ARTICLE
We have a creative idea that we want to realize.
Should we shoot traditionally, do it in 3D, or blend the two?
These questions are mostly interesting if one doesn't master all the tools. You try to see the advantages in the technology you prefer and are knowledgeable in - based on that you try to work around the problems you face. Sometimes you have to limit the idea, lower the quality, or pour in money and time.
In this short article we'll discuss which technology to use and when to use it. Should we shoot traditionally, do it in 3D, or blend the two?
We don't advocate for any specific technology but rather plan according to the time frame and the expected delivery. Starting entirely digitally, you usually spend most of the time making the finished material as real as possible by adding small defects, noise, or dust.
On the other end; if you start in reality with photography, all the time is spent removing all defects, dust particles, etc., to make the image as "perfect" as possible. Eventually, you meet somewhere in the middle. If you as a customer know your conditions, we know the best way to produce the idea.
A rule of thumb we use is - if the product you want to feature exists in real life we should start there. The physics in real life material and the way it affects other material is quite advanced so just getting that "for free" adds to the overall quality in a quick way.
However, sticking to shooting real physical products limits what can be done. Really good photographers go to great lengths to create "impossible" and sometimes beautiful shots. The downside to this is - cost. Time and cost. Then 3D offers a great solution to that.
To summarize; there's no exact formula to use. We DO however have the experience to make sure to pick a good way forward. Since we are very comfortable in all production aspects we don't lean towards one type of technology and that's a good starting point - to act in the best way for the product or project.
0% CG ---- 100%REAL
ARMANI - AQUA DI GIO PROFUMO was created entirely in real life using state of the art film equipment. Skillfully shot with quality in mind using no special effects. This is why it still holds up even though it's almost 10 years old. The downside is that it required expensive gear at the time that isn't/wasn't available for normal sized budgets.
100% CG ---- 0% REAL
TOM FORD - F-ing Fabulous EDP was created entirely using CGI. Smoke was simulated and interacted beautifully with the bottle.
Interesting fact: Since the smoke is a simulation based on physics it won't move exactly the same way every time. Just like in real life. This meant we had to do multiple takes and choose the best smoke just like we would in real life. The biggest advantage to this approach is that we can swap out the product fairly easily for better scalability.
50% CG ---- 50% REAL
YVES SAINT LAURENT- Le Parfum was a test using both traditional film gear mixed with CGI. When the model has a simple geometric shape it favors the CGI way of working. Shooting it it real life is faster but you spend much more time in post production compared to a fully generated computer image.
ARTICLE
We have a creative idea that we want to realize.
Should we shoot traditionally, do it in 3D, or blend the two?
These questions are mostly interesting if one doesn't master all the tools. You try to see the advantages in the technology you prefer and are knowledgeable in - based on that you try to work around the problems you face. Sometimes you have to limit the idea, lower the quality, or pour in money and time.
"Our goal and promise is to execute the big creative ideas, with a comprehensive material within a tight timeframe. All with great quality."
On the other end; if you start in reality with photography, all the time is spent removing all defects, dust particles, etc., to make the image as "perfect" as possible. Eventually, you meet somewhere in the middle. If you as a customer know your conditions, we know the best way to produce the idea.
A rule of thumb we use is - if the product you want to feature exists in real life we should start there.
The physics in real life material and the way it affects other material is quite advanced so just getting that "for free" adds to the overall quality in a quick way.
In this short article we'll discuss which technology to use and when to use it. Should we shoot traditionally, do it in 3D, or blend the two?
We don't advocate for any specific technology but rather plan according to the time frame and the expected delivery. Starting entirely digitally, you usually spend most of the time making the finished material as real as possible by adding small defects, noise, or dust.
However, sticking to shooting real physical products limits what can be done. Really good photographers go to great lengths to create "impossible" and sometimes beautiful shots. The downside to this is - cost. Time and cost. Then 3D offers a great solution to that.
To summarize; there's no exact formula to use. We DO however have the experience to make sure to pick a good way forward. Since we are very comfortable in all production aspects we don't lean towards one type of technology and that's a good starting point - to act in the best way for the product or project.
0% CG ---- 100%REAL
ARMANI - AQUA DI GIO PROFUMO was created entirely in real life using state of the art film equipment. Skillfully shot with quality in mind using no special effects. This is why it still holds up even though it's almost 10 years old. The downside is that it required expensive gear at the time that isn't/wasn't available for normal sized budgets.
100% CG ---- 0% REAL
TOM FORD - F-ing Fabulous EDP was created entirely using CGI. Smoke was simulated and interacted beautifully with the bottle.
Interesting fact: Since the smoke is a simulation based on physics it won't move exactly the same way every time. Just like in real life. This meant we had to do multiple takes and choose the best smoke just like we would in real life. The biggest advantage to this approach is that we can swap out the product fairly easily for better scalability.
50% CG ---- 50% REAL
YVES SAINT LAURENT- Le Parfum was a test using both traditional film gear mixed with CGI. When the model has a simple geometric shape it favors the CGI way of working. Shooting it it real life is faster but you spend much more time in post production compared to a fully generated computer image.