How can you make 35mm film look just like DV?

[Matt Pacini]

You can't!

 

Sorry to be sarcastic, but I just wanted to make a statement that will illuminate how ridiculous it is that people keep insinuating that DV can somehow magically look like film.

 

It's far less likely for the inferior format to look like the superior format, yet we all recognize how silly it is to think 35mm could be made to look like video, and don't see that it's even more silly to believe the reverse is true.

 

Matt Pacini

[John Sprung]

If you were to crank the contrast in telecine and use a hard clip to make the shoulder look like video .... ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

In Kodak's brochure titled "An Introduction to Color", there is a description of two telecines, the "broadcast telecine", and the "production telecine". The "production telecine" is, according to this brochure, supposed to help match intercut film and video images via some dedicated circuitry. Never seen or heard of the latter in use.

[Greg Gross]

I think this whole idea about the look of film has gotten out of control.

DV looks like DV( the Viper looks like video-Collateral) and 35mm

film looks like film and neither one looks good if they are not exposed

properly, light controlled properly,and proper attention made to sets and

locations. After all that film has to go to the lab and we start all over again

only with post production controls. I think we have all seen the depth of

field was out of control in Collateral, maybe that was okay,moody(fit the

the night time story)but imagine that same depth of field and the story was

told in the daytime. Why in the world did that director want to shoot such a

great story in video(digital). My choice(who am I?)definitely would have been

35mm. Open the lens wide T2.8 maybe T1.9(just learning motion picture cam-

eras but long time professional photographer). I would of used just enough

light to tell the story but hold back on the depth of field. Proper camera place-

ment,angle,framing would have knocked the moviegoer out of his seat! I think

the DX100A started all of this film look stuff,24fps,cinema-look,video to film.

Come with me on a shoot with my PD-170,spectra 4a,nd filters,polarizer,ASA

320 to 400(depending on my mood,feeling),french flag and I'll show you a cinema

look or pretty close, 1/60,f5.6 it won't look like film. Today with my mentor/

instructor I unpacked a motion picture camera from its cases and set it up. I have not been the same since I put the Panavision magazine on the camera!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jon Allen]

I picked up this quote from a PBS transcript.

"If production conditions are controlled and if comparisons are made solely on the basis of sharpness and color fidelity, the best 35mm film will be slightly inferior to the best video?assuming the latest professional-quality video equipment is used and the final result is broadcast."

The whole broadcast thing makes sense, if you shoot it in both 24 and 29.97 fps, the one that was shot at 29.97 fps will look better on a 29.97 fps display, given the correct exposure levels and experience with equipment.

I think the main thing we overlook in the whole dv vs film debate is the level of experience with filming for -well, film. Chances are if I have a 24p dv camera I'm not seriously trying to get on the big screen- I'm more likely a producer of dvds and other "lower budget" features (aka corporate commercials). Which then, my final output would be broadcast-based (and probably not HD) so shooting in 24p would become in effect useless because of the 2:3 pulldown. I'd more than likely utilize the 30p for my uses. Which still makes something like the dvx100 a valuable tool.

What do you guys think?

[David Mullen ASC]

It all depends on the look you want -- some people WANT that classic look of 60i/50i video, especially for live sports events, news, etc.

 

24P, 25P, 30P all have that progressive-scan video look which is one step closer to the film look because it's a step removed from the classic interlaced-scan look. Which you choose (24P, 25P, 30P) just depends on the usage of the material.

 

30P gives you that progressive-scan semi-film look on 60i displays (NTSC and HDTV) and looks smoother than 24P with a 3:2 pulldown. Which you prefer is a matter of taste -- some people like 30P looks a little too smooth, but I don't think so. If you look at the Region 1 DVD of "Oklahoma!" you can see 30 fps 65mm Todd-AO transferred to video and it looks smooth but not video-ish.

 

Trouble with 30P is that it makes lousy PAL conversions, which is something to consider if you plan on worldwide video distribution.

[Jon Allen]

30P gives you that progressive-scan semi-film look on 60i displays (NTSC and HDTV) and looks smoother than 24P with a 3:2 pulldown.  Which you prefer is a matter of taste -- some people like 30P looks a little too smooth, but I don't think so.  If you look at the Region 1 DVD of "Oklahoma!" you can see 30 fps 65mm Todd-AO transferred to video and it looks smooth but not video-ish.

 

Trouble with 30P is that it makes lousy PAL conversions, which is something to consider if you plan on worldwide video distribution.

The problem with the 3:2 pull down is that 23.97 put into 29.97 fps format tends to look "strobish"- not that it's not smooth, the picture just looks fluttery. I personally hate the stobe effect with video.

Again, pictures viewed in the format they were shot in normally look better- because it's their native framerate and resolution.

[Matt Short]

I think we have all seen the depth of field was out of control in Collateral, maybe that was okay,moody(fit the night time story)but  imagine that same depth of field and the story was told in the daytime. Why in the world did that director want to shoot such a great story in video(digital).

I have yet to see the movie but, I read in Post, the decision to go digital was to be able to see into the shadows. To make the night seem more like real life (not a blue tint as in film) which probably explains the depth of field also.

[David Mullen ASC]

>The problem with the 3:2 pull down is that 23.97 put into 29.97 fps format tends to look "strobish"- not that it's not smooth, the picture just looks fluttery.

 

That's how all 24 fps movies look in NTSC unless you have a progressive scan monitor.

[John Sprung]

Trouble with 30P is that it makes lousy PAL conversions, which is something to consider if you plan on worldwide video distribution.

Exactly. Our domestic networks accept 24p origination with 3-2 pulldown. The foreign markets don't accept 30p origination. So, everything we do is 1080p/24, either shot on film or HD cameras. Keeping NTSC's oddball 30/60 numbers instead of going to 24/72 is one of the major mistakes in the ATSC standard.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Jon Allen]

>The problem with the 3:2 pull down is that 23.97 put into 29.97 fps format tends to look "strobish"- not that it's not smooth, the picture just looks fluttery.

 

That's how all 24 fps movies look in NTSC unless you have a progressive scan monitor.

You mean a monitor that displays 24p natively. Not just because it's 24fps right?

One other method of transferring from 24 to 30fps is to simply increase the framerate by 4%. My understanding is that most motion pictures end up on video by this process.

[John Pytlak RIP]

One other method of transferring from 24 to 30fps is to simply increase the framerate by 4%. My understanding is that most motion pictures end up on video by this process.

 

Don't you mean 24fps to 25fps for 50Hz television systems (e.g., PAL)?

[John Sprung]

Don't you mean 24fps to 25fps for 50Hz television systems (e.g., PAL)?

Correct, the 4.17% speedup is what gets 24 fps material to PAL and SECAM. Most people don't notice it, though I met one editor who can tell the difference, and it bothers him.

 

Getting from 24 to 30 by going frame for frame and speeding up the action would be a 25% speedup, and that's obvious to nearly everybody.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Correct, the 4.17% speedup is what gets 24 fps material to PAL and SECAM. Most people don't notice it, though I met one editor who can tell the difference, and it bothers him.

 

The sound is the usual thing that gives it away. I think digital pitch-shifters are now often used:

 

http://www.editorsguild.com/newsletter/Mar...pal_murray.html

 

http://www.free-definition.com/Telecine.html

 

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.php?title=Telecine

 

However, a musician may still pick up on the change in meter, and the running time is different between 24fps origination and 25fps display.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Most people don't notice it, though I met one editor who can tell the difference,

> and it bothers him.

 

I imagine if you're looking at a scene you cut, it'd be visible. The most famous foulups of this involve the opening of Top Gun, where the oh-so-eighties lead singer does sound as if he's just had his nuts slammed in a drawer, and the opening of one of the Star Trek movies (which one I can't remember.)

 

These days they repitch to solve these issues.

 

Phil

[Jon Allen]

However, a musician may still pick up on the change in meter, and the running time is different between 24fps origination and 25fps display.

Yeah, I meant 4% for 24 to 25.

Anyway, if you pick up different region DVDs of movies the running time difference could be substantial. Some people think that other countries edit/censor (or don't) some parts out. This may not be the case, just the frame rate compensation. :blink:

[Jason McKelvey]

The problem with the 3:2 pull down is that 23.97 put into 29.97 fps format tends to look "strobish"- not that it's not smooth, the picture just looks fluttery.

 

That's how all 24 fps movies look in NTSC unless you have a progressive scan monitor.

 

Nobody watches anything in native 24P. If you went to NAB, you might have seen some native 24P production monitors, which strobed hard like a film camera viewfinder image. Remember, whenever we watch a movie off a DVD on a regular SD TV, you are watching a 3:2 pulldown image, that is also be interlaced. With a decent TV, it looks great; I don't notice excessive strobing. We have a Panasonic SDX900 and when in recorded in 24P mode and played back in 60i with a 3:2 pulldown (done in the camera) on a broadcast 60i monitor, it looks fantastic. All progressive material, in comparison to anything interlaced, will appear "strobish" when side by side with interlaced. Watch Enemy of the State with Will Smith. Tell me that didn't have a bit of strobishness. We get used to it, and to a certain extent, expect it for the film look. If you see excessive strobing with your 24P camera, you are probably using it like a video camera instead of a film camera. You can't just start whipping it around. The mass of a Panavision camera help prevent stroby handheld stuff. You get a DVX100 and start doing hand held work... of course it's going to strobe!!!! Learn how to use your video camera like a film camera. I emplore you guys that think film will never die... start learning the video stuff on the side. There was a time when everyone would have said that TV dramas will NEVER be done on video... don't think technology is going to stand still for film. Will video ever look as good as film? Does it matter? No. DPs might not usher in cine style video cameras... the people writing the checks will.

[Jon Allen]

Whew! Looks like someone's taking the strobing thing kind of personally. I will agree, if you're shooting home movies, there's absolutely no reason to shoot 24p.

Now the thing with feature films coming to homes, yes, we disregard the "jump" every second- and quite honestly, it seems you can't watch a majority of cable TV without the picture taking a complete change at least every couple seconds (MTV, VH1, etc). Sometimes I get sick when I try to watch it, it's horrifying.

Anyway, I'm excited to see the next generation of video cameras. Film was (and is, I guess) pretty awesome. I'm just hesitant for companies to give too much power to home users. Granted, that's how I got my start. But for the majority of home users out there, they don't NEED a camera with film capabilities. Especially a hand-held 24p camera (pretty much useless- who wants to see a 3:2 pulldown interlaced converted image when you can watch it at the SAME rate & whatnot as your TV?)

I'm not sure how much I would use/need a 24p unless I was shooting something that I KNEW would be going to film- but then, why wouldn't I use something with a higher resolution?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm fortunate enough to have a dual PAL/NTSC monitor here. Picked up some stuff off a DVD on a recent job in New York which is 3:2 pulldown - and I find my disdain for it reinforced anew.

 

Euch, you guys actually LIKE that?

 

Phil

[Jon Allen]

Euch, you guys actually LIKE that?

I think it's a matter of not having any other viable alternatives. :unsure:

[John Sprung]

and the running time is different between 24fps origination and 25fps display.

True, the foreign markets get nearly two minutes more of commercial time per hour. Their business plans are built around that, and we'd have to give them cut down versions if the speedup were eliminated.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

Picked up some stuff off a DVD on a recent job in New York which is 3:2 pulldown - and I find my disdain for it reinforced anew.

 

Euch, you guys actually LIKE that?

It isn't a matter of liking 3-2. People here aren't even aware of it. In the PAL/SECAM countries, people aren't even aware of the extreme flicker of 50 Hz display. We see flicker when we go there, they see the 3-2 motion artifact when they come here. Spend enough time watching the same defect and never seeing anything else, and the human brain learns to ignore it.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

If you went to NAB, you might have seen some native 24P production monitors, which strobed hard like a film camera viewfinder image.

 

If you see excessive strobing with your 24P camera, you are probably using it like a video camera will.

It sounds like you're using the word "strobe" to mean two different things.

 

There is large area flicker, which is what we in the 60 Hz. countries see when we watch PAL or 48 Hz displays of 24p video.

 

There is failure of the illusion of motion, which happens if you shoot with too low a frame rate, or too narrow a shutter angle for the action or camera movement. The correct term for this is "skipping", and it has been well known for about a century. It was a bigger problem in the silent movies, because they were only 16 fps. Sometimes it is done deliberately as an effect, as in "Saving Private Ryan". Personally, I don't like it. It always looks like a mistake to me. Motion blur isn't a bad thing, it's a necessity if we are to have motion pictures at all.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Alvin Pingol]

Euch, you guys actually LIKE that?

It comes from more of the fact that when people see 3:2-pulldown, they know (well, in today's time, they think) it's not video, and therefore think has higher production values.

 

Since there is such a huge difference in terms of motion rendering when it comes to 60i and 24fps w/ pulldown (or even 30P and 24fps w/ pulldown), that, to us, signals a huge difference in the production itself.

 

In addition (and this was more true a few years ago before the introduction of 24P video), there was no real way to get 60i to 24P and have it look like real 24P-originated material. So when people saw this, they say, "Wow... looks like they used movie cameras. Must be high quality," or something other like that.

 

In PAL-ville, however, getting film-like motion rendering is as easy as deinterlacing. Therefore, people there [i would assume] don't make such a big fuss about this. Instead of, "Oh, that looks like a movie does, they must have used film cameras," it is probably more like, "Oh, that looks like a movie does, they must have deinterlaced."

 

But not all people like 24fps with pulldown; I remember a year or two ago when MTV taped their movie awards in 24P HD. A lot of people said that the show no longer felt like a "real" award show, that it looked like a scripted segment on a sitcom or something. I was happy to hear that people felt this way, since it just goes to show that 24fps with pulldown isn't always the best choice.

 

A local tire shop in my city is starting to shoot their crappy no-budget ads on 24P video. Ugh. <_<

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The BBC's half-hour end-of-the-olympics montage was "deinterlaced" - by simply duplicating a field. Nice sharp 300 line video there, auntie. Very impressive. I've heard loads of crusty old editors go on about "dropping a field" - wow, how impressive your Avid is with its cutting-edge processing! I think these are the same guys who, excited beyond comprehension by the possibilities of cutting a creative montage after 16 days of nonstop sports packages, seem to find new uses for layer combination and the blur tool on every cut.

 

Shudder.

 

Phil