What did they use to film those apple commercials

asafb wrote on 11/29/2002, 6:21 PM

hello does anyone know what apple used to film its "swich to mac" commercials - the ones they posted on their website at

http://apple.com/switch

the quicktime quality is so amazing i'm really impressed.

any feedback would be greeeat! :)

Comments

fetch wrote on 11/29/2002, 6:31 PM

Probably Finalcut Pro

BillyBoy wrote on 11/29/2002, 9:36 PM

You're forgetting the commericals were made by PROFESSIONALS, no doubt with somebody running around with a light meter and adjusting the lighting, etc. etc. etc... and no doubt using a $60,000 video camera. You get what you pay for.

Give anyone here experienced with Vegas Video the same equipment and access to a sound stage, high power lights, etc., etc. to shoot the commerical with and you'll get the same or better results with the wmv or RM format if you set the bitrate high enough.

I always get a kick of those Apple commericals. On purpose or by mistake they seem to be aiming for the dummy segement of the market. They can have it.

rextilleon wrote on 11/29/2002, 9:55 PM

Yeah---all they have to sell is simplicity--when we all know that every computer has a learning curve---It really disgusts me---I hate negative advertising and from what I have heard it really hasn't helped sales----

musicvid10 wrote on 11/29/2002, 9:58 PM

While we're on the subject of those Mac ads, you've gotta see the spoof here:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilm/product/film_info/0,3699,2457896,00.html?ad_ref=top_twenty_shorts_online&cch=

Spot|DSE wrote on 11/29/2002, 10:20 PM

Actually, this isn't so. You can give a very well known, talented professional director all the best gear in the world, Vegas CAN'T encode to that quality.
Why?
Because Apple's labs are world famous for their trailer and encoding teams, that hand encode every frame set. This is what Hollywood pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for, this quality of quicktime encoding. However, at equal bitrates, windows media IS catching up. Problem with Quicktime is that it can't stream well, even on a Helix server. Also for good quality, even with the Sorenson/Quicktime Pro setup at a cost nearly triple that of Vegas, Quicktime has to have a fairly high bitrate. Once you get below 250kpbs, Quicktime is a wasted time. Even with Pro.

swarrine wrote on 11/29/2002, 11:57 PM

Lol, pretty funny if you have seen the mac ads. Oh, and for an indie, the quality is not bad...

Tyler.Durden wrote on 11/30/2002, 6:38 AM

Here' a few more, a little dated but funny...

http://www.sleeplessknights.com/Pages/ibrator.html

MPH

FuTz wrote on 12/1/2002, 2:28 AM

What did they say? "think different". Yeah right... and between the lines you could read "but think THIS way". Mmmm, paradox...

shawnm wrote on 12/1/2002, 5:22 PM

>Actually, this isn't so. You can give a very well known, talented professional >director all the best gear in the world, Vegas CAN'T encode to that quality.
>

Sorry Spot - you're only partly correct. Vegas can't encode to this quality, but the Windows Media Encoder can. You need someone like this to get the same quality:
http://www.griffin-digital.com/

> However, at equal bitrates, windows media IS catching up.

This was true three years ago in the Windows Media 7.1 timeframe. However, WM has been better than Sorenson\QT for at least a year and a half now (WM8 or later).

Shawn