Film look on DV cameras

[David Calson]

Hi, what's the best way to get a more film look on a dv camera? I have pd170 in progressive mode, but am not sure the best shutter speed or fstop.

[Gary Lemson]

Hi, what's the best way to get a more film look on a dv camera? I have pd170 in progressive mode, but am not sure the best shutter speed or fstop.

 

Without having 24P, there isn't much you can do other than in post, which in my opinion still looks like video (being forced to look like film). I finally purchased the Panasonic HVX200.

[David Mullen ASC]

I believe the Sony PD170 in progressive mode drops to a half frame rate (something like 15P for the 60i version of the camera) -- sort of useless for anything but shooting graphics for titles or something. Not meant to be used for live-action work.

 

There are "film look" programs that will process interlaced-scan footage, with varying success -- some people swear by them.

 

Personally, I think it would be simpler and better (other than simply shooting on film!) to get a DV camera that does 24P/30P-to-60i (NTSC) or 25P-to-50i (PAL), like the Panasonic DVX100B or Canon XL2.

 

Of course, the 24P option is only one aspect of what constitutes the "film look".

[David Calson]

Good advise, thanks David!

[Landis Tanaka]

aah I wish I had a DVX.....they cost just a little more than GL2s now, don't they? I would sell it but I heard you can only get roughly $1,000 for good GL2s with I think is unfair because I haven't had this cam long, and its in perfect condition and I payed more than double that when I bought it not even a year ago.

[Guest Aaron_Farrugia]

hmm when u think about it after shooting progressive mode, when u finish ur edit and output it back to tape it gets interlaced anyway

 

also

 

during shooting use the longer part of the lens, with digital alot more is in focus, so u get that whole television feel

Edited June 4, 2006 by Aaron_Farrugia

[Zamir Merali]

hmm when u think about it after shooting progressive mode, when u finish ur edit and output it back to tape it gets interlaced anyway

 

 

 

I just thought that I would add my 2c. It is true that a progressive mode really adds to the film look on the camera. But the best thing is not to rely on camera features but to pretend you are using a film camera. Light just like you were using film and move the camera the same way you would if you had a 24 p mode. Remember it is the story that matters not the camera (although it helps), a good story and awsome sound will always pull you through and even make your video look better.

 

Plus as a reply to the above quote when you shoot in interlaced and there is fast action the two captures of the odd and even lines capture the action at different stages so it looks like a stair case, especially when the action is frozen. Even though the progressive footage is interlaced when viewed it looks just like if it was actually 24p.

[Guest Kirk Productions]

Hello David,

 

I have a Canon XL1S. Should I be able to do what you are saying below?

 

Also, I am not sure how you feel, but I also think going 16:9 also makes things look much more cinematic on DV than 4:3. I go 16:9 religious.

 

Eric

 

 

I believe the Sony PD170 in progressive mode drops to a half frame rate (something like 15P for the 60i version of the camera) -- sort of useless for anything but shooting graphics for titles or something. Not meant to be used for live-action work.

 

There are "film look" programs that will process interlaced-scan footage, with varying success -- some people swear by them.

 

Personally, I think it would be simpler and better (other than simply shooting on film!) to get a DV camera that does 24P/30P-to-60i (NTSC) or 25P-to-50i (PAL), like the Panasonic DVX100B or Canon XL2.

 

Of course, the 24P option is only one aspect of what constitutes the "film look".

Edited June 5, 2006 by Kirk Productions

[David Mullen ASC]

The Canon XL1 and XL1S has a fake progressive scan effect called "frame mode" that takes 60i in the NTSC version can makes it into a 30P look (the 50i PAL version makes a 25P effect out of 50i). There is some loss of vertical resolution when you use it, but the effect is reasonable. However, a 24P effect is not an option.

 

Using "frame mode" on the NTSC version of the XL1S, getting a film-like 30 fps look, is fine as long as you don't plan on transferring it ever to film or converting it to PAL.

[Guest Kirk Productions]

David,

 

Appreciate the comments.

 

I emailed you, not sure you got that but I wonder if you might review my post regarding sound.

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=14546

 

I really have no intentions on trying to transfer my film like video to film. I also notice in my editing software (I am using Vegas Movie Studio), it has some ability to change frame rate too. Not sure how effective it is.

 

Eric

 

 

 

The Canon XL1 and XL1S has a fake progressive scan effect called "frame mode" that takes 60i in the NTSC version can makes it into a 30P look (the 50i PAL version makes a 25P effect out of 50i). There is some loss of vertical resolution when you use it, but the effect is reasonable. However, a 24P effect is not an option.

 

Using "frame mode" on the NTSC version of the XL1S, getting a film-like 30 fps look, is fine as long as you don't plan on transferring it ever to film or converting it to PAL.

[Chad Stockfleth]

I would spend $100 and buy a super8 camera. Use your GL2 for sound (don't forget to slate) and whammo! Film look!

[Guest Kirk Productions]

Chad,

 

Could you elaborate? $100 for a super8 camera?

 

Thanks,

 

Eric

 

I would spend $100 and buy a super8 camera. Use your GL2 for sound (don't forget to slate) and whammo! Film look!

[Guest Doug718]

If you can't afford something with 24p to get the film look, and you're not satisfied with the plug-ins that usually reduce the frame rate- then just spend more time trying to get good lighting. Plan out your lighting setups, test them out. Even if you shoot on 24p and have crap lighting it still wont look like film.

 

So my advice is to practice lighting to get close to a film look in DV.

[DMW]

I believe the Sony PD170 in progressive mode drops to a half frame rate (something like 15P for the 60i version of the camera) -- sort of useless for anything but shooting graphics for titles or something. Not meant to be used for live-action work.

 

There are "film look" programs that will process interlaced-scan footage, with varying success -- some people swear by them.

 

Personally, I think it would be simpler and better (other than simply shooting on film!) to get a DV camera that does 24P/30P-to-60i (NTSC) or 25P-to-50i (PAL), like the Panasonic DVX100B or Canon XL2.

 

Of course, the 24P option is only one aspect of what constitutes the "film look".

 

 

Hi!

 

Why not you consider JVC or Sony Z1? are they are not good? I need hlp in this regard to choose a camera, can you pl help me?

 

I'm looking for a camera for my panel. I have a plan to setup my editing panel within 15days with FCP studio 5.1.

I heard Sony DSR 400 is a professional DV cam which can capture broadcast quality photography. I don?t know whether this is correct or not. My budget around USD 6000/=. I can also spend a little high if there is any better facility available.

How about HDV or HD cam? Is it more expensive? How much an entry level professional camera (compare to DSR 400) will cost? Any idea? Any Suggestion!

 

What is the basic difference of DV and HDV? May I shoot the ad film with both? Which will be better? Pardon me for my poor knowledge, please.

 

Thanks.

 

Dream Merchant

[David Mullen ASC]

DV is a standard-def (NTSC / PAL) video format and HDV is a high-def video format.

 

The question, besides whether you want SD or HD, is whether you want a progressive-scan option in the camera for more of a film look (24P/25P/30P).

 

Trouble is that none of the HDV cameras under $6000 offer that. The JVC GY-HD100 and Panasonic HVX200 do, and the Canon XLH1 offers a decent faux 24P solution, but they are all over the $6000 mark by the time you outfit the package (for example, buying the P2 cards for the HVX200.)

 

At that price range, you should be looking into the standard def 24P DV cameras like the Panasonic DVX100B and the Canon XL2, both well-under $6000. Or spend a little more on one of those three HD cameras I mentioned (HD100, HVX200, XLH1).

 

If you have to shoot the Sony HDV cameras, which are interlaced-scan only, I'd probably get the version that shoots 50i/1080 so I can get a decent conversion to 25P before a film-out. Otherwise, live with the more video-ish look of 60i/1080 if that format works best for post and display.

 

The Sony DSR-450 is a nice pro DV camcorder with a 24P option, but it is well over $6000 I believe. I think it is more like $12000 or so.

[Hal Smith]

The question, besides whether you want SD or HD, is whether you want a progressive-scan option in the camera for more of a film look (24P/25P/30P).

David,

Do you have a feel for just how important 24P/etc. is for "film look" versus lighting that creates a DV image

that mimics film contrast? In other words, given limited resources, and as a general rule, is it better to spend money on lighting and grip gear or on a progressive camera?

[Josh Bass]

Unfortunately for your finances, it's kinda both.

 

 

Well shot footage (best lighting, composition, etc.) that's still 60i (30fps interlaced) will still annoy some people, and even though they won't be able to tell you just what it is about your movie that looks "weird", they'll still notice something's "not right". Before I was ever into video/film production, I could tell the difference between interlaced video and film on TV. I think you'll hear the same from a lot of other members here. You can find software deinterlacers that take 60i footage and make it 24p (with some compromises in the final product), but they're not terribly cheap, at least the better ones.

 

 

On the other hand, 24p footage that isn't lit well will just look like crappy available light video (maybe one of the new reality shows), with a different frame rate.

 

 

 

 

Now, of course, you could be creative and try to stage things in areas that are naturally interestingly lit, but good luck with that. Or shoot outside and learn to be a genius with reflectors and whatnot.

Edited June 11, 2006 by Josh Bass

[Michael Collier]

Its been hit on before--but lighting is the key. The film look has several properties which no DV camera can replicate, but one common feature of any good movie is good lighting. Good Lighting can make up for the fact that its not 24p, 24p cannot make up for good lighting. Also one of the biggest clues as to a videos origin comes with its limited exposure latitude. This tends to make shadows darker than film would be, and the highlights clip much faster. If you can reduce the ratios in the room, you can better expose the scene before the camera. This means carefull attention to both ambient room light as well as highlights. If your key to kicker or rim light is lower than a film light would be, the result might be comperable to film telecined to video. The other step to a film look video is color correction. This is also where the tip about reducing contrast in the scene helps. If you have no hot whites or black shadows, you have a large range of correction options availible. But if you loose detail by clipping, no amount of color correction expertise can finness those back into range.

 

24p depends on your budget. If you can afford it, I would recomend the HVX, but not for HD work, the chips seem better suited to shooting variable frame rate SD material (as the chips are barely above standard def anyway) you should consider shooting to P2 to give you the ability to shoot to the DVCPRO-50 format. That will give you a better image than either DV or HDV (however for a narative film you would need at least one 4gig card at $650, and you would have to have a laptop on hand for when you fill up the 8 or 16 minutes each card provides) and you will also have a wider color correction lattitude, so you can plan for more color correction when you plan your lighting.

[Guest]

This question has been asked so many times on this forum I swear one could make a fortune selling a DVD on the subject.

 

Just to be different, how do I make 35mm film look like DV?

 

R,

[Hal Smith]

This question has been asked so many times on this forum I swear one could make a fortune selling a DVD on the subject.

 

Just to be different, how do I make 35mm film look like DV?

 

R,

Use way too much key to fill ratio and hang a sock (not net) over the lens? :D

 

What I was hoping for was for the Master DP's resident on the Forum sharing their strength, hope, and experience in how they feel about the trade-offs. To my way of thinking, the difference between a Master and a Jack of a trade is that the Master's gags work.

 

PS: To satisfy the curious, I am definitely a jack DP, there are areas of experience where I'm a Master - closest to film being extensive experience in stage lighting, a master electrician's knowledge (I held a journeyman electrician's card years ago), and a Master of Science Degree in the Teaching of Physics - I actually kinda understand Optics, Modulation Transfer Functions, Gamma curves, Sensitometry, etc.

 

And I guess 25 years experience as a Radio Chief Engineer and Consultant designing and building all sorts of audio production facilities with gear like Eventide, Lexicon, Aphex processing gear, Orban Audicy workstations, software like Adobe Audition, Sound Forge (now Sony) products, and maintaining all sorts of electronics from battery powered cassettes to 200kW FM installations has helped me to understand electronics just a bit.

[David Mullen ASC]

To answer your question, it's not really a common "either/or" situation -- good lighting versus 24P. And there isn't necessarily a direct correlation between spending more money on lighting and getting better lighting -- look at Adam's comment in another post about being willing to cut his lighting package down just to be able to shoot in 35mm.

 

My feeling is that if getting a camera with a 24P option is possible, then one should do that in the pursuit of the elusive "film look" because it helps get around ONE element of the classic "video look", which is interlaced-scan capture. But if it's not possible to get a 24P camera, then obviously you live with what you can get and do the best job you can in other areas.

 

But getting a 24P camera doesn't automatically "solve" the problem because clearly a film look goes WAY beyond that one aspect.

 

Good lighting is ALWAYS a plus no matter what format you end up shooting.

 

Basically there's a laundry list of common visual attributes to classic "video" and in particular, low-budget video shooting. Frame rate, shutter speed, contrast, color depth, resolution, depth of field, interlaced-scan artifacts, compression artifacts all address the technical areas surrounding the notion of a film look. You make a list of what video attributes you want to avoid and try and knock them off one by one.

 

But there are also the artistic and craft issues that factor into the debate, but I would say that in that case, it's not really a "film vs. video" debate, but a "professional look vs. an amateur look" issue. Video, after all, can be quite professionally lit and still carry the technical attributes of classic interlaced-scan photography.

 

So get a 24P camera if you can, and if you can't, you can't. Either way, light and compose it well, try and reduce excessive depth of field unless it benefits the particular shot, avoid excessing clipping in the highlights, and generally try to employ professional techniques. Good good art direction, costuming, make-up, etc., edit it well, have good sound recording and post, etc.

[Hal Smith]

To answer your question, it's not really a common "either/or" situation -- good lighting versus 24P. And there isn't necessarily a direct correlation between spending more money on lighting and getting better lighting -- look at Adam's comment in another post about being willing to cut his lighting package down just to be able to shoot in 35mm.

 

My feeling is that if getting a camera with a 24P option is possible, then one should do that in the pursuit of the elusive "film look" because it helps get around ONE element of the classic "video look", which is interlaced-scan capture. But if it's not possible to get a 24P camera, then obviously you live with what you can get and do the best job you can in other areas.

 

But getting a 24P camera doesn't automatically "solve" the problem because clearly a film look goes WAY beyond that one aspect.

 

Good lighting is ALWAYS a plus no matter what format you end up shooting.

 

Basically there's a laundry list of common visual attributes to classic "video" and in particular, low-budget video shooting. Frame rate, shutter speed, contrast, color depth, resolution, depth of field, interlaced-scan artifacts, compression artifacts all address the technical areas surrounding the notion of a film look. You make a list of what video attributes you want to avoid and try and knock them off one by one.

 

But there are also the artistic and craft issues that factor into the debate, but I would say that in that case, it's not really a "film vs. video" debate, but a "professional look vs. an amateur look" issue. Video, after all, can be quite professionally lit and still carry the technical attributes of classic interlaced-scan photography.

 

So get a 24P camera if you can, and if you can't, you can't. Either way, light and compose it well, try and reduce excessive depth of field unless it benefits the particular shot, avoid excessing clipping in the highlights, and generally try to employ professional techniques. Good good art direction, costuming, make-up, etc., edit it well, have good sound recording and post, etc.

Thank you, David.

 

A very long list - one thing I've noticed is that you often emphasize reducing depth of field, which is exactly the opposite of my still photography experience. I saw "Akeelah" on the big screen and have seen just how effectively you direct the audience's attention to exactly the vision plane you want it to be in with selective focus. Obviously professional motion picture cinematographers all do that but you're the only one I have any direct contact with so your word (and practice) is my starting point, if not my bible.

 

Back to the list, it is indeed long. I've been collaborating with a close friend on developing a short film. Fortunately for me, he's a very strong visual artist with a great sense of "look". He also worked in the Mexican film industry when a young man, most notably on Servando Gonzalez' "Janco". So I've got a few more items on the list covered than I probably have any right to. Upward and Onward!

 

Again, thank you,

 

Hal

[Guest Giles Sherwood]

I don't post much and I'm definitely not a pro, so take that into consideration, but I thought I'd put in my two cents.

 

Getting video to look good requires good lighting, but it doesn't require that you light like you would for film. In fact, I'd probably discourage that. You need to play to video's unique characteristics in order for it to look good. Don't pretend it's something it's not. Most attempts I've seen where people tried to light video like film ended up incredibly murky. I really think video excels when you don't try to fight it's low latitude and you instead delve into a really contrasty image.

 

Only recently have I seen film-style lighting work with video, and that's with an HVX-200. It helps even more when it's got a 35mm adapter. But even then, it's not film. It looks great, but it's not film. And there's no problem with that. My favorite DP, Christopher Doyle, says the whole digital vs. film debate is stupid: we're all just used to film and most people haven't quite figured out how to make video look good yet.

 

I have seen three STUNNING films that were shot on DV. The first is 28 Days Later. The second is Festen. The third one was a student film, "Sunday Morning (Objects of Exchange)" that a kid did at my film school. He shot with a DVX using 24P. He lit so that the colors were intense, the highlights were blown out, and the shadows were dark. He played to the strengths of the medium he was using and created something that didn't look like film--instead it looked GREAT.

 

You can't make watercolors look like oil paints. You just have to appreciate what makes watercolors look beautiful. Think of what your story needs. Then think of what your tools are good at. Just like you have to work your film around your actors, your locations, and your budget, you have to work it around your tools.

 

Sincerely,

Giles Sherwood, who is ironically lusting after a Redrock M2 to help achieve that film look

 

PS. David is totally right about having good production design, makeup, ACTING and whatnot. What you put in front of the camera is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the most important thing because that's what's going to be up on the screen!

Edited June 12, 2006 by Giles Sherwood

[David Mullen ASC]

In 35mm, I tend to avoid an overly shallow-focus look just because it's too hard on the focus puller, plus it can get too "swimmy" on the big screen. And since anamorphic, which I used on "Akeelah", is particularly prone to a shallow-focus look, I try and get the light level up and stop down when possible just to get a natural-looking depth of field.

 

But with a 1/3" CCD camcorder, because of the very short focal lengths involved, the depth of field is generally extremely deep-looking except on telephoto shots, much more depth of field than you typically see with the film (except "Citizen Kane") and if your goal is to minimize attributes of shooting on video, particularly with a consumer camcorder with 1/3" CCD's, then one element to address is the deep-focus look it tends to have.

 

Obviously if you get lemons, you make lemonade, so if you can't reduce the depth of field in DV, you try and take advantage of it artistically.

[Hal Smith]

In 35mm, I tend to avoid an overly shallow-focus look just because it's too hard on the focus puller, plus it can get too "swimmy" on the big screen. And since anamorphic, which I used on "Akeelah", is particularly prone to a shallow-focus look, I try and get the light level up and stop down when possible just to get a natural-looking depth of field.

 

But with a 1/3" CCD camcorder, because of the very short focal lengths involved, the depth of field is generally extremely deep-looking except on telephoto shots, much more depth of field than you typically see with the film (except "Citizen Kane") and if your goal is to minimize attributes of shooting on video, particularly with a consumer camcorder with 1/3" CCD's, then one element to address is the deep-focus look it tends to have.

 

Obviously if you get lemons, you make lemonade, so if you can't reduce the depth of field in DV, you try and take advantage of it artistically.

I know there's absolutely no rule here - but - taking, for instance, the scenes in Akeelah's room and the Dr. Larrabee's office what would have been an average DOF you were aiming for on masters and CU's?

 

I'm beginning to get the picture ( :) ) that I really should concentrate on film. There isn't any easy way of doing serious work in any media so it might be best to slay the dragon directly. I've got a small Arri 2B (updated with 2C innards) kit that I've been putting together slowly but I have been afraid to dive right into narrative 35mm film-making without doing a few projects in DV first. The nearest rental house is in Dallas so I decided that ultimately it would be best to have a basic camera kit and use my theatrical S4's and babies where possible. There is a grip truck based in OKC now so I'm covered there.

 

I shot a lot of ethnographic 16mm with an ex-wife thirty years ago but compared to narrative film-making that was pretty easy stuff. It wasn't really much different than the kind of run and gun reality work people do with video nowdays - if it's reasonably well focused, framed, and exposed - it's good film. That experience got me pretty comfortable with the basic mechanics of shooting film. Post was pretty simple, prepare A and B rolls and sync up the sound and get a print. It was 98% B & W negative film with just a little reversal color.

 

Thanks to all for the help and advice. David you're very kind, thank you.