Getting that "film look" with the HVX200

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)
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...

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?"
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
ngraha3 said:
I don't see why people are so eager to reproduce film.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ngraha3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Last edited:
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:)
 
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 ****.

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 **** 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
ngraha3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top