film quality frm DV

[siddharth diwan]

guys am making a film on Canon XL1 is dere any process or method by which v can achieve film quality or even get close to it plz give advice it will be of big help also let me knw if its possible in post production

[John Pytlak RIP]

guys am making a film on Canon XL1 is dere any process or method by which v can achieve film quality or even get close to it plz give advice it will be of big help also let me knw if its possible in post production

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You might come close to matching Super-8 film quality. ;)

 

Actually, just do a search here on "film look". If you have to use video, you need to be sure your lighting does not exceed the capabilities of the video system (especially need to be careful not to "blow out" highlights). Long shots will show up the lack of really fine detail, so CU and MS look better. And of course, post production "film look" tools might help simulate some aspects of the "real thing".

 

Bottom line: you are better off not trying to make it look like something it is not. Cherish it for what it is, and aspire to film when that's what you really want.

[Rik Andino]

Everyone shooting video always askes this question...

 

And the final answer always is:

You want a film-look---shoot with film.

There's no other way to do it.

 

You want great looking video that's a whole 'nother story.

 

 

Good Luck

[David Cox]

hmmm. Arguably you are starting from the furthest distance from film quality because DV is the lowest quality of all the likely video formats you would shoot on.

 

But here are some tips to get you in the right direction.

 

As John mentioned, video shows itself by not handling highlights very well and DV cameras tend to be particularly bad at it. Do some tests where you slightly underexpose and bring up the brightness in post production. Your highlights will look better and any noise that is introduced from adding brightness kind of looks like film grain :-)

 

Make sure you spend a decent amount of time in post grading. Remember if you shot on 35mm film you would spend ages in a telecine suite grading your film for TV to make it look good. Do the same with your DV (but in software not telecine!). Start by lowering the blacks and increasing the whites (more contrast). Increase the colour saturation and then reduce the amount of red from the mid-tones. This will give you a "film look" starting point.

 

Another trick is to seperate off the highlights, blur them slightly and add them back on in post. This makes the highlights more flarey and organic, rather than the razor sharp whites you get from video.

 

Film records 24 frames per second, wheras video records 50 or 60 fields per second (interlaced). This gives a very smooth motion to your images that is different from the look of film. You can either set your camera to a 24 or 25P setting (if it can do it) or use de-interlace in post to drop every other field. Doing this in camera is the best because the latter looses some resolution.

 

Of course the term "film look" is a bit of a wide goal. After all black and white super 8 is film and so is Imax. The difference between them is to do with detail and artifacts. The smaller the format, the less detail and the larger the film grain, dirt bits, film weave (wobble) etc.

 

So if you really want to make it look like that old print in your local cinema, cover it in fake film dirt!!

 

David Cox

Baraka Post Production

www.baraka.co.uk

[Guest]

Again, the hilarity of video folk who want their video to look like film.

 

The big question always is: Why not have your video look like, well, video?

 

R.

[David Cox]

Again, the hilarity of video folk who want their video to look like film.

R.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well guess what. Not every producer has the budget for film. Perhaps you could use your experience to be more helpful than disparaging in this forum?

[John Pytlak RIP]

Well guess what. Not every producer has the budget for film. Perhaps you could use your experience to be more helpful than disparaging in this forum?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said:

 

Bottom line: you are better off not trying to make it look like something it is not. Cherish it (video) for what it is, and aspire to film when that's what you really want.

[nchopp]

Again, the hilarity of video folk who want their video to look like film.

 

The big question always is: Why not have your video look like, well, video?

 

R.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Because video represents reality. When we see NTSC, 30i video, we think news, television, something real. We already have our mindset - we don't think story-telling. Film represents narrative; the 24 frame motion blur, the contrast ratio. We're ready to suspsend belief a little bit.

 

"The medium is the message." (McLuhan)

 

There's nothing wrong with wanting your video to look MORE like film. If such was the case, I don't think we'd be seeing the ridiculous amount of excitement about the HVX-200, or the great success Panasonic's had with the DVX-100. We're human - we want what we can't really afford - so if we can cheat and get closer, so much the better.

[Guest]

Trying to make the output of an XL1 look like 35mm will give you a bastard child that will not resemble either parent.

 

Better to be true to your medium, if you shoot video, accept that it looks like video.

 

I guess every ones dream is to shoot a feature that looks identical to 35mm with a video camera that costs $795.00.

 

R.

 

PS: I'm surprised to see Canadian philosophy being quoted to me on this forum (Herbert Marshall McLuhan).

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Sid_d84,

 

Try FilmFX by BigFX. You can basically try and mimic the gamma properties of the many film stocks it comes with, and it has some pretty nice effects too. (Dirt, grain, gate wobbles e.t.c.)

 

Many people say if your shooting video, then stick with it and appreciate it's look. And not try and mimic film.

 

What it comes down to is this:

 

People can't afford to shoot film. If they could, don't you think they would? So they are forced to shoot video, but they much prefer the look of film to video. So they try and make video look more like film. Something you can't do completely, but, you can make it look MORE like film. Even if you?re stuck with something in the middle, most people would class that as looking better than bog standard video.

 

When I edit my footage to look more like film, it doesn't look *perfectly* like film, but it looks a lot better than standard video in my opinion.

 

You may be stuck with something in the middle, but at least you haven?t got to worry about paying the re-mortgage on your house back.

 

Again, the hilarity of video folk who want their video to look like film.

 

The big question always is: Why not have your video look like, well, video?

The hilarity of the person who shoots an entire feature length film and wants it to look like eastenders. The simple answer to your big question is that most people don't like the look of video. They want it to look like a rich feature length cinema film. Not a news broadcast or soap opera.

Edited May 6, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[drew_town]

Tim should build an auto response system to where any time "video" and "film" appear in the same sentence a post like Rik's appears and the thread closes.

[Guest]

Well guess what. Not every producer has the budget for film. Perhaps you could use your experience to be more helpful than disparaging in this forum?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Relax.

 

R.

[nchopp]

Trying to make the output of an XL1 look like 35mm will give you a bastard child that will not resemble either parent.

 

Better to be true to your medium, if you shoot video, accept that it looks like video.

 

I guess every ones dream is to shoot a feature that looks identical to 35mm with a video camera that costs $795.00.

 

R.

 

PS: I'm surprised to see Canadian philosophy being quoted to me on this forum (Herbert Marshall McLuhan).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Where can I find an XL1 for $795? That's be great.

 

Chopp

 

 

P.S. McLuhan's not a philosopher, but a media ecologist.

[nchopp]

Sid_d84,

 

Try FilmFX by BigFX. You can basically try and mimic the gamma properties of the many film stocks it comes with, and it has some pretty nice effects too. (Dirt, grain, gate wobbles e.t.c.)

 

 

If you're stuck trying to make video you've already shot look like film in post, you're already too late. No software in the world is going to bring back the highlights you've blown and shadows you've lost.

 

Dirt, grain, and gate wobble effects are useless, unless you have a reason your film needs to look like something from the 30s. When was the last time you saw a feature film that had a gate scratch? It's not even a band-aid, it's worse than a band-aid. Putting a film effect on top of poorly shot video is like pointing a large, red arrow at it and saying: "Look, I can't afford film OR the time and experience to shoot good video!"

 

 

Chopp

 

 

P.S. CineLook is, in my opinion, a very much superior option to FilmFX. It's diffusion filters in particular are phenomonal.

[Guest]

P.S. McLuhan's not a philosopher, but a media ecologist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is definately an arguable point.

 

R.

[Rik Andino]

People can't afford to shoot film. If they could, don't you think they would? So they are forced to shoot video, but they much prefer the look of film to video. So they try and make video look more like film. Something you can't do completely, but, you can make it look MORE like film. Even if you?re stuck with something in the middle, most people would class that as looking better than bog standard video.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I understand the need of making something better than what you have...

But the problem is you'll spend almost the same amount of money in post...

As you would have spent if you shoot on film

 

And you still don't have anywhere near the quality or resolution.

 

I've shot plenty of good video

& when I first started out...I tried to make it look "like film"...

But after awhile you realize that all the tricks you try still it looks like video

So then you go with a different philosophy try to shoot good video...

And try not to make it look like the Network News and/or Soaps.

 

And you realize alot of it has to do more with lighting and framing...

Than filters or effects--so if you concentrate on that you'll have a better video Than trying to insert grain or film gamma or etc...

 

 

Good Luck

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

If you're stuck trying to make video you've already shot look like film in post, you're already too late. No software in the world is going to bring back the highlights you've blown and shadows you've lost.

 

Dirt, grain, and gate wobble effects are useless, unless you have a reason your film needs to look like something from the 30s. When was the last time you saw a feature film that had a gate scratch? It's not even a band-aid, it's worse than a band-aid. Putting a film effect on top of poorly shot video is like pointing a large, red arrow at it and saying: "Look, I can't afford film OR the time and experience to shoot good video!"

Chopp

P.S. CineLook is, in my opinion, a very much superior option to FilmFX. It's diffusion filters in particular are phenomonal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then whats the point in the program? You can't make it look perfectly like film, it's impossible right now, but that program helps.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

But the problem is you'll spend almost the same amount of money in post...

Not, exactly.. the one advantage to digital editing is that it's both cheap and easy. I mean, if your shooting low res DV, you can edit it on a fairly descent home computer. And theres always ways of getting hold of software for free, even if it's just to use and not keep.

Edited May 6, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Guest Charlie Seper]

First, I'm guessing that this new poster is a shill to get people to post on the board more by the site owner, or that its an alter-ego by one of the regular posters so they could pat themselves on the back and say, "Look, I told someone they couldn't make video look like film?aren't I clever?" Anyone w/ an XL1 is going to know a little bit about video and how to use it in Frames Mode and how using it in PAL at 50i will translate quite well to 25P for film work. But, that said....

 

Telling someone to settle for making their movie look like video (i.e.?Soderberg's crappy "Full Frontal") when they could easily make it look like Boyle's "28-Days Later", is a tad goofy.

 

Anybody can make video look quite a bit like film, so much so that the average person couldn't tell the difference. And no, you don't need a $10,000 35mm lens like Boyle used. A pro mechanical lens sure helps though and you can likely rent one cheaper than you think.

 

Most programs like Magic Bullet suggest you shoot in either 50 or 60i and avoid Frame Mode when using their products. I've tested a couple of them and can safely say this to be true. But I must also say that Frame Mode will produce something that looks infinitely more film-like. The problem is when trying to transfer 60i to 24P film when used in frame mode to achieve a 30p look. Shooting in real 30p has the same problem, which is a sort of strobing effect. This is a real shame since anybody that's shot in both 24p and 30p will tell you that 30p looks better. Same goes for 60i in frame mode.

 

Since you don't have a camera capable of 24p (and I'm going to assume it isn't a PAL model0 then I'd say go ahead and use Frame Mode and when transferring to film use the Kinescope method. (This is basically filming a monitor of your video while its playing.) I think Kinescope has less strobing artifacts than any other process. Of course, it produces the worst film of any other process too. But if you're so poor that you need to shoot a film on DV then chances are you're going to use the Kinescope method anyway because it?s the cheapest way to do a video to film transfer.

 

Also, as the first response to your post said, stay away from big outdoor shots when using miniDV. In fact, stay indoors as much as you can w/ lots of light. While an outdoor epic is next to impossible w/ DV, films shot primarily indoors can look quite good when transferred to film.

 

Further, I'm an old audio guy, (I won't lecture you on staying away from onboard mics or from using your DV unit to record sound from at all, but I wouldn't except for sync purposes :-) but, when 24-bit audio came out I used to see idiot kids in stupid internet forums all the time blabbing about how you had to record in 24-bit and at a higher resolution than 44.1 and so forth or that you were going to get some kind of substandard "demo quality" sound. As usual, the internet is mostly a breeding grounds for incompetents with no friends and no life and no where else to be and no one to be there with. The misinformation available on the weird wide web is just astonishing. The only advantage to recording in 24-bits is a little more overhead, which is fine if you're recording a symphony orchestra. 99% of us will never need more overhead than we already had at 16-bit. And a 44.1 resolution w/ over-sampling is going to sound the EXACT SAME as any higher resolution. Now, audio people are finally wising up.

 

Film shot on miniDV will look a little soft on the big screen. Don't worry about it. If you've got a good story no one will think twice about how it was shot. That's what's going to set you apart. With the invention of Flash came the ability for the masses to produce their own high quality animated movies. So far its produced a multitude of crap. Audio DAW work stations, very inexpensive but great sounding condenser mics, good mixing desks, and digital effects have made it possible for anyone to produce incredible sounding music in their own homes with unlimited tracks and for next to nothing. So far its produced a multitude of...yes?crap. Now we're seeing the same digital revolution in video. Soon, anyone will be able to produce hi-def film-like images on the cheap. Any guess at what its going to produce? Ever been to a film festival? It ain't pretty. Have these idiots have never read a novel written before 1950 (as if there were more than 5 or 6 worth reading since 1950.) They wouldn't know Romanticism from Mysticism, Chesterton from Spencer, or mythology from fiction. A good story told well is all you need and will place you in front of the vast majority of people posting in video forums on the blasted internet. The rest are merely details.

 

I would venture to guess that most people who think they've got such golden eyeballs would have a hard time telling video (hi-def or standard) from film when shot well, regardless of their rhetoric. I just watched "Primer" the other night, a great film made for less than $7,000 by a mathematician who quit his engineering job, got a few books on film making, and went out and made a film that won the Grand Jury prize at Sundance. It was the first piece of film he ever shot. After watching it, I mention to a couple of people something about neat new film that was shot on hi-def. Turns out I was wrong. It was shot on 16mm film. Here's a case where I actually thought something shot on film was made on video. And you know what? Nobody gives a tinker's damn. It?s a great story.

[drew_town]

Anybody can make video look quite a bit like film

No they can't. They can make it look like really good video. Even give it cinematic quality with high production value. But YOU CAN'T GET VIDEO TO LOOK LIKE FILM AND THAT'S THAT. 28 Days Later doesn't look like film. It's kick-ass, low-as-hell-resolution video.

 

And this comes from a videographer.

 

You do give some really good advice Charlie. And that's how you give your video "production value" not "film look."

 

There's nothing wrong with the way video looks. It's different, as everyone knows. But you can shell out some good video footage if you concentrate on your production values and not what silly little filters you'll use to give it a "film look."

 

Production Value, Production Value, Production Value!

 

Not film look.

 

If you've got a good story no one will think twice about how it was shot.

Except me. ;)

Dirt, grain, and gate wobble effects are useless

Agreed.

And you realize alot of it has to do more with lighting and framing...

Than filters or effects--so if you concentrate on that you'll have a better video Than trying to insert grain or film gamma or etc...

Yeah... like Rik said.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Further, I'm an old audio guy, (I won't lecture you on staying away from onboard mics or from using your DV unit to record sound from at all, but I wouldn't except for sync purposes :-) but, when 24-bit audio came out I used to see idiot kids in stupid internet forums all the time blabbing about how you had to record in 24-bit and at a higher resolution than 44.1 and so forth or that you were going to get some kind of substandard "demo quality" sound. As usual, the internet is mostly a breeding grounds for incompetents with no friends and no life and no where else to be and no one to be there with. The misinformation available on the weird wide web is just astonishing. The only advantage to recording in 24-bits is a little more overhead, which is fine if you're recording a symphony orchestra. 99% of us will never need more overhead than we already had at 16-bit. And a 44.1 resolution w/ over-sampling is going to sound the EXACT SAME as any higher resolution. Now, audio people are finally wising up.

Well, I'm a young audio guy and I'll tell you now that there IS a difference to be heard when recording at higher sample rates. That's why DVD-Audio and SA-CD came out.

 

I will however disagree with people saying you need to record at higher resolutions than 44.1 16bit e.t.c. to get a descent sound. Most of these kids are probably burning the final output to an audio CD anyway, which only runs up to 44.1 16 bit. But me.. well, I'm a music freak, I like to burn stuff onto DVD audio discs e.t.c. My band appreciates it though.

Edited May 6, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Guest Charlie Seper]

Well, I'm a young audio guy and I'll tell you now that there IS a difference to be heard when recording at higher sample rates. That's why DVD-Audio and SA-CD came out.

 

No how, no way. Aside, from more overhead, there are only two other advantages to recording at 24-bit. If you're doing a surround sound production (yuck!!) you can get better stereo seperation. Of course you'd have to be wearing headphones or sitting with your head right between the speakers to tell the difference, and even then you'd have to listen REALLY close. The other advantage is that you can do more editing of a 24-bit waveform before degrading the sound quality. This would never matter to a good musician though. If you use the right mike for the right job in the right room, you shouldn't need to do much editing. And you can generally make no less than 6-changes to a 16-bit waveform before you start to hear any degradation in sound whatsoever.

 

I've recorded several listening tests and challenged people to tell me whether or not they were recorded in 24-bit or 16-bit. No one to date has been able to consistently tell which is which. For that matter, I once did a test for some Cakewalk people that involved encoding a tune to a 256k MP3 file, then back to 16-bit 44.1 wave, and back again a total of 5-times, and not one peron could tell me in a blind fold test which was the original wave file and which was the MP3 file that had 1/4 of its guts ripped out and back again 5-times. And you think you're going to tell a 16-bit file from a 24-bit file? Be my guest to try. I'll be happy to record you some samples and post them locked in a Flash file. Just give the nod and I'll be more than happy to show you what you aren't hearing.

 

BTW, your hearing is the first thing to go. While we normally say that people can hear from around 20 htz to 20k, you might want to bear in mind that by the time you're 15 your hearing has already dropped to 20-18k, and by the time you're 25 its down to 25-16k.

~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Drew, I've yet to meet anybody that saw "28-Days Later" who could tell it wasn't shot on film unless they knew it ahead of time. Further, "Primer" isn't the first time I've seen 16mm and thought it was hi-def. A 720 X 480 1-mega pixel frame is obviously going to look a little soft stretched out across a 30' screen. Aside from that, there's no reason whatsoever that DV video can't look a LOT like film. To say it doesn't look EXACTLY like film is something else. But its close enough that nobody in the theatre with an IQ above that of the average doorknob is going to be thinking about anything but the storyline. And that's what we should be considering.

 

By the way, Joan of Arcadia (sp?) is shot on hi-def. Can you tell the difference between that and Everybody Loves Raymond which is shot on Film? I sure can't. Of course that isn't on the big screen, but the principle still remains. Video can look like film, and sometimes film can look like video whether you want to think so or not. DV might look soft on the big screen, but looking soft isn't the same as looking like video. It just looks like soft film.

 

But to tell someone to purposely try to make their video look like video instead of film is simply bad advice. Not only does Frames Mode look more like video in motion but in color. I shoot in Frames Mode all the time because the color is so much richer. The little bit of resolution I lose is more than made up for in the much better color reproduction in my opinion. I've also noticed better low light capabilities when shooting in Frames Mode.

 

And lets not forget, few of us will ever shoot DV for the sake of the big screen. I assume that most people here, like myself, are more interested in TV documentaries. MiniDV has been more than good enough for TV work for several years now. True, most studios and stations are requesting projects to be submitted on hi-def now, but as Scott Billups has so often said, "What they really mean is that they want stuff to be in 16 x 9 wide screen." So that said, I think my DV unit will serve me well for another couple of years. True hi-def TV for the masses is still a few years off. But its a good reason for those of us on a budget to be looking at HDV. It may not be the greatest hi-def signal in the world, but they should be plenty good enough fo PBS, Discovery, History, etc.

 

Gotta go for a few days. Argue amonst yourselves. :ph34r:

[siddharth diwan]

i'll be shooting on PAL and its the production which is a problem low budget i've got my own editing Avid Xpress setup so no money involved dere

[Josh Hill]

My lay friend could tell 28 Days Later wasn't shot on film. He didn't know PRECISELY what was different about it, but he asked me: "Why did that movie look like that?" He could tell there was something about it that he was not used to in a theatrical film.

 

Also, just because someone has an XL1 doesn't mean they know anything about video. My first (and only, to date) video camera was an XL1s. Until I picked it up I knew absolutely nothing.

 

I also think the Frame Mode on the XL1s looks nothing like film. I think it looks like crap, personally. Frame mode alone doesn't make things look like film, especially if you're shooting NTSC like so many of us are.

 

I also think what people are saying with things like "embrace the video" is that it has its own aesthetic. It really is pointless to try to make something look like film that is video. But to use video's inherent aesthetic, play with it, turn it on its ear and come out on the other end with some good VIDEO is better than coming out with a bastardized stepchild of either format.

 

Video can be beautiful and impressive. The problem is that people want to have the prestige of film without the price. If you have a project that you want to shoot on film, but you can't afford film, then pick a new project. Hold off on it a little while and wait. Instead of flooding the market with "okay" digital movies, people should hold off on their filmmaking and put their efforts into just ONE really good project.

 

Everyone wants to be the next Richard Linklater, Kevin Smith or Robert Rodriguez and they think that DV is the gateway to that. But it is not. All three of those filmmakers focused their energies and money into one really good project, because they had to. Digital had not proliferated to the pandemic proportions that it has today (I only say that because of the market being flooded with crap and making it harder for anyone to sort through it all to find the diamonds in the rough). All of those filmmakers were shooting on film, because that was the accepted format of the time. They threw themselves into it full force and made the best movies they possibly could. People today are using the cheap, affordable digital revolution to shoot crap and then say: "How do I make this like film?"

 

I don't think it is like this in any other art form. A sculptor doesn't say: "How do I make marble look like bronze?" A painter doesn't say: "How do I make watercolor look like oil?" We are simply talking about a medium here, and in all other arts people choose their medium carefully. People come to this forum constantly and ask about video looking like film, because they are naive and don't know the right question to ask, much less how to make anything of any quality.

 

People throw around 28 DAYS LATER far too much. If you listen to Danny Boyle talk about the film, he USED THE VIDEO AESTHETIC. He used it because he liked the dirty, gritty feel of the video. He used it because he felt it made the movie feel more real world. He did NOT attempt to make it look like film. They used film lenses for quality issues as well as depth of field issues, but they still embraced the video to make the movie they wanted to make.

 

What we are trying to teach people by saying make video look like video is that film does not equate good. There have been plenty of bad things shot on film (MANOS THE HANDS OF FATE springs to mind). And by the same token there have been plenty of GOOD things shot on video. We are talking about a MEDIUM here. You choose the medium that suits the project. Like I said before, if you want it to look like film then save the money and throw yourself headlong into shooting a film. But you can make fine looking video, and with everyone trying to shoot video that looks like film it gives you the ability to play with the inherent videoness of your footage and come out with something that no one has ever seen before. While everyone else is putting filters on their video to simulate grain, you can use your originality and creativity to spawn an entirely new look for your project and be noticed.

 

I personally don't shoot any of my own projects on video, which is a reason I don't shoot my own projects at all. I want to work with film, because I like the way it looks. I like the granularity. I like many things about it, and it is my medium of choice. I do not run around like the people my age (21) and make crap on video and try to supe it up to make it look better. That is like people hotrodding a Honda Civic around. Sure you have a spoiler, some new hubcaps and a new engine ... but it is still a Honda Civic. By putting 10,000 dollars worth of junk on your car you did not make it a Camaro.

[Guest Matt808]

trying using magic bullet with FCP in post