WHY SHOOT ABOVE 1080p for TV COMMERCIALS?

[RyanFrancis]

We filmed this broadcast toy commercial at 6k and 8k.

We offered a 4k master to the media buyer, which as far as we can tell, they had no clue what to do with it…. They wouldn’t even take a ~600mb 1080p PRORES file. In their words “our program is rejecting the file because it’s too big”… So we reluctantly shot over a 1080p h264 file heavily compressed for them to broadcast. Can the casual TV watcher even see the "shot on RED" difference at this point???


Anyone here successfully run a 4k TV commercial? What media outlet did you use?



RED EPIC-W
——————

LENSES
Sigma 18-35mm Cine
Sigma 24mm Cine
Sigma 50-100mm Cine

LIT BY
Mole Richardson 5k LED
Mole Richardson 10k LED
Fiilex Matrix
Fiilex p360s

 

[Akin A]

Nice work!

The casual TV watcher can't even see the difference between 24 fps and 30 fps. They will watch a movie on a TV that is converting it to 30 fps and not even cringe like the rest of us, lol.

 

[Stefano Venosta]

Here in Italy everytime i send commercials to broadcasters i have to encode horrible sd or hd files with extremely low bitrates...

 

[Marc Wielage]

We offered a 4k master to the media buyer, which as far as we can tell, they had no clue what to do with it…. They wouldn’t even take a ~600mb 1080p PRORES file. In their words “our program is rejecting the file because it’s too big”… So we reluctantly shot over a 1080p h264 file heavily compressed for them to broadcast. Can the casual TV watcher even see the "shot on RED" difference at this point???

I bet they would've taken a ProRes HD file, no problem.

Specs for finished U.S. commercial delivery these days are usually very specific, and generally go for specific audio track assignments, slates, and ProRes 422HQ. The Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP) has detailed specs at this link:

https://www.aicp.com/assets/editor/AICP_File_Deliverable_Specifications_Feb_2018_Revised.pdf

Some companies are very, very strict about this. 4K ain't a thing in U.S. broadcasting just yet. I think it's a very good idea to shoot in 4K and then edit in whatever format works for the post workflow, and deliver in whatever format the client asks for. You could make an argument for 4K delivery for theatrical commercials and trailers, but even there, it's iffy.

 

[Greg M]

Can the casual TV watcher even see the "shot on RED" difference at this point???

Yes, but the camera alone is not the difference...and this is very important. Shot on RED means nothing if you dont know how to exploit your tools.

One very important note on spot delivery: The Media Buyer has nothing to do with how files are delivered. They simply buy media and supply insertion orders. If you want your spot to look its best, its your job to research what is accepted by the media broadcasting the spot and deliver a file that exploits their required specs. Unfortunately cost drives these decisions not quality. We maintain a database of specs and deliver a unique file to each source based on their specifications rather than one common deliverable to everyone.

Sadly...this is no longer the norm as price now dictates how spots are delivered and Agencies pressure production companies to deliver files for $8 each...its become a race to the bottom where final quality is not appreciated. Its now harder and harder to deliver quality as we are more often than not being forced to deliver a single deliverable that fits all specs.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Yes, but the camera alone is not the difference...and this is very important. Shot on RED means nothing if you dont know how to exploit your tools.

Go look up the definition of "mansplanining." I think you just did this.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Because raw offers more flexibility in post and raw is full resolution.

 

[RyanFrancis]

Yes, but the camera alone is not the difference...and this is very important. Shot on RED means nothing if you dont know how to exploit your tools.

One very important note on spot delivery: The Media Buyer has nothing to do with how files are delivered. They simply buy media and supply insertion orders. If you want your spot to look its best, its your job to research what is accepted by the media broadcasting the spot and deliver a file that exploits their required specs. Unfortunately cost drives these decisions not quality. We maintain a database of specs and deliver a unique file to each source based on their specifications rather than one common deliverable to everyone.

Sadly...this is no longer the norm as price now dictates how spots are delivered and Agencies pressure production companies to deliver files for $8 each...its become a race to the bottom where final quality is not appreciated. Its now harder and harder to deliver quality as we are more often than not being forced to deliver a single deliverable that fits all specs.

Great point! We've been communicating back and forth with the different agencies through the toy company and I believe things are getting diluted. Some are asking for PRO RES while others are saying the files are wayyy too big.

Because raw offers more flexibility in post and raw is full resolution.

Very true!
--

Here's another sad reality:
This is a commercial we made in 2016 (shot on Scarlet Dragon in 6k)

I recently found this gem on youtube:

4:3 tv? In 2017? DEPRESSING
Unfortunately for whoever was watching this we didn't stick to "title safe" and they missed some text at the beginning/end. But should we still be catering to 4:3 tvs? Are those people the customers we want?
If this is the resolution people STILL see in 2017-18, I can see why the media companies are late to the party.

 

[Misha Engel]

As long as they pay for it, they get what they want.

 

[H Dewey]

We filmed this broadcast toy commercial at 6k and 8k.

We offered a 4k master to the media buyer, which as far as we can tell, they had no clue what to do with it…. They wouldn’t even take a ~600mb 1080p PRORES file. In their words “our program is rejecting the file because it’s too big”… So we reluctantly shot over a 1080p h264 file heavily compressed for them to broadcast. Can the casual TV watcher even see the "shot on RED" difference at this point???


Anyone here successfully run a 4k TV commercial? What media outlet did you use?



RED EPIC-W
——————

LENSES
Sigma 18-35mm Cine
Sigma 24mm Cine
Sigma 50-100mm Cine

LIT BY
Mole Richardson 5k LED
Mole Richardson 10k LED
Fiilex Matrix
Fiilex p360s

I think this interview with Graeme Nattress will give you confidence in shooting 8k even for a 1080 delivery and will show why a downsampled 8k to 1080 may have a hand in making an audience not see much difference in the lower res broadcast.

https://www.redsharknews.com/produc...iscuss-pixel-power-with-red-s-graeme-nattress

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Imagine:

Recording full frame but composing for 4.5K HD for downsampling to 1080p.

You deliver the ad.

The client asks for a minor change in framing, asking how much it would cost.

You reply that it will cost almost nothing, as your camera always shoots "outside the frame" for insurance.

You deliver the new version of the ad.

Your client loves the magic, there is no need to talk about brand names or DR or 4K or wavelets.

Everyone is happy.

The client makes a casual statement to a friend about how "I wish my camera did that."

As long as they pay for it, they get what they want.

True. But one has pride in one's work!

 

[John Brawley]

Supersampling is a big plus because as the originator it’s much more flexible to work in a supersampled resolution if you can.

I’m afraid that the reality is that the vast majority of broadcast TV have zero interest in 4k+. Fox only air 720p.

Even Netflix Et al only specify 4k for their own commissioned content (aka Netflix original) If they buy your work on spec they don’t mind if you only supply 1920.

JB

 

[Rosie Scott]

One of my favourite pieces of cinematography over the last couple of years was Vanja Cernjul’s stunning work for David Simon on his HBO show “The Deuce.” I was very surprised to read in American Cinematographer that he shot everything on Varicam in HD ProRes in camera, not 4K and then downsampled for HBO's 1080p delivery.

I’m a student at film school so I’m still trying to figure all this stuff out, I’ve been shooting with an Alexa, an iPhone and everything in between. I’ve always striven to capture an image with as much resolution as I can, but after watching The Deuce and reading Steve Yedlin’s article it really made me stop and think. If your audience is going to see your work at 1080p does it make only a marginal difference in practice to shoot at higher resolutions apart from giving you the ability to reframe a shot?

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

If your audience is going to see your work at 1080p does it make only a marginal difference in practice to shoot at higher resolutions apart from giving you the ability to reframe a shot?

IMHO it's about refinement.

But don't underestimate the ability to reframe. That can save you time and money. The audience doesn't have to give a shit. But you should.

To paraphrase Graeme Nattress, if you shoot HD, sharpening looks awful. But if you shoot 4K or higher (whether or not your downsample), you need less sharpening, therefore you don't get that negative aspect of high resolution. Downsampling is the best sharpening tool if you're shooting HD - that's how I would phrase it.

 

[Aaron Lochert]

If your audience is going to see your work at 1080p does it make only a marginal difference in practice to shoot at higher resolutions apart from giving you the ability to reframe a shot?

It's your job as a DP to analyze what tools you have at your disposal and what features of those tools you're going to utilize, for whatever reason. There's many benefits to super-sampling. But it's not "wrong" if you find that it's not worth the trouble for your own work.

 

[John Brawley]

IMHO it's about refinement.

But don't underestimate the ability to reframe. That can save you time and money. The audience doesn't have to give a shit. But you should.

I hate this argument.

I've shot RED before for a HD delivery on an episodic series and once editorial realised how much they could do post zooms and reframes they went nuts.

Until of course we got into the grade and started to notice that unlike their DNX editorial rushes, they couldn't tell how the 18mm wide wasn't focused on the person they were zooming in on, nor did they look very nice when they're on the edge of the frame and their (famous) face is being bent out of shape by the lens geometry when it's on the edge of the frame.

I think of post reframes as something you do when something major has gone wrong or as a last resort.

And not to be too much of as pursist about it all, but there's this old fashioned ideas of of composing for one frame.

JB

 

[Marc Wielage]

I think of post reframes as something you do when something major has gone wrong or as a last resort.
And not to be too much of as pursist about it all, but there's this old fashioned ideas of of composing for one frame.

I used to think the same way, but then I started paying attention to David Fincher's technique and realizing what could be redone through recomposition in post. I think it can work very effectively, particularly when they need to stabilize shots, solve headroom problems, cut actors out of the frame, add more "random" shakiness, and so on. I can't think of a feature from the last 10 years where we haven't wound up reframing at least 100 shots in the entire show. We do that a lot with Steadicam shots, where we're either taking out half the bumps or helping avoid headroom issues.

I always prefer for the DP to be present in the room to supervise and approve the final color, so I'm 100% on your side that I don't want the cinematographer to lose this control. And I also agree that it's always better to get the shot done right on the day, rather than try to cobble together some half-assed fix in post. I have to admit, I kind of wince when the editor or the director wants to do a massive blow-up, because - no matter what the resolution -- it's not the same thing as just using a tighter lens. And there's a lot of ignorance among neophyte filmmakers who erroneously assume that because they can do something, they should do something. It's hard to rein them in.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Well good practice should never go out of style. Shooting wide is itself a good practice and also compatible with good practice in general. Think about this: you frame properly, even with extra room around your composition. When the footage reaches the editor, he only has to apply one simple action to punch in to all the footage. If something is wrong, then he reframes. But otherwise, he edits as if there is nothing extra to do.

Hypothetical: if you are shooting a production on S16, you might be tempted to shoot 2-perf 35 for a frame extraction. Even 3-perf 35. Maybe not the most efficient thing, but it's just an idea. So it's not the specific gauge you want, it's the level of enlargement. I'm thinking out loud here, and anyway, film works somewhat differently.