Quantify "Film look" vs DV.

L

lucidz

Well-known member
I know theres about a million topics on this, and how to achieve film look, but I have a different question.

What are the true natures of the aesthetic differences between film and dv?

Sure I know DOF, colors, etc... But what else.

I was watching a film called "The target" aka "The piano player", with christopher lambert and dennis hopper. They did everything write, they had fine DOF, the lighting was right, they used dolly shots, jibs, cranes, everything was done right, and yet, it was GLARINGLY video. What I don't know is why I know it was DV... The colors were a bit washed out... The picture didn't seem perfectly sharp, but that still doesn't seem like all...

DV for me has become like pornography, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. Can someone offer some more clarification as to those subtle differences?
 
Re: Quantify "Film look" vs DV.

This is one of the eternal debates, and you'll hear some opposing views, but...

The #1 most important differentiating factor is the frame rate. Far and away this is the most important thing.

Film is shot at 24 discrete frames per second. Video is shot at 60 interlaced fields per second. They are not the same, they look nothing alike. I've seen productions just like you describe -- exquisite cinematography, superb lighting, etc, but done on Digital Betacam -- and it just screamed VIDEO.

In order to replicate a film look, you have to replicate the tangible properties of film. First and foremost, that means shooting 24 discrete full frames per second. Second would be to emulate the grain and gamma characteristics.

Lighting, cinematography, DOF, all that stuff... that has *nothing* to do with the "film look." That is all part of the MOVIE LOOK, yes. But film is film, and film looks like film whether it has shallow DOF or not. There are miles and miles of Super 8 and regular 8mm home movies out there that have horrible production values, no lighting, no shallow DOF, etc., but it all looks like film because it IS FILM.

So what you identified, is the reason we're all here. 24P on the DVX is just a flat-out breakthrough, the "missing element" that lets video movies look like film. Start with that, and then add the lighting and the cinematography and the shallow-DOF and the art direction and everything else and you'll have a project that can look nearly indistinguishable from film. Start at 60i, and you've got video video video. Which is why we're primarily not interested in the Sony FX1/Z1 HDV cameras -- it's all about the frame rate. You can sort of simulate the frame rate in post, but it'll never be the same.

The "movie look" requires, as a basis, the film look. The film look means something that replicates the properties of film itself, and while there are many different film stocks with many different characteristics, the one common defining thing is that it is shot at 24 discrete whole frames per second. It's not about dynamic range, because reversal film like K40 most definitely looks like film, and it's got maybe 3 stops of dynamic range, where Vision2 320T has maybe 13 stops of dynamic range, and they both look like film. It's not about grain, because 5245 is almost perfectly grain-free, whereas 16mm 800T has tons of grain -- and they both look like film. It's not about color depth or color saturation, because b&w film sure looks like film.

It's all about the frame rate. Like you saw, you can do everything else to Hollywood standards, but if you're shooting 60i, it's glaringly video.
 
Re: Quantify "Film look" vs DV.

Contrast is another big obstacle when dealing with video. Comparitively, the human eye has something like a 10,000+:1 contrast ratio. Film (depending on what film it is) is said to have close to 1,000:1 contrast ratio. Video is said to have a 100:1 contrast ratio. Therefore, the ratio of film fits that of the human eye much better than video, giving it a more natural appearance all around.

Also, standard 35mm stock has the DV equivalent of about 4000 x 3000 resolution.
 
Re: Quantify "Film look" vs DV.

I am so tempted to post a link to this thread in the DVX forum on camcorderinfo.com.... the mod there just refuses to acknowledge that 24p video is indeed a good thing and thinks it is crap..

so tempted... but I shant.. but well said barry. You said what I have thought for many years.
 
Re: Quantify "Film look" vs DV.

Yes, he said what I wish I would have thought had I had the time to get to that level of thinking before he posted and explained everyting about the thought, that surely had I had would have confused me. :) Its bedtime. ;)
 
Re: Quantify "Film look" vs DV.

[quote author=Loki link=board=Offtopic;num=1109090353;start=0#4 date=02/22/05 at 19:16:00]I am so tempted to post a link to this thread in the DVX forum on camcorderinfo.com.... the mod there just refuses to acknowledge that 24p video is indeed a good thing and thinks it is crap..

so tempted... but I shant..  but well said barry. You said what I have thought for many years.[/quote]
Hey Loki,

I don't visit camcorderinfo (unless there's a specific news story of interest or something) so I'd likely not ever get over there.  But if you want to quote that post or any part of it, feel free to -- if it's a point you want to make, go right ahead. I don't necessarily want to bring people into our forum who want to fight, but if you want to just copy & paste it over there, and add/change whatever so that it matches your opinion, feel free to.
 
Re: Quantify "Film look" vs DV.

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Offtopic;num=1109090353;start=0#6 date=02/22/05 at 22:27:46]but if you want to just copy & paste it over there, and add/change whatever so that it matches your opinion, feel free to.[/quote]
Ahh yes, selective editing.
 
Re: Quantify "Film look" vs DV.

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Offtopic;num=1109090353;start=0#2 date=02/22/05 at 09:15:42]This is one of the eternal debates, and you'll hear some opposing views, but...

The #1 most important differentiating factor is the frame rate.

Film is shot at 60 interlaced fields per second.  They are not the same. . . i just screamed VIDEO. :D

In order to replicate a film look, you have to
Light all that stuff, You can sort of stimulate the frame and move and move and gir-rrate in post.  There are miles and miles of my home movies out there that are horrible.
this is why we're primarily not interested in you- it's all about the frame rate.  
the one common defining thing is that i shot at Hollywood because it's gnarly! [/quote]

Quote this suckas! :)
 
Re: Quantify "Film look" vs DV.

I just went over and looked at both the DVX board and the XL2 board. Their idiots, why would you waste your time?
 
Re: Quantify "Film look" vs DV.

Barry,

I would add that, in addition to the key difference (historically) of frame rate, there is the matter of how film itself renders images. Much of the film medium's subtlety lies in the way an image records to the celluloid itself.

Even the modern tabular "t-grain" film stocks have a relatively hap-hazard arrangement on the cellulose backing, while video has always been constrained in tidy horizontal and vertical grids and lines.

With the advent of acceptable color LCD, DILA and LED technologies, this squarely absolute resolution and arrangement of an image within the image area will continue forward - albeit with ever-improving resolution.

I firmly believe that once we cross into ultra high-definition 24p acquisition and exhibition, even the most skilled technical eye will not be able to discern between traditional film and digital cinematographic images.

1080p is a huge advance to be sure, but until we reach true 2k processes through all phases and not just the scan out, the difference between celluloid-based pictures and digital ones will likely continue to bother discerning enthusiasts.

e
 
Re: Quantify "Film look" vs DV.

I did an experiment just after I got my DVX. I shot 2 clips back to back - one F1 setting , the other F6. They were simple shots of my son wandering about fairly aimlessly in the back garden. I then showed the two clips to my wife (who knows nothing of interlaced/progressive etc.) and asked her if she could see any difference. She said: no, it's Jonty walking about in the garden. I then asked her to watch them again and this time to be aware of how she FELT about what she was watching. This time she said: the first one was just Jonty walking about in the back garden. The second - I wanted to know where he'd been and where he was going to.

Guess which one was the progressive clip ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top