Getting that "film look" with the HVX200 [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

Jack_Felis

04-02-2006, 10:12 AM

booth

04-02-2006, 11:16 AM

It'd be good to have some scene file settings from people though. I know the HD100 users are swapping lots of scene files settings to get different looks.

TwoHatCat

04-02-2006, 12:29 PM

We're getting this question in HD now? Argh!

Lighting is the only step in the equation that you'll need for a true "film look". Color and all that is subjective.

Almost. Control over depth of field is a close second to lighting, because it allows the creators to direct attention to the important narrative elements. And in my opinion, 24P follows those in value, but at a respectable distance. But you know what is really true? The audience will buy anything that grabs their attention and holds it (not effects, however, unless you are under 4 years old.)

Learn writing first, the needs of actors second, the needs of editing third, lighting forth, and read all the tech stuff when you're in the bathroom. it makes for great entertainment "on the pot".

proximity

04-02-2006, 01:35 PM

We're getting this question in HD now? Argh!

Lighting is the only step in the equation that you'll need for a true "film look". Color and all that is subjective. If you can figure out how to light a set or location perfectly, then you're good to go. Try mimicing different lighting styles from other movies for practice. Figure out how they did it and learn what tools work best.

For specific settings on the camera, you'll just have to test that out for yourself and see what looks good to you.

Just want to clear something up. What you're saying has some truth, but still. It's complete bull****.

If you run along a filmset using a 3ccd SD videocamera (example, the PD150), and shoot about the same moves and angle as the actual filmcamera, you'll see an enormous difference. Just to use an example, try watching a behind the scenes DVD from a big budget movie, like The Matrix, Lord of the rings etc. -where you see them filming a complete (lit) filmset. The difference is huge.

My answer is:

If you want to create what I like to call "that other world feeling" (beeing filmlike fotage), you need a number of things. - One alone, like for example lighting, is not going to do it for you.

A quick list on the top of my head: 24p, colourdepth, depth of feild, black contrast, appropriate color corrected mood setting colors, the right type of light; beeing not direct sunlight or backlight, textures that reflect this light in a way the cameras resolution captures it (this is better proven than spoken of) and lastly good movement, beeing conscience handheld or stabilized.

please argue with me,

:nads:

R Gale

04-02-2006, 02:07 PM

OK I am probably setting myself up here but I would like to hear what settings people are using to get that distinctive "film look".

Since you did specify in your question that you're interested in discussing camera settings...

There are many distinctive "film looks." As illustrated by the many presets of Magic Bullet, each designed to emulate a different kind of film look. So assuming you might be referring to what Magic Bullet calls the "Basic" look of film.... with the HVX (and DVX), it's easy, as simple as shooting at 24fps, and using one of the Cinelike gamma settings and cinelike matrix. You're there. The other settings will give different results depending on the specific "filmlook" you desire.

That said, having a shallow depth of field (using 35mm adapter) is essential to getting a film-look so good it will fool almost everyone.

I'd also love to see a place on these boards where people can share scene file settings to get specific looks.

Steve Shovlar

04-02-2006, 02:23 PM

Thanks you R Gale that was more that I ws getting at. Not lighting, 35mm adaptor etc. I have all that. I want to talk about the camera settings.

Straight out of the box the HVX is setup flat and neds adjustments to give that certain look. Not just shooting i720 24 (5)p on dial number 6 CineD.

What about image sharpness settings, gamma curve, master Ped etc.

It would be very useful for there to be a seperate forum section where such settings could be discussed.

Got your camera set up to look a certain way and want to share it with others on here? post it in a new dedicated section!

hoofandmouf

04-02-2006, 02:35 PM

theres this software I used last month called "magic bullet" and it was great!!

I highly suggest finding this magic bullet software to get a TRUE film-look

DavidBeier

04-02-2006, 06:06 PM

I am not taking about the lighting side of things. I am talking about what settings you are using on your camera. Master Ped, sharpness etc.

I hope you're not planning on skimping on the lighting angle as that's pretty damn import. We've all seen a lot of stuff that was shot on this camera. Usually the difference between the stuff that looks like film and the stuff that just looks like sharp video is the lighting. Bad lighting can even make one sometimes question if something on film was really shot on film. I've seen more that a few 16mm films that were so flatly lit I though they were shot on an XL1 and just converted to 24fps.

Anyway, I suggest you go ahead and, aside from setting the FPS to 24p, just turn on all the "film-like" settings in the camera. Everything labeled as such gives you more of a film look. I also find pushing down the master pedistal will give you the crushed blacks of film better. Everything else is preference.

Almost. Control over depth of field is a close second to lighting, because it allows the creators to direct attention to the important narrative elements. And in my opinion, 24P follows those in value, but at a respectable distance.

I strongly disagree. Many of the best directors often shoot with a pretty large depth of field with some of my favs working in deep focus. This, is an artistic choice. 24p however is a factual difference between video (previously) and film and far more important.

darwinandpaine

04-02-2006, 06:43 PM

I think the HVX 720pn, 24fps, cinegamma D setting is the best "out-of-the-box" film look of any small camera I've seen. The other things are more a matter of taste that you'll have to decide for yourself based on the material you're shooting, the aesthetic of the script, location, available light, etc... For instance, if you've already got a very high contrast scene where the shadows are nice and rich, you're not going to need to drop your master ped --- you might even want to raise it. These are things that can't really be "preset" in-camera. In fact, I wouldn't even recommend thinking of setting up your camera based on "presets." Every scene needs to be looked at and thought through independently. Using one (or even six) preset(s) that you like in a certain situation for ever other scene will get you into a lot of trouble. The HVX is not magic, it's just tool, and you have to learn how to use it.
I also agree with David B. --- DoF is another artistic choice to be made and thought through scene by scene. Shallow DoF is not a prerequisit for creating "that film look."

Ursa

04-02-2006, 09:33 PM

The 4 main differences from film to video (as taken from an instructional dvd from Kodak):

1. progressive frames vs interlaced (the HVX has this)
2. depth of field (buy a Redrock M2 as a workaround)
3. latitude film 14 F-stops vs video 7 F-stops (reel-stream is a workaround)
4. sorry for not remembering this one.. I think it was about having an optical viewfinder instead of counting on tiny LCD screens. Or it might be about the resolution, which I see as a non-issue since the introduction of HD.

of these points, I feel #3 is most overlooked on this forum. Having the latitude of film is an INSANE advantage. You will NEVER get the "professional film look" as long as the video format only handles 7 F-stops (for people unaccustomed to general photography: 7 F-stops means correct exposure for either sky and ground (where the other is respectively over- or underexposed) while 14 F-stops means correct exposure for both sky and ground)

So when we've got an HVX (progressive frames & HD resolution), an M2 (depth-of-field) and a reel-stream device (for an additional 2 F-stops for a total of 9) this means we are getting DARN close to film... Of course, without a proper script, our movies will suck anyway :)

I'm constantly amazed that people know more about color sampling than they know what they want to make a movie about... People who know their HVX's better than their own feelings.... It's hard to do, but getting in touch with one's feelings is much more helpful in filmmaking than knowing all these photographic issues... I can mention both European filmmakers as well as American filmmakers who just don't know anything about photography, but who remember the one single thing, which is not only the cheapest part of filmmaking, but strangely enough the most important: THE SCRIPT...

Okay sorry for that... I've snapped out of it :) I'll get to the screenwriting forum... soon...

darwinandpaine

04-02-2006, 11:28 PM

I agree with Ursa on every point. However, some of us here ARE technicians. And in this field a good technician with all his geeky knowledge can be every bit as valuable as a good screenwriter who knows his heart and the human condition. Yes, it all starts with a great story, but the execution of that great story is ultimately just as important. Who here hasn't seen a good script killed by bad lighting, acting, production design, cinematography, directing, music, etc.. I applaud anyone on these forums who is striving to learn his/her craft, whatever that might be.

JohanDay

04-02-2006, 11:59 PM

... Just to use an example, try watching a behind the scenes DVD from a big budget movie, like The Matrix, Lord of the rings etc. -where you see them filming a complete (lit) filmset. The difference is huge.

please argue with me,

:nads:

I agree! We looked, Lord of the rings, behind scenes and every time you see video clips of same scenes, those just looks amusing, even there are light etc. like on film... Video just don't looks so credible. Anyway I have seen very well done video's with film look feeling.

Steve Shovlar

04-03-2006, 12:41 AM

I hope you're not planning on skimping on the lighting angle as that's pretty damn import. We've all seen a lot of stuff that was shot on this camera. Usually the difference between the stuff that looks like film and the stuff that just looks like sharp video is the lighting. Bad lighting can even make one sometimes question if something on film was really shot on film. I've seen more that a few 16mm films that were so flatly lit I though they were shot on an XL1 and just converted to 24fps.

I have a huge amount of lighting and am well aware of its value. I have 2 four bank Kinos, Three dedos, 4 1K Desisti Fresnels, 3 650 Fresnels, 3 300 Fresnels, 3 575 Arri HMIs, 1 1200K softbank HMI, 1 4K Fresnel HMI.

I am afraid this thread has gone off at a complete tangent from what I was getting at. Partly my thought as I should have perhaps worded it better. Rather than say "film look", I should have said what camera settings are you folks using on your HVX200.

augenblick

04-03-2006, 01:36 AM

You can't compare Lord of the Rings 35mm Prints to video. They did huge color corrections on that movie before it went on screen. It is an 100% mistake if you think you can buy a video camera (even a HDCAM SR) an it would be filmlook out of the box. There is no such thing. Period!

One of the first lessons in digital filmmaking is: If you treat it like film, it looks like film.

So you have to go the whole nine yards. Lightning, DOF, directing, acting, editing(!) and color correcting.

I did electronic cinematography with a Sony 900 and a Panavision Lens that cost over 1'000'000 Bucks (that spells Million) and guess what. It looked like crap! But after the Color Correction and all the editing. Whoaa!

But then again, who am I to know ...

xray

04-03-2006, 04:27 AM

Man what a light you have!:happy:
There is a sticky handling scene files, did you see that?

augenblick

04-03-2006, 06:23 AM

Out of the box it does not look like film. Not what you are used to see in cinemas or on dramatic tv. End of story. You can exchange your camerasetting. You can even write this in big letters. It won't become any more true. Out of the box even well lit 35mm needs color correction. I spend some time in tinseltown. Been there, done that. You may come close, but ...

joe 1008

04-03-2006, 11:13 AM

Here some settings that were recommended in several threads in this forum. (though some refer rather to noise which came out to be rather a none-issue those settings might be considered, too) I personally did 'nt have the possibility to try them but I will do so as soon as I get a HVX in my hands:

Here are some suggestions for scene file setting, what I've liked so far.
Daylight/Sunlight
Detail "0"
V-detail "0"
Coring "+3"
Chroma "-2"
Master ped "-4"
Cinelike_D Gamma
Cinelike Matrix

Interior tungston (5 stop detail range keeping skin tones at 50IRE)
Detail "-2"
V-detail "+2"
Coring "+3"
Chroma "-1"
Master ped "-4"
Cinelike_V Gamma
Floro or Normal Matrix

----------------

My suggestion would be to set master ped down to -6 (which makes black black on the DVX), see what effect that has on the blockiness (whether it disappears into the shadows).

Compare CineV and CineD (CineD is apparently more noisy, but at least the noise looked more "organic").

Try pushing the coring right down to -2 in CineV to see if that reduces the blockiness.

That's all I got! Let us know how it goes

---------------

Hello all,

We recently conducted a film out test with footage from the HVX. A very special thanks to Postworks New York for their incredible help and expertise. I promised to report back the results so here they are.

Footage:
The footage was all shot in 720P mostly with chroma +3, detail -3, coring +3, master ped -3 and cine-d

OVerall Impressions:
WOW - amazing, truly film like. The footage truly stood up to the blowup. Looked amazing.

DavidBeier

04-03-2006, 01:33 PM

of these points, I feel #3 is most overlooked on this forum. Having the latitude of film is an INSANE advantage. You will NEVER get the "professional film look" as long as the video format only handles 7 F-stops (for people unaccustomed to general photography: 7 F-stops means correct exposure for either sky and ground (where the other is respectively over- or underexposed) while 14 F-stops means correct exposure for both sky and ground)

I gotta disagree with you there. While the much wider lattiitude of film is a HUGE advantage, I don't think that just having 7 stops means you'll never get a "film look." It just means you have to work harder to control your light. Sure I would kill for those extra stops but, as long as your light is controlled and nothing is getting uber-blown out or under-lit, most people won't notice.

So when we've got an HVX (progressive frames & HD resolution), an M2 (depth-of-field) and a reel-stream device (for an additional 2 F-stops for a total of 9) this means we are getting DARN close to film...

Sorry but this seems kind of odd. With 7 stops of lattitude we'll "never get the FILM LOOK" but with 9 stops it's "DARN close to film?"

JackFoley

04-03-2006, 02:11 PM

For me the typical video-ish sharpening the HVX is producing with detail 0 is most annoying. It can be seen on most posts in the Screen Grabs / Clips of HVX footage forum. Get that down to at least -6 and the footage will not look so much like video.

Steve Shovlar

04-03-2006, 03:06 PM

Thanks Jack. That's the type of info I was talking about and hoping folks would post. I will try out some different settings tomorrow.
Cheers
steve

ngraha3

04-03-2006, 03:24 PM

Ursa

04-03-2006, 03:31 PM

just gotta apologize for all my stupid posts yesterday... they were all written in extreme drowsiness :) I use a lot of ambivalent irony when I'm in that mood... Guess it is'nt funny for anyone but myself :). But seriously: have you seen reel-stream footage? It's truly amazing! 2 stops means 2^2=4 times as much contrast in the image. You see it specially in skin tones (you get the full range from highlights to shadows, while with normal video the shadows are total black and highlights are overexposed...

oh well.. I hate people who have to defend themselves and their opinions... Sorry if I offended anyone!

R Gale

04-03-2006, 10:01 PM

I don't see why people are so eager to reproduce film.
If you want to make a movie and sell it, in the reality of today's marketplace, it has to look like film. Because 99.9% of every movie you see in the theater is on film, and that's what distributors want to buy 99.9% of the time. There are rare exceptions, but those are still very rare... as in one or two movies in a year that look like video and still get distribution ('open water' comes to mind). And if you are not Soderbergh, then you have a much, much, much better chance to sell your movie if it looks like film. That's just reality.

SPZ

04-03-2006, 11:08 PM

I don't see why people are so eager to reproduce film. This is my opinion but I think that soon, a lot of filmmakers are going to see that this is a new medium that begs a new type of story and a different aesthetic altogether. Why try to make it like film, when it isn't. Make something completley original... I like what Soderbergh did with Bubble, or Miranda July with Me You and Everyone We Know.

Well, even the definition of "Film Look" has changed a lot since the implementation of Film... Just look at Chaplin's films, go trough the Black and White Era to color, and enter the Non-linear Editing revolution. Things are always changing. Just look at "Snatch"'s editing, or "Matrix", and compare it to action movies in the 70ies and even 80ies...

The next real revolution after Non-Linear Editing should be, MAYBE (Just Maybe) immersion. And this can mean many things... Probably Next Generation Videogames will take a big role in the evolution of storytelling...

joe 1008

04-04-2006, 01:10 PM

It´s not about filmlook, it´s about getting close to the perception of the human eye and you simply can´t get any closer than with 35mm film stock (well, maybe except with 60mm film stock at 60p:shocked:)

ngraha3

04-20-2006, 01:08 PM

No I disagree. What sells '99%' of the time has nothing to do with what a film looks like, it's the content. The story, the ideas and what have you. I think the problem is that people, amateur filmmakers that is, are making what they think a film is supposed to be. They are too into films and can't examine themselves whatsoever so they make carbon copies of hollywood films, and since it's shot on digital it only looks like a schlocky ten dollar hollywood movie.

Also, a short film will never sell. A short film will get you noticed and making something that is lit like a bad cable tv show is something I don't think people will ever care about. Why the hell would anyone want to make a hollywood movie anyway? 99% of them suck shit.

I think it's the whole idea of the 'video generation' that does it. People make all this stuff, and it looks like television. No one goes to a cinema anymore. Kevin Smith is a prime example, that shit looks like TV to me.

And what I'm saying about Soderbergh is that he knew he wasn't using film and he didn't try to make it film. I think that DV is a specific medium that begs for specific types of stories. Film is about poetry (in the image that is). Video is about... well I don't know, but not poetry.

joe 1008

04-20-2006, 01:42 PM

Well, now we are getting a bit off-topic here in the HVX-corner but let me make clear my rather conservative point of view: The more you forget that you are staring at a screen (TV or movie theater or whatsoever) the better for the story. Filming on 35mm material is the most pleasing way to do so for the human eye but now HD ist getting closer and closer and opens the possibility of "classical" filmic storytelling to many people with a low budget. And that´s OK - no, that´s more than OK, that´s GREAT.

DavidBeier

04-20-2006, 01:42 PM

I don't see why people are so eager to reproduce film. This is my opinion but I think that soon, a lot of filmmakers are going to see that this is a new medium that begs a new type of story and a different aesthetic altogether. Why try to make it like film, when it isn't. Make something completley original... I like what Soderbergh did with Bubble, or Miranda July with Me You and Everyone We Know.

I think I care more what looks good to my eye more than what looks more filmic. Film definatly looks great but it amazes me how people try to replicate the look of bad film.

They turn down the detail as far as possible to make it look soft (like out of focus film) and they add grain. I remember when I shot 16mm all the work we did to make it look as sharp and grainless as possible. I don't want to replicate ugly film.

I just want my stuff to have look I want and generally the look I want tends to be closer to that of film. That said, it often has more to do with the colors and light than the framerate. I've seen 16mm productions that I would have sworn were just video slowed down to 24fps and with grain added because they were so flatly lit.