large format for beauties

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

hi all

 

in comercials photographers are using the largest possible negatives for beauties products.

 

does it make sens to ask why cinematographers don't do the same (maybe they do?)

 

i was verry impressed by the density of Ron fricke's tod-ao job on Baraka or the differences of look of 70mm (5,8 or 15 perf) prints vs to 35mm even on video screen.(exept vista or todd-ao)

 

maybe HD can give the same level impact.

 

i'm only talking about big budget comercials (beautie, cars, jewellery) not food or toilet peper ;)

what is your feeling about that?

[David Mullen ASC]

in comercials photographers are using the largest possible negatives for beauties products.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's mainly because of the degree of enlargement some print adds will use. 35mm is considered more than adequate, resolution-wise, for TV commercials.

 

Also, there are few 65mm telecines, which could be limiting.

[danny bartle]

Hi,

 

As i'm an employee as a camera repair tech in one of Australias largest pro camera stores, I can say that the majority of professional commercial/wedding/landscape/fashion photographers in our market use 120 medium format film mostly but you'll also find that probably half of them will have a digital SLR in their bag for smaller jobs like brochures, newspaper work, web work, etc.

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

telecine does exelent job at CFI los angeles as well as Gulliver in paris.

so up to you there is no noticiable differences between 35 and 65 mm for tv release?

 

according to still photographers SLR is good enouth for magazines but they still use large negative to advertize on fashion

 

i was told that some years ago hollywood was used to shoot some special effects on large format because they needed more info from the neg (to go thrue CGI) thand 35 could actualy give?

 

(thank you D.M for the explanation of the 30's light prints, i heard about it but didn't get it befor your clear demonstration, did you thought about giving course somehow?):)

[Matt Wells]

telecine does exelent job at CFI los angeles as well as Gulliver in paris.

so up to you there is no noticiable differences between 35 and 65 mm for tv release?

 

according to still photographers SLR is good enouth for magazines but they still use large negative to advertize on fashion

 

i was told that some years ago hollywood was used to shoot some special effects on large format because they needed more info from the neg (to go thrue CGI) thand 35 could actualy give?

 

(thank you D.M for the explanation of the 30's light prints, i heard about it but didn't get it befor your clear demonstration, did you thought about giving course somehow?):)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I own a Hasselblad 500C/M even though I'm more into cinematography - but it is just an utterly beautiful piece of kit, and the quality it produces just superb.

 

Matt

[Filip Plesha]

There was a 65mm commercial for BMW in the early 90's made with arri 765

[Chris Keth]

I think the issue is that, since most people still have standard def TVs so anything shot for commercials will be downgraded to television resolution, which is far less than 35mm res and far far below 65mm res.

 

So, considering that, why would you shoot 65mm which is going to cost loads more than 35mm when it's just going to be downgraded to the same thing?

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm sure there are some improvements that can be seen with 65mm over 35mm even on TV but it would be so subtle as to not be worth the extra cost, plus be limited to one telecine house in the city. I think the 65mm telecine at Crest is an older Rank. Plus you're limited in types of lenses, etc.

 

Also remember that the 5-perf 65mm format is 2.20 : 1 -- it's actually only one perf taller than 4-perf 35mm, and the extra width would be wasted for a TV commercial, especially if it's going to end up 4x3. You'd have to shoot 15-perf IMAX or 10-perf 65mm if you wanted a squarer negative.

 

Now for theatrical, that's another thing -- it's a real shame we don't make more features in 5-perf 65mm. Imagine a future of shooting 8-perf 35mm or 5-perf 65mm and using 6K digital intermediates to get really nice 35mm and 70mm prints to the theaters. Ain't going to happen though...

 

Larger negatives were used (and still are) for some efx plate photography mainly for three reasons: (1) in the days of optical printing, starting out with a larger negative helped mitigate grain build-up over generations so it would match non-efx shots better; (2) for movies shooting in 35mm anamorphic, it's often easier to shoot miniatures and other elements with spherical lenses; (3) having a larger negative makes it easier to reframe the image in post when doing digital compositing.

[Dan Salzmann]

It also depends on your definition of beauty.

Is beauty grainless? If so,why?

Is beauty brutally sharp? If so why?

Is beauty contrasty? If so, why?

[Mark Sasahara]

I own a Hasselblad 500C/M even though I'm more into cinematography - but it is just an utterly beautiful piece of kit, and the quality it produces just superb.

 

Matt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think they're talking cine formats. But if it's stills of fasion or beauty, shot on film, usually it's with a Mamiya RZ-67. I think most stuff is shot digitally. I love my Hassey too, but I may end up selling it though.

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

maybe everybody isn't to far from the point.

 

beauty advertising is one of the most ridgid form of look

yes beauty has to grainless, sharp shadowless....

 

it would be interesting to know if a production company is ok to spend more to obtain the best ever look( also for thetre realese comercials) buy shooting in 8/70 iwerks as camera gear and film stock and processing is low budget compare to directors rates or lighting rental....

do you think it's possible to sell the slight diff of look?

 

is beauty is the F1 for the image it may make sens to shoot in 65.

 

the larger the format is the more light is needed (to avoid hot spot you need larger sources), is it already super hot in the studios shooting beauty's?