[I]"Surely there are digital graphics involved at the end."[/I]

Perhaps not, more likely it was time lapsed / stop motioned. You can see a car on the road near the car park seemingly going very, fast.

Bob.

Indeed saw it yesterday.

Here is the making of:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2014/10/28/music/2328-umbrellas-four-unicubs-one-drone-ok-go-brilliance/#.VFHk7_mG98E

http://khon2.com/2014/10/29/how-did-they-do-that-ok-gos-music-video-in-japan-goes-viral/

VMP

Thanks for those links.

Amazing.

So from the links:

44 takes, 11 complete takes

shot at half-speed, so the final action is double-time

On the final shot looking down, the drone has climbed to 700 meters (1/2 mile! Oooh, the FAA wouldn't like that here in the States)

one month of rehearsals

2,300 umbrellas

Can't tell what kind of camera was hanging from the six-prop drone.


But again, this kind of stuff just blows me away. A whole new world of relatively inexpensive camera work.

EDIT: I could do without the fast 360-degree camera pan about 2/3 of the way through. Ouch.

One interviewee says 700 meters, another says 200 meters up for the final shot, I tend to say the 200 meters is more probable. Either way, it's quite a technical achievement.

OK Go has made some of the most fun, innovative, and interesting music videos in the history of the art. While this video is a stunning technical achievement, it is accompanied by a well-crafted, catchy pop tune, I've always liked these guys a lot.

I feel the video is worthy of far better music, but that's just me ....

geoff

Anyone else noticed the white cross marks in the centre of the image @ 1:30, 3:00? (plus some more marks around it).
Probably to frame the camera at height (and align th dancers). It could also be used as tracking markers ;-).

Geoff_Wood, I too have mixed feelings about the song. The clips and the song seem to be quit contrastic. I coukd think of many other scores that would match better IMO.

But finally the intention would be to get the song known.
Which they are doing well with this clip. 8 million views in three days.


New interview / behind the scenes video @ 0:54 it looks like a (Canon) DSLR hanging below the Drone.



VMP

It is interesting that people think this was done in one take with no CGI. As the "making of" shows, this is far from the case.

I have been aware, for over a dozen years, that there is some technique (perhaps several) that let a director merge multiple takes into one seamless result. I think Baz Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge" was where I first became aware of this, with all of its impossible shots where the camera zooms in, goes through windows, into people's mouths, etc. Some of these things were done, in a small way, back in the day, but nothing like this.

I'd love to find a description of what tools are used to create these effects. Are these tools and techniques within the range of what a small operator (like me) can do, or does it require massive CGI, with dozens of operators and hundreds of computers?

@johnmeyer: I think the final product you see is a single, continuous take. Not their first take, but a single, unedited take. I think this is kind of a trademark for their videos.

"They did 44 takes, completing the whole routine 11 times. Out of those 11 they found 3 takes they thought were okay. And the one that you see on YouTube (video below) is what they consider their best take."

So I'm guessing they started it 44 times, had 33 that were stopped for some reason or another, but 11 that went through from start to end. 3 of those were "okay", and the one on YouTube is the best of those 3.

So I'm guessing they started it 44 times, had 33 that were stopped for some reason or another, but 11 that went through from start to end. 3 of those were "okay", and the one on YouTube is the best of those 3.I see how you are interpreting that sentence, and you may be correct.

However, I've seen a lot of single take shots, from the über-famous Orson Wells "Touch of Evil" opening shot to the long steady-cam shot that starts one of my least favorite films, "Goodfellas." I realize that technology and technique has progressed since those films were shot, but the exponentially more difficult coordination of all the variables in this epic music video makes a one-take explanation exceedingly difficult to believe. As an example of why I'm still suspicious is this Toyota commercial that looks like one take. But can it be? Of course not.

I enjoyed and was amazed by this production from all the technical and artistic aspects... except about the last 30 seconds. Is there a film school rule I've missed that says to be a certified drone video you must include a vertical climb followed by a couple of 360's? I kept thinking they were going to run credits over the footage once they broke through the clouds but, nope. They just climbed up and spun around. IMHO this cheapened the entire video and made it look very amateurish. If this was intended to be a satire on YouTube drone video then I missed the point.

The Toyota commercial could well be done in one shot. The production just keeps pushing Toyotas off the cliff until one lands the way they want it to. If you've got the budget and many TVCs do, such a brute force approach is often used.

One common trick that is not CGI is "multiple passes". For that you need an expensive motion control rig that'll make the same camera moves many times with pixel perfect accuracy. There's a Johnny Walker ad with lots of big cats and humans seemingly all in a bar together. They never were all together during the shoot. They shot each cat with a wrangler in separate passes, then the humans then simply composited it all together painting out the animal handlers.

Moco could have been used in the Toyota commercial to match the pan back to the falling truck.

In the case of this music video if a couple of the dancers misses their cue or mark it's easily fixed without CGI. You just clone one that is on cue and use that to replace the one that isn't. I've done similar tricks using Vegas over the years. This music video was shot at double speed which would have also helped with any fix ups that were required in post.

Bob.

This is what the clip footage looks like in 'real time' speed.





VMP

This is horrible in every conceivable way. Looks like somebody trying to imitate something from an Olympics opening ceremony and failing miserably.

And the song? I wanna ram a boom mic into my ears.

I like it. I like the audacity of what these guys attempt. The fact that they devote the time and detail to the one-shots blows me away. The song would not be what I'd listen to on my iPod, but given the context (Japanese pop-ish) it fits for me.

That said, my favorite Ok Go video is the Rube Goldberg one, This Too Shall Pass.

OK, deusx, let's see you make a better one.

One thing that keeps nagging at me is when the quadcopter has gained some height, all those patterns being formed with the umbrellas seem too conveniently precise.

It seems to me that there are too many patterns happening so close together and I reckon you could not get the girls to perform them that well.

I figure that part at least is CGI.

No, none of it is CGI. I saw an interview with OK Go yesterday and they say that it is all shot in the camera and all in one take, it took multiple attempts until they got it right, but it's all one take. That's how they've done all their previous videos, it's kind of their trademark.

Yes John, I am aware of what they said, but I still do not believe it.

I have been on shoots where we needed to get large numbers of people co-ordinated to make movements like that, specifically people in a stadium flipping cards to make pictures, and it is extremely difficult to get them to do it right, and those umbrella moves, shown at altitude, are just so fast and so complex that I can't accept they are moves made by people.

Don't forget, these are shot at half speed vs the finished product. If you look closely, you'll see where some elements did not happen as perfectly as others.

I'm on the side of no CGI.

"It seems to me that there are too many patterns happening so close together and I reckon you could not get the girls to perform them that well"

If you look at the pavement you'll notice there are lots of small "X's" painted on the ground for everyone to use as positioning marks. Without those marks it would be impossible for everyone to find their proper place during this complex choreography.

Truly amazing Camera work. I didn't know drones were that far along. wow.