Getting that "filmlook"

L

Lakmir0

Carbonite Member
I have read over many posts in this forum about how XL2 footage doesn't look filmlike and how DVX footage looks much more filmlike. I have reviewed many of the clips and I feel that neither looks all that filmlike but the few that do obviously had heavy post editing.

This brings me to my reason for bringing this up.

From looking at ridiculous amounts of film stock and how it is projected onto a big screen, I have a few easy tips for beginners on how to make your video look more filmlike, assuming you used sufficient lighting.

1) Always cut down the brightness. Every video shot I have seen that has any decent detail at all is overly bright compared to film stock.

2) Unless you manually set gain in the negative, and even then sometimes, lower your color saturation. Film prints, especially 16mm, are notorious for having a "washed out" look when projected...it isnt really washed out but many people interpret it as that.

3) Cut down Gamma...I personally set Gamma around 0.83-0.87. For outdoor lighting, this looks quite close to film.

4) Provided your shots are properly white balanced, adding a slight blueish tint to the clip can fool many people into thinking your shot was on film. Film has that quality that many people can't put a finger on, or some have called it a "haze" or a "film glaze". The blueish tint, along with the other items here, will give that aesthetic quality and fool pretty much anyone who isn't a film major.

I wan't to make a special note and I do not wish to offend anyone.

XL2- Does not look filmlike at all with out serious manual setting, great lighting, and filmlike techniques in post.

DVX- Seems to fool more people than XL2 but the "best" shots I have seen look nothing like how film stock would look projected on a screen and look more like made for TV movies. Since many people do not get out to the movies very often, you might get away with this. DVX colors are WAY too bold to even remotely resemble filmstock projection.

Moral of the story- Unless you wish to do editing, heavy editing, albeit even frame-by-frame editing, chances are your video will always look like video.

I am sure some of you will think I am crazy...here is why I don't think I am.
I often keep a 35mm still camera with me to take stills of the location I plan to shoot. I then shoot on video, develop my prints, and use those as a reference while editing in post. It sounds silly but it is effective.
 
Thanks for the suggestions Lakmir.

Of the XL2 and the DVX, which do you think provides more film-like footage, and why?

I've noticed that video, even when shot in true 24p, still looks like video not because of the color or gamma or those things; but primarily because of the motion. There is something in the motion of the footage that still looks like it came from a video camera; this sort of motion blur which is not seen in film.

I noticed this in the film November; and although November had superior image quallity to 28 Days Later, the latter actually seemed to look more like film, in that the motion just looked more filmic (could have been that the movie was so degraded/low-quallity, it hid that video-motion characteristic). What do you think?
 
<Of the XL2 and the DVX, which do you think provides more film-like footage, and why?>

I have never actually viewed unedited DVX footage. It seems as though people who own XL2's often throw up "natural" footage but that DVX users always edit to make look good. Nothing wrong with that but it makes it hard to judge when you don't own a camera. To be honest with you, the most accurate filmlike look I have seen has came from footage that was shot on the XL1. It doesn't have great res, but we are talking filmlike appearence, not great detail.

<I've noticed that video, even when shot in true 24p, still looks like video not because of the color or gamma or those things; but primarily because of the motion. There is something in the motion of the footage that still looks like it came from a video camera; this sort of motion blur which is not seen in film. >

This is most likely due to how the motion changes from 24p to 60i on MiniDV tape. When you are recording in 24p Advanced, your camera gets true 24p but your tape only records 60i fields. Therefore, if you try to get your progressive frames back in post (from 1-30), frames :02,:07,:12,:17,:22, & :27 are judder frames (they are field 1 B and field 2 C frames). These frames need to be taken out and the remaining 24 frames need to be slowed down by about 20% to match the original speed.
 
<I noticed this in the film November; and although November had superior image quallity to 28 Days Later, the latter actually seemed to look more like film, in that the motion just looked more filmic (could have been that the movie was so degraded/low-quallity, it hid that video-motion characteristic). What do you think?>

Well, I have never seen November but I did see 28 days later and that was XL1 to 35mm film transfer. The direct transfer to film is what gives it the film feel. Was November also a video to film transfer or just a video that tired to look filmlike?
 
Lakmir0 said:
<I noticed this in the film November; and although November had superior image quallity to 28 Days Later, the latter actually seemed to look more like film, in that the motion just looked more filmic (could have been that the movie was so degraded/low-quallity, it hid that video-motion characteristic). What do you think?>

Well, I have never seen November but I did see 28 days later and that was XL1 to 35mm film transfer. The direct transfer to film is what gives it the film feel. Was November also a video to film transfer or just a video that tired to look filmlike?
Click to expand...

Well, November had a limited run in theatres, so I assume that it did get the film transfer; but on the DVD box, it says "Mastered in HD." I'm not sure what is meant by that. I'm thinking that maybe 28 Days Later was transfered to film, and that footage got on the DVD; but maybe, the people who made the Novemeber DVD decided they didn't need to get the footage from the film transfer onto the DVD (since the footage was originally video to begin with), they decided to simply take that original video footage (not the film transfer footage) and use that for the DVD instead. I'm most likely wrong, as I have little idea of how this stuff works :huh: -- this is just a guess. But if I am wrong, November still looks a lot like video to me; more so than 28 Days Later, even though both got the "film transfer" treatment, plus 28 Days Later is only pseudo-25p.

It's odd that you say XL1 seems to have the most film like footage -- I would suspect you to say XL2, since it's a step up; but 28 Days was shot with the XL1, and it was very film like in terms of motion. If only I could compare film like XL2 & DVX footage, as well as XL1 footage; to compare the three.

Again, 28 Days Later may only look more film like than November because of the bad image quallity (whether that was intentional or not, I'm not sure) and degradation.

Lakmir0 said:
<I've noticed that video, even when shot in true 24p, still looks like video not because of the color or gamma or those things; but primarily because of the motion. There is something in the motion of the footage that still looks like it came from a video camera; this sort of motion blur which is not seen in film. >

This is most likely due to how the motion changes from 24p to 60i on MiniDV tape. When you are recording in 24p Advanced, your camera gets true 24p but your tape only records 60i fields. Therefore, if you try to get your progressive frames back in post (from 1-30), frames :02,:07,:12,:17,:22, & :27 are judder frames (they are field 1 B and field 2 C frames). These frames need to be taken out and the remaining 24 frames need to be slowed down by about 20% to match the original speed.
Click to expand...

Is the problem with the "motion changes from 24p to 60i" corrected through film transfer like in 28 Days Later? If so, I still notice this problem in November, and as stated above, I think this also transfered to film.

Oh, and I forgot to mention this earlier, but you may want to contact Jarred so that this thread gets moved to somewhere more fitting -- that way more people will see it. :grin:
 
<Is the problem with the "motion changes from 24p to 60i" corrected through film transfer like in 28 Days Later? If so, I still notice this problem in November, and as stated above, I think this also transfered to film.>

Yes, in film, they recover only the original 24p frames (assuming you used 24p 2:3:3:2 pulldown while filming, otherwise they have to guess a bit) which will give it motion identical to film. I think you are right about 28 days later being transferred to DVD from the film directly. If you have progressive scan DVD, you can see it close to it's original film motion (1% slower, that still makes me laugh). As far as November went, if it didn't make mega bucks like 28 days later did, maybe they kept the original video to transfer to DVD to keep costs down. This would definitely explain the difference in motion.

By the way Gordon...I want to make it clear that I too am in the Sacramento area...I live in North Highlands so if you ever want to get together and do some film sh*t, that would be sweet. I like making any connections that I can to learn more, get a different perspective, etc. Hit me back on that one.
 
Hey cool deal, I live in the Napa Valley. I'M NOT ALONE! haha.

On topic, I thought 28 Days Later was shot on film just from the standpoint that it didn't, at the time, occour to me that a film that was that big would be shot on a videocamera. Thats a bit of cool info.
 
I have to disagree with the "bluish tint" idea, fuji film is way yellow and green and I enjoy that look way more, I dont think it will help you.

Also I think its mainly camera work not the camera, if you have the right cinematography I dont think you will need to put some much emphasis on the post or what shutter speed, or the tint.
 
<I have to disagree with the "bluish tint" idea, fuji film is way yellow and green and I enjoy that look way more, I dont think it will help you.>

It really depends on the style you are going for...in the before and after thread, i put up a raw car frame, and edited the way i said. Obviously it looks more filmlike edited than the raw. Monte put up a sample of my unedited frame, but he used more of a brownish sepia tint which looked very filmlike as well. Mine would look more like something in a family movie whereas his has more of a horror/suspense look to it.

<Also I think its mainly camera work not the camera, if you have the right cinematography I dont think you will need to put some much emphasis on the post or what shutter speed, or the tint.>

I have to disagree. Video is video and no amount of cinematography is going to take away the characteristics of that medium. I would place a wager that me or some others on this site could make badly shot footage look more like film in post than what you or anyone else could do raw with lighting, etc. This is of course assuming you are using the same level of camera. The Gamma levels are slightly lower in film than on video. The brightness level is always higher on video, contrast on video is normally lower than film, and saturation is ridiculously higher on video than on film (even at -3dB Gain) Not to mention, video is usually sharper than film (unless you have mini35 or equiv.)

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, I was just sharing show thoughts I aquired from a lot of different people I have seen and heard from who have spent obscene amounts of time trying to perfect the film look. View my before and after frames and you will have to admit that the blue tint and Monte's brownish tint look considerably more filmlike than the raw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top