Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Default
    24p video can look indistinguishable from the same content originated on film. In skillful hands, optimizing the lighting to fit within video's capabilities (meaning we have an expert creating the footage), even a trained eye would not be able to tell which was from film and which was from video.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member xray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    870
    Default
    So many factors are all together that gives you the film experience. Stock, colors, dynamic range, saturation, cadence, resolution, grain particles, contrast, lenses.
    There is so much more in the story that distinguish film from video ( or in this thread separates the 1 chip HV20 with 24p from filmlook)

    24p is just one of them, for USA (60hz/30) its a big step, for EU (50Hz/25) it closely matches it for a long time.

    I can understand the growing believe 'this is like film' as most of the users here -almost all- never worked or produced on film (S16 or 35mm) to begin with.
    Look outside...Do you see noise?


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Default
    I disagree with your signature xray:

    Don't try to mimic a 'film look' by adding noise to videomaterial. If you want the look, use creative lighting and lenses.

    Do you have a cinematic look confuesed with a film look?

    I agree with the noise part though.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Lucky Duck disjecta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pine Lake, Seattle
    Posts
    3,619
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green
    24p video can look indistinguishable from the same content originated on film. In skillful hands, optimizing the lighting to fit within video's capabilities (meaning we have an expert creating the footage), even a trained eye would not be able to tell which was from film and which was from video.
    At last, the voice of reason


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Senior Member xray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    870
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by AuditoryVisuals
    I disagree with your signature xray:

    Don't try to mimic a 'film look' by adding noise to videomaterial. If you want the look, use creative lighting and lenses.

    Do you have a cinematic look confuesed with a film look?

    I agree with the noise part though.
    Its a free world AV, you can disagree with me, but the answer is no. Filmlook was and is a magic word for many people. And its a sig I use for some years and it started with the canon that had a filmlook button that gives noise artifacts to present the 'filmlook'. Know the classics.
    Look outside...Do you see noise?


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by xray
    I can understand the growing believe 'this is like film' as most of the users here -almost all- never worked or produced on film (S16 or 35mm) to begin with.
    Whether that's true or not, it's rather egotistical and rude to say because you really don't know what the people here have done or haven't done.

    For the record, I've shot plenty of 8mm, Super 8mm, 16mm, S16mm, 35mm, and Super35mm. I've got my own 16mm, S16, and 35mm cameras right now. I know film *very* well. And I'll say it again: in skilled trained hands, a 24p shooter can make footage that is absolutely indistinguishable from film that's been transferred to video, to the average viewer and to even a trained viewer.

    And yes, 24p is the #1 most important revolution in video technology that has allowed that to happen.

    And no, raw lousy poorly-shot 24p doesn't look anything like film. But lousy poorly-shot raw 16mm doesn't look anything like a "movie" either, if people are looking for the "movie look."

    To dismiss 24p video as not being able to look like film is just plain incorrect.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Senior Member xray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    870
    Default
    I know you did. I also can freely say that most users don't. There is nothing rude on that, its a fact in the world today, a mostly video world. Don't you think? I am free to say so, others did that too, funny how you make it "egotistical and rude". I don't need to rephrase the points I made somewhere above, what more is needed to look like film, (latitude) but I can feel with you that:

    ' in skilled trained hands, a 24p shooter can make footage that is absolutely indistinguishable from film that's been transferred to video, to the average viewer and to even a trained viewer.'

    Specially if the circumstance during the shoot (close up, underwatershots, etc) are not optimal, you can intercut film and video without knowing it. If the circumstances are optimal, light, skills, stock, film is much richer to look at. Saying that, I can almost always see if it is originated film or video 24P by looking at it in a long shot.

    24p was and is no magic on itself, next year my cellphone shoots 24p and it is no film. Filmlook is more than 24p, but it brakes barriers and the 24p was a gift for the film community.

    It's all things together and skills and professionalism that will make video look like film. You can make film look awful if you want too... Sure. You can do nice things on video in 25p, I am happy with it, but this all started with this 1 chip cam HV20was bringing film experience and that is not the case, so is 24p not film look.
    You need more to achieve that.
    Look outside...Do you see noise?


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Senior Member rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    3,081
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by disjecta
    At last, the voice of reason
    I second that.
    The grass is always "Barry Greener" on the other side


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #29
    Senior Member rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    3,081
    Default
    I'm thinking what is going on here is a matter of bad communication. Just like mixing video and film can be very hard, mixing different cultures and languages can be hard too. I believe that what ex-ray is trying to say is that 24p BY IT SELF is not film like.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #30
    Cross-Examiner Emanuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,664
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green
    Whether that's true or not, it's rather egotistical and rude to say because you really don't know what the people here have done or haven't done.

    For the record, I've shot plenty of 8mm, Super 8mm, 16mm, S16mm, 35mm, and Super35mm. I've got my own 16mm, S16, and 35mm cameras right now. I know film *very* well.
    I second you, Barry.
    RED ONE @home
    #111
    Emanuel & Co's RED ONE
    #647
    RED ZOOM LENSES
    #156
    #157
    RED 300mm LENS
    #82
    Who am I?

    * LINK *
    ** IMDb **


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •