Was infrared photography (videography) used in any of these 3 music videos?

I say no to all. Except the reference.

What type of answer are you looking for?

@Civic_Cat: It seemed that in spots of all of the 3 music videos there is some infrared videography—the white tree leaves and the black daylight skies.

I say it was done in post.

@Thank you.

Hard to tell. The snow scene sure was beautiful and sureal, but it seems like it could have been shot in visible light in B&W. I looked for any heat signature on the hoods of the passing cars and didn’t see any. If it were in infrared, I’d expect to see the hoods of the cars glowing.

@Hmmmm. Good point ETpro. I hear of “near” and “far” infrared—I suppose the Rolling Stones “Emotional Rescue” being the latter, and what I’m referring to is the former. I will have to review the videos again and get back to you all.

@Civic_Cat I look forward to hearing what you conclude.

@Civic_Cat.

Okay, so I watched the videos somewhat more carefully.

Here’s another reference.
“Infrared vs vislble black and white”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac2t16BMEYo&feature=related
0:58

“We can walk” seems to have a lot of infrared B&W imagery. Again, black skies and white trees, and as in the first video when I started my question, shadows below the trees. If it was a negative, the shadows would have been lighter.
0:00 to about 0:18
about 0:58 to about 1:30
about 2:08 to about 2:15
I also wonder if there’s some ultraviolet in between.
lastly,
about 3:29 to the end (4:06).

Death’s in Veagas seems mostly regular (?) black and white, particularly where the lady is doing the tai chi scene, but I can almost see infrared in a few split-second shots.

Ditto Marilyn Manson. While most of the B&W seems to be just that, again, in the fields scenes, it’s black skies, white grass—with some colourisation, particularly for his hair.

For more edification here’s the following:

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Applications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision

The Rolling Stones Emotional Rescue promo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2z3YbNkbGM
4:08

Ivana Santilli & Glenn Lewis—If Ever I Fall Pt. 2 (Heavy Handed Mix)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6kNEcMF5Gg
1,476 views
3:44

I’m not sure if this video came before or after the Paris Hilton.
:-D

Here’s what she kinda looks like in a normal video
(and it’s also my favourite of hers :-D

Ivana Santilli—Sun + Moon = Tomorrow Official Music Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQRuVN0H8dM
3:56

I can reproduce all those visually in post production.

Without the added expense of using specialized film.
Without talking directly to production staff.

I would still lean towards post. Nothing in those videos pop in the way infrared would.

@Civic_Cat
So you are telling me that you can simulate infrared:
as per the first video link in my post previous to this post?

“Here’s another reference.
“Infrared vs vislble black and white” ”

or the Rolling Stones video even?

I suppose it would be like doing black and white with a blue filter, and then making it look like you used a red filter; though here, you could also make it look like it was filmed/videoed in infrared.

Are you telling me that you can do that?

No offense, but I find your claim hard to believe, however ignorant as I am of photography, filming, and videography.

You’re telling me that you can do something like this post production.

“FLIR thermal infrared: the camera itself, + more demos”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mV4ecEbV1s&feature=channel
3:29

“Nothing in those videos pop in the way infrared would.”
What is meant by “pop”?

I can do all the above and more with post. That also includes the boredom that the above link included.
Spend 10 years in front of an Avid and you will discover the same thing.

I have been doing TV post production for 25 years.

But, film does have advantages that can’t be reproduced in post. But getting there. The texture of Film is
very hard to reproduce. As is depth of field in some cases.

So again, you’ve telling me that one makes a video, colour or black&white, with a guy pressing the bottom of a cold coke on his forehead, show plates that are opaque to regular light, and cover his head with a black garbage bag; and in post; you can make it so you’d see the rings, see through the plates, and through the garbage bag.

Presumably, if you can do these, then if he were to use, say, a few cold cans and a few at room temperature, you could tell, through post, which was which. Also, with post, you can see what’s inside black garbage bags without being shown before hand?

This is new to me.

I said previously, “Without talking directly to production staff.”

Without talking to the people that made it I would have to guess. ANd knowing what I can do and have done.

“Also, with post, you can see what’s inside black garbage bags without being shown before hand?”
With due respect, it’s post production. Not magic. Lack of understanding how it works. I can see you confuse the two. :-)

And yes. With the proper pre-production I can do just that. You might believe after watching there was some sort of magic.

I can accept that one can see what’s in the black garbage bags, without being shown what’s inside them before video-taping, by using an infrared camera.

I can also accept that one can take a regular video of the black garbage bag, and in post production, doctor images of what’s inside; or being told what’s inside, doctoring in it with some accuracy;

but again, I find it hard to believe that without knowing what’s in the bag, take a regular video tape of it, and in post production, see what’s inside it.

To me it’s almost the difference between videoing the wiping of a dirty window; and videotaping a window, that’s not wiped, then in post production, doctor in the fake wiping of the window, and then pretend that one can see what’s inside the window.