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

Sorry if my post came accross as an attack. I didn't mean it that way. I just hoped you could be a little more specific about what made this scream video to you. You are right that we are working in a subjective medium and we are all entitled to our opinions. Even those times when the only reason for those opinions are "I just feel that way."
 
Mark Crabtree said:
Sorry if my post came accross as an attack. I didn't mean it that way. I just hoped you could be a little more specific about what made this scream video to you. You are right that we are working in a subjective medium and we are all entitled to our opinions. Even those times when the only reason for those opinions are "I just feel that way."
Click to expand...

This is fine mate, commercial looks wicked, everything beyond that is just particulars.
 
Its the motion, I can clearly tell this is not 24p footage with the average 180 degree shutter. My guess is 30p or maybe even 25p with a higher speed shutter? but not 24p motion here.
 
EDIT: I just downloaded the source video and it clearly comes up as a 29.97 FPS in the data. So now I know I'm right. So the reason why it looks "video" is because it is in fact a video frame rate. Honestly why do people question this?
 
Giuseppe, I would stop obsessing over the frame rate. It's really a non-issue. A lot of material that is broadcast has to be put in a 60i container in order to do so, so that doesn't mean it didn't originate at 24p.
 
because I'm trying to preserve the actual visual relevance to the topic. A lot of new comers dont understand what the term "film like" even means or what it looks like, or what to compare it too. Its a shame that people dont even understand or can even tell the difference when its so clear to the others who do understand the difference. Its like the magic eye thing, its maddening to watch the other people stare at it and say " I cant see it" then you look at it, and its perfectly clear and you see the image, but you can't explain to them why they cant see it.

Why is everyone so negative towards saying something ISN'T filmic? It just means it looks like video, did I say it looked bad? no, did I say it looked like video? yes. I'd rather people just say whats actually happening than just do the whole vimeo blow fish effect (Phillip Bloom knows what I'm talking about) everyone is so afraid to say anything other than blowing up and saying IT LOOKS WONDERFUL WOW... Then someone gives some real incite to something and they end up some how the bad person.

Education as to what a "look" is, is some how bad all of a sudden? My job is to watch films and shoot films for a living. Its what I do, and pretty much all I do. I think I know 24p 180 or 24p 90 when I see it. Thats what people consider the film look here in America. And I do not see that in this. Besides the thread clearly said "different look" which means something is different and by the looks of it its the frames per second and the coloring. Its not like he said THIS LOOKS LIKE FILM GUYS! and I said it doesn't I'm actually agreeing... it looks different.
 
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
A lot of new comers dont understand what the term "film like" even means or what it looks like, or what to compare it too.
Click to expand...

a) I think you are wrong about that. People watch film all the time and can tell when something doesn't look quite right, even if they don't know why.
b) I don't think you know what the term "film like" means, given that you are fixated on that 24fps number. Far more to it than that. And frankly, this comment:

Giuseppe Pugliese said:
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.
Click to expand...

demonstrates your ignorance of the topic in my opinion.

Its a shame that people dont even understand or can even tell the difference when its so clear to the others who do understand the difference. Its like the magic eye thing, its maddening to watch the other people stare at it and say " I cant see it" then you look at it, and its perfectly clear and you see the image, but you can't explain to them why they cant see it.
Click to expand...

The magic eye is a poor example as some people have physical reasons why it doesn't work for them. It's not supposed to be 100% usable all the time. Besides, never in this thread was it stated that the commercial was supposed to be a "film look" just a different look than usual. What is wrong with that?

everyone is so afraid to say anything other than blowing up and saying IT LOOKS WONDERFUL WOW... Then someone gives some real incite to something and they end up some how the bad person.
Click to expand...

While this happens, it's not in this instance. Why does the OP have to use the look that others have said he needs? It's a commercial, it looks just fine for that use. There have been users here who have crowed about pulling a film look before when the sample they provided looked like anything but, and it was promptly pointed out to them. This is in no way the case in this thread.

Education as to what a "look" is, is some how bad all of a sudden?
Click to expand...

You're not educating anyone. You are spreading misinformation.

I think I know 24p 180 or 24p 90 when I see it. Thats what people consider the film look here in America.
Click to expand...

I think you are overestimating your abilities.

Besides the thread clearly said "different look" which means something is different and by the looks of it its the frames per second and the coloring. Its not like he said THIS LOOKS LIKE FILM GUYS! and I said it doesn't I'm actually agreeing... it looks different.
Click to expand...

Then why did you jump into this thread to chime in with the following?

Giuseppe Pugliese said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Gary Huff said:
Hey, Timur, you don't understand...
...someone is being wrong on the Internet! :badputer:
Click to expand...


"This commercial was shot 30p on AJA 4:2:2 Apple ProRes with no S-Log... and flares are real!"

So I'm still wrong? .... I think not. ;-) Come on guys I'm not saying I'm a know it all, but I KNOW my footage and I knew it was 30p just by looking at it. Please dont say negative things about my knowledge of the film world on the internet when I said nothing at you in a negative tone. I was vindicated and it was in a video frame rate.
 
Back before anybody was talking about the video film-look when music videos were just becoming popular, I remember the big rage was to shoot film at 30fps (actually 29.97 as I recall) because it looked sharper and richer. "Makes 16mm look like 35mm" was the refrain and people were doing it for 35 as well. No one every suggested it made film look like tape ... - Just sayin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top