Film Look to a Canon XL1

Chris Alex · April 10, 2005

Hi

here's a music video i directed a couple of years ago.

It was shot on miniDV using a Canan XL1.

My goal was to acheive a film look.

I edited it on a Final Cut Pro 2.

Lo Res: (DivX 5.0.2 200x150 6MB):

http://files.hiphop.gr/media/videos/arketa.avi

Hi Res (DivX 5.0.2 400x300 17MB):

http://files.hiphop.gr/media/videos/arketaHigh.avi

Feedback welcomed.

Thank you.

April 11, 2005

Your links are not working, fix them joints dude.

Chris Alex · April 14, 2005

Your links are not working, fix them joints dude.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its DivX. You gotta get the codec first.

:)

Josh Hill · April 15, 2005

Film Look? Shoot film.

Don't waste your time layering your video with filters and other stuff to make it look like film. If you're going to shoot video, embrace the video. It is an aesthetic all of it's own. Develop your own visual style, and don't worry if it looks like celluloid or not.

Besides, film look does not equate good. If you're creative, and you do interesting things with the camera and the editing it's not going to matter if it looks like it was shot on video or film or whatever else. People can make bad films and good videos. It isn't inherently the medium.

April 16, 2005

I don't like this whole "If you want film look shoot film" thing. If he could shoot film I'm sure he would, but film comes at a significantly higher price than digital video. So shoot video, and then try and get whatever film effects out of it as you can, at no extra cost. Providing it's the film look you want.

People have no choice but to shoot video, financially, so they might as well get whatever they can out of it.

Edited April 16, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Jonathan Spear · April 16, 2005

""Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life," --Brooke Shields (Really...)"

Heh..

Hahahahaaa!!

Oh dear...

April 16, 2005

""Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life," --Brooke Shields (Really...)"

Heh..

Hahahahaaa!!

Oh dear...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lol, well, I guess you would lose an important part of your life if you died! She's almost as bad as what Bill Clinton said in one of his speeches, "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." --Bill Clinton, President

NOOOoooooo..... :o

Or from Winston Bennett... "I've never had major knee surgery on any other part of my body"

...... <_<

Edited April 16, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

drew_town · April 16, 2005

My goal was to acheive a film look.

There in lies the problem. What kind of goal is that? Rather I'd suggest:

"My goal is to create a music video with high production value that will demonstrate my ability to light, shoot, and compose."

or

"My goal is to provide a visual representation to a song that I admire."

Sound better?

I agree with both Josh and Daniel with the whole film-look thing. If you were to go to a store looking for a orange but you only had enough money for an apple, no matter how hard or long you chomp on that apple, it's never going to taste like the orange. Daniel, I think what you try to encourage is a high production value. Video can look good, but right now, it can never look like film. Like Josh says, video has it's own attributes. I'm a videographer, and I've never said I wanted to shoot something that looked like film, or had a film-look, or any other derivative of this line of thinking. What I say is that I want it to look good. That means lighting, camerawork, composition, and aesthetic choices. I try and challenge myself with each new project I shoot, both aesthetically and technically. The day might come when video can look exactly like film. But it won't be today and it won't be tomorrow. I admire your stand for digital formats Daniel, but I would suggest substituting the phrase ?film-look? for ?production value?. Then maybe we can talk about a work as a production rather than its acquisition method.

As far as the music video is concerned, I think your lighting quality is it's best attribute. I like the solid sources. However, the film scratches and grain don't add anything to it. It's a sloppy quality.

Nevertheless, a good production.

Jonathan Spear · April 17, 2005

and there's always this gem:

"Is tuna really Chicken?" - Jessica Simpson, after reading "Tuna, Chicken of the sea"

<_<

:blink:

:lol:

Guy Meachin · April 17, 2005

Don't waste your time layering your video with filters and other stuff to make it look like film. If you're going to shoot video, embrace the video. It is an aesthetic all of it's own. Develop your own visual style, and don't worry if it looks like celluloid or not.

Besides, film look does not equate good. If you're creative, and you do interesting things with the camera and the editing it's not going to matter if it looks like it was shot on video or film or whatever else. People can make bad films and good videos. It isn't inherently the medium.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said!

April 17, 2005

It all depends on what film look you want, over the many attributes. You added many things that are more or less "signatures" of film, for instance grain and scratches. The progressive mode shoots it frame by frame like film, but theres still something about it that makes it look like video. I *think* it's just the different look between a digital image and film, it's really hard to explain (no really I'm not on drugs), film just looks real but has a cinematic excitement, digital just looks real.

drew_town · April 17, 2005

It's like beating a dead horse...

D. Jason · April 19, 2005

It's like beating a dead horse...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Worse... it's like trying to ride one.

April 19, 2005

Well having said all that, there are still things you can do, like match the gamma properties of certain film e.t.c.

I've just been using this "FilmFX" by "BigFX" and it basically adjusts the gamma on the video to match the many film stocks it comes with. Looks pretty good actually.

So, there are still things you can do, but you won't be able to get a natural film look for a long time yet. (Unless you cut the story short and use film, obviously)

Edited April 19, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Chris Alex · April 25, 2005

Well having said all that, there are still things you can do, like match the gamma properties of certain film e.t.c.

I've just been using this "FilmFX" by "BigFX" and it basically adjusts the gamma on the video to match the many film stocks it comes with. Looks pretty good actually.

So, there are still things you can do, but you won't be able to get a natural film look for a long time yet. (Unless you cut the story short and use film, obviously)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you all for your feedback!

Everything said above is highly apreciated.

I wanted to add an old film look. With the flashes between some cuts.

My first edit was with the flashes but without the film grain and scratches.

It just made it more "spooky".

Thats all.

Ive done many videos with out film look. I know very well how to use video and make it look good. But again.. I always take out the 2nd field. Thats also a film attribute isnt it? It gives it a more rough motion.

If youre interested i can post some of my other music videos that were also shot on video. Many on Betacam and XL1.

Josh Hill · May 1, 2005

Why would you want to ADD scratches? Unless you're specifically trying to mimic old newsreel footage and the like, scratches are generally considered something to be avoided.