So, what's wrong?
- Thread starter xl70e3
- Start date
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
November ?
What's that ?
What's that ?
Yas Kassana
Well-known member
November is a good example of how digital or more specifically the dvx can look good onscreen.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368089/
Whereas Sorry, haters is a bad example of digital and the dvx(and they weren't even doing dogme style)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425600/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368089/
Whereas Sorry, haters is a bad example of digital and the dvx(and they weren't even doing dogme style)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425600/
chrislockerman
Active member
CineAlta said:
It has been released to DVD and I know you can get it from Netflix.
PopcornFlix
Well-known member
My $.02 on film look
My $.02 on film look
There's a lot of confusion about film look.
First, we have to compare apples and apples. If you're
talking about projecting an image on film in a cinema, then
the issues are image resolution (pixels) and color
resolution (contrast ratio). There is no current method to
take DV footage and output it to 35mm that will make it
match the image or color resolution of an analog film. (Of
course, if the film has been through DI, then it's been
digitized at 2k, and output back to film with the limited
color/image resolution of 2k, and is closer to a DV blowup.)
That being said, few DV filmmakers ever print to 35mm film.
Most distribute their projects on DVD.
So, oranges and oranges now. How does a DV movie
transferred to DVD compare with an analog film telecined and
transferred to DVD? They can be remarkably close, because
transferring the film to video reduces its resolution and
colorspace to that of video. That's right; in order to
get the film onto a DVD, you have to throw away a lot of
colors, a lot of pixels and a lot of dynamic range. So now
the film has a data profile that's much closer to DV.
Watching a film on DVD looks a lot worse than watching a
film in a cinema, but we're used to it. In fact, we're
trained to think that the artifacts and flaws introduced
into the movie during the video transfer are actually signs
of high quality.
The most common goal of trying to make DV look like film is
to mimic a combination of the superior imaging aspects of
35mm film and the degrading artifacts caused by transferring
film to video.
Superior aspects include Depth Of Field (DOF), Motion Blur,
Dynamic Range and Frame Rate.
Artifacts include 3-2 pulldown, letterboxing and
color-timing(grading).
Depth Of Field (DOF) refers to the range of distances from
the lens that the camera can keep sharply in focus.
Small-format cameras have deeper DOF, which keeps everything
in sharp focus. Large-format cameras (35mm and bigger) have
shallower DOF, so they can selectively focus at different
depths of the image. So cheap cameras are sharp, and
expensive cameras have shallow DOF.
DOF is a function of the size of the image plane (format),
the focal length of the lens and the diameter of the
aperture. Many DV filmmakers decrease their DOF by opening
the aperature, using a long-focus lens and adding ND filters
to reduce the exposure. DOF adapters solve the problem by
using 35mm lenses, projecting the image on a 35mm image
plane on ground glass. That image is re-photographed by the
DV camera. The re-photography causes a loss of exposure of
around a stop, and the ground glass causes a mild softness
in the image.
Motion Blur is an artifact caused by the subject moving
while a single frame is being exposed. The slight smearing
of the image causes a fluid motion. A DV camera shooting
24p at 1/48 shutter can closely mimic the motion blur of a
film camera running 24 fps with 180-degree shutter . (This
is because a 180-degree spinning mirror shutter at 24fps =
1/48 of a second.)
Dynamic Range refers to both the number of shades of grey
the image can record ("contrast ratio" in video, "latitude"
in film) and the "response" of the medium. Response means
how the medium records light as it changes intensity. Most
photographic emulsions don't record light in a
mathematically linear way. DPs refer to the "curve" of an
emulsion, because theyr'e thinking of a mathematical graph
of where the film fails to record the most bright and dark
values. DV, on the other hand, is very close to being
linear, which makes engineers happy, but makes the image
look "harsh."
The solution from DV is to introduce Cine Gamma, which is an
in-camera software feature that makes the DV camera's
respons follow a curve much more like film emulsion.
(Remember, it doesn't have to match film, it has to match
film after it's been transferred to video. And it can come
pretty close.) You can also shoot low-contrast without
cine-gamma, and add the gamma shift in post. (You should
try to do this in 32-bit float color space with a photographically
linear gamma setting for best results. Stu is the ninja master of this process.)
Frame Rate is 24 frames per second for 35mm film. The
advent of 24p makes it the best medium for making DV with
film-look. There are software solutions using optical
flow-field analysis that can convert 60i to 24p, but they
produce inferior results to shooting 24p.
3-2 pulldown is the repeating frame pattern introduced by a
telecine when copying 24 frames of film to (roughly) 60
fields of NTSC video per second. We're used to this strange
stuttering, and even equate it with a higher budget look.
Rendering to an NTSC video file from a 24p timeline in FCP
automatically generates 3-2 pulldown. There are software
solutions that try to add 3-2 pulldown to 60i footage, but
they never look right because they don't have a 24p sampling
base.
Letterboxing is the practice of putting black bars at the
top an bottom of the video frame so the wide format of the
transferred film will fit in the more square format of the
TV. This is easily accomplished in editors like FCP or in
the DV camera itself, if you want 16:9 aspect ratio. (If you
want that wide-screen cinematic look, shoot 16:9 and crop
to 1.85:1 or 2.35:1.)
Color-timing(grading) refers to altering the color of the
film at the time of telecine transfer in order to match the
video as closely as possible with the original print. This
is impossible, because video has far fewer colors than film.
Grading alters the colors of the film so the subjective
impression is acceptable to the filmmakers, despite the
compromises that must be made. Color grading can be done in
editors like FCP, effects programs like After Effects,
Motion and Shake or dedicated grading software like Lustre
and FinalTouch.
In addition to these parameters, the DV filmmaker should
also look to lighting, camera artifacts, hyping and staging.
Lighting adds production value. Since video is
high-contrast to being with, soft, cinematic lighting makes
the frame look more like film.
DV cameras produce artifacts due to their low resolution and
high compression. Diagonal lines create stair-step patterns
in a way that doesn't occur in film. The best solution is
to shoot in HD, but barring that, you can reduce stair-steps
by using software in post. Some DV shooters will use a
diffusion filter, but that creates a general haziness in the
image.
Hyping is a term for the sharpening algorithms built into
most DV cameras. They create an illusion of sharpness by
tracing the borders of contrasting colors with either a
white or black line, called a "hype line." This makes the
DV footage look extra harsh and high-contrast. For
cinematic shooting, turn the camera's sharpening off.
Staging is how you place and move the camera, the actors and
the props in your shot. The visual vocabulary of cinema
does a lot to convince the audience that they're watching a
film.
Did I miss anything? Let's discuss our favorite tricks for
making DV look like film.
.
OPCORNFLIX:.
email me
My $.02 on film look
There's a lot of confusion about film look.
First, we have to compare apples and apples. If you're
talking about projecting an image on film in a cinema, then
the issues are image resolution (pixels) and color
resolution (contrast ratio). There is no current method to
take DV footage and output it to 35mm that will make it
match the image or color resolution of an analog film. (Of
course, if the film has been through DI, then it's been
digitized at 2k, and output back to film with the limited
color/image resolution of 2k, and is closer to a DV blowup.)
That being said, few DV filmmakers ever print to 35mm film.
Most distribute their projects on DVD.
So, oranges and oranges now. How does a DV movie
transferred to DVD compare with an analog film telecined and
transferred to DVD? They can be remarkably close, because
transferring the film to video reduces its resolution and
colorspace to that of video. That's right; in order to
get the film onto a DVD, you have to throw away a lot of
colors, a lot of pixels and a lot of dynamic range. So now
the film has a data profile that's much closer to DV.
Watching a film on DVD looks a lot worse than watching a
film in a cinema, but we're used to it. In fact, we're
trained to think that the artifacts and flaws introduced
into the movie during the video transfer are actually signs
of high quality.
The most common goal of trying to make DV look like film is
to mimic a combination of the superior imaging aspects of
35mm film and the degrading artifacts caused by transferring
film to video.
Superior aspects include Depth Of Field (DOF), Motion Blur,
Dynamic Range and Frame Rate.
Artifacts include 3-2 pulldown, letterboxing and
color-timing(grading).
Depth Of Field (DOF) refers to the range of distances from
the lens that the camera can keep sharply in focus.
Small-format cameras have deeper DOF, which keeps everything
in sharp focus. Large-format cameras (35mm and bigger) have
shallower DOF, so they can selectively focus at different
depths of the image. So cheap cameras are sharp, and
expensive cameras have shallow DOF.
DOF is a function of the size of the image plane (format),
the focal length of the lens and the diameter of the
aperture. Many DV filmmakers decrease their DOF by opening
the aperature, using a long-focus lens and adding ND filters
to reduce the exposure. DOF adapters solve the problem by
using 35mm lenses, projecting the image on a 35mm image
plane on ground glass. That image is re-photographed by the
DV camera. The re-photography causes a loss of exposure of
around a stop, and the ground glass causes a mild softness
in the image.
Motion Blur is an artifact caused by the subject moving
while a single frame is being exposed. The slight smearing
of the image causes a fluid motion. A DV camera shooting
24p at 1/48 shutter can closely mimic the motion blur of a
film camera running 24 fps with 180-degree shutter . (This
is because a 180-degree spinning mirror shutter at 24fps =
1/48 of a second.)
Dynamic Range refers to both the number of shades of grey
the image can record ("contrast ratio" in video, "latitude"
in film) and the "response" of the medium. Response means
how the medium records light as it changes intensity. Most
photographic emulsions don't record light in a
mathematically linear way. DPs refer to the "curve" of an
emulsion, because theyr'e thinking of a mathematical graph
of where the film fails to record the most bright and dark
values. DV, on the other hand, is very close to being
linear, which makes engineers happy, but makes the image
look "harsh."
The solution from DV is to introduce Cine Gamma, which is an
in-camera software feature that makes the DV camera's
respons follow a curve much more like film emulsion.
(Remember, it doesn't have to match film, it has to match
film after it's been transferred to video. And it can come
pretty close.) You can also shoot low-contrast without
cine-gamma, and add the gamma shift in post. (You should
try to do this in 32-bit float color space with a photographically
linear gamma setting for best results. Stu is the ninja master of this process.)
Frame Rate is 24 frames per second for 35mm film. The
advent of 24p makes it the best medium for making DV with
film-look. There are software solutions using optical
flow-field analysis that can convert 60i to 24p, but they
produce inferior results to shooting 24p.
3-2 pulldown is the repeating frame pattern introduced by a
telecine when copying 24 frames of film to (roughly) 60
fields of NTSC video per second. We're used to this strange
stuttering, and even equate it with a higher budget look.
Rendering to an NTSC video file from a 24p timeline in FCP
automatically generates 3-2 pulldown. There are software
solutions that try to add 3-2 pulldown to 60i footage, but
they never look right because they don't have a 24p sampling
base.
Letterboxing is the practice of putting black bars at the
top an bottom of the video frame so the wide format of the
transferred film will fit in the more square format of the
TV. This is easily accomplished in editors like FCP or in
the DV camera itself, if you want 16:9 aspect ratio. (If you
want that wide-screen cinematic look, shoot 16:9 and crop
to 1.85:1 or 2.35:1.)
Color-timing(grading) refers to altering the color of the
film at the time of telecine transfer in order to match the
video as closely as possible with the original print. This
is impossible, because video has far fewer colors than film.
Grading alters the colors of the film so the subjective
impression is acceptable to the filmmakers, despite the
compromises that must be made. Color grading can be done in
editors like FCP, effects programs like After Effects,
Motion and Shake or dedicated grading software like Lustre
and FinalTouch.
In addition to these parameters, the DV filmmaker should
also look to lighting, camera artifacts, hyping and staging.
Lighting adds production value. Since video is
high-contrast to being with, soft, cinematic lighting makes
the frame look more like film.
DV cameras produce artifacts due to their low resolution and
high compression. Diagonal lines create stair-step patterns
in a way that doesn't occur in film. The best solution is
to shoot in HD, but barring that, you can reduce stair-steps
by using software in post. Some DV shooters will use a
diffusion filter, but that creates a general haziness in the
image.
Hyping is a term for the sharpening algorithms built into
most DV cameras. They create an illusion of sharpness by
tracing the borders of contrasting colors with either a
white or black line, called a "hype line." This makes the
DV footage look extra harsh and high-contrast. For
cinematic shooting, turn the camera's sharpening off.
Staging is how you place and move the camera, the actors and
the props in your shot. The visual vocabulary of cinema
does a lot to convince the audience that they're watching a
film.
Did I miss anything? Let's discuss our favorite tricks for
making DV look like film.
.
OPCORNFLIX:.email me
xl70e3
Skywalker
PopcornFlix said:
Let's not... That's not the point of this thread.
bugsbunny said:why does a marker look different from color pencil?
why does a skateboard move different from a wheelchair?
why are green apples sour and red apples are sweet?
Why does shampoo clean hair and conditioner soften?
Different medium produces different results. Video does not film on celuloid just on tape or digital. Does this make sense?
And? What does that have to do with this thread? Once again, noone here is asking for the Holy Grail solution to making video look like film.
There have been made many good points about differences in the film and video look/acquisiton, but it still remains unclear what it is about the motion rendtion that differentiates them despite the availability of 24p, pro color grading and even shallow DoF. And why/how it is avoidable in some cases (90% of OUATIM)?
Perhaps, x2mag68 is right and it's the difference in the way CCDs and Film Gates work?..
Or maybe Lawsuit Boy is right and it's all about perception? You know, the same way some people can see the rainbow effect produced by DLP projection and the others never notice it. Just the way our eyes work, different for everyone...
Are those your own ideas, or did you cut and paste from someone else's blog (or online article)? I note you joined today, and that was your first post. Please don't plagiarize without crediting the original souce.PopcornFlix said:Did I miss anything? Let's discuss our favorite tricks for
making DV look like film.
.
Also, who's Stu, and why was the formatting in blog form?
I think most people would relish the exchange of original ideas, but can look up reference-type/dictionary info on their own.
Last edited:
chrislockerman said:
Yas Kassana said:
snodart said:
John_Hudson said:
I watched November, last night. It was good and the story really pulled me in. Here are my thoughts (sorry if I offend anyone here, who worked on the film).bugsbunny said:
1) I could tell from the very first shot, that it wasn't film. It wasn't even close. I had just watched it, back-to-back, with Crash. The images were no where close to the beauty of Crash. It was very close to the images of "The Making of Crash" documentary. I think November looked great for video, and awesome for a DVX. I would have thought that it was shot with a more expensive SDX900 or SPX800.
2) The increased DOF was very distracting. I found my eyes, and mind, wandering all over the scene. When Sophie was talking to her psychiatrist, I tuned out and started analyzing the patterns on the vases behind her. DOF really did make a difference.
3) The colors were off. I know it was highly CC with visual effects etc. But I'm just talking about the normal shots. It was almost like when you turn your computer video card, from displaying 32 million colors, to 64 colors. There was less of a palette, or range (not sure the technical term).
4) Noise? I'm not sure what the technical term for what I want to refer to, is. But in the shadows/dark areas, it appeared that the texture was moving/swimming? Almost like when you see night vision with the lens cap on, but you can still see pixels going off randomly.
5) Highlights/overcontrast. Things that were lit too much (eg Sophie's hair etc), were really blown out & brassy (?). There was no soft reflections or saturation like film.
Lastly, IMO it looked nothing close to film. It had the look of a very good "Behind the scenes," type video. Fantastic for a little DVX!
Anyway, kudos to the filmmakers for making a feature, with a good story and a name-star (Courtney Cox) in 15 days, and for $500,000! Congrats on the Sundance Cinematography award. Great job!
Anyone else have impressions?
Last edited:
oneinfiniteloop
Veteran
Just rented it last night, I'll watch it tonight and look for those things CineAlta and let you know what I think.
snodart
Veteran
You have made some good points CineAlta, but i disagree in a few areas. This of course is meant as a friendly debate.
I'm not sure that most movie goers can make this distention between film and DV. I also disagree and think it was reasonably close to a film look. At any rate, is that the point of moivies... to look like film, or to tell a story and convey emotion. Crash had a budget of 6.5 mil + and November had a $150,000 budget. November was designed (accornding to the DP) to have a closterfobic feel. I assume that this was not the case with crash. Different movies, different looks. And yes, Crash was great.
I do think that the colors went a touch overboard, but as mentioned in the comentary, color was used as a tool throughout the movie. I'm not too sure there were very many "normal" shots.
I don't think that November is an example of how digital can be made to look equal to film. I think it is an example of how well a low budget and DV cams can be used to tell a story in a way that is acceptable to the common viewer who is accustum to the "film look".
I'm sorry, but this comes across as a bit pompous. The "little DVX" is allowing artists who are not, or do not wish to be part of the million dollar budget movie to share their work. The move to DV/HD is inevitable .
CineAlta said:
I'm not sure that most movie goers can make this distention between film and DV. I also disagree and think it was reasonably close to a film look. At any rate, is that the point of moivies... to look like film, or to tell a story and convey emotion. Crash had a budget of 6.5 mil + and November had a $150,000 budget. November was designed (accornding to the DP) to have a closterfobic feel. I assume that this was not the case with crash. Different movies, different looks. And yes, Crash was great.
CineAlta said:
I do think that the colors went a touch overboard, but as mentioned in the comentary, color was used as a tool throughout the movie. I'm not too sure there were very many "normal" shots.
I don't think that November is an example of how digital can be made to look equal to film. I think it is an example of how well a low budget and DV cams can be used to tell a story in a way that is acceptable to the common viewer who is accustum to the "film look".
CineAlta said:
I'm sorry, but this comes across as a bit pompous. The "little DVX" is allowing artists who are not, or do not wish to be part of the million dollar budget movie to share their work. The move to DV/HD is inevitable .
Definitely, a good debate is healthy. I welcome your comments. Thanks!snodart said:
Great point. What I meant, was that I didn't know Stars Wars (Episode I The Phantom Menace), Once Upon A Time in Mexico, and Collateral, were shot with video, until after I saw the films. Collateral was the only one where I suspected something didn't feel right (but I still thought it was film while watching). Whereas, IMO, November had a polished DV look, which I detected right from the opening scenes.snodart said:
You're absolutely right, the point is to relay the story, with whichever tools do the job.
Fair enough.snodart said:
You're absolutely right.snodart said:
My apologies. I'm a DVX filmmaker myself. I have a DVX100B.I meant that proudly, not meaning to be pompous. I would love for my projects to turn out like November! What I should have said, instead of "little DVX," is that a 1/3" CCD camera, with an off-the-shelf lens, can look so good!snodart said:
Thanks for your excellent comments.
oneinfiniteloop said:
Anxiously awaiting OneInfiniteLoop's impressions, as well.
Last edited:
Thanks. LOL, I'm a guy.:beer:snodart said:
Great point. Yes, I believe Star Wars & Once Upon a Time in Mexico, were the Sony F900 CineAlta, and Collateral was the Thomson Viper.snodart said:
Yes. I strive to equal the "look" and "feel" of Super 16, which I think the DVX does quite nicely.snodart said:
Last edited:
DBoz699
Veteran
I dont know if any of you noticed...but i do remember..quite well infact...when i watched Collateral.
The scene where Cruise shoots through that glass wall and runs through it....look at the movement of the glass and Tom....you can see interlaced lines for like 2 seconds and then the movements become super smooth as if you were watching something on the store TV's that was shot in 60i
I thought id bring that up...in case no one noticed.
But in my opinion...with all the technology we have to mimick film and all its glorious traits...you cant perfect the look...film is film...video is video.
Even with the most exspensive 35mm adaptors...yes you can achieve the DOF of film...but it still doesnt feel like it...even with CC to the picture..the way film looks at light and CCDs is totally different..maybe it just depends whos actually watching the movie.
If you put a bunch of average people who arent really into the technical aspect of filmmaking and a group of filmmakers who know alot about cameras and how films are made. You'd get mixed opinions. The average joe schmo most likely wouldnt be able to tell the difference between footage shot on a 35mm camera and a lets say an HVX with a 35mm adaptor....and both scenes have all the proper lighting.
When you go to ask the filmmakers....they'd notice every single bit....maybe some wouldnt even notice...who knows.
It just matters who watches the movie...and who do studios make their money off of..? and would they really care if the real look of film is there or not..?
...my .02
The scene where Cruise shoots through that glass wall and runs through it....look at the movement of the glass and Tom....you can see interlaced lines for like 2 seconds and then the movements become super smooth as if you were watching something on the store TV's that was shot in 60i
I thought id bring that up...in case no one noticed.
But in my opinion...with all the technology we have to mimick film and all its glorious traits...you cant perfect the look...film is film...video is video.
Even with the most exspensive 35mm adaptors...yes you can achieve the DOF of film...but it still doesnt feel like it...even with CC to the picture..the way film looks at light and CCDs is totally different..maybe it just depends whos actually watching the movie.
If you put a bunch of average people who arent really into the technical aspect of filmmaking and a group of filmmakers who know alot about cameras and how films are made. You'd get mixed opinions. The average joe schmo most likely wouldnt be able to tell the difference between footage shot on a 35mm camera and a lets say an HVX with a 35mm adaptor....and both scenes have all the proper lighting.
When you go to ask the filmmakers....they'd notice every single bit....maybe some wouldnt even notice...who knows.
It just matters who watches the movie...and who do studios make their money off of..? and would they really care if the real look of film is there or not..?
...my .02
Great tip. I listened to the commentary last night, and found some interesting techniques. A lot of off-the-shelf, software plug-ins and techniques available to the indy filmmaker. They used Adobe After-Effects, a Cartoni Focus tripod, two-cameras, small lighting kit etc.snodart said:
Thanks, I'll look out for it.blckhawk542 said:
