Jump to content


Photo

Commercial I Shot


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Logan Schneider

Logan Schneider
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Bozeman, MT

Posted 27 April 2007 - 04:11 PM

Here is a commercial that I shot a while back. I thought I would throw it up here and see what people think.



It was shot on my Arri SR3 with an Optex converted 12-120 Ziess and a Century 6mm wide angle lens. We decided to shoot 2:35, so I sent my ground glass to CSC New York where they taped off the frame lines (Arri came out with 2:35 SR3 GG this year at NAB). I used 7229 rated at 400asa. I wanted to have a desaturated palatte, but to keep decent contrast. I think it was somewhat successful. I went a little bit overboard with the Classic Softs on one or two shots, but in some ways they add a nice nostalgic feel to the piece, which was part of the goal.

The primary lighting was two 15" paper lanterns hung over the table, which I moved and controlled with duvetyne to shape the light. I added kicks with 650w and 2Kw fresnels. I had some 200w peppers up on a wall spreader to put highlights in the kitchen. I lit the living room with practicals and kinos. I wanted the faces to have a smooth, almost porcelain feel, so I overexposed them by a stop in addition to rating the film at 400asa.

The space was very tight, which necessitated the use of the 6mm. I tried to stick to the long end of the zoom in order to limit depth of field and imitate 35mm.

I did this last year, so I've had time to reflect on it. I probably would have used 7218 if I did it again so that the blacks would be a bit more solid, and I would have used a lighter classic soft (I only had a 1/2 and a 1...ugh) but overall I think it turned out pretty well.

Logan Schneider
DP
Bozeman, MT
  • 0

#2 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 April 2007 - 08:35 PM

That turned out nicely. It is very tough to get solid blacks with 7229. I shot a short recently on it and I was sure that some shadows would be black at ~6 stops under key but they're clear as an unmuddied lake. Dark, but very clear details.

Why the decision to go with 2.35? I'm not so sure it fits the space and the subject very well.

Did you ever consider filtering with something like a light grade of tobacco or straw? I probably would have filtered (or rather tested to see if my idea would work) with a light grade of tobacco and a very light grade of magenta to try and mimic old kodachrome home movies.

The shot choice is great. It never gets boring even though it is a very dull, static space.
  • 0

#3 Logan Schneider

Logan Schneider
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Bozeman, MT

Posted 28 April 2007 - 10:10 AM

"Why the decision to go with 2.35? I'm not so sure it fits the space and the subject very well."

I chose 2:35 because I felt that it would allow me to have several characters in the frame without seeing too much. It also allowed slightly ackward framing for the boys close ups, adding to the uncomfortable feeling.

"Did you ever consider filtering with something like a light grade of tobacco or straw? I probably would have filtered (or rather tested to see if my idea would work) with a light grade of tobacco and a very light grade of magenta to try and mimic old kodachrome home movies."

I didn't feel that the use of an overt color filter would have been right. I wanted any nostalgia to be a little more subtle than that. That's what I think now. Maybe I just didn't feel like it then.

Logan Schneider
DP
Bozeman, MT
  • 0

#4 darrin p nim

darrin p nim
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca from Portland, Or

Posted 03 May 2007 - 02:09 AM

I too didn't feel that 2.35 was absolutely necessary here. I honestly think that it was fairly awkawrd as it felt that the framing wanted to be 1.33 or atleast 1.78, maybe 1.85. I just felt that it was just forcely masked in post to feel theatrical. Im not sure if you have an unmasked version that doesnt reveal any equipment or etc. but id like to see it compared to this version. I like the shot compositions for a few of the shots including the wide revealing wall of paintings but I also imagined them in a less wide view.
  • 0

#5 Logan Schneider

Logan Schneider
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Bozeman, MT

Posted 03 May 2007 - 11:58 PM

Thanks for the comments. Believe me, there is equipment at the very edge of the frameline. Those china balls were as close as possible. Even with two china balls and rating at 400asa I was struggling for stop now and then.
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Opal

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Tai Audio

Glidecam

The Slider

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport