60 second Commercial all shot with a 35mm adapter

N

Nathan Troutman

Active member
Thanks for taking a look. We just finished a 60 second spot for a small cosmetics company. We wanted to see what people thought. Offer your expert opinions and do your best to guess our shooting set-up

Here's the link. There are three sizes to view. Obviously I recommend the largest. Please remember that this is a paid commercial job and all footage is the property of D2Productions and our client. Thanks!

http://www.chalkinstudio.com/styli_web2/
 
Last edited:
Nice work! Good photography, although the editing/pacing seems a bit off to me, but what do I know? I don't edit commericlals or really even watch them.

Yes, which camera, adapter, etc.?

Dan
 
Just to be the tease that I am - I'm going to hold out for a little to let people get a chance to make their own opinions before I let everyone know what we used. Don't worry I'm not going to make you all wait a month.:angry:

I don't really believe in experts. I certainly to regard myself as one. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. So no need to worry puredrifting. Even my great grandmother is entitled to an opinion. And I'm interested in all opinions. I'm always learning - from everyone.
 
Overall I liked it (I line produce tv spots to pay the bills, make docs to feed the soul), one or two things...

2nd shot in is flipped - I know that this was an edit decision so that the eyeliners 'mirrored' the first shot, but the word Paris is easily seen backwards in frame.

The model shots, outdoor night shots, even the end shot with the announcer (is he the company owner?) are all great. The product shots... some were a bit lame. It is so tough to get it right - to balance a great artistic shot with the needs / wants / perceptions of a client who need the product in every shot.

If I was the director / producer / prodco looking to put this on my reel, I would cut it to a :30, leave a lot of the product shots in the bin and show-off the beauty shots. Which is to my mind the true product being sold.

Just my 2cents.
 
heavyG said:
2nd shot in is flipped - I know that this was an edit decision so that the eyeliners 'mirrored' the first shot, but the word Paris is easily seen backwards in frame.
Click to expand...

Very true. That was the price we had to pay to have them on the other side. Good eyes.

heavyG said:
The model shots, outdoor night shots, even the end shot with the announcer (is he the company owner?) are all great. The product shots... some were a bit lame. It is so tough to get it right - to balance a great artistic shot with the needs / wants / perceptions of a client who need the product in every shot.

If I was the director / producer / prodco looking to put this on my reel, I would cut it to a :30, leave a lot of the product shots in the bin and show-off the beauty shots. Which is to my mind the true product being sold.

Just my 2cents.
Click to expand...

Thanks for these observations. I thought they all were very good. I agree product shots are tough to make look good. Especially when they're as tiny as these products and you have no way to control how crappy the packaging is.

The guy at the end is the owner of the company. I think he did a great job doing the voice-over considering he's a businessman not an actor. The shot he's in was a sneaky ADR move. We recorded his audio live during the shot, but of course we couldn't mix it with the VO which was recorded in a sound-booth on a condenser mic. Rather than bring him back in to do ADR - we were able to fudge the VO to fit the live action.
 
Nathan,


I think your using either Brevis or M2. More leaning toward the brevis.

I am basing my guess on certain CA characterestics.

Nice Spot by the way.
 
Last edited:
So I promised I wouldn't keep you waiting too long. We shot with the Sony FX7 and the Redrock M2 using a Nikon 50mm F1.8, a Nikon 85mm F1.4, & a Nikon 200mm Micro-Nikkor F4. The 200mm is probably the most amazingly lens I've ever used with any film-adapter. A truly stunning lens, even better than the legendary 85mm F1.4. Amazing for shooting such tiny little things. The project was cut in Final Cut, graded with Color, & finished in Motion. It was a two-day shoot in NYC. We were a very small group and shot everything outside with available light and bounce boards, including the night shot (used twice in the video) which was shot in Times Square, at night, using only available light.

Some of the explanation below is related to what people have said about this video over on Reduser.net. Here's the link to the thread if you want to see.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=181710#post181710

Anders the achromat is Redrock's. I certainly don't think it's of low quality. If you watch all the shots chromatic aberration is only really an issue with the model shots on white. With about 2,000 watts of lighting on the white background the edge where the model and the white meet is bound to cause chromatic aberrations. Between the FX7 lens and prism, the M2, and the Nikon lens itself, it's the whole system that is causing this problem. If you can keep from shooting directly into bright backgrounds CA isn't as much of an issue. I really enjoyed shooting with the M2. The light loss wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. The solid build quality, absolutely no ground glass grain, & flexibility to stop down or change shutter speeds is much more natural than other adapters I've used. However, the limitations of this set-up compared to just shooting with a camera and a lens make it like carrying around a 50lb suitcase on your back. It will be nice when it's obsolete.

So the text hasn't been a hit. The font is the company's. All of the packaging and logos use this font. The logos our also theirs. Now we controlled size of the fonts, placement, movement, etc. But changing to different fonts was not a possibility. We're just the messenger.

I can assure you that the VO has been compressed and cleaned. No amount of audio work can change somebody's voice from a whisper to podium speech. Sure you can level it - and it is - but the quality of someone's voice remains. It's more of a directing mistake. However, we literally recorded the VO line by line. He's the CEO of the company - not an actor. So, frankly, we were just trying to keep him going and get it in the can.

We plan to re-cut this to 15 and 30 for our own purposes - and to potentially pitch the new cut for more money:biggrin: 60 was because they wanted the lengthy VO to "sell" the product. This was originally going to have a 1-800 number and be a direct response ad, but they weren't ready to deal with the fulfillment. We had already finished shooting and the rough cut by the time this had happened. Our pitch concept was to produce a branding ad that would be very visual, very fast, and all about the music and video - think the last couple Jaguar ads. They wanted to have a Kenny Mays style info-mercial. It took some nudging but we've managed to create something that I feel is far more useful for our client - but we didn't have free reign to do what we wanted. In a way we did everything we could to twist this project as much as we could. We had to really twist arms just to get a live model. They wanted all product shots.
 
Last edited:
Technically, I think it looks great. The product shots on the pencils looks especially fab (though a bit soft on the 1080). My main criticisms (and please don't send a parcel bomb my way) concern the model, hair, makeup and styling. I think your photgraphic execution is on a much higher level than the subject. Her styling in some parts rings of a maternity dress or looks dated a la "Slaves of NY". The hairstyling betrays the pace and excitement of the music and the cut. It's a bit leaden and dull. A better perhaps more subtle balance on the makeup to bring more attention to the eyes would sell the product better.

Lastly, the model herself for lack of better terms doesn't have the face to sell cosmetics. If a lot guys here think she's hot, then she's not the right girl. Men tend not to notice what cosmetic ads are trying to sell. Her nose too pronounced, eyes too deep. There are a few shots where her eyes go too dark. You really need a girl with features in such balance that the eyes rivet you without looking spooky.

Unfortunately, beauty spots on a budget are a tough propoosition as the key personnel such as top notch hair, makeup and styling cost as much or in many cases command a higher day rate than DP's. Perhaps the client should have shelled out more for the girl. Once you have a girl that people have to have in their book, you'll be amazed by the deals people throw your way. You'll be able to get much better hair, makeup and wardrobe personnel. Another approach may be to go to a 2nd or 3rd tier agency (like Thompson) and just cast and shoot for the face. Runway girls that can also do great close ups cost a fortune. Also, FIT often has incredibly talented stylist and designers that would work just for the reel.

That's my honest feedback. The spot seems unaware that it is selling a product marketed to women who are very aware of high fashion products (which yours seems to be). If the subject looks less than A level, they'll associate the product no matter how good it is for being B rate.

The best part for me was the announcer. He seems like an expert.
 
Last edited:
Tim thanks for the positive and negative comments. I've been impressed with your work and really appreciate your feedback - especially the positive stuff of course:thumbsup:

The model was not our first choice. I had a great actress I worked with who has amazing eyes - just stunning. But they didn't like her. However, the best thing about this model is she's a worker. This was a no frills shoot and she was outstanding. She's not perfect but she knows how to make a shot and made the shoot go really well. I think, frankly, if we had done better with make-up and lighting we could've made her look better. There are some shots I think she looks really great. So I think we have to take some of the blame.

What I like the most - it shows the type of shoot that absolutely requires a 35mm film adapter and what can be done on a very tight budget. This video would be total garbage if not for the style you're able to create with real depth of field. My two favorite shots are the 2nd times square shot (the night shot where her face is far off the frame to the right) and the shot right after it where's she's in the business suit posing by the ladder.

I'm sure the CEO will love to hear that you thought he was good. It's that British accent. We really had to go sentence by sentence with him to get the VO done.

BTW - if you want to see what at least a few of the shots looked like ungraded check out the quick flash of stills at the end. These are ungraded stills we pulled from the video.
 
There are a few shots where you nailed the model. Indoors, white backdrop, subtle makeup and the light dug deep into her eyes. She actually looks like a different woman.

I feel your pain on the client rejecting the talent. Been down that road and you do what you gotta do.

Client reminded of the Australian guy who sells everything for 19.99. He had me buying things I've no need owning.

You're dead right about an adaptor for this kind of shoot. I once had a client (low budget spot for designer) not want to cough up for an adaptor and no matter how hard you try it still looked too video "clinical". Of course, you'll never see this spot - it brings me shame. BTW client insisted on using his "beautiful" wife as the model........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top