Motion of film, what's missing?

roxics

roxics

Veteran
Watching a lot of these DSLR movies I still feel like there is something off, something missing that makes it less believable than a shot-on-film motion picture. There is still a difference in movement between 24p and 24fps motion picture film; everything else being equal. But I just can't quite put my finger on what it is.

The DSLR footage still has that video feeling to it.

Does anyone know what it is and can explain it to me? Is there are way around it?
 
film is a physical process. not just a bunch of 1s and 0s. if digital cameras could replicate that exactly. film would die.

and film still exists.
 
To much edge sharpening. Also many don't have a clue how slow a pan at 24p should be. And film is actually quite unsharp and grainy.
 
film cams are analog equipment ,in older movies you can see footage shaking tiny bit ,older movies looked more like film than new ones,new movies look more like video now.
Id say its up to talent of DP,choosing proper shots and good amount of llight,not let it overexpose.
Here is film(which looks like s**tty video) :

One more and another one (they look bad because of sound in both cases and lazy dp in cowboy case)
Yup,anamorphic glass wont save terrible sound.
YES this was 35mm film.

Here is DSLR(wchich looks like film to me):
http://vimeo.com/21714293?ab

I am not sure about this tho,looks so much like film,im not really sure if its 5D:
And here compare both:
This is "film look/motion" that i like very much:

IMO you need good DP who wont let picture to overexpose and white balance properly,its very hard to find good looking DSLR footage when everyone and their mothers have DSLR now.
 
Last edited:
I'd say latitude and the way film responds to light. The only comparison I can think of is in the audio world.....If you push a high quality analog recording system to tape you can achieve a warm gritty sound as long as you don't go crazy with it. Early on digital recorders couldn't be pushed in the same way- once you got beyond the limit the result was terrible and ugly. Now days (while digital can't go over the limit) digital audio recorders are very, very good and with nice pre amps, compressors and limiters, one can get a very similar "pushed tape" sound.

I think it's the same with video and film- video can't be manipulated in the same manner as film, because those digital barriers don't respond well when pushed beyond their limits. Just for example...a lot of people love film grain, but hate digital noise. All that being said, I think we're fast approaching an age where digital video will mimic fim very well....the Alexa for instance.
It will take a bit for the tech to trickle down to the lower cost cameras....but the F3, Red, even Af100/DLSRs shot and lit by some of our expert members will fool a lot of the general public -They probably wouldn't even consider thinking that something like Verse....is any different than many of the movies released by Hollywood. Lighting and composition can go a long way.
 
It has much less to do with what the project is shot with and much more to do with who's doing the shooting. Good lighting & correct exposure, good composition, no hand held shaky cam, good editing & good sound all contribute to making a project seem more film-like.
 
arniepix said:
It has much less to do with what the project is shot with and much more to do with who's doing the shooting. Good lighting & correct exposure, good composition, no hand held shaky cam, good editing & good sound all contribute to making a project seem more film-like.
Click to expand...

Sure I understand that. But Like I said, all things being equal, film still has a motion that 24p video doesn't. I know film is organic, but the look of film can be replicated on video even via telecine, then there surely must be a way to give video that same motion characteristic.
 
I remember Robert Rodriquez talking in the Desperado DVD commentary that he hated film because it's image got degraded so much and it didn't capture everythig in the shot properly. I epspecially remember him talking about how Banderes was leaning against a wall, and he was sharp and the wall wasn't. He was talking about DOF in a sense, and when he switched to digital, he loved how much sharper it was.

Ironic that we like DSLRs because, while it gives a sharp image, we can blur stuff out when we want...especially the backgrounds. Like the wall an actor is leaning against....:laugh:

If you haven't seen the Zacuto DSLR shootout, you should:

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

They tested all the major DLSRs, including the GH1(I just bought one), to film. Film was better in most instances and in others the DSLRs were better. While the GH1 was the worst in low light by a large margin, in properly lit scenes, it was VERY close to 5dmkii footage and Film. They also said film has gotten better because of the competition of digital.

Ultimately I think the main reason it looks DSLR...y is because WE KNOW, it's a DSLR. Like how even really, really good CGI still looks like CGI cause we know that's not physically possible.
 
roxics said:
But Like I said, all things being equal, film still has a motion that 24p video doesn't.
Click to expand...
Yup, that's how I feel. Film just has a distint motion that very few digital video cams can touch - certainly no cheap ones except maybe Mysterium X/Alexa (?). Go and watch some really shitty 80s horror movies, they still look like film (because they are), doesn't matter if they were lit/acted/dressed badly.
 
I felt same way as you guys, After watched many time more DSLR VS FILM, I can point out there is big different in motions, they divide two different motion, BIG motion and small motion, BIG motion such as camera movement, small motion such as shake hand, wave arms.



Big motion:

Film seems more smooth than DSLR, maybe couse the scanning, less blur on camera move.

Small motion:

Film seems has more blur between frames. Where DSLR has less blur, like wave arms.
 
This is film and anamorphics but looks like random DSLR footage to me:

Id say with film it also depends on camera model,older cameras which were used in 60-70's had very different way of rendering movement of actors than cameras from 90's,just look at old bond movies and then watch something like armageddon,you can tell from actors movement in what years the film was shot.
 
The difference is simply that one is an emerging format, and the other is the one we all grew up with and have nostalgic associations and memories with.
 
im not experiecned in film or global shutter 3chip cams

but surely an image scanned in a non global manner will represent movement differently

not only jello but in a more subtle manner that will affect all movement in shot

s
 
I think I've noticed what the OP is referring to when people don't follow the shutter speed rule.
I've seen tons of outdoor shots where the shutter speed was clearly raised to keep the exposure down, and thus reducing motion blur and making everything look like a fight scene from Gladiator. Also here in the US, we're constantly encouraged to keep our shutter at 60 because of rolling light frequencies instead of the more filmic looking 50.
60 might seem close enough to 50, but its actually a 20% difference (not to mention I think the optimal setting to get the motion blur of film shutter is 48, right?). The end result is that most DSLR footage I've seen lacks the motion blur we're used to seeing in film because our shutter speed is too high.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

If shot outside and at the proper shutter speed, I think you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between film and digital IMO. I think that video posted on the previous page with the folks spray painting a wall outside really demonstrates that they can look identical when done right.
Just my opinion.
 
Don't mix up terms. Analog or not, it's of course all technically explainable; thus still subjective (just as a scary number of people don't see a difference between SD and HD....... yup, im talking about you +40 chaps!)

Few things that makes film unique (but not necessarily unachievable digitally):

1. 180 degree shutter
2. Projection vibration
3.Dynamic range/light/colors (chemical reaction, but ultimately, of course, translatable into 1 and 0, just like the atoms in your body.... ;)

I'd claim it's achievable to make video 99.9% match a chosen stock film visually. But why? As a matter of fact, I've never seen a single video were the author has bothered adding projectional micro vibrations (well, making something "look old" exlucded). Actually, we are soon (if not already) beyond the point of wanting video to look like film; now, it's mostly just an idea in our heads and a reference that is more based on emotion, specualtion & assumtions, rather than numbers. And let's be honest; how often does the discussion go beyond resolution scanning and dynamic range?

With HDR capable cameras like Red Epic we're rather soon actually talking about achieving the digital film look, but what's funny is that we're still going to talk about FILM, like we ever had experience with it in the first place. Mindfrack, my friends. :shocked: Let's take The Hobbit for example, it's being shot on Epic, and I'm *sure* people are gonna say "wow the image looks so much nicer than the trilogy, film must really have advanced!"

lwright84 said:
The difference is simply that one is an emerging format, and the other is the one we all grew up with and have nostalgic associations and memories with.
Click to expand...

More true words were never spoken.
 
Last edited:
Echoing what Denwa said...I think DSLR/HD footage is just TOO clear...the color saturation is too good and it's too sharp....it's just a case of getting used to it. My son's generation won't even know what film is and, in 15 years when watches a movie from the 90's, it'll be the equivalent of us watching am 8mm video from the 60's as far as quality is concerned.

Plus, if you put some high quality glass on a high end DSLR, it can basically see in the dark...kind of freaky how good the quality is.
 
There are a small number of Hollywood directors who've sworn off film- including James Cameron, George Lucas and Michael Mann. And yet, their "films" don't look like video. It has much more to do with how it's shot, much less to do with what it's shot on.

And, btw, gate weave & film grain are flaws!
 
arniepix said:
There are a small number of Hollywood directors who've sworn off film- including James Cameron, George Lucas and Michael Mann. And yet, their "films" don't look like video. It has much more to do with how it's shot, much less to do with what it's shot on.

And, btw, gate weave & film grain are flaws!
Click to expand...

I agree with your post, but I feel grain isn't really a flaw. Well it can be, if your not using the best stock for a certain situation. But many choose their stock based on the film grain. Gate weave, yes. It's just the nature of the beast. Funny thing is, I had a spinning dof adapter, the disk was out of round by the slightest amount. It gave an image that looked like it had a gate weave issue. Pretty funny though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top