Canon HV20 review up at camcorderinfo.com

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

At last, the voice of reason :Drogar-Evil(DBG):
 
AuditoryVisuals said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
xray said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...
I second you, Barry. :)
 
Emanuel is on my list, so I cant see what he is saying, but reading over what I wrote there is no offensive material in.

I was communicating that 24p was no film or not like film and therefore the HV20 24p is not like film. You may think differently, I'll try to give facts. By the way: we have a cellphone contest over here, make your film with your cellphone.

And I shot and produced 8/S8/S16/35/mm film, but also 1", U-matic, BVU, all the Betacam, MII..., D1, SVHS, High8 video. And produced 2D and 3D animations to uncompressed. I finished my first movie 20 years ago, and run around with an VO-3800 to shoot news and documentry on video. And I have an opinion.
 
For the record..., showing lists like *this* is almost egotistical.

HELP! My tape does not Fit !!
1175171677.jpg
 
Last edited:
AuditoryVisuals said:
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.
Click to expand...
Obviously, video can mimic the film motion going with the 24p.
 
xray said:
Emanuel is on my list, so I cant see what he is saying, but reading over what I wrote there is no offensive material in.
Click to expand...
You can always go with "View Post" button (top right corner) and read it if you have any doubt. It is what I'm used to do when your posts are popping up succeeding the others' claims between yours.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%
 
xray said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mr. Xray



Don’t be so adamant zealot of film media. In few years (2 maybe?) HD video at 24p will look 10 times better than today’s analog film. You don’t believe me? Take a look at what is happening in the professional digital photo market.
 
Gordon Prince said:
Obviously, video can mimic the film motion going with the 24p.
Click to expand...

Sure. That it can. ( I love all those 'me too', and ' I second that ' posts) .

Does not fit either...
1175172446.jpg
 
Gordon Prince said:
Obviously, video can mimic the film motion going with the 24p.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. I think the motion can replicated simply by the framerate. Even if it's on a "cellphone".

Barry_Green said:
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."
Click to expand...

Yes, I think this is what he had confused.
 
Last edited:
xray said:
Sure. That it can. ( I love all those 'me too', and ' I second that ' posts) .

Does not fit either...
1175172446.jpg
Click to expand...


If you have your opinion, there are others with the same will. Why your obsessive content is so offensive and unfriendly? :(

This is a community of friends. Perhaps, it's time for mod's time.
 
You know...it comes down to this. If you like the cadence and look of digitally generated 24p, use it. If you prefer the cadence of film, use that instead. However, if you can't afford to shoot on film, you now have the chance to shoot in a framerate that looks pretty darn close! Could you say that 5 years ago? I think not! That...is the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top