I kind of dug this promo. I thought it was sharp and visually terrific. Top notch cinematography.

Sure, the idea didn't deviate too far from the lyrics, but that's not a crime.

Also, let's not forget~ Everything is better in our imaginations. Translating it into the real world, variables invariably vary our output. I would love to see your pitch. I would love to see the video as it sits in your imagination. And, I would love to see the final video you produced.

The truth is, I would love access to all that information for almost all filmmakers. Furthermore, I wish I could show you what I see in my head before it is dirtied by the translation to the screen. This is something I think about often.

Comment by IceBlock Films

Hi Paul
thanks for putting it up - brave move!
Love the rich look of it, she comes over very well in her red dress. It feels like a quiet video in how much it grabs my attention but I think it's very well made
congrats, Caroline

Comment by radarsu

Caroline- Was this up for commission on Radar and won by someone off radar? I'm a bit confused as to why posting this was a brave move. I think it's a really catching video. I should tell you though, it's recently come to my attention that my standards are way low...

Comment by IceBlock Films

hey xippy,
yes the brief was on Radar but they already knew Paul and decided to commission him direct so we didn't get it inside Radar. So, brave because there'll be members who pitched to make it and didn't get it.
I like your videos, they have a very friendly quality to them!
Caroline

Comment by radarsu

Hi everyone.

Thanks for the comments. I just thought I'd like to say that I totally support Radar and the idea of opening out treatments to a wider pool of creatives - I'm surprised that this isn't a model more labels don't employ. All in good time though...

I am a member of Radar and have pitched for previous videos but I was already working with Cooking Vinyl on this video when they decided to open it out to Radar.

I've posted the video as I for one always like to see the end results of anything I've pitched for that other people made - it is always interesting to compare how your creative and someone else's differ. It often proves one thing - personal taste aside, each person's aproach will be different. And that for me is what is so great about videomaking and sites like this for promoting it.

Paul.

Comment by paulmorricone

I pitched something a lot more avant garde for this - this is nice but a bit VH1 - and it's weird, probably because of that, I just can't get out of my head that there could have been.... more. And by "more" I actually mean "less."

There's a little of everything here - Oversaturation? check. Slo-mo? check. Limit effects? check. B&W? check. Desaturation? check. Undercranking/time lapse? check. Vignetting? check. Dips to black instead of hard cuts? check. (Was there any sepia tinting? If so we have BINGO.) if london is a melting pot then the "all of the above" olla podrida of stylistic choices in the video is certainly reflective of that but I think I would have liked it more with one strong statement/choice that lasted more in the mind, once the video was over.

Also, REALLY close to the lyrics, like karaoke close, and that tends to be a style that I personally don't warm to - I like the visuals to add new dimensions to the lyrics, not just show them.
----
http://www.youtube.com/alexdecampi
http://www.alexdecampi.com

Comment by alexdecampi

Also, Paul, you may want to get in touch with Cooking Vinyl. The version they've whacked up on u2b isn't letterboxed and so your nice 16:9 video has been stretched to 4:3. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7wtwYQwe90">See, it looks a bit silly.

(It's amazing how often that happens, by the way. The Ting Tings "Not My Name" video was up stretched like that FOREVER. Argh, people! Youtube formatting! It's not hard.)
----
http://www.youtube.com/alexdecampi
http://www.alexdecampi.com

Comment by alexdecampi

I'm going to argue that it can be pretty challenging. I have found an endless deluge of frustration when it comes to posting on youtube. The best resource I've found for information on how to format for youtube was on vimeo.com (of all places). Until I found out about checking the 'preserve aspect ration using letterbox' and 'deinterlace source video' buttons, I was having a terrible track record.

Here are the settings I've set myself to settle on. It took a lot of trial and error to get to these, so maybe it'll save someone else some time:

VIDEO
Compression: H.264
Quality: High
Key Frame Rate: 60
Bitrate: 1200 kbits/sec
Frame Reordering: Yes
Encode mode: multi-pass
Dimensions: 400x300
Scale: Letterbox
Deinterlace Source Video

AUDIO
Format: AAC
Sample Rate: 44.100 kHz
Mono
Bit Rate: 64 kbps

Hmmmm.... I wonder if there's a section in the forum where this conversation might be better suited/preserved/accessed for posterity.

Comment by IceBlock Films

I find more frequent keyframes (1 every 10), exporting to a larger size (I do 640x480), and at a higher bitrate (5000 kbps) works for me. Also, stereo (not mono) and a higher bitrate on the audio.

And yeah, letterbox.
----
http://www.youtube.com/alexdecampi
http://www.alexdecampi.com

Comment by alexdecampi

Paul and Caroline
Congratulations Paul on winning the commission and thanks for posting. Since you were 'already working with Cooking Vinyl on this video when they decided to open it out to Radar' I feel that Radar or yourself could have let the members know this. I do not understand why there was a call for treatments when Paul was already working on it. Caroline or Paul please could I have some more information as I really feel my time was wasted.
Thank you
Jay

Comment by jayb

Hi Jay
It's quite common for labels to also be talking to other directors as well as to Radar. We don't have and don't ask for an exclusive relationship with the label. Radar is a means for filmmakers to be able to reach potential clients and hopefully make a powerful enough case for the client to choose them. In this case, Paul made the most powerful pitch. Unfortunately it wasn't via Radar this time, but hey that's life. Filmmakers are winning pitches through the site, so it works, commissions made are currently better than 50% of briefs placed.
Caroline

Comment by radarsu

correct me if im wrong, but i believe the point trying to be made was that a brief was on radar for which people spent valuable time pitching for even though they had no chance of winning the gig since someone else was already working on it.

personally, i would like to hope that any brief that does appear on this site is being offered in good faith and that the client is treating the radar members with the same level of professionalism as they would outside.

because lets face it, members will soon go elsewhere if they think this is detrimental to their chances.

Comment by pew36

well I don't know whether Paul was already commissioned at the time the brief went onto the site - but it would seem pretty irrational of the label to advertise a brief if they'd already commissioned...
but then there's no accounting for people.

on second thoughts - rereading what Paul wrote - I'll check that out. Let you know.

Comment by radarsu

thankyou pew36 that is exactly my point.

Comment by jayb

I think it's a great video!

Comment by laurenpushkin

hello jayb, pew and all

ok, Paul had (he thought) been commissioned by the client. The client decided they'd like to open it up to Radar, which they did. Paul kept his fingers crossed I guess. The client decided, after looking at pitches, to go ahead with Paul.

It's pretty much what often happens with label clients who already have contacts and favourite filmmakers. They'll dip their toe in the water with Radar, get to know it whilst they've got a safe filmmaker they know and like already lined up. Next time they might just use Radar (there's a client in the pipeline like this) But sometimes they have commissioned from Radar instead.

What members have got is an open connection to a client, that connection was there and the client was open to other pitches, so there's the important point. Having clients listen to members is what members are actually buying from Radar.

hth, Caroline

Comment by radarsu

caro:

we all understand the reality of pitching for a project and that undoubtedly clients have a rolodex of preferred suppliers and that yes they will often dip their toes to see what else can be offered.

But, .....sorry...had to answer the phone...there was a but, but clearly it wasnt very interesting........umm

a little more transparency on the whole process would keep everyone much sweeter.

in particular:

labelled whether it is a radar exclusive pitch or not

maximum of 2 days turnaround from pitch deadline to decision to appoint

notification on project thread if the gig went external or to a radar'er

if a radar'er got the gig, their pitch is made available to other members

video to be featured on radar once completed

radar'ers encouraged to supply a short blog on the experience



discuss

Comment by pew36

"thirdly, talking labels into moving things faster (2 days??) is plainly impossible.
any filmmaker with even the tiniest experience with labels will tell you that's never going to happen."

the reason why i stated this was because the difference between working via radar and working via direct contact with the client is that when a client comes direct to you they say 'the video has to be done by the 30th'

if it appears on radar as in the case wth the recent ministry pitch, they only had a 2 week window for the schedule. it was very tigh. now if folks pitch a bunch of ideas which is going to take 2 weeks but the client dawdles deciding who to use and then only one week remains until the deadline, the goal posts may have shifted too much for the original pitch to retain relevance. likewise, people pitching would be able to produce a much better pitch if they knew exactly how long they had to make it.

really, 2 days is a hell of a long time to look a bunch of pitches and decide if they like one. but maybe you are right, a more pragmatic approach is required.

perhaps only 2 day turnaround for videos with a schedule of 3 weeks or less. 5 days turnaround for those with 5 weeks or more.

Comment by pew36

ok, news about who got commissioned always goes in the thread on the brief - to keep updated subscribe to the comment thread.

no brief on Radar is exclusive to Radar.

all videos commissioned through Radar are available here and most also on our 14 channels (follow the links in 'success)

all members are very welcome to blog about making the video or other music videos - drop me a line.

Re deadlines etc, Matei is right.
Caroliner

Comment by radarsu

re deadlines:

you are both wrong. when making a pitch you need to know how long you have to put the thing together. i use the example of ministry of sound because it was only 2 weeks. now for an animator the difference between 2 weeks and 2 weeks minus the 3 days it takes to decide who gets it is HUGE.

it is a basic agreement which i have in all my contracts. a client has 3 days to respond to questions and provide feedback to milestones supplied.

what is to stop a client spending the entire schedule window deciding who should do the vid and then picking an artist who can then not live up to the original pitch.

this is more to protect radar than anyone else.

Comment by pew36