The Glidecam is a film equipment used heavily by indie filmmakers – it’s basically a steadicam for lightweight cameras such as DSLRs. This tool is used HEAVILY by Devin Graham. Using a Glidecam allows for long, steady takes with little to no shake at all as the system is balanced to your camera’s weight (this needs to be done yourself though). When it comes to ‘shaky-cam’, this looks amateurish, so using Glidecam adds a lot of production value to the look of your videos. It doesn’t look cheap and ‘doco’ style. Doing slow steady movements through an area with no shaky cam looks a lot more cinematic to an audience as that is what they are used to seeing in major films that use steadicams and dolly tracks.

I, however, do not own a Glidecam and thus, have had to make use of the tools I have to emulate that kind of look. I used my monopod as almost a ‘ghetto’ version of a glidecam. Not the same, but it allowed me to get my hands away from the camera body so it would reduce any shake in the image. After that, in post production, I added a Warp Stabilizer when I edited the footage in Premiere Pro. You can definitely see a digital look to the way the shot is stabilized – it doesn’t feel as natural. This showed me how important it is to get things ‘in-camera’. That being said, I think I came close to the Glidecam look, and the shot does look very steady, giving it that nice sweeping look.

Scenic videos normally have slow moving instrumental songs played in the background, with the exception of some which go for a more cinematic and epic feel. Whatever the editor chooses, something I’ve noticed throughout these kinds of videos is the way they are cut. For big dramatic beats in the song, the editor might cut to a sweeping epic shot, or in other cases, every beat there will be a cut to another shot, allowing for a sense of rhythm in the edit. It means that shots never end up overstaying their welcome, and it gives the editor a better understanding of where to cut depending on the song. Fast moving songs require a lot more cuts, while slow moving pieces allow for a bit more restraint.

In the sketch I have made, I chose to use a generic piano piece as my song choice, and synced my cuts to every big piano beat – there are four in the timespace I have chosen, meaning four cuts/shots. I shot with Sony a7S on a rooftop, getting great footage of the Melbourne CBD area. The song also fit the piece very well, as all the shots I used were wides, all within the same kind of look, and there was a moody atmosphere as it was a cloudy, overcast day.

This kind of technique is something I love as I do it on 90% of the shoots I do, particularly trailers. It just gives the editor a sense of rhythm when they are cutting their videos together. Philip Bloom does this a lot in his videos as well.

In a lot of scenic videos, we see highly smooth High Frame Rate slow motion of small beautiful moments. In most digital cameras, even DSLRs, they offer an option to shoot around 50FPS – when you slow it down, you will get a smooth look to your slow motion with. These are common in videos showing off the beauty of a particularly location or city – it allows filmmakers to capture a small moment, stretch it out and make it longer when you slow it down, and use it in your final piece for your own effect.

In the sketch I have shot, I used my Canon 600D to shoot at 50FPS, and captured footage of the fountains at Lincoln Square, showing off the motion of the water in a very smooth way. It allows the viewer to soak in such a fast motion quite clearly. I think these are the subjects that work best within this type of shooting – fast motions that quite can’t be appreciated in simple 24FPS. Water is such a fast moving subject, that when slowed down, one can appreciate the smooth beauty of it.

Of course I think this works best in close up shots – I think using it a wide would have too much going on in it. Having a single subject adds a bit of focus. Thus, you can capture small interment moments and drag them out for longer. That being said, slowing down your footage with HFR adds a bit of stability to your shot.

REPORTING:

In terms of any issues we faced, choosing a case study to do took a VERY long time. The main problem came from finding something that we both wanted to do and were capable of doing in a week. At the start, we both agreed on using online comedy skits like those from Filthy Frank and Superwog as a case study, but after discussing it more and trying to find ways we could shoot sketches out of it, we decided it just wasn’t going to work for both of us. However, we ended up choosing scenic digital videos which are heavily popular on Youtube and Vimeo. They can be even be seen as narrative, as they tell a story about a certain city or location.

Facing problems about shooting the sketches mainly came from an ‘experience’ barrier. Something about these videos is that they are very professionally made, with expensive gear such as sliders and glidecams. We don’t have any of these, so our sketches, which try to mimic the way some of these shorts are filmed, feel like a DIY version of them.

RELATING:

This has come up before in past experiences with video gigs, etc. As a very low budget filmmaker, when I have paid gigs, there have been times where what is required of me is quite daunting. The same thing comes up with Project Two, as the what we have chosen as a case study is so professionally constructed. Something that has ALWAYS been a challenge for me is colour grading footage, and that is one of the sketches I have been tasked with doing. That being said, practice makes perfect and I believe the more I do this, the better I will get at it. I think it comes down to a lot of experimentation.

Another issue that I’ve seen before is a lack of sufficient equipment, more specifically STABLIISATION! While I’m a huge fan of handheld shooting with shoulder rigs, etc. – when it comes to these kinds of videos, everything needs to look pretty and professional. Thus, stabilised shooting is a MUST. This is a huge issue for me as I simply don’t have glidecams or sliders to use, and have had to use a lot of digital stabilising, which does look a bit dodgy compared to using the actual gear needed.

REASONING:

Factors into these issues is simply lack of experience and gear. I don’t have the knowledge and equipment that people like Devin Graham, have but I think that’s the point of this exercise and course in general. Very much, this course is focused heavily on DIY and experimentation, so I think playing around with these kind of sketches and techniques seen from scenic videos, and to learn from them.

RECONSTRUCTING:

In terms of reconstructing, I think we could work around the limitations we have with issues such as equipment. While practice can help with technical skills such as editing and colour grading, equipment comes down to money, which I don’t have a lot of to spend on film equipment. With those problems, I can find a way to work around them with the technology I have. Warp stabiliser from Adobe programs and structuring my edit so it doesn’t require glidecams or dolly shots can be a solution.

For Kim and I’s Project Two, we have decided to use scenic videos such as the one’s from Devin Graham as a case study. These are popular on Youtube, as many newcomers to DLSR’s tend to shoot videos like these early on in their career. Our sketches include the use of glidecam, timelapse, high frame rate slow motion, aspect ration and more. We have begun shooting, but not quite yet finished – thank god for the push in the deadline! Our sketches so far have been good – clean and simple, analysing what a lot of these videos do. These scenic videos use a lot of functions of digital cinematography, playing to the strengths of the camera. For example, Graham shoots his videos on a RED Epic, and releases them in 4K, including this very prominently in his title.

Other filmmakers on Youtube who shoot similar videos include cinematographer Philip Bloom, who shoots these videos when he travels from gig to gig, or when testing out a new camera for reviewing. His video shot at Brighton Beach convinced me enough to buy a Sony a7S.

In terms of issues with the course at the moment, choosing case studies is difficult for everyone. Now that we’re working in groups, there is a challenge deciding on just one case study to work on together. As I am working with Kim, we both chose to do a comedy piece for our first case study presentation. However, there is such a broad range of comedy online, particularly on Youtube. Both our comedy pieces were quite different – mine was extremely ‘in your face’ and offensive, while Kim’s was more of a parody, making fun of Hollywood films. It’ll be interesting to see if we can decide on a case study that merges both the things we like from the videos we decided to talk about in our first presentation.

Finally got to do my presentation on The Filthy Frank channel! In terms of the discussion generated in class, there was a lot of talk about what was ethical on Youtube. I stated that it is a requirement nowadays to have a thick skin when browsing online. As Filthy Frank’s channel is very crude and offensive, questions were raised about whether or not it is ok to do things like pranking someone or making an offensive video. I think it’s an interesting topic, as it not only deals with online video, but the online landscape in general. Not only videos go into unethical territory, but comments and memes do as well. I think it’s a complex idea to explore.

THE FILTHY FRANK SHOW

Creator: George Miller

Genre: Comedy

Background: Vlog show on Youtube featuring creator George Miller playing different characters all by himself including the lead Filthy Frank. Others include Pink Guy, Salamander Man and Chin Chin. There are so many characters on the show that a wikia site has been made completely dedicated to the show. Videos range from being less than a minute to fifteen. The Filthy Frank show also features songs and raps by Miller, as well as pranks.

I personally really love this channel, as Miller’s sense of humour really suits me. It’s offensive, crude and in no way politically correct, and yet Miller doesn’t care at all. Even on his Facebook page, he posts offensive memes. Even outside of his videos, he keeps his humour in tact. While I’m not really vlogger fan, I never get bored of The Filthy Frank show. While some of the videos aren’t as funny, Miller constantly mixes things up – some of his videos aren’t offensive in any way and are just absurd for the sake of it.

CRITERIA:

Personality: Miller puts on a different persona with each character – no one knows what his real voice sounds like unless you follow him on Vine. With the title character, FIlthy Frank, he goes all out as a spastic ’52 year old’, talking with a gruff voice. His personality suits the show’s content, as the foul mouthed and offensive persona fits the crude sense of humour the Filthy Frank show is known for.

Narrative: The Filthy Frank show should be commended for actually creating some kind of a narrative with the characters Miller has created. Certain characters have ties with each other, and also moments from previous episodes end up showing up and playing a part later on in future episodes.

Post Production: Miller’s editing is amateurish, but I think that’s the point. Moments such as his battle with Weeaboo Jones are hilarious because of how tacky and cheap they look. Some Youtubers add a lot of production value to their content, which is fine, but I think Miller’s simple use of a DSLR, jump cuts, and amusingly fake visual effects works for the kind of content he creates. If he actually took the time to craft some realistic VFX, it probably wouldn’t be as funny. Also, there is heavy use of jump cuts, which work for this quick type of vlog. The cuts work to deliver the jokes faster, and Miller also uses re-cropping to mix it up.

Music: The Filthy Frank Show is also known for the music. Some of these are a mixed bag for me, such as all the Pink Guy rap songs. I just don’t find them as funny. That being said, in his videos, he often plays off-tune and hilarious covers of popular songs as just the right moment, such as I Am Beautiful, and has written a few himself including the hilarious Weeaboo Song.