Film Quality?

Tippsy

Tippsy

Member
Hi I have just bought the Dvx100b and oh is it a dream come true!!!! But the only thing is as everyone probably knows kind of crazy to use I was wondering besides getting that dvx book what settings should I use to get as close to a film quality look as possible?
 
Tippsy,
I use the following settings and I get what looks very close to 16mm film. They should give you a decent starting point for experimenting to find the settings you like best.

DETAIL LEVEL....... -4
V DETAIL LEVEL..... 0
DETAIL CORING .... 0
CHROMA LEVEL.... -3
CHROMA PHASE.... 0
COLOR TEMP......... 0
MASTER PED......... -6
A. IRIS LEVEL....... -3
GAMMA.................. CINELIKE
KNEE..................... AUTO
MATRIX................. CINELIKE
SKIN TONE DTL..... OFF
V DETAIL FREQ...... THIN (for 16:9 squeeze mode)
PROGRESSIVE....... 24P or 24 pA

Use your zebras for exposure. I like the 80% zebra but try both the 80% and the 100% to see which one you prefer. 80% is best for skin tones.

I have a couple of examples of films shot with these settings if you want to check them out:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Paladin0954
 
Last edited:
A little bit of trivia for anyone who might be interested:

When we think of "film quality," we base it largely on the filmed motion effects do to a frame rate of 24 frames per second. This frame rate is not actually an ideal frame rate for motion pictures. A faster frame rate would actually give better motion quality and better images. The primary reason the motion picture industry settled on 24fps was economy. Film is expensive to buy, process and print. The higher the frame rate used, the greater the film footage per second needed and the more expensive any given production becomes.

In the dawn of motion pictures (the silent era), 16fps was the slowest frame rate that could be used and still give acceptable results. 16fps causes the image on the screen to flicker a bit, though, and this is where the word "flick" comes from.

When "talkies" appeared, 16fps was not adequately compatible with synchronized sound. 24fps was the slowest frame rate the could be used for this purpose and this became the new industry standard for motion pictures. Even then, when being projected onto a screen, each frame was (and still is) projected twice to reduce flicker to a minimum.

30fps is a better frame rate for motion effects and would give better results when viewed on an interlaced, 60i TV screen. Back in the '50s, a few movies were shot in 30fps but it never caught on.

We think 24p gives our videos a film-like quality because we have become accustomed to the look of 24fps, not because it is a superior frame rate.

Just my two cents.
 
Paladin said:
A little bit of trivia for anyone who might be interested:

When we think of "film quality," we base it largely on the filmed motion effects do to a frame rate of 24 frames per second. This frame rate is not actually an ideal frame rate for motion pictures. A faster frame rate would actually give better motion quality and better images. The primary reason the motion picture industry settled on 24fps was economy. Film is expensive to buy, process and print. The higher the frame rate used, the greater the film footage per second needed and the more expensive any given production becomes.

In the dawn of motion pictures (the silent era), 16fps was the slowest frame rate that could be used and still give acceptable results. 16fps causes the image on the screen to flicker a bit, though, and this is where the word "flick" comes from.

When "talkies" appeared, 16fps was not adequately compatible with synchronized sound. 24fps was the slowest frame rate the could be used for this purpose and this became the new industry standard for motion pictures. Even then, when being projected onto a screen, each frame was (and still is) projected twice to reduce flicker to a minimum.

30fps is a better frame rate for motion effects and would give better results when viewed on an interlaced, 60i TV screen. Back in the '50s, a few movies were shot in 30fps but it never caught on.

We think 24p gives our videos a film-like quality because we have become accustomed to the look of 24fps, not because it is a superior frame rate.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

This has been discussed to death and then some many times 'round these parts.

There are many of us of the opinion that the 24 fps frame rate is artistically the most appropriate for narrative film work; faster frame rates render motion which is too "real" and less dramatic, and certainly less pleasing for our purposes.

Anyway, do a search -- there are probably more than 200 threads related to this.
 
No search is necessary. I wasn't asking a question---I was merely offering a bit of film history trivia for anyone who might be interested. No more, no less. Don't get me wrong, I like (and use) 24p as much as the next guy. But if, back in the day, the motion picture industry had chosen 30fps as the standard, we wouldn't even be having this discussion and pulldown wouldn't be necessary.
 
Paladin said:
No search is necessary. I wasn't asking a question---I was merely offering a bit of film history trivia for anyone who might be interested. No more, no less. Don't get me wrong, I like (and use) 24p as much as the next guy. But if, back in the day, the motion picture industry had chosen 30fps as the standard, we wouldn't even be having this discussion and pulldown wouldn't be necessary.
Click to expand...

Or, they might have chosen 26 or 31 or 35 or something like that and we'd be in even worse shape. 30 would have been totally arbitrary; there was no reason to consider a 60hz standard at the time. :beer:

In any case, like I said -- been covered many times before. It's been technically and economically feasible to change the cinematic standard to a higher frame rate for several decades now, but it hasn't happened -- and I think that's because 24 fps hits the artistic sweet spot. Might have been chosen by accident, but it was retained by choice.
 
it can be changed. just depends on what gamma setting u are on.

I duno what knee does :) ..these guys can tell u. it shud be in the manual also
 
The knee sets the level at which overexposure blowout is dealt with. The higher the knee, the more overexposure the camera allows. A high knee means that the image is allowed to reach a higher level of exposure and therefore carries a higher risk of overexposure blowout of highlights. A low knee reduces this risk. The default setting is AUTO.

However, when the camera is set for CINELIKE gamma, the knee control is disabled and it is left to the camera operator to guard against overexposure. I use CINELIKE gamma because it has less noise than the other gamma settings and, in my opinion, is the closest to film-like results.
 
When using CINELIKE gamma, the knee is disabled. It is turned off and does not function at all, so it does not matter what it is set on. That is why it is depicted in blue. This helps give the operator more complete manual control over exposure.
 
So i did those settings and it does look pretty darn good but the reason I bought this camera is because I heard such amazing things about how you get such close to film look and yet I havent seen any of that in what i am recording and its kinda bumming me out!
 
get the dvx book. will help u out. also lighting ur scene properly is quite important to achieving a better look. And colour grading in editing also. there are many factors involved. people spend YEARS master the dvx...u just got urs. Be patient and try and learn the complexities of it and whatit can do. i just got mine in december and clearly am still learning all i can.
 
Last edited:
The film look involves more than just the camera, as Jambredz says. Lighting, set design, lens manipulation and a host of other factors go into getting the "film look." Get some books on digital filmmaking and definitely get Barry's DVX book. One simple little trick that will help some is to frame your shots with the lens at maximum zoom to give you a more shallow depth of field. Also, the more open your iris is, the more shallow is your depth of field.

Just keep eperimenting and good luck.
 
Ok so I was just looking through the forums for fun and came across a thread about a new movie called Drawing with chalk and he was using the [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Panasonic HVX200. But that is exactly the wondeful amazing look I am after! Can you get this same look with dvx100b or should I sell it and buy the Hvx200 because the reason I bought this camera was to be able to get that kind of a look!
[/FONT]
 
Maybe you should just sell your camera and invest in something else entirely removed from filmmaking.

Not to be a jerk, but the dvx isn't a toy, it's a professional tool...if anyone could just pick it up and immediately get the "film look" then it wouldn't really be any kind of special achievment...the hvx is even more complex to use, I'm sure.

Patience. Practice. Learning. Good things take time. If you don't have any of these things you won't get anywhere in life.
 
Its not a matter of patience but the knowing that you can actually get that look, from every video I have seen on this forum or in other places the dvx100 has not been able to achieve that look. All I want to know is if it can be done with this camera then I will put time effort and patience into it but I need to know first if the camera even has that capability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top