film quality frm DV

[Guest Dan Diaconu]

Hi,

I actually made an image converter and used it to videotape through Nikkor lens to get the "film look" on video. Camcorder is Panasonic GS200 (and used its still 2.3 Mpix as well). How did you find the pictures?

[Sean Morris]

How did you find the pictures?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi, Looks like video :)

 

 

Cheers

Sean

[Sean Morris]

Sorry Sean, but you're either not being honest or you saw the movie via a poor projection.

 

 

Uh? Well maybe I am missing something, because to my eyes it looked like low

quality 1/3inch 3CCD consumer "MiniDV look" blown up to 35mm, I understand

this was the prefered look, but I cannot see how you can compare it to the "look"

of 35mm film, even digibeta blown up to 35mm still looks like video, but way

better than any XL1.!!!

 

Some kid who just had a movie digitally projected at a film festival said he was actually stunned how how good his footage looked up there.

 

Yeah so what? Some kids also think McDonalds is healthy and good for you too!

 

Cheers

Sean Morris

[Jay Gladwell]

Sorry I have missed part of this debate.

I have some samples on my site and I need a second opinion on this "film look" burning issue. Stop on by and let me know what you think please. I am quite new on this forum and is going to take a while to get familiar with posts here, but... I?ll live through it.

I will attempt to attach a sample. Hope it works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi, Dan!

 

Yes, you were able to achieve a shallow depth of field, but there are certain tell-tail traits that tell me it's video. First of all is the ever-present "dingy-film" over the entire image that all DV seems to have. This flattens the image. It lacks what I call "the sparkle" that film has. This can be corrected by adjusting the color curves ever so slightly.

 

On my monitor, the image looks too green. This could be caused by any number of things--camera, lens, lack of proper w/b, etc. Then again, maybe that was your intention.

 

The image appears to be incredibly soft (too much ProMist?).

 

The angle of his nose reveals what appear to me to be scan lines.

 

Nice as it is, it is obviously a video image.

 

Jay

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think it's THAT obvious. Film transferred to a compressed format like DV would exhibit half those artifacts anyway.

 

I think, if one is trying to make video look like film, you do the best you can and live with the pseudo film-video look that results, because that's as close as you can get. Which is fine for some projects.

[Jay Gladwell]

I don't think it's THAT obvious.

 

Perhaps not at first glance, but, Dave, all I can do is describe what I see.

 

Film transferred to a compressed format like DV would exhibit half those artifacts anyway.

 

True as that may be, that's not the issue of discussion here.

 

I think, if one is trying to make video look like film, you do the best you can and live with the pseudo film-video look that results, because that's as close as you can get.  Which is fine for some projects.

 

I couldn't agree with you more. Frankly, I don't understand why more don't embrace the medium and accept it for what it is. Well shot video, in my opinion, has a beauty all its own.

 

Jay

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

It's that obvious.

 

If you want it to be less obvious, underexpose a lot.

 

Phil

[Guest Dan Diaconu]

Thank you all for sharing your views.

I do not know if you got the chance to see more samples (720/480 frames from footage) and hi rez stills (1760/1320) on the same issue, on my site.

Due to the limited content that can be posted here, the previous was one sample only.

All in question was the device's performance not my artistry, or the setting on the camcorder (iris) or the framing, or the subjects or the compression of mini DV to color sampling and so on. I thank you kind for the comments. Here is another 720/480 for your review and I might post another one hi rez (I do not know if that will work out or no)

Edited latter:

Hi rez pics are not accepted. The previous two are ony 720/480.

Lens used: Nikkor 1.4/35 (@1.4) and panasonic GS200 (5.6 @1/60)

Edited May 16, 2005 by Dan Diaconu

[drew_town]

The stills of the cat are actually quite nice. Just watch the highlights and I think you've got you something there.

[Josh Hill]

Or get a darker cat. :-)

[Guest Dan Diaconu]

I am working on that as well....;-)<

Edited May 17, 2005 by Dan Diaconu

[Guest Charlie Seper]

Sorry I've been away so long. I still don't have time to jabber though. I'm going to put up some stills from film/video/35mm still camera/ and others locked in a Flash file that will allow people to quiz themselves as to which came from which. It might be a while before I get back though, so I might start a new thread for it then.

 

By the way, there's a lot of talk about vieo looking "soft" and I think maybe there are two definitions of that word here. One being, that when a tiny 1-megapixel image is spread out over a big screen that it'll lose some detail. The other being that of an intended look. As far as I'm concerned, most of the great films were made in B/W before 1945. Silk screen and cheese cloth were ways used to actually try to "soften" the look of film. Generally speaking, good film makers usually try to take the wrinkles out of the face, and will use ND filters to purposely tone down the higlights and colors. Shooting video in Frames Mode or Progressive Frames also softens the look. I can get a very sharp look from my video cam by shooting without ND filters in interlaced mode. But the softness of progressive frames simply looks more film-like. If someone tells me that a still from my footage looks soft, I say, "Thank you." They're basically telling me it looks like film.

 

Whether video can look exactly like film, or just "close enough" is quite inconsequencial to me, and to the vast majority of the people who watch movies. I just can't imagine anyone with at least the personality of a doorknob who would give a hoot. The story is what its all about, and a good story looks fine even to a blind man. If I go to the movies and actually find a modern film intellectually stimulating enough to hold a candle to "Captain's Courageous", "The Good Earth" or "How Green Was My Valley", that last thing I'm going to be thinking about is how it looks. The film would have given me way too many more worthwhile things to be concentrating on.

 

And to be honest, I'm just not a big enough sissy to care about looks and don't care to associate with the morons in La La Land that do. That's a big part of what's wrong with TV/Film. Todays films are all dressed-up with no place to go.

[Josh Hill]

I wouldn't say that "good filmmakers" try to get the wrinkles out of the face. That was the style fifty years ago because there was a big emphasis put on the beautification of the actors. But of course the original cinematographer on Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe was fired for trying to beautify Elizabeth Taylor.

 

There is a use for having softer footage and taking those "wrinkles" out, but there is also a use for having very hard focusing that leaves all of those winkles in.

 

I don't think the softness of progressive scan makes it look more filmlike, because when I think filmlike I don't think soft at all. Or at least not the kind of soft that I associate with video (I find this point hard to explain, thinking about it, but it is something that I just notice).

 

I'm in total agreement with you that the story and the characters are the most important thing in a film, but I think everyone here would agree with that. But you seem to miss the point (as so many people on this forum do) that when we say things about not attempting to make video look like film, we are not starting a film vs. video debate. How many times must people say, on this thread alone, that we are simply stating that you must shoot GOOD video as opposed to associating what is good with a format--a medium.

 

Quite frankly, I think everyone here is quite tired of the film vs. video debates that continue to rage, but it is hard to resist throwing in your two cents especially when people (not citing you, but just in general) are throwing around things that are not necessarily true.

 

Perhaps there should just be an answer in the FAQ to "How do I get my video to look like film" that says: "Don't worry about it looking like film, just learn how to shoot good video."

[Guest Robert Gvildys]

Video is video.

 

Film is film.

 

They will never be the same.

 

One is not "better" than the other.

 

They are both able to tell a story.

 

People only strive to achieve the "film-look" on their DV footage because film is more expensive than those people can afford. People feel that if they are shooting on film, they are successful, because they have the money to shoot on film. So, people have tried to change lead into gold because they want to make it seem like they are more than they really are.

 

You can EASILY spend $5000 on a DVX and shoot a movie. You can also EASILY spend $5000 on a 16mm camera rental and stock and processing. If you want to make a good movie the least of your worries will be what format you capture on.

 

Personally, after shooting on both film and video, I don't notice any difference at all in the process of the shoots. You still need to plan it properly, get the right people to help you, and take care in the creation of it. Film is not that different from video. Anyone can make 16mm film or 35mm film look like a home movie if they wanted to. The format does not denote the quality, what the work does to the viewer is what denotes the quality.

[Guest Dan Diaconu]

All true! The main diff comes from the cost associated with production AND the "ease" one can get a shoot. Since DV tape/camcorder is a lot less/hour, most "shooters" give it a lot less importance in planning, rehearsing etc (as lifestyle) and so are the results! If one would have to PAY full price (as in film) for ONE TAKE, well.... that TAKE would be given the attention it deserves in every respect!

[elvworks]

Film Quality from DV

 

Yes, after reading this long thread, I must post.

 

I hate to say it but I feel digital will catch up, if not surpass film, in our generation. Just look at the technology of still cameras.

 

Film has been around a long time. Digital is now only maturing, but given electronics and how fast it moves, it's just a matter of time.

 

Slowly the general public will get used to digital images and maybe in the future, if they see a movie shot with film, they may not even like it. Maybe it will look to old to them, who knows what their reasons will be.

 

I like Michael Mann's approach to Collateral. He wanted to show LA at night, and so, video/HD had a purpose there. Film couldn't do that. So you really have to ask yourself, "What are the advantages of video (at whatever level you will shoot, mini DV - HD) and capitalize on those advantages.

 

Let's say things were the other way around for a moment. How about if digital shooting was around for a hundred years and economic film shooting was now only maturing. Would people be like, "Wait, I must get my film to look more....argh...like real time, I don't know, like video I guess, it looks to dreamlike, I want it more NOW looking."

 

Sometimes I wonder if people even appreciate this gift we have available to us called movie making. Maybe some people will always be complainers. I don't know, sorry, that was personal.

 

Picture this, picture yourself on the street corner and three different people come up to you right after each other and tell you the same exact story of something that happened the day before on that corner, let's say it lasts one minute. Picture the first guy, a punk teenager who's slang leaves much to be desired. Then picture a middle aged refined man that speaks eloquently, then picture a sweet little girl. Now they're all telling you the same story, and let's say the story was boring. Now picture a smelly street person come up to you and tell you a different story, one that is comical, appealing and quite enjoyable.

 

So it's not so much the carrier per say, but the story they bring mostly and how it's told.

 

So make sure your story is tight. Make sure it has all the elements. Run it by people who are storytellers, not people who don't know story construction. Is it a story you can get lost in? If you can't get lost in it, how would you expect the viewer. I really believe if you put in the time into your story, your vision will transcend whatever medium you use, dv, 35mm, the written word, animation, whatever.

 

Think about it, would you rather read a story from Ordinary Joe typed on a 10,000 dollar computer system and printed on the best paper, or would you rather read a story from J.R.R. Tolkien written in pencil in a little pad while he was writing in a fox hole when he was in the army.

 

It's not the camera, it's you.

 

Then hopefully, once people see your passion, maybe your next shoot will be film, or on a viper, or whatever you want to do.

 

I would like to leave you with one quote from Richard Mullen who said, "You basically shoot with the best stuff you can practically afford and then do your best."

 

All the best, :rolleyes:

Rick

 

p.s. - There is alot of great insight in this thread and I learned alot. Thank you!