Is this professional looking?

[derrind]

This video we made and edited in 2 weeks time. We didn't use real filters, but digital. Do you think de filters look good enough? How about the editing and storyline?

[Case]

Why the letterbox bars? Why crop to 2.35:1 when the obvious display for music videos is 16:9 tvs? Others do that too, but I don't get that.

[Baldrick]

Spammer?

[sanlyn]

Looks like a copy to me. I didn't know digital filters were not "real".

[hech54]

Spammer?

That's ALWAYS my first thought.

[manono]

Looks like a copy to me. I didn't know digital filters were not "real".

Hehe, I noted that too. I guess it means it was filtered on the computer later on, rather than putting filters over the lens of the camera.

So, the black levels were horribly crushed on purpose? It was an intended effect rather than gross incompetence?

[intracube]

Spammer?

Hmm, don't know. But assuming not:

This video we made and edited in 2 weeks time. We didn't use real filters, but digital. Do you think de filters look good enough? How about the editing and storyline?

The lighting in the scenes of the couple at home looks rather flat and uninteresting. The lighting in the shots of the band are better - more definition and style.

The blacks are crushed - but I don't mind it in context.

Part of the problem with the video (compared to big budget productions) is the lack of shallow depth of field. It looks like it's been shot on a typical camcorder (either consumer or DVCPro etc) with a small sensor and not particularly fast lenses as opposed to either 35mm film or a large sensor digital cine camera like the Arri Alexa, Red Epic etc.

As a comparison, look at the depth of field in this video and the way the shots alternate between everything being in focus and then alternately very shallow DOF to isolate the areas of interest:


I don't know what the video was filmed on, but a similar effect can be achieved with current video capable DSLRs.