How filmic can we get?

S

spadrille

Member
I'm curious about how much filmic could be the image from a video camera. I just saw "Open water". However that's a great movie, it's turn in DV (Sony VX2000 i think) and it really looks a lot like video. The highlights are all burned, but most of all the way the "move" of the image smells like video. I own a Canon XM2 and it seems to me that in progressive it is better than that. But, with a DVX100 (and soon the HVX200), how much improvement can i get in front of these two cameras? There is not a lot of movies turned in DV and easy to find in DVD (as far as i know). So far, i've seen "Open water"and "28 days later". Booth very disapointing in terms of filmic look. Is the DVX100 such a great step above? May i dream?
 
OPEN WATER was shot on the Sony DSR-PD150

28 DAYS LATER was shot on the Canon XL1s

So technically, in the right hands, the DVX100a could do a better job than either of these ... however, in the end it's still video (DV) so it can only be pushed so far.
 
The DVD of 28 days later that I have looks terrible. It has lost even more quality by being transferred to film and then scanned back to video for the DVD by the looks of it!

You can make video look FAR better, but also FAR worst. I would think that the HVX will be able to produce an image to rival 16mm if projected digitally and shot under advantageous lighting.

I am also positive that it will be able to (and will) produce some absolute tripe... but then so can film - people tend to just be more careful and experienced when using film because of the expense.

I am hoping that the HVX can be used for cinematic project and that the quality of the image is not distracting. IMO it IS with DV.
 
thisiswells said:
Yup, the DVX100 in progressive is three times the resolution of XM2 in frame mode!
Click to expand...

Is it actually three times on a res chart, or just in theory? I thought the XM/XLs only dropped around 1/3 of their rez in frame mode. They only have ~300,000 pixels per CCD too, but that shouldn't be 3 times worse than an DVX should it, maybe half...

I know you know your stuff Brian, so please explain :undecided
 
pookie said:
But....

If you want it to look like film, shoot film.

Video isn't going to get you there.
Click to expand...

There were two documentaries on TV the other night (BBC I think) one shot on film, the other video (25p, I guess on DigiBeta). I actually prefered the look of the one on video! I missed the point of the show because I kept flicking back and forward between the two to see if I was just being silly.

Of course, that is subjective of me and I must admit, the DigiBeta doc probably had the better colourist.

I agree with Pookie that video still doesn't "generally" match film, but it is getting damn close now and can beat it in some circumstances.
 
mmm said:
Sorry... I didn't mean to start the classic old debate again! :)
Click to expand...


LOL, It'll never end.....

You need to see the same shot, one film, one video, shot side by side, at the same time.

You'd be shocked how far video still has to go, even after extensive post work.
 
pookie said:
LOL, It'll never end.....

You need to see the same shot, one film, one video, shot side by side, at the same time.

You'd be shocked how far video still has to go, even after extensive post work.
Click to expand...

I am trying to think if I have ever seen a film-video side-by-side... Don't think so.

I think it is becoming a more subjective arguement nowadays though. Their are some aspects to a "video" look that I prefer to film. It all depends on the look you are trying to achieve. To even say that there is an "arguement" shows how far video has come in the last ten years. The stuff I edited on U-Matic 10 years ago is embarassingly poor quality.
 
Actually, as the audience gets younger, they don't really understand the differences, much like the days before online editing, and computers.

Too bad really.
 
The difference between 'video' and 'film' is almost always a stylistic choice. 'video' is news. 'film' is storytelling. And, I see several distinctions in the way each genre is produced. So do you. For me, I just try to shoot pretty pictures that I like. Sure, the look isn't at all like film. But, if the comp is alright, and the exposure is alright, then the picture is alright. That is what matters to me. You won't find me calling it "film-like" because, well, it doesn't look anything at all like film! It looks like 24Hz video. And, you know what? I am alright with that.
 
thisiswells said:
The difference between 'video' and 'film' is almost always a stylistic choice. 'video' is news. 'film' is storytelling. And, I see several distinctions in the way each genre is produced. So do you. For me, I just try to shoot pretty pictures that I like. Sure, the look isn't at all like film. But, if the comp is alright, and the exposure is alright, then the picture is alright. That is what matters to me. You won't find me calling it "film-like" because, well, it doesn't look anything at all like film! It looks like 24Hz video. And, you know what? I am alright with that.
Click to expand...

And that, is exactly the point.
 
And IMHO 24Hz video looks a damm sight better than any other video. mmm on Barrys DVD there are a couple of shots side by side 16mm v DVX.
 
thisiswells said:
okay, okay, okay. I was stretching it a bit!
Click to expand...
XL1 = 360 lines, when in interlaced mode.
Going into Frame Mode causes it to drop to around 300 or so.

DVX in progressive = a full 480.

So that makes it potentially 60% sharper, or 1.6 times more res than the XL1 in frame mode. (not three times better, but a whole lot better no matter how you slice it!)
 
Well...usually wen people go out to see movies..they dont really go the technicallities of the movie...I saw that movie November not to long ago wit my dad when we were on vacation...and he thought it was an OK movie..and i told him...that was shot with a DVX100a..hes like..NOOOO WAYY!!!..im like yeeeaaa...he couldnt tell the difference between a movie that was shot on film that we rented that nite, and November.

that goes to show you...most people wouldnt know the difference of film or video if its in theaters...usually they all assume..ok, projecting on a 35mm roll of film..must of been shot on film.
 
I remember thinking 28 days later was shot on film (really, really shitty film, cus I knew it was low budget) but then again back then, what did I know...
 
Porbably the beter way to judge how filmic a DVX100 can get, is to view a film shoot with it. Have you got a link to a site that show good movie shoot with it and with good resolution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top