And now... another TV Commercial with a different look!

Yeah and i didn't like so much that different look, even with that amazing lenses it looked too video to me. It's razor sharp, nice shots, but too video for me.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what Lumiere is talking about. All that white behind the talent is very challenging. I'm surprised how good this looks. Looks like 35mm film to me. What do I know, I've only been shooting film since 1974, VariCam since 2002 and Red since 2007.
 
All i'm talking about "film look" if you know what i mean? If you are shooting film since 1974 you should have understand what i'm trying to say:) Just my personal opinions which may be different than others..
 
MPB said:
uh... it isn't film.

i think it looks good.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Digital has its own aesthetic. In many ways these new gen cameras surpass film. The way the F3 handles highlights and tonal scales in this commercial is pretty impressive. It is a TV commercial after all. Nice job.
 
Lumiere said:
All i'm talking about "film look" if you know what i mean? If you are shooting film since 1974 you should have understand what i'm trying to say:) Just my personal opinions which may be different than others..
Click to expand...

Yeah, so why did you bring that up? The title of the thread even references a "different look". Why is it a bad thing if it DOESN'T look like film? Is there no room in the video world for anything else?
 
sorry but this screams video, its the frame rate, doesnt matter how much dynamic range and dof you have, without a 24p or 25p frame rate, it just looks like video.
 
Lumiere said:
All i'm talking about "film look" if you know what i mean? If you are shooting film since 1974 you should have understand what i'm trying to say:) Just my personal opinions which may be different than others..
Click to expand...
There are many aspects to the "Film Look". DOP, frame rate, dynamic range, color profile, grain, etc. Which of these in particular do you feel look more like video, and please explain why you think so?
 
Mark Crabtree said:
There are many aspects to the "Film Look". DOP, frame rate, dynamic range, color profile, grain, etc. Which of these in particular do you feel look more like video, and please explain why you think so?
Click to expand...

I think you mean DOF not DOP... and to be honest the single most emotionally and visually impacting aspect of film is the frame rate and shutter speeds. You can take the dynamic range, color, and dof out of the equation and it still "feels" like film so long as the frame rate is there.

Example:

Watch a Black and White movie shot in the desert with a wide shot. Highlights blown to show heat, a lot of dof to show landscape, and well... no color... it STILL looks and feels like film because of the frame rate. The movement or even just flicker rate of film is a huge and powerful mental impact on the viewer.

The magic sweet spot of 24p and 25p is a way to remove us from reality. Not many, if any episodic TV shows (or even reality shows) shoot at any other frame rate in the US but 24p. That shows you how powerful it is. 30p doesn't cut it. Even to us Americans 25p is too fast and causes some dislikes. I personally dont like 25p that extra frame just adds too much for me. So something in a 30p range or god forbid 30i (60i) is just horrid for film appreciative viewers.

The only things that look proper in a higher frame rate are sports, where fast motion is important to see whats happening.
 
I don't see a problem with the look if it works for the area of the world.
I do have a big problem with all the big ship cameras that I have seen with the milky look of the ship reflecting light to the lens and then back whenever there is a strong light in front of it.
That part of the commercial I would have done something about.
 
Again, I think it's mostly just the light/bright style which is not something we're used to...not wrong, just different. (exposures, etc. look good to me)
Guiseppi, I resonate with your post about frame rates, etc. I dismissed 24 for a LONG time, but now have come to understand that "magic sweet spot" you speak of.

Now, it's the quest for magic/sweet glass and filters. Some of the glass I've been able to clunk onto my GH2 makes me absolutely giddy with joy. I've been trying some really crazy glass on my F3 with Nikon mount too--fun stuff.

No, I don't care to do it in post--not the same. Even though I've been an editor/AE user ever since production was a reality, I want to do as much in-camera as possible).The only thing I want to do is cut and grade! ;-)
 
It does look videoish. My take is because of the coldish colors and skin tones, the whites that almost feel blown out In the curtains. It's the Sony skin tone dilemma, something that swayed many to the Panasonic side. Its something you can "save" in post production, however. I think the XDCam codec is also responsible for the strange over bright curtains. This doesn't mean it looks bad, but very "Sony" video. I personally don't like it, but in the Sony cams I've used I could dial in a different look or change in post...

EDIT- if you look at the first slog test shoot in las Vegas were Timur was, you could also see the difference in whites and skin tones of XDCam encoded vs slog 444 capture. I feel this tvc was shot XDCAM- EDIT AGAIN- Just saw that in Vimeo Roberto said it was shot 4:2:2 through AJA to Apple Prores. What this means is that I will really need to fork out for the Slog upgrade when I purchase this camera...
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with the video look, and i'm of course not looking "film look" in every project. Probably they want it this way and they succeed. I never judged if the F3 can achieve film look or not, of course it can, we all know this. But, Mark Crabtree replied to my post like i'm against to video look. Life is not black and white to me, it just didn't looked 35mm to me like Mark thinks, which is fine. All i'm tried to say is, it just not "35mm look" to me. It would be silly to judge it. The commercial looks very good, sharp and decent, but just video to me, and i think there should be nothing wrong to think this way. I am not trying to create another "film look" "video look" discussion here, but it's just me. Maybe i'm not experienced enough to understand the "film look" on this footage..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top