OkGo in Zero-G

[running_coach]

@Sattua

Their signature choreography in front of a Rube Goldberg machine, of course. But on the moon.

So you expect them to repeat something? :eek:

[BigT]

They could go a different direction and go diving in some really dangerous place or near some shipwreck. Maybe even make a Rube Goldberg machine underwater.

If they haven’t already, of course. This is the first I learned of them as a band, and not just seeing a cool video.

[WordMan]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I hate their music but they do make cool videos.

Given your eclectic tastes, I am not surprised. Their songs are solid enough for their videos, and the combination have become a great brand for them. A great way to DIY.

I think of them musically as solid Power Pop. No real edginess. And, once again, I find it ironic that the genre of Power Pop produces another fun, likeable band that gains a niche, and maybe has a few hits (not these guys except for the video-bumps, which are great for them), but never really gets big.

It always makes me go back to The Beatles’ middle-era albums - Hard Day’s Night, Help!, Rubber Soul and Revolver - with wonder. They made it look so easy.

[Lucas_Jackson]

Yeah but their videos sucked.

[gazpacho]

Because of the other thread my wife and I spent last night watching a bunch of their other videos. They were a lot of fun. We noticed that the band is good at getting sponsors for the viedos.

[gaffa]

@gazpacho

Because of the other thread my wife and I spent last night watching a bunch of their other videos. They were a lot of fun. We noticed that the band is good at getting sponsors for the viedos.

I can’t blame them for pursuing this strategy. Videos are expensive, and the sponsorship of a company like a Russian airline seems harmless enough.

I just watched it, and I’m sure they had to have both a soundtrack with a varying speed and a camera with a constantly varying framerate. When flying parabolas, there are as many seconds of double weight as there are of zero-G. So whenever they sat down, they were enduring double weight, and they slowed the frame-rate of the camera way down to make that part go by quickly during the video.

[running_coach]

@gaffa

I can’t blame them for pursuing this strategy. Videos are expensive, and the sponsorship of a company like a Russian airline seems harmless enough.

I just watched it, and I’m sure they had to have both a soundtrack with a varying speed and a camera with a constantly varying framerate. When flying parabolas, there are as many seconds of double weight as there are of zero-G.** So whenever they sat down, they were enduring double weight, and they slowed the frame-rate of the camera way down to make that part go by quickly during the video.**

That part was edited out.

[gaffa]

@running_coach

That part was edited out.

No, it would be obvious if it was edited out. I checked, and Variety has an article about the video that is referenced in the Wikipedia article on zero-G flights.

“We also came up with a system for doing a single take over eight parabolas. In each flight you have 15 parabolas and in each parabola you have 20 seconds of double gravity, then 50 seconds of weightlessness and few minutes of setting it all up again. So to make it one take, we took eight of these in a row over 40-45 minutes,” Kulash explained.

There are HD cameras with the ability to change the framerate at which they capture, analogous to changing the speed of the motor in a film camera.

[running_coach]

@gaffa

No, it would be obvious if it was edited out. I checked, and Variety has an article about the video that is referenced in the Wikipedia article on zero-G flights.

“We also came up with a system for doing a single take over eight parabolas. In each flight you have 15 parabolas and in each parabola you have 20 seconds of double gravity, then 50 seconds of weightlessness and few minutes of setting it all up again. So to make it one take, we took eight of these in a row over 40-45 minutes,” Kulash explained.

There are HD cameras with the ability to change the framerate at which they capture, analogous to changing the speed of the motor in a film camera.

From the Behind the scenes link in the OP.

We paused our actions, and the music, during the non-weightless periods, and then cut out these sections and smoothed over each transition with a morph.

[pulykamell]

@gaffa

No, it would be obvious if it was edited out. I checked, and Variety has an article about the video that is referenced in the Wikipedia article on zero-G flights.

“We also came up with a system for doing a single take over eight parabolas. In each flight you have 15 parabolas and in each parabola you have 20 seconds of double gravity, then 50 seconds of weightlessness and few minutes of setting it all up again. So to make it one take, we took eight of these in a row over 40-45 minutes,” Kulash explained.

There are HD cameras with the ability to change the framerate at which they capture, analogous to changing the speed of the motor in a film camera.

Read their very own FAQ about the shoot:

Is this all one take?

Yes, it’s all one continuous take, but there’s a bunch of time removed. Again, the longest stretch of zero gravity we can get is about 27 seconds, and then it takes five minutes to reset to do it again. We wanted the whole video to take place in weightlessness, so we designed the routine in 27 second chunks, scenes that start and end right at the moments gravity is going and coming back. After we filmed a scene, when gravity returned, we stayed as still as we could for the five minutes of the plane climbing, and then began the next scene as soon as we were weightless again. When we were done, we chose our best take and cut out all of the long reset periods, so the routine is continuous and feels seamless.