Filip Plesha Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 The recent thread about ad eaters has reminded me of some of my favorite commercials. I've aksed a question about this one last year I think, but nobody answered with certainty, so I'll ask the question again, this time with images to help What I'm trying to find out is which format was used for this ad: Lewi's "Twisted to fit" Here are a couple of PAL screens: http://www.softimage.com/Community/Xsi/Mag...he_mill_2lg.jpg http://www.softimage.com/Community/Xsi/Mag...he_mill_1lg.jpg Now if that is taken from some bad DVD, that grain is probably from video compression, I don't know But what do you think, does this look like super16 to you or 35mm? I know it's hard to tell because the screenshots are pretty bad (must be from a DVD), but usually on good clean SD footage you can tell the difference between 16 and 35 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Haspel Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 i don't know, but i'd guess that they had quite a budget. so, my tip goes to 35mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted February 18, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted February 18, 2006 i don't know, but i'd guess that they had quite a budget.so, my tip goes to 35mm. Hi, I agree, I can't see their agency allowing 16mm to be used! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 Hi, I agree, I can't see their agency allowing 16mm to be used! Stephen Unless for an intentional gritty look As far as I remember, when it aired, the ad had a very, how to say, filmy rugged look (though not grainy), sort of "music-videos-meets-Kodachrome-home-movie-meets-fashion-photo-shoot" look. It could have easily worked in 16mm too. In fact, It might have even enhanced that look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted February 18, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted February 18, 2006 Unless for an intentional gritty look Hi, I think the Agency would rather shoot 35 and fix it in post, rather than shoot 16mm. I don't think budget would be an issue. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 Hi, I think the Agency would rather shoot 35 and fix it in post, rather than shoot 16mm. I don't think budget would be an issue. Stephen I was just speaking hypothetical. But I do agree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 19, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted February 19, 2006 I was just speaking hypothetical. But I do agree with you I have heard of some big commercials shot in S16, either for look or for convenience. I saw this great car commercial directed/shot by Eric Saarinen where a camera seems to move like on a Ferris Wheel, rising up over a landscape looking down at a car (I think a Range Rover) and continuing until it is looking upside-down and then plunging into the ground, then rising again in a new location around the world, over and over again, sometimes rising and falling into water while watching the Rover on a barge in a harbor. He did it with a long remote crane off to one side, but the crane was so extended that it was safer to use an Arri-SR3 on it instead of a 35mm camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now