More fun with ads…

So, MSNBC’s “Test Pattern” has a quick article up on what it considers to be the creepiest ad on TV.  If you want to read the article, you can click on this link:

http://testpattern.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/11/265905.aspx

If you are just interested in being creeped out by a man being milked by a machine (and who isn’t?), you can simply indulge yourself here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG0zDltjL_o

Uh-oh…Panasonic AG-HVX200 presents some problems

The editors at ZDNet are not happy.  They use a Panasonic AG-HVX200 to produce the web videos for their site which, incidentally, reviews tech products.  They love the camera’s performance except for one small thing…sometimes it does not turn on.  It seems that a non-servicable fuse in the camera blows and causes the whole camera to shut down completely requiring the camera to be shipped out for repair.  Ouch…

We have had our own issues with the camera though nothing resulting in power loss.  While ZDNet raves about the camera’s P2 card storage system, we have found it to be a little cumbersome.  Sure, you can immediately plug the cards into your computer as they say in the article, but they are limited in their capacity. 

 If you are shooting in HD at 1080i, you can only fit about 1 minute per GB onto the cards.  That means only 16 minutes on the largest 16GB cards and a laughable 4 minutes on the 4GB cards.  If you are shooting a live event, a lengthy interview, or something of that sort, the cards can become a nuisance causing you to risk missing something crucial or starting and stopping while you reload your media.

If you want to read more about ZDNet’s troubles, follow the link below.  I recommend watching the video for entertainment purposes.  The guy that wrote the article is really upset and throws a bit of a tantrum.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=617 

Study suggests that DVR viewers DO get something out of TV ads

A recent study commissioned by NBC suggests that DVR viewers who fast-forward over commercials are still being impacted by those commercials.  They studied biometrics of viewers as they watched programming both in “real time” and with a DVR and tested recall of the ads.  The results, though preliminary, are encouraging for those in the TV ad biz.

Of course, there are others that say that exposure to the ads is not enough to affect purchase intent.  So, the debate will rage on…

Read for yourself and have something interesting to say at your next staff meeting:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/03/business/adco.php

iPhone’s ancestor strutting its stuff on TV

With the launch of the iPhone this week, it seems a good time to remember the good old days of not only cell phones but cell phone advertising.  Follow the link below and compare one of the first cell phone television ads with the current ads touting the iPhone.  Now compare the phone features.  It is hard to tell which one has evolved more: the phone or the advertisements!

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptbJZ9HBw2k

Best ads in the world?

There are a ton of television ads out there.  So, if you are picked as the “best ad in the world” you must be doing something right.  To read about the ads, follow this link:

www.smartofficenews.com.au/Sales_And_Marketing/Advertising/B4W4J3J2

If you just want to see the “best ad in the world”, you can follow this link:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVJoGRp30XM

Enjoy!

The return of the live commercial

A few weeks ago, we wrote about the challenges that advertisers face in the age of time-shifting thanks to DVR’s.  That article mentioned some non-traditional means of promotion like product placement, etc.  Well, a traditional advertising strategy is getting new life thanks to “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” and NBC.

 The June 11, 2007 show featured a live commercial.  That’s right.  Live commercials just like Uncle Milty used to make.  The promotion combined live and pre-produced elements to communicate the message.  Whether it will drive sales remains to be seen, but it has certainly gotten its product a lot of extra exposure. 

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/146420.html

Frame Rates and You

Frame Rates.  You know ‘em.  You love ‘em.

Wait…what?  You don’t know ‘em?  So, that means you don’t love ‘em?  Hmmmm….

Allow me to take a moment to fill you in.  I am sure that you know that a motion picture is not “in motion” at all but is really a series of still photographs shown in rapid succession to simulate movement.  Each of those stills is called a “frame”.  The rate at which images are captured or output is referred to as the “frame rate”.

When you go to your local multiplex, the movies that you watch are generally shot and projected at 24 frames-per-second (fps) which is the standard frame rate for 35mm film.  Videotape on the other hand is usually shot at 30 fps.  The different frame rates subtely affect the look and feel of the images with film being the preferred frame rate.

Frame rates are often manipulated to speed up or slow down the action being captured.  If you shoot something at 48 fps and then play it back at 24 fps, the action on screen will be at half the speed that it would be had it been captured at 24 fps.  The opposite effect can be achieved by shooting at 12 fps and projecting back at 24 fps.  That is how film cameras capture slow and fast motion images.

The new HD cameras that are being used with more and more frequency (in our case the Panasonic VariCam) allow for “variable frame rate” shooting.  That means that the camera can shoot anywhere from 4 fps to 60 fps on the same media just by making a few adjustments in the camera.  The result is the ability to create very film-like images and effects at a fraction of the cost since we are not shooting on film, but on digital tape. 

The bottom line is that production companies like ours are able to replicate the look of film and the slow and fast motion effects available when shooting on film by using a more affordable digital tape media and camera.

So, the next time you are on location with a production company as they shoot your latest commercial and you hear them talking about shooting something at 24, 48, 60 fps… you will be in the know. 

 Of course, you could make your life even easier and just shoot your next project with us!

Why HD? Reason #3

Here it is: the latest installment in the series that asks, “Why should I shoot my project in HD?”.  We have already talked about the regulatory issues and the durability of the image.  We addressed the superiority of the picture in the post entitled, “So, What is HD After All?”.  Now, we will address the money issue.

Most of the time, the cost of something climbs steeply as its quality increases.  Following that logic, since HD is so much better than SD, it stands to reason that it is much more expensive.  After all, you get what you pay for, right?

That is not necessarily the case.  Film remains the gold standard in the industry and likely will for some time.  We say that HD produces as “film-like” image for a reason…film is what video aspires to be.  However, the cost of film is often prohibitive when trying to meet production budgets.  The dollars associated with the film stock itself, the additional crew that is required to shoot film, and the cost to process and transfer the film adds up to a hefty bottom line.  That leaves many productions relying on video as a cheaper alternative.

The dropoff in image quality from film to SD video parallels the drop in cost.  Shooting in SD video will certainly cost less (largely because of the inexpensive stock and the elimnation of processing/transferring time) but it will also look a lot worse compared to film when the final product is delivered.

HD video bridges that gap between the look of film and the cost of video.  The price of the stock itself is comparable to SD stock.  With the proper equipment, the cost of post-production on HD is no different than when working with SD video. 

The only real increase in the cost lies in the cameras themselves.  A new HD camera like the Panasonic VariCam that we use at Tall Tale Productions will cost tens of thousands of dollars more than an SD camera.  The cost of the camera gets passed along to the client, but the good news is that the cost gets spread out over hundreds of projects which means that the cost of shooting HD on any one project is only a few hundred dollars per day more.

So, the bottom line is that you can shoot on an HD system that is vastly superior to its SD cousins for only a few hundred dollars per day more.  On projects with five- and six-figure budgets, that is a mere drop in the bucket.

Ads that don’t work but are funny

Leon Hale of the Houston Chronicle raises an interesting point in his blog: the most memorable commercials are not always the most effective.  Check out the link below to be reminded that sometimes being clever wins out over being clear.  The objective of advertising after all is to raise awareness of and affinity for a brand.  Are you doing that or are you just getting a few laughs?

http://blogs.chron.com/leonhale/2007/05/the_case_of_the_funny_commerci.html

Why HD? Reason #2

So, you read the first post in the ongoing series “Why HD?”  I know, I know you could not wait for entry #2.  This is like “Lost” in Season 1.  You just cannot wait to see what happens next.  Hopefully, this series won’t be as confusing as that one…

We already talked about the planned shift from SDTV to DTV by the FCC in 2009.  If you did not read that entry, scroll down to “Why HD? Reason #1″.  It is a good read.  That blogger really seems to be on top of things…

At the end of that post, I asked you to think about your family photos.  The ones that you took in 1997 just don’t look as good as the ones you took in 2007.  It is not just the hideous Backstreet Boys shirt you were wearing at the time that makes the picture look dated.  The fact is,  most images look worse over time.  The biggest reasons are that they lose their brightness and that the medium (in this case the paper the image is printed on) has started to corrode.

Why do I mention that (other than to get in a shot at the Backstreet Boys)?  The same thing happens with video.  Film that was shot a few years ago does not look as good now and will look even worse in a few more years.  Even video wears with time and loses its quality.

The beauty of HD video is that it is completely digital and does not lose image quality over time.  The ones and zeroes that are used to comprise digital information don’t go bad over the years or fade from exposure to the light.  That is one of the beauties of shooting in HD: the images will look as good 10 years from now as they do today.  That means that you have access to anything that you shoot in HD for years to come and can use that footage in an infinite number of ways without ever worrying about loss of image quality.

Of course, if we shoot an HD video of you today, we cannot predict how your outfit will look in 10 years.  All we can promise is that it will look clear and crisp.  We will leave the fashion critiques to those more qualified in such matters.

Next time, we turn the old saying “You get what you pay for” on its head.  You might be surprised to learn that shooting in HD is not that much more expensive.  Tune in next time to find out why not!