic experiment and I find it compelling, but as in any artistic endeavor, YMMV…
Kinda fun, and the girl _is_ cute….
My DSLR won’t burst-mode fast enough to do something like that, if I was interested, but technically there’s little difference between using a still camera or a decent video camera. Just a ton more post-production work, and some serious thinking about shots to be made….
To each his own….
Regards.
So let me get this straight: he took a bunch of still photos, and strung them all together to create the illusion of movement.
Isn’t that called video? Except with video, the camera shoots 24 photos per second automatically.
Somebody should show this guy the “youtube” mode that comes on virtually any $99 digital camera.
sfw?
Alex, you are assuming that a different picture is being used for each video frame. That does not appear to be the case. I count transitions in content. Actually I counted for a minute and multiplied by four.
As far as resolution is concerned,it is true that the DSLR is higher than most video cameras the end result could have been shot by most video cameras. The Red One video camera beats the Nikon DSLR. (www.red.com)
How is this any different from shooting in HD and then adding a strobe effect?
he took 45,000 photographs and stitched them together to create the illusion of video.
What “illusion”? A video is nothing but continuous frames shown in sequence, same with a film movie…
It loaded instantly for me and looked great full screen. I enjoyed it.
Vimio’s HD videos beat the crap out of YouTube.
I agree with Alex and I guess if you don’t have much affection for still photography this would not be anything special to you, but for still-photo buffs this is very interesting indeed.
What I don’t understand is why some people have to tear down whatever they are unable to appreciate, you are not paying for it so if you don’t like it just don’t watch.
Also you are missing the point if you think that the guy was stupid and did not know that video camera is already invented.
I am a still photo buff and watching this video what impresses me is the waste of time. Using a still camera for “stop motion” makes sense–the scenes with the monster pillows, but the “sense” of it would only stay if it saved time which I assume it actually would not.
Why not show a big hole that was dug using teaspoons instead of a backhoe and call that interesting too?
I guess he had more time than money. Or he just wanted to prove it could be done. Sort of like building your own car.
I think he could have rented a good quality video camera and finished the filming and editing in a fraction of the time and cost. He could even add strobe effects to make it look like this video does.
Methinks there’s a lot of art critics here who know very little about art or critiquing. Also known as measurbators.
And to #10;
You can buy about NINE Nikons for the cost of a single RED ONE. Nevermind the fact that RED seems to be good at delivering press releases, but not on delivering products.
>>The whole video cost just about $3000 to
>>make, says Kuriyama, “plus the endless
>>personal hours.”
Great. I’ll use that technique the next time I want to take a video at a family gathering.
The unique effect here versus stobe effects on regular video is that the lighting changes constantly. This is best seen with the trees in the background. Thus making the video slightly eery or unnatural…the thinks that people like in music videos.
Meanwhile, the band looks like a metal 70s group that hasn’t changed their style since.
Alex, my apologies. I have to retract my “only 300” image statement. The computer I initially viewed the video was dropping most of the frames. After viewing the video on my desktop I still think it should have been a video project.
#17 My point was that the RED does rival the DSLR in resolution.
A television reporter working at the same station as I, was covering flooding ina rural area. He worked as a “one-man band” lugging a video recorder and an RCA TK-76 camera. At one point in the coverage of the flood he had to wade through a substantial distance of water. A local gentleman offers to help him carry some of the equipment and grabs the camera. They begin wading to the site of the story. The local man asks “What does this camera cost?” The reporter says “I’ll tell you when we get out of the water.” They reach dry ground and the local repeats the question. The reporter answers “$40,000.” Local guy refuses to carry camera again. The Red is actually kinda cheap.