Personal View site logo
DICK'S Sporting Goods Commercial (well done)
  • anybody know what this was shot on? I think this was very well made.

  • 34 Replies sorted by
  • That was cool, particulalry if you like baseball.

  • i'm not even a baseball fan, and it kept my interest. i'm more of a basketball & football person ; )

  • It shouldn't be that hard to find out. Radical Media was the prod company. I'd guess it was 35mm.

  • @rockroadpix yeah, it didn't appear digital. and if it was in fact digital, I would really want to know what digital camera is producing an image that nice. I guess Arri could, but man it looks nice whatever it is.

  • I've shot 3 things for Radical and every time they used an Alexa. Well, my last commercial in Jan they used a Phantom for A cam but running Alexas as B cams. Must be nice! :)

  • @vicharris - Yeah, I know lots of Radical NYC peeps. Alexa would be my 2nd choice.

  • Oh, was this NY or LA? I'm in LA.

  • The folks in the stadium as well as the light volumes were digital it looks like. Nice looking spot. I liked how it flowed.

  • @burnetrhoades

    i'm guessing youtube compression is what you are seeing

  • No, I'm pretty sure I'm seeing digital crowds. It could also be a combination of digital and that company that provides blow-up people for stadium shots and cut-outs. It looks like a few are leaning over but this could also be skew in a digital element being corner-pinned in. The compression does make it harder to distinguish and you can't rock-n-roll YouTube so that I could check for "repeaters". Truthfully, the whole stadium behind the fence could be all digital, it's a little hard to tell with the stream.

    The sweeps passed them are how you would shoot this if you were going to be tracking them in digitally, as well as the framing for the rest of the spot. The light volumes help mask the crowd compositing as well as de-emphasizes everything above fence level. I've done stuff like this so I know what to look for.

    I'm not knocking it. They're done well enough your eye isn't drawn to any problems. You just need to see something back there to sell that this is happening.

  • @burnetrhoades do you have any of the stuff available for us to view that you've done like this to give us an example?

  • It was the Sony F35 with Arri master primes.

  • @lin3arx source? if you don't mind me asking.

    kinda makes the f35 going on ebay for $12k pretty temping lol $2k battery and changer not included

  • @GravitateMediaGroup , Sorry just a guess lol. Wanted to see what people would say. Although, I've honestly seen F35 stuff that looks this good. It's the only digital camera to fool me a couple times into thinking it was genuinely 35mm film, but it's rare.

    Honestly, I think this really might have been film.

  • @l1n3arx I agree, it's the only reason I posted this to try and get some answers. It completely reminds me of the movie Friday Night Lights, pretty much the same color and all.

  • @L1N3ARX

    It's the only digital camera to fool me a couple times into thinking it was genuinely 35mm film, but it's rare.

    You should check out The Following. It's one of the only network TV shows that actually looks movie quality, now that Friday Night Lights is done. It's an Alexa show. It proves the whole teal + orange thing is nothing more than a colorists fad and not representative of the camera. It has very neutral, very natural skin tones and color.

  • @Burnetrhoades yes, we are aware that color grading in the end gives a movie that "magical look" the reason the matrix doesn't look like pulp fiction, and collateral doesn't look like bad boys.

    i'm sure l1n3arx is refering to the aesthetics of the f35 appearing more "film like" than the average digital cinema camera, not the grade used.

  • LOL, without a grade the F35 and other cameras of its type don't really look like anything but flat. Dunno what point you're trying to make.

  • @burnetrhoades you are kidding right? do you understand aesthetics? on the flattest settings possible, a c300, RED epic, and f35 will each have their own unique look. red raw and bmcc raw will once again, have their own unique look.

    this is why Quentin Tarantino will live and die by film, even if a RED 10 years from now has better specs on paper.

    and what l1n3arx is saying is sometimes, just sometimes, the f35 can almost convince him that whatever he's viewing shot with the f35 is film, which means it's really doing it's job. nothing what so ever to do with a grade, colorist fad, or anything else color related.

  • Tarantino doesn't understand digital anything and therefore he's afraid of it.

    Common phrase muttered by directors on shoots with RAW digital cameras, "it's not going to look like that, right?"

  • Also, these cameras don't have overriding looks when you're not shooting to baked LUTs. Otherwise the films Michael Mann shot digitally would look even remotely similar to the films David Fincher shot with the same cameras. But they don't. Mann's early digital films look like ENG camera teleplays and Fincher's look like actual movies. Later Genesis films would look like the early Genesis films while the software was all crap (which I remember because I worked on the first full-feature shot on the Genesis).

    You line up all of the work done with these, or the RED and I'm sorry but neither you or he or anyone is going to pull a Pepsi challenge and pick out the individual cameras based on look.

  • you may not be able to determine "which image is which" with film. But I am willing to take that "challenge" of not being able to tell digital cinema cameras apart.

    anybody can spot RED footage from a mile away.

    I own a BMCC, so i'm quite familiar with it's image, so that's another easy pick.

    so, do I flip a coin between a c300 and f35, or notice that the c300 will more than likely have a softer image?

    lol @ your Tarantino comment

  • What are you talking about? LOL, I actually know the people who worked with him for the digital sections on Kill Bill and the guy knows nothing about digital. He knows enough to realize his buddy Rodriguez didn't know what he was talking about when he said the F900 was better than shooting film, I'll give him that...

    You really want me to dig up some easy stuff I did back in 2002/2003 in my off hours, for my own feature, at the same time that I was creating tougher effects for Tim Burton, Sam Raimi, Wes Anderson and a few others around the same time period? Yeah, I'll get right on that, sport.

  • why stuff from 2002 and 2003? where is the 2011/2012 stuff?

    and is what you are REALLY getting at is digital is better than film? Or just making statements assuming QT knows nothing about digital? You act like he has never seen a movie shot on a digital camera.

    imdb makes no mention of a digital camera used anywhere in kill bill 1 or 2

  • I didn't say digital cameras, I said "digital sections." There are sections of digitally manipulated and all or mostly-digital imagery (bullet ECU, some of the Tokyo imagery if I remember correctly). He was not an ideal client/collaborator, didn't understand the process and didn't seem to want to understand the process. He then talked schmack about the process in the press like a total douche. Love his films, wouldn't want to work with him.

    No, I'm not saying digital is better than film. You need to slow down and read a little slower maybe and stop trying to put words in my mouth that aren't consistent with what I've gone on record here, there and everywhere about.

    You wanted to see shots I did where I added digital crowd to FX plates, dude, I did that back in 2002. I might have also done it in '98 as well if Oliver Stone wasn't so cheap on Any Given Sunday. I brought the Sony system up to speed for the first Ghost Rider but I left before a single plate showed up and have no idea what technique was ultimately used in the film. So that's it, I did some all the way back in 2002. It's not the sort of thing you do if you don't have a reason to.

    At this point I don't generate FX just to do it. I prefer these days to masturbate with my camera.

    As for 2011/2012 stuff, I was getting an independent feature through deliverables mostly, with little things here and there (like, I got to kill Bruce Davison for the second time) for some walking-around-money.