GH4 "video-like" vs "film-like" cameras

I can't remember where I read 'detailed but not sharp'. That sounded about right. I like the way he put it, I can't remember where I read it it was recent...
 
once I sold my digital (video) camera and rented out an Arri Lt..with some kodak film…I knew I would never go back to digital (video) for high end stuff..
 
Yes, there are some obvious things like framerate which is a tell wether something was shot on film or video. But even with the traditional film settings in place people are still after the "film" look.

I honestly think most people say it looks like film when they see something that has really good production value. In an effort to quantify what they are seeing they attribute it to looking like film in the hopes that they can simply change a camera setting and or choose a tool/camera/sensor that magically gives them what they are looking for.

In reality what makes film look like film (or video look like film) is putting in the work, learning the craft and executing. If your good enough, you can make a DSLR look like film, if your not you can make film look like a DSLR.
 
To the "only film looks good crowd" lets not forget, places like Industrial Light And Magic have been matching film for a very long time now!
 
greymog said:
I can't remember where I read 'detailed but not sharp'. That sounded about right. I like the way he put it, I can't remember where I read it it was recent...
Click to expand...

That would be resolution vs acutence. Most people mistake acutence for resolution and think they have a detailed image when acutence is high. Acutence is an illusion of detail and a telltale sign of digital or electronic video.

It isn't as much about having a soft image but about getting rid of any electronic enhancement to what comes off the sensor. This is why to get detailed 2k it is better to shoot 4k and down convert to 2k. Allows you to capture raw detail without adding acutence enhancement.
 
I think you can put a lot of time, effort and expense trying to achieve a 'filmic look' and then when it makes it to cable it all becomes moot.
 
makes sense, i hadn't heard that word. Would this 'fake detail' be the same detail we see that's caused by aliasing back in the 5DII early days?

downscaling has always felt like something i should do, and work never feels finished to me when i finish in my acquisition res. i always shoot bigger for smaller, if i shoot 1080 i'm finishing to 720 and so on. The only reason I really would like to jump on the 4k wagon is to get a nice 2k. I thought that was only me, and if I don't know how they do it I wouldn't spot it.

Is there, aside from scaling down/measuring twice cutting once, any way that more detail can be achieved without increasing res? or are just going to keep going on the resolution race and never realize it's not the same?
 
Thomas Smet said:
That would be resolution vs acutence. Most people mistake acutence for resolution and think they have a detailed image when acutence is high. Acutence is an illusion of detail and a telltale sign of digital or electronic video.
Click to expand...

You could add to the perception of 'sharpness' with Film film by changing the contrast of the film. Humans tend to judge 'sharpness' based on edge contrast, and so if one makes the edges 'more' contrasty, eh wala... must be 'sharp'.

This is the principle of the so called 'unsharp mask' filter to 'clean up' images. There use to be some similar sorts of techniques for Film film using a 'soft' version (Low pass filtered image...) of an image put into registration with the 'normal' image negative, and printing the sandwich.

Some of these techniques were easier for stills than perhaps moving picture film...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top