Dv to film stock

Jon Tubb · August 24, 2004

Does anyone know any methods of making DV look more like film stock. Or at least, less like DV.

I cant stand the look of DV, it is too crisp and TV-like.

I have tried a couple of plug-ins for after effects but none are of particular use!!

If you have any suggestions please post a reply!!

JT

Landon D. Parks · August 24, 2004

Jon,

It depends on the camera and the Editing program you are using on how much control you'll have over how the final result will look.

If you go out and buy a $200 Consumer Mini-Dv camcorder, you will have VERY little options to choose from. and will have to rely on post production to fix the problems (Not the best way to do it)...

If you buy a Canon XL2, your getting places. You have a LOT of control over the image and even more than the origional XL1 had. With 24p, Film Gamma, ect... It is way better than any camcorder in the lower price range. But @ $5,000 it is expensive.

The next option would be the DVX100A, with 24p and Cinegama. this will run about $2,000 - $3,000

Now if you have the buxx, and still want to stay in the DV formate (Not miniDv)... try the Sony 570... it is around $28,000 loaded from saferseas ( ttp://www.saferseas.com ).

Now, if you can graduate to DVC PRO 50.... then you'll get the closest to HD quality available on the Panasonic SDX-900. This camera will run you almost as much as the Vericam... @ around $45,000 loaded. Also from Saferseas. (The Vericam is $65,000 for the body alone).

Thats my advice.

Phil Rhodes · August 25, 2004

Hi,

> If you go out and buy a $200 Consumer Mini-Dv camcorder, you will have VERY

> little options to choose from. and will have to rely on post production to fix the

> problems

Um, no, that's completely wrong. The first thing you'll want to do is to shoot scenes which look like you want the scene to look - that means appropriate location scouting and production design - everyone overlooks this. Then you'll want to apply appropriate and attractive lighting to within the technical capabilities of the camera. Once you have the camera set up to capture the scene to the best of its ability, then you might choose afterward to do some final tweaking in postproduction - but it won't save your mistakes from earlier.

Anyone notice how this reads exactly the same for a consumer camcorder as it does for an Imax shoot?

Phil

Carlos M. Icaza · August 25, 2004

Jon what After Effects plugin have you used ?

I have used Magic Bullet to remove interlacing and de-artifacting and converting my footage to 24p and I have had very good results. Then I have applied the Looks Suite and the results have been above expectations. Granted, still video, no matter how you cut it, but has a more non-video look than what you would normaly expect. Remember though, that no matter how much effects you apply to a video footage, if you don't capture it right on the first place like Phil says, it won't help you on final result.

If you don't have the $ to shell out for Magic Bullet, there are couple of websites you can search on about using after effects layers to mimic film look. You would have to google that.

I second Phil's comments as well.

C.-

Leon Rodriguez · August 25, 2004

I'm about to do some test shots with a DVX100A. We will take a clip into Combustion and see what we can do with it. My pal, VFX wizard Gary Walker of TexFX (Apollo 13, Spy Kids, What lies Beneath etc.) who was with Digital Domain, has some ideas about uprezzing and working towards a film look. I'll let you know what I discover. Stay tuned...

www.texfx-austin.com

Phil's right, incidentally. First get the shot. Then think the tweak.

Jon Tubb · August 25, 2004

Carlos,

what is the 'looks suite'?

forgive me if that is a stupid question but is that a plug-in also?

Good luck with the test shots Leon.

If you can get some stills, i would be interested in seeing them.

JT

Landon D. Parks · August 25, 2004

Phil

m, no, that's completely wrong.

Really? Tell me. How much control do you have over a $200 min-dv camcorder?

Sure you can get nice locations and do the best that the camera can do. But the best the camera can do is so limited.

The best control you have over a $200 consumer mini-dv camcorder is White balance (IN some cases, not even that).

But, what ever.

Carlos M. Icaza · August 25, 2004

Jon,

Look in http://www.theorphanage.com and http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/mbforeditors.html if you scroll down you will see sample images converted using Looks Suite from Magic Bullet for Editors. And yes, it is a plugin. See pages for info.

Good luck.

Leon,

Checked out your friends wesbsite. Very nice design. Good luck and if you could, when you film look your video please let us know how it went.

Cheers,

C.-

Alvin Pingol · August 26, 2004

>>>>m, no, that's completely wrong.

>>Really? Tell me. How much control do you have over a $200 min-dv camcorder?

I believe Phil was referring to your statement that "[you] will have to rely on post production to fix the problems," not that one has much control over a consumer camcorder.

One must not rely solely on post production to "fix" the problems of low-end videocameras; he or she must modify their shooting environment. It's what's in front of the camera that really matters most. For example, if I were to shoot with a low end consumer camera, I would

a) Choose an attractive location

b) Use a heavy amount of fill

c) Have art direction hide/change overly-saturated colors

d) Take more care in the framing of shots

Because...

a) The viewers' attention is focused on the image content rather than image quality

b) Contrast ratios are much more extreme on video so care must be taken to reduce them

c) Single-chip CCD's do not handle them well

d) Greater depth of field means that nearly everything in the shot is in focus, thereby making it much more difficult to isolate your subject

None of these things are done in postproduction, but make a huge difference in the final look.