Karim D. Ghantous
Well-known member
http://nofilmschool.com/2016/04/check-out-sexy-ad-oscar-winner-steve-mcqueen-shot-burberry-70mm-film
I'd like you to watch it before reading my opinons, if you can.
.
.
.
I don't love the ad, although I think it's well put together and the song is nice - definitely not the usual teeny-bopper bubblegum junk music. And apart from the stupid full-frame fisheye shots, it looks rather nice. In some way it's great, in others it leaves you wanting more mood. Maybe I'm just not getting it. Well, I hope to make ads one day and maybe someone will be saying the same thing about my work - now, that's a privilege I can live with.
But, there's something that bugs me about it, too. It doesn't look like film as I know it. It doesn't have that total richness that one normally sees in film. Perhaps because the resolution is so high? VistaVision is about 864sqmm or so, and 5-perf 65mm is 1,211sqmm (camera aperture). 4-perf 35mm is about 465sqmm. So it's not as dramatic as the difference between a Hasselblad negative and a Leica negative.
I don't know. I'm used to the way that 24 looks, I guess. And these days I'm watching Murder, She Wrote which has a thick, rich look (even though visually it's not that great and it is a little soft). This ad for Mr. Burberry looks like it was shot on the RED (but of course light sources that are in focus such as tail lights don't fall apart). That speaks well for both the RED and 65mm film, of course, but I expected something else. Perhaps if this is how 65mm film always looks (from memory it doesn't) I'd be happy with it and I'd love to shoot with it, but there isn't a huge difference between it and the RED.
I don't know what stock it was but the edge numbers are weird: 5240 and what I think is 5812.
So, what do you think?
I'd like you to watch it before reading my opinons, if you can.
.
.
.
I don't love the ad, although I think it's well put together and the song is nice - definitely not the usual teeny-bopper bubblegum junk music. And apart from the stupid full-frame fisheye shots, it looks rather nice. In some way it's great, in others it leaves you wanting more mood. Maybe I'm just not getting it. Well, I hope to make ads one day and maybe someone will be saying the same thing about my work - now, that's a privilege I can live with.
But, there's something that bugs me about it, too. It doesn't look like film as I know it. It doesn't have that total richness that one normally sees in film. Perhaps because the resolution is so high? VistaVision is about 864sqmm or so, and 5-perf 65mm is 1,211sqmm (camera aperture). 4-perf 35mm is about 465sqmm. So it's not as dramatic as the difference between a Hasselblad negative and a Leica negative.
I don't know. I'm used to the way that 24 looks, I guess. And these days I'm watching Murder, She Wrote which has a thick, rich look (even though visually it's not that great and it is a little soft). This ad for Mr. Burberry looks like it was shot on the RED (but of course light sources that are in focus such as tail lights don't fall apart). That speaks well for both the RED and 65mm film, of course, but I expected something else. Perhaps if this is how 65mm film always looks (from memory it doesn't) I'd be happy with it and I'd love to shoot with it, but there isn't a huge difference between it and the RED.
I don't know what stock it was but the edge numbers are weird: 5240 and what I think is 5812.
So, what do you think?
