cheesy public television vs. great looking feature

[Guest Minh Chau]

This is hard to ask...

 

I've been looking all over to find out what makes something looks like a cheesy public television program (as far as on-screen quality) and what makes something look great like an Usher music video or a tv special that looks great on screen.

 

I'm asking because I want to know this stuff for myself and possibly make a film on my own...don't want it to look cheesy like a home video or a cheesy public television program. Can't afford 35MM or 16MM. Could only do it with a digital camera. HOW? HOW? HOW TO MAKE IT LOOK GREAT ON SCREEN?

[Chris Keth]

This is hard to ask...

 

I've been looking all over to find out what makes something looks like a cheesy public television program (as far as on-screen quality) and what makes something look great like an Usher music video or a tv special that looks great on screen.

 

I'm asking because I want to know this stuff for myself and possibly make a film on my own...don't want it to look cheesy like a home video or a cheesy public television program. Can't afford 35MM or 16MM. Could only do it with a digital camera. HOW? HOW? HOW TO MAKE IT LOOK GREAT ON SCREEN?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The difference is lighting and set design. "Cheesy" public TV tends to have sterile crappy sets and flat lighting.

[Guest Minh Chau]

The difference is lighting and set design. "Cheesy" public TV tends to have sterile crappy sets and flat lighting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Is that all?

 

What about the local car dealership commercials? Why do they look so horrible on screen? The same thing?

[Mark Allen]

Avoiding a long discourse on all the things which play a part - I would suggest that what your noticing is the lack of design aesthetics.

 

In still photography amateurs will shoot around their house without any lighting plan and quite often really beautiful shots are happened upon - the reason is that there is a natural texture design to people's homes - the mess, the deterioration. Additionally - natural light is often very attractive.

 

Now, when people decide to do a movie they often clean spaces up or they are going to a set and suddenly the art direction becomes very sterile. That's a huge difference... and the same goes for the lighting. If you are trying to fake what might happen naturally, you have to understand very well what would happen naturally. Why are so many documentaries so beautiful when in nature and so many TV shows so horrible in nature? same thing - one is recording what is there and the other has a whole bunch of different agendas.

 

So - if you want to create something that has a little more aesthetics than other people - first thing - look at the environment like an artist - look for texture detail... look around you at how the light really works in a day to day basis and take note of when lighting is notably attractive. Notice how light often paints itself onto the walls.

 

Don't overlight - try turning off as many lights as possible and then paint your image by justifying each light source using the mood you want to create as the guide as to how far you go.

 

These are just thoughts to get you thinking in the right realm.

 

I would highly recommend watching the entertaining and educational documentary "Visions of Light"

[Guest Minh Chau]

Thanks. This was very helpful!

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Also add crappy interlace video!!!

[Guest Minh Chau]

Also add crappy interlace video!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Can you explain interlace video? I don't know what that is and what's good and what's crappy.

[Greg Gross]

Hello Minh Chau,

Basically a cinematographer creates shadows. You can light your project

with soft light or hard light. If you are happy with one light source(key) that

is okay. Maybe you do not want to light your actors but just have them in

light so to say. That is okay also. If you start to fill in some of the shadows

with fill light you will start to notice separation of the details in your scene.

You will give shape and separation to objects in your scene, sort of like a 3D

effect. In simple terms your scene will not look like a flat photograph of a kid

blowing out candles on a birthday cake. A good book for lighting is- "Film

Lighting" by Kris Malkiewicz(Fireside Book,Simon&Schuster). What I'm trying

to say is -light your dv project as though you were shooting film. There is no

guarantee that you will have the exact look you want. But it may give you the

the best possible dv look that you can get. If you have an area of high contrast

in your scene,you can measure that area with a light meter for accurate expos-

ure or trust your camera's reading in the manual mode. Your camera may tell

you to use your neutral density filters to achieve proper exposure. Well just

some ideas for you to think about. Good luck with your project!

 

Greg

[Chris Keth]

Can you explain interlace video? I don't know what that is and what's good and what's crappy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well, film is displayed in frames, that is whole images. 24 of those full images are displayed per second to create lifelike motion.

 

 

Interlace video is an invention of the 40s that allows pictures to be transmitted as electrical signals in a linear pattern. What happens is that every other line of an image is scanned onto a TV (this half-vertical-resolution image is called a field) by a cathode ray tube. Immediately following that, the remaining lines are scanned in to make a full image. That is done 30 times per second for American video (30 frames or 60 fields).

 

 

Here's a link to a site a professor of mine is working on. It explains video very well, though the entire site is not finished yet:

 

http://www.rit.edu/~vidtools/

[Guest Minh Chau]

Greg, thanks for the first sentence of your reply about a cinematographer making shadows...that gave me some real clarity. Makes sense. Thanks for breaking it down.

 

Chris, thanks for the info on interlace video. There's so much I gotta learn.

 

Thank you both for helping me get started. It gets overwhelming looking into all of this, but I'm sure well worth it.

[Riku Naskali]

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I'd say the difference behind the reasons is money.

[Chris Keth]

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I'd say the difference behind the reasons is money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ultimately: yeah, you're probably right. But that answer doesn't help him avoid the visual stuff that makes some TV look crappy.

[David Mullen ASC]

I've probably spent my whole career since high school asking myself what makes something looks like a "real movie." I still struggle with it, although now the struggle is to make something look like a bigger-budgeted movie than it is, rather than make it look like a movie period. But it's like a thousand decisions daily that makes something look professional where the images flow and create an emotional response, etc. Budget is one factor, but not necessarily vital to making a movie look good (although I'm assuming some sort of reasonable minimum, not "I've got $1000 to make a feature and I want it to look like a big-budget studio movie.")

 

What makes something look cheesy? Low-rez interlaced-scan photography recording onto a crappy tape format like VHS certainly isn't going to help, but the main issues tend to be lighting, sound quality, design, composition, editing, etc. -- i.e. almost everything that falls under the umbrella of "production value."

 

For little money, you could shoot an attractive actress in a nice costume standing by a window, talking, lit only by natural light, and have it look like a shot from a professional movie. Or you could shoot someone with bad skin under a harsh spotlight on a cheap VHS camcorder against a black curtain with muddy sound and make it look like public access television. And the cost of the two shots might be similar (other than the better camera probably being used for the first example.)

[Guy Meachin]

Also - NTSC is visually pretty poor. PAL is better quality. Am I right?

[Nate Downes]

Is that all?

 

What about the local car dealership commercials? Why do they look so horrible on screen? The same thing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey, I used to shoot local car dealership commercials. Was fired because the boss hated my style of shooting. Turns out, car dealers *like* that style of shooting, no idea why. And I hated the style that they liked, so that was a short-lived career choice.

[Guest Minh Chau]

I can't imagine someone liking crap. But, if there weren't bad taste, what would make something good taste, right?

 

Thanks so much for what everyone is inputing. I'm soaking it up.

[David Cox]

From a post production point of view, don't forget colour grading. In terms of the "look" of the final project, it's probably the single most important aspect of post production that will make your film look expensive or not.

 

You don't have to use expensive post equipment to do it as most systems can now grade (ish) - just as long as the TV or monitor you are using is well set up. But then it does come down to operator skill, just as it does with a camera and the director of photography!

[Sean Morris]

This is hard to ask...

 

I've been looking all over to find out what makes something looks like a cheesy public television program (as far as on-screen quality) and what makes something look great like an Usher music video or a tv special that looks great on screen.

 

I'm asking because I want to know this stuff for myself and possibly make a film on my own...don't want it to look cheesy like a home video or a cheesy public television program. Can't afford 35MM or 16MM. Could only do it with a digital camera. HOW? HOW? HOW TO MAKE IT LOOK GREAT ON SCREEN?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

Well I don't think you will get anywhere near the quality of an usher music

video shooting on video, on a consumer digital quality camera, no matter

how much you spend on lighting..in the end a XL1 or whatever just won't

cut it.... it will still look like video, but maybe good video!

 

Most of public television stuff I have seen is usually shot on low quality

1CCD older style domestic camcorders with no studio style lighting used,

plus really bad sound (muffled voices) run along with the visuals. Hence

a poor looking video image with crappy sound.

 

The big corporate television studios most of the time do use professional

equipment such as Digibeta, BetaSX, 3CCD highend broadcast camera's

and skilled operators etc..that's why the visuals look that much better

 

Of course it's unfair to compare the vision from a 60K Digital Beta Camera with

top glass worth 20K against say a XL1, the XL1 will never look as good as the

Digi-Beta period..!

 

I think in the end you can get a "pleasing image" with consumer gear, with

good lighting, patience and a bit of tweaking with the manual settings on

the camera.

 

I just would not be expecting to imagine that you can have the

"glossy britney spears look or the usher look" from consumer

or pro-sumer gear.

 

Cheers

Sean Morris.

Edited December 19, 2004 by Sean_Morris

[Guest Minh Chau]

Right.

[aledosius]

thanks for the question AND replies. I'M learning much from this discussion. just wanted to ask, since so many are referencing XL1, wasn't 28 DAYS LATER (danny boyle dir.) shot with this camera? i loved the look of the movie. anyone wanna elaborate on how this was achieved?

-ac

 

 

Hi,

 

Well I don't think you will get anywhere near the quality of an usher music

video shooting on video, on a consumer digital quality camera, no matter

how much you spend on lighting..in the end a XL1 or whatever just won't

cut it.... it will still look like video, but maybe good video!

 

Most of public television stuff I have seen is usually shot on low quality

1CCD older style domestic camcorders with no studio style lighting used,

plus really bad sound (muffled voices) run along with the visuals. Hence

a poor looking video image with crappy sound.

 

The big corporate television studios most of the time do use professional

equipment such as Digibeta, BetaSX, 3CCD highend broadcast camera's

and skilled operators etc..that's why the visuals look that much better

 

Of course it's unfair to compare the vision from a 60K Digital Beta Camera with

top glass worth 20K against say a  XL1, the XL1 will never look as good as the

Digi-Beta period..!

 

I think in the end you can get a "pleasing image" with consumer gear, with

good lighting, patience and a bit of tweaking with the manual settings on

the camera.

 

I just would not be expecting to imagine that you can have the

"glossy britney spears look or the usher look" from consumer

or pro-sumer gear.

 

Cheers

Sean Morris.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

With an enormous amount of time and money spent in postproduction. To be fair you can do almost all of this in After Effects - it really comes down to the ability to light decently.

 

Phil

[Sean Morris]

Yes, the adobe after effects & premiere "usher plugin" :)

 

Cheers

Sean Morris

Edited December 20, 2004 by Sean_Morris

[Nate Downes]

Don't forget the very expensive lenses used on 28 days later.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm not sure that's so significant - can't really think what the upside would be other than ease of focus pulling.

 

Phil

[Chris Keth]

Hi,

 

I'm not sure that's so significant - can't really think what the upside would be other than ease of focus pulling.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think you're right here. You could probably have a fairly awful lens and it wouldn't matter. It only has to give a 720 x 480 pixel image, which as thing go is pretty poor quality.