Ralph Lauren commercial shot with 5D MII

WOW its like a pie throwing competition who can arbitrarily slam it the most.

I just dont think saying things like "It looks like crap" are in the vein of what is considered useful feedback here at DVXUSER, or not what I think has any use at all. If you think that, and have no other means to say it or no constructive feeback, I would suggest not posting.

Remember a lot of this is artistic choice, and if someone goes one way, it doesnt make it wrong, its just a path that was chosen.

And in saying that, this being a fashion label, and the point of fashion is to glamorize, I didnt feel any glamour. The first couple of shots felt good, but from there it did seem a little dreary and uncomfortable for me and mostly due to the shallow focus. THere were some really nice shots in there, Im just not 100% if this style fits. IMO of course.
 
Now I feel bad that I said anything critical at all.
I don't think I ever gave negative feedback for someone posting their work here at dvxuser, especially not if I've seen them contribute to these forums.
But I think for work in the public domain, as Voltaire once said, we only owe truth. Since its for commercial purposes with sponsorship, Ralph Lauren no less, its fair game the same way I would say that I hate Jack In The Box commercials because they make me sick to my stomach for using transfatty acids.
 
I dunno..but to me it fits in with all those other no-topic-like fashion commercials. It looked good ...clean...clear...weird music (which fit the whole thing)....

But I do get what folks are trying to say about the overuse of shallow DOF. We are mostly videographers and it's no suprise that we would be more critical than the average viewer. But if we take ourselves out of the usual mode and try to look at it from outside the box...then I think you would see that this just fits in there with the rest of adds like these.

So overall...not bad....not bad at all.
 
dadoboy said:
Now I feel bad that I said anything critical at all.
I don't think I ever gave negative feedback for someone posting their work here at dvxuser, especially not if I've seen them contribute to these forums.
But I think for work in the public domain, as Voltaire once said, we only owe truth. Since its for commercial purposes with sponsorship, Ralph Lauren no less, its fair game the same way I would say that I hate Jack In The Box commercials because they make me sick to my stomach for using transfatty acids.
Click to expand...


Yeah, usually when stuff gets put into a commercial realm then it's fair game for the rippage. This happens with DVXuser Features (oh boy, does it) and all of that stuff.

A lot of us will detest our favorite disliked brand of public domain work from commercial to film, music, etc.

Just a part of the Entertainment Business.
 
Here's the thing, the original creator didn't post his work here. It's been posted second hand. I mean if people feel this strongly then head over to vimeo to help this guy improve his craft. I don't think this piece is amazing, in fact I think it needs to be thirty seconds max and only be the best shots. Most of it is out of focus, blah blah, but I'm not gonna rip it a new one when the person who made this isn't even on this site. Waste of time.

It is cool that this person made something instead of moaning about what feature camera X does or doesn't have.

Devil's advocate take II
 
I have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever, and really can't say anything bad about it, or agree with the commentary so far.

It's one minute of highly stylized and absolutely pointless footage. So what? That only proves it's a real commercial shot on the 5D...
 
I agree. Nice color and music. Also, the amount of out of focus shots didnt bother me either in this case as it had in others.
 
I'm with Dan on the bokeh of that canon lens it's pretty ugly. If you're gonna shoot something with shallow DOF you need the right lens with a creamy bokeh. And it doesn't have to be a $1000+ zeiss. I'm using some russian glass that cost between $70 and $200 that IMO blows the zeiss primes away for nice bokeh.

I really liked the grading and the location and the overall filmic look of it. It looks a lot more filmic than most of what's out there and not just due to the shallow DOF.

As for substance, we're talking about flogging stinky chemicals to the masses here so lets not take it too seriously. I figure the client is happy with the results otherwise we wouldn't be seeing it.

I like the fact that I have in my possession a camera that can impress big potential clients with deep pockets who might appreciate something that has some artistic qualities.
 
Looks pretty good! I actually think the editing is to blame for the overall negative reaction. It should have been cut to a 30 second commercial. Fashion weirdness is great in small doses. :)
 
I can appreciate the work, but it cracks me up too. That shot at :25 of the model out of focus the entire shot was absolutely ludicrous, but the overall piece had atmosphere.

One of my pet peeves with this camera is using it handheld. This must've been shot handheld DSLR-style with no stabilizer because my 5D2-tuned eyes can detect the early jello vibrations that would've gotten out of hand with a longer lens or just a little more espresso.

Maybe it's a natural manifestation of the tremblings that being in the presence of such beauty can cause. ;-)
 
Hey all,

This ad brings up interesting points, first two pages bashing it, next two pages thinkin about why.

I'm new to the video thing, I own a D90 currently (shielding myself from pelted stones, most of which i throw at myself), I want both a panny and a canon, usually shoot film, and have messed with the illustrious RED (Chinese Gong Chimes) a few times.

My background however is in fine arts visually, ie I draw. Intensively for a good 20 years now. The point I' taking long to get to is what this cam's capability has done to the industry.

I thought the ad was pleasant, it certainly felt good, if i put myself in a 'fashion etc mindframe' when i watch it. I only noticed all the flaws technically after i started reading posts. I watched again and saw everyone's point.

The one thing that stood out before i read the post was the ample use of shallow dof.

If this person were coming from a film background, education-wise, they would've watched out for that first thing. This gives me an impression that the person who did this ad, did it singlehandedly, and came from an art school.

I could be completely wrong of course.

The point is that the fact that a cam like this came out, made producing an ad way easier on someone's pocket, the determining factor driving this whole shabang we call makin movies/clips/ads/etc.

Framing for example, is limited in the film world to a set of aspect ratios, as the technology kinda dictates that, measurements and all. I've heard film heads complain about 16:9, 4:3, sing praise to 2:1 and 2.4:1 and so forth.

For someone coming from a fine arts background, framing comes with a lot less restraint. I could completely want to try composing in a circle, or at a one to one perfect square. 4:3 doesn't bother me for example, cause to me it's a piece of paper that measures out to close to a square. If I can draw in that, make things look wide, I'll do it with a camera.

I digress, but my point lies in that if this person came from an art school background or something like that, she could've seen the shallow dof as something she could do with her tool (pardon that) to emulate some sort of feeling.

We're never gonna fully know the author's intent with a piece like that unless we talk to the author.

Most of the work people get in any field is due to connections, in some cases unfortunately more so than merit. It is not difficult to land a chance at an ad for a large company if you're in the right place at the right time. Maybe it was an assignment that stood out. I spent a few years at PSD in new york and the work kids did for class would be diffused throughout the highest hiring circles and scouts, it was mad i tell you. mad.

I think it's really cool that this camera is so accessible, even if it is 'crippled' hd. It seems to feel good, at the end of the day.

The best analogy I'd make (if there are any audio heads out there) is that these cameras best resemble the release of Propellerheads' Reason.

When Reason came out, you could produce an album at home.

I like analog audio. It's wonderful. And cumbersome, and expensive.

I couldn't sell my hardware no more after Reason came out.

Rules can break I think. If a talk can happen with the author of this piece i'd like to hear some justification for the shallow dof. It'd be interesting. I'm however satisfied with 'because i felt like it'.

These cameras are reason for indy filmmakers and artists.

Cheers. Please excuse my rambling. I've been trying to convert a 24p D90 ad to tape in PAL 25p all day since we're still in tape/sd land in beirut. I'm dying for a Pal version of one of these cameras. It's a tough battle between the gh1 and the canon in my head. anyone wanna buy a d90?

T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top