So, what's wrong?

xl70e3

xl70e3

Skywalker
Something has been bothering me since I've become interested in digital filmmaking, long before I got my DVX last may. I couldn't find the answer and, having just watched Collateral again, thought I'd finally ask it here. Was going to, anyway...

We all know that video never looked like film. From progressive scan, to 24p, to HD steps have been taken to match the two. And it's as close as never before, but what is still missing?
No, I'm not asking for a solution to make video look like film... bleh, there's been enough of this crap. I'm just trying to figure it out.

Let's let's leave all the indie stuff aside and take the big hollywood productions.

Episodes II and III looked perfect. On the big screen you could hardly tell it wasn't film, except maybe it was a bit too clean. But the problem with these two is that there wasn't really that much live footage... more CGI per inch of the screen than actual video, so it's not really a good example.

Let's take Once Upon A Time In Mexico. This is probably the one I'm having most problems with. Because 95% of the movie could fool me for 35mm. But some 10-15 shots had that horrible video'ish feel to them and really stood out distracting from the movie. Why?
I don't have the dvd at the moment and can't tell you the scenes by memory, but you all know (I hope) what I'm talking about. Just a bunch of single shots throughout the movie that otherwise looked great.

Collateral. Alright, I know they were going for the video look with this one, that's how most of the movie looks and I really don't mind it. It goes with the story and the mood, but... Why exactly does it look like video? It seems like you couldn't ask for more - 24p 4:4:4 1080p... What is missing?

Yeah, I was one of those hoping that 24p would be the asnwer, but quickly realized that it's not. Usually you'd say it's all about the camera work, framing, lighting etc. etc. Which is why I used big budget stuff as examples. Those people know what they're doing and it seems like every element is in place, yet something is missing. You know, something about the motion rendition, the overall feel of the image that immediately makes you label it as video. What is it? What is still wrong?


Ugghh sorry 'bout the novel above...

Vic... eagerly awaiting Superman's return to check out Genesis... stealing Mikko's trademark meanwhile
 
well, they actually did use a little bit of film for certain parts of Collateral, but that's neither here nor there. Personally, I think there were a lot of times where the video looked like celluloid. But of course, like you said, they wanted to use video and have a deep DOF to basically make the night life of L.A. become part of the story, instead of disappearing into the back somewhere under a black blanket. Awesome film.

Once Upon A Time In Mexico - Looked excellent most of the time, but sometimes that "video" feel slipped in. One part that really stands out to me is when Depp gets up from his table to slip out the back door, after killing the cook. The camera follows him through the back of the restaurant, and I'm not sure what exactly it was that caused it (looked like it might have been a slower shutter speed), but it definately felt completely different than any of the other shots.
 
Lawsuit_Boy said:
Once Upon A Time In Mexico - Looked excellent most of the time, but sometimes that "video" feel slipped in. One part that really stands out to me is when Depp gets up from his table to slip out the back door, after killing the cook. The camera follows him through the back of the restaurant, and I'm not sure what exactly it was that caused it (looked like it might have been a slower shutter speed), but it definately felt completely different than any of the other shots.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah that part and one more I just remembered - I believe it's when Rourke's character is killed and his dog (although it's not a dog, more like a rat) is shown running around sniffing stuff. There are few more, but you get the point. It really just slips in at times... :furious3: what is it?
 
To me, what really stands out between the "video look" and the "film look" is the motion. Like those shots in Once Upon A Time In Mexico, they almost have an interlace-like smoothness to them. 24p with film tends to come out looking really smooth and clean, but the video just has a much different look. ah, dang it xl70e3, now I'm stumped as to what it is! haha.
 
I think DOF has something to do with, on the technical side.

I really believe it's our perception and how we resolve things temporally. Technically, this can boil down to the motion of film vs. video, but I think it goes a bit deeper. The brain works in mysterious ways that isn't known to the world's most brilliant scientists, and maybe the answer lies in those depths.
 
1) Maybe it's just that the resolution of film, still exceeds even 2/3" CCD's. The human eye has 120 million pixels, 35mm film has more than 20 million, and CCD's have much less. Maybe someday when they have 4" CCD's, it may rival true 35mm negative.

2) Maybe the silver-halide on film has more stops (10 stops, or 1000:1) of dynamic range, than CCD (5 stops or 32:1)?

3) Maybe it's because 2/3" CCD's have twice the DOF, that 35mm has?

4) Maybe it's because film has less red-sensitivity (which flatters skin-tones) than the more accurate, but harsher, CCD?

5) Lastly, maybe the unknown "X-factor" that the brain/eyes 120 million pixels resolve is the specific transfer function of film (ie gain at a certain frequency of light) which subconsciously affects detail, sharpness and other unperceived visual cues?

6) This all assumes that one is shooting at 24p to simulate filmic cadence. But maybe the 2:3:3:2 pull-down of video, is still not as smooth as film's true 24fps, and the brain is sharp enough to detect an infintessimal judder?


This BBC White Paper, on film vs video, has some interesting findings:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp053.shtml
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is an excellent paper. I remember running across it a long time ago - thanks for bringing it back to my memory!

They seem to suggest that video captures more mid frequency detail. If I'm right in reading this then, the best way to deal with sharpness is to turn it OFF and then find a way to enhance just the high frequency stuff? Am I reading this right? I wonder how to go about that... maybe a high pass filter and blending modes? That would mimick the 'sharpness' stylistics of film if right.

4) Maybe it's because film has less red-sensitivity (which flatters skin-tones) than the more accurate, but harsher, CCD?
Click to expand...

This is SO true. I remember thinking that when I first read the article. Over-red skin tones are a dead giveaway that the product was shot on video.

3) Maybe it's because 2/3" CCD's have twice the DOF, that 35mm has?
Click to expand...

I was recently watching some OLD westerns and noticed the use of deep DOF. It sort of bothered me for a while until I figured out what the problem was (since I couldn't blame it on being shot on video!). Very, very interesting.

2) Maybe the silver-halide on film has more stops (10 stops, or 1000:1) of dynamic range, than CCD (5 stops or 32:1)?
Click to expand...

The article argues against this and suggests that the better HD cameras have equivalent range to film. The only catch is that not all of that is useable due to the whole signal to noise ratio. Of course, if you like the whole grainy 'film look' it wouldn't be a problem.
 
it is all that we are use to seeing all the grain and noise and scratches and the way film works with an image. We will never get that out of our head. we are just use to seeing that. But if you take a shot that you did and you shot it on film and high end HD like the Viper or Cinialt and thin print the hd to film and screen both what one looks more like film. They both end up on film right. So if you screen it side by side what looks different??? I don't think you can tell. I love to shoot on film and I do think there is somethings that work better for film. But now days for most projects I rather shoot HD and do film out. When I do shot film. I DI it anyway and print it back to film. So if you ask me logicly I am saving myself a step..
 
It really seems to be more about motion. I understand everything said about DoF, color bandwidth, dynamic range, but in the samples above, from OUAITM it's the motion that for some reason gives away the video nature of the image. Why? With 24p and what seems like regular shutter speeds, what is it about the motion rendition that seems off? Really, check out the flick and those shots distractingly stand out.

Actually, in Collateral more than anything it's the motion aesthetics that contribute to the video look. Not the noise, the DoF, the dull colors, but that... that something about motion... Or is it just me?
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
I think DOF has something to do with, on the technical side.

I really believe it's our perception and how we resolve things temporally. Technically, this can boil down to the motion of film vs. video, but I think it goes a bit deeper. The brain works in mysterious ways that isn't known to the world's most brilliant scientists, and maybe the answer lies in those depths.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one.

like somone else stated, the fact that dust/dirt and hairs can be caught on the film, unlike video. Now, this is a very minor difference between video and film and doesn't have anything to do with everything else that was discussed, but it's still one more little difference that some people may notice (but most probably won't).
 
Last edited:
Lawsuit_Boy said:
dust/dirt and hairs can be caught on the film, unlike video.
Click to expand...
Yes, but when I've seen this, it seems like it's on the projector lens at the theater. Which should affect both, movies shot on film, as well as those shot on video but blown up to 35mm for projection?
 
I'd wager that if nobdy had known Collateral was shot partly with HD nobody would even "notice" these things that give away the video look.


Yes there is a difference between film and video acquisition, but when in the hands of a pro, the differences become small and almost indistinguishable.. having this forsight though... no doubt makes people "think" they are clearly seeing differences..

perception is an interesting thing..
 
Loki said:
I'd wager that if nobdy had known Collateral was shot partly with HD nobody would even "notice" these things that give away the video look.
Click to expand...
I guess I must be one of the unlucky few, 'cause the moment I saw it in the theater, I knew something wasn't right. Perhaps, it was subconscious or subliminal, but it just didn't look like film to me (like the way the CineAlta Star Wars films did).

Can't put my finger on exactly what the difference was, but there was just that sixth sense feeling that something was strange or different. I think it was on an outdoor street scene at night with wet pavements, that the texture looked abnormal, and I was trying to figure out whether it was film grain. It could have been the Viper noise?

I didn't find out that a lot of it was shot on HD, until much later. It had a certain immediacy and slickness, almost like ENG-footage, at certain parts IMO. I never detected this look on the Star Wars episodes with the Sony. In fairness though, much of Star Wars was CG, so it's hard to compare apples to apples. I will take a look at "Once Upon a Time in Mexico," and compare.

As an interesting aside, try and see Akira Kurosawa's film "Dreams," which was the first film shot on HD many years ago, with a Sony prototype. It looks very good, IMO!
 
Last edited:
CineAlta said:
Yes, but when I've seen this, it seems like it's on the projector lens at the theater. Which should affect both, movies shot on film, as well as those shot on video but blown up to 35mm for projection?
Click to expand...

That absolutely true. You're right. I was just stating it as a very tiny difference between actual 35mm footage and video. Of course, this has nothing to do with the different look, but it's fun to talk about.
 
I think that there were a good amount of shots in Collateral that took advantage of a slightly slower shutter speed than most films shoot at, just like with our little dvx's when shooting 24p with a 1/24 shutter speed. There are a few shots in it that definately have that smoothed out and slower feel.
 
and Loki's right in that most wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But people that work in this industry will pick up on the very subtle differences most of the time (not always, of course). Perception IS a very strange idea and definately works slightly different for everyone, but I think that you can indeed train the mind to pick up on such small details.

That'd be a fun experiment though. Have people watch this film and ask them before the film to make note of anything strange they see picture-wise, and then have another group that finds out ahead of time that 80+% was shot HD video, and compare the answers after the showings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top