FABIEN BARON - ALEXANDER WANG 11

[Jarred Land]

Shot on EPIC by Matt Baron and Will Town

for Alexander Wang 11 http://www.alexanderwang.com/


http://vimeo.com/26968643

[Jean Guerra]

and this was shot with?

[Jarred Land]

Sorry, EPIC. HEAVILY processed :)

[KETCH ROSSi]

Not my style of chaotic shooting, but I sure do love the look, which is what we are going after it for some of the scenes in "Rape of a Beauty" and a second project currently in development in Siena, Tuscany.

Epic holds just about anything you can trow at, we LOVE IT!!

[David Battistella]

This one is all about content mood and style.

Overall a highly energic piece. Love the flare as a light source and the "kick down the doors" attitude.

I'm glad they used the EPIC. It just goes to show how much creative freedom there is in that little box.

Once again. RAW RULES.

[jacob.schwarz]

Love it.

[Michael Totten]

+ 1 .
Love it.

[kenneth gruyaert]

They might as well have used a $500 consumer camera, you would never see the difference. An EPIC is about precision not 'look'.

[Joe Carney]

They might as well have used a $500 consumer camera, you would never see the difference. An EPIC is about precision not 'look'.

Prove it. Easy to point a finger.

[David Battistella]

They might as well have used a $500 consumer camera, you would never see the difference. An EPIC is about precision not 'look'.

We used to call people who made statements like this "film snobs". I guess now we have to find an equivalent for EPIC now.

Did you stop to consider, before shitting on someone's creative choices, that it's actually RED that are proudly presenting this piece of work where their tools were used?

I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinion but I'd imagine your showing some keyboard bravery here, meaning that if you were at RED headquarters, standing there with Jarred and the creators of this piece, you probably might not jump into the conversation by saying.

"shit, you could have used a camcorder, don't you know EPIC is about prescision?"

Which is exactly what you've just done on a public worldwide internet forum. You get what I'm saying?

[kenneth gruyaert]

We used to call people who made statements like this "film snobs". I guess now we have to find an equivalent for EPIC now.
Sorry i dont get what you mean by this, i dont like film and i definitely prefer the epic over any other camera right now.



Did you stop to consider, before shitting on someone's creative choices, that it's actually RED that are proudly presenting this piece of work where their tools were used?

I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinion but I'd imagine your showing some keyboard bravery here, meaning that if you were at RED headquarters, standing there with Jarred and the creators of this piece, you probably might not jump into the conversation by saying.

"shit, you could have used a camcorder, don't you know EPIC is about prescision?"

Which is exactly what you've just done on a public worldwide internet forum. You get what I'm saying?

If people want to make videos look like this it is fine by me but my statement is still true. Im not sure what causes the noisy image, is it simply iso 12800? Or did they add the noise which is what i thought initially, whichever it is it makes 5k 16bit raw absolutely pointless. Normal hd at 8bit would be perfectly fine.

I have seen many videos ruined by adding film grain, it completely burries the detail and it makes high bitrate 1080p video look worse than some of the 4-5mbps 720p unruined videos from the epic i have seen like these: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?57002-Inez-amp-Vinoodh-Girls-on-FILM-VOGUE-PARIS-EPIC and http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?61678-TOIA-amp-EPIC-kill-a-spare-5-minutes.

Just giving my objective opinion that high precision red cameras are unnecessary for randomized images, i just wanted to see if this is agreed on or if not what arguments others would have to claim otherwise.

added in edit:


it's actually RED that are proudly presenting this piece of work where their tools were used

I did not see any noisy shots in their Epic 700 reel so it doesnt seem they would want to include this video. Even the dark indoor and nighttime outdoor shots in the reel are clean and detailed.

[Desmond Royal]

ouch!

[David Battistella]

@kenneth,

I take all your points but what if that was never the intended look? What if they went in looking to shoot clean and mess with it later? Why would they use a camcorder to do that? At least by shooting EPIC they have the creative choice to go either way.

My point to you was more a question of behavior, not opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. I was just wondering if you would have made a comment like that to the photographer if you were face to face because in a sense you are face to face with that creative person in this thread.

I'd always defend your right to an opinion but making comments like the one you made was more on the rude side. That is why I reacted strongly.

You see. You have a right to your opinion and the creative person has a right to their creative choices. That's just basic respect.

Look at Ketch's answer. "not my style" or something to that nature, but not "pffff, go shoot with a camcorder"

Get it?

[Johnny Friday]

Maybe Kenneth can show us some precision work?....so we all know what to look for and give a bar to judge our work and others?

[kenneth gruyaert]

My point to you was more a question of behavior, not opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. I was just wondering if you would have made a comment like that to the photographer if you were face to face because in a sense you are face to face with that creative person in this thread.

I'd always defend your right to an opinion but making comments like the one you made was more on the rude side. That is why I reacted strongly.

You see. You have a right to your opinion and the creative person has a right to their creative choices. That's just basic respect.

Look at Ketch's answer. "not my style" or something to that nature, but not "pffff, go shoot with a camcorder"

Get it?

I understand what you are saying and that what i said could look rude but i was only thinking about the technical aspect of this type of video so i was not commenting on the look or the creative aspect of the video at all. I can see why they would choose to make it look like this and i understand it could have an appeal to many people.

The reason i am interested in epic and upcoming cameras is because i want the highest quality most detailed video i can get, ultimately looking for perfection in the future. It has bothered me for a while that so many movies and other videos have film grain added to them and i wanted to point out that this basically drowns out all the fine (low contrast) detail thus kind of missing the point of what high quality cameras are about. I also wanted to get across that high precision raw isnt needed to have flexibility in image processing, it is needed to have that flexibility without compromising quality (precision) which doesnt seem clear to everyone.

So just to be sure my comment was actually about this kind of processing in general, this video just got me to make a comment about it thats all.

Similarly i am also disappointed about the fact that everyone is still shooting 24fps while 96-120fps is available, i might as well have commented on that :)

[DCC Erickson]

They might as well have used a $500 consumer camera, you would never see the difference. An EPIC is about precision not 'look'.

Not with that much detail in the shadows - even with the heavy processing you can see a lot more range than a prosumer would show. And I like 24fps. Not everything needs to look like a National Geographic special. Slow mo's great when it counts, but sometimes I just want the film to get on with it.

[Jon Carr]

I like it, the grittiness, fast cuts, really cool. I would not have guessed it was on the EPIC. It just goes to show you that it's not what you shoot, but how you shoot it.

[kenneth gruyaert]

Not with that much detail in the shadows - even with the heavy processing you can see a lot more range than a prosumer would show.
Well i was thinking about a dslr or a vg10 but i know they throw away much of the light by line skipping so my comment isnt entirely correct, though a $500 camera with that size chip could be made without line skipping im sure either by using a lower resolution sensor or by using simple pixel binning.



And I like 24fps. Not everything needs to look like a National Geographic special. Slow mo's great when it counts, but sometimes I just want the film to get on with it.
What do you mean with 'look like a National Geographic special'? Do they use slowmotion that often or do they use 60fps playback speed? I was only thinking about realtime playback.

[David Battistella]

I understand what you are saying and that what i said could look rude but i was only thinking about the technical aspect of this type of video so i was not commenting on the look or the creative aspect of the video at all. I can see why they would choose to make it look like this and i understand it could have an appeal to many people.

The reason i am interested in epic and upcoming cameras is because i want the highest quality most detailed video i can get, ultimately looking for perfection in the future. It has bothered me for a while that so many movies and other videos have film grain added to them and i wanted to point out that this basically drowns out all the fine (low contrast) detail thus kind of missing the point of what high quality cameras are about. I also wanted to get across that high precision raw isnt needed to have flexibility in image processing, it is needed to have that flexibility without compromising quality (precision) which doesnt seem clear to everyone.

So just to be sure my comment was actually about this kind of processing in general, this video just got me to make a comment about it thats all.

Similarly i am also disappointed about the fact that everyone is still shooting 24fps while 96-120fps is available, i might as well have commented on that :)

Totally get it from this perspective.

I'd say it's better to shoot the best and dumb it down than the other way around. As far as film grain goes. There are many people who feel nostalgic about film grain and about the look of film images. Film will also continue to be shot and screened.

Grain is going nowhere for a while. It's part of a hundred or so years of image-making. That makes it cultural.

[kenneth gruyaert]

I'd say it's better to shoot the best and dumb it down than the other way around.
Sure and if they have the camera anyways for their other projects there is no reason not to use it.


As far as fil grain goes. There are many people who feel nostalgic about film grain and about the look of film images. Film will also continue to br shot and screened.

Grain is going nowhere for a while. It's part of a hunted or so years of image-making. That makes it cultural.

I think you are probably right about that, unfortunately :)

[Elmer Tenkink]

Maybe I am the only one but, I find this the best in this fashion section.
It is pure, raw and genuine!.. and I love it!!
Not just pretty pictures, but pushing it beyond the edge.

Most fashion shoots are in my opinion boring and are scared to move beyond the comfort zone of beauty equals perfectionism.
I wish I was as good as these creators did!

[Rob Ruffo]

Maybe I am the only one but, I find this the best in this fashion section.
It is pure, raw and genuine!.. and I love it!!
Not just pretty pictures, but pushing it beyond the edge.

Most fashion shoots are in my opinion boring and are scared to move beyond the comfort zone of beauty equals perfectionism.
I wish I was as good as these creators did!

People who say things like that don't really understand how fashion promotion works. Fashion videos are not targeted to young males (unless it is a line for young males, a minority), nor are they primarily entertainment. They exist to sell clothes, mainly to women. A "good" one achieves those sales and heightens awareness for brands in a manner that is compatible with higher future sales. A bad one does not, no matter how edgy you or other non potential clients for a label might think it is.

At that level I give this one a 6 on 10, because we really don't see the clothes at all to a ludicrous extent.

I don't like beer commercials, but I don't drink beer, so who cares. I give most beer commercials a 10 because they speak to their intended audience.

[Steve Das]

...Fashion videos are not targeted to young males (unless it is a line for young males, a minority), nor are they primarily entertainment. They exist to sell clothes, mainly to women. A "good" one achieves those sales and heightens awareness for brands in a manner that is compatible with higher future sales. A bad one does not, no matter how edgy you or other non potential clients for a label might think it is.
At that level I give this one a 6 on 10, because we really don't see the clothes at all to a ludicrous extent...

Very good point...it's like the saying about comedy "..it's lit too dark..I can't see the jokes.." think that was from Garry Marshall..
..be great if you have any fashion video links to recomend...

[Peter Strietmann]

I think it is cool. fashion, art call it whatever, it still resonates. It feels like a very loose painting. The reckless abandon is exquisite.

[Luc Bouvrette]

I really like this. The locale, rhythm, lighting, editing, especially when red kicks in at :42. Clothing is secondary. Attitude is what's sold (and sells imho). Brilliant.

[Rob Ruffo]

I think it is cool. fashion, art call it whatever, it still resonates. It feels like a very loose painting. The reckless abandon is exquisite.

Right, but how much did you spend on women's clothing that was your buying decision this year?

[Rob Ruffo]

I really like this. The locale, rhythm, lighting, editing, especially when red kicks in at :42. Clothing is secondary. Attitude is what's sold (and sells imho). Brilliant.

I'm not advocating the video form on an old-school catalog, but really, this does not move the schmata off the shelves. The attitude in question to me is a bit late-1990s and passe, if it ever much appealed to women buying in this price range. The attitude has to fit the clothes in a way that makes sense to at least a good chunk of the audiences and that we can see.

I'll have links soon of good examples.

[Elmer Tenkink]

People who say things like that don't really understand how fashion promotion works. Fashion videos are not targeted to young males (unless it is a line for young males, a minority), nor are they primarily entertainment. They exist to sell clothes, mainly to women. A "good" one achieves those sales and heightens awareness for brands in a manner that is compatible with higher future sales. A bad one does not, no matter how edgy you or other non potential clients for a label might think it is.

At that level I give this one a 6 on 10, because we really don't see the clothes at all to a ludicrous extent.

I don't like beer commercials, but I don't drink beer, so who cares. I give most beer commercials a 10 because they speak to their intended audience.


I was giving my opinion in an artistic point, not in a direct marketing way.
I still think this fashion film suits Alexender Wang and where the designer stands as a brand.
And I personal love it!
On the normal marketing for the mass consumer I kinda agree with you.
Still you can make a good commercial without showing the product.
Creating an emotional attachment to the brand.
If the commercial is for Wall Mart, yes then you have to market and show the product.

[Steven-Marc C.]

Love it ! Branding at its best. If you like the attitude and want to see the clothes just click on the link. Simple stuff.