GH4 "video-like" vs "film-like" cameras
- Thread starter ralfmouth
- Start date
cpc
Well-known member
There is a small flaw in this logc: This proves that a specific frame rate is a necessary condition (for you), but not the only necessary condition (for you).
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
I hate this debate... even the way something is edited can distinguish between cinematic and amateur/video. The medium it is captured on means little, aside from frame-rate, which I do think comes into play.
I'd argue not just for me. Certainly the trained cinematographer will notice things like dynamic range, highlight handling, color fidelity, etc. But I think for the average viewer, frame rate is the only thing that makes the difference.
You can add all the cinematic style you want to a project, but if it's shot at 30i or 60p (or even 48, like The Hobbit), it'll still look like video.
Or you can have Uncle Charlie shooting off the cuff on Super 8, and it will look like film.
Last edited:
cpc
Well-known member
I am not arguing against that. I agree that cadence is an integral part of the look. I am merely pointing out that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises logically.
But I disagree with your average viewer comment. I have made a non-scientific blind test with a bunch of "average viewers" including regular movie goers. Exactly 50% of them thought HFR looks more cinematic.
Thanks a lot.
Frame rate was listed first (guessing at the order of importance here).
strancali
Well-known member
I disagree, you want "filmic" right out of the box? Get a DVX100a :love4:. I wonder if anyone still have the hacked version (Andromedia)
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I have no idea what most people mean by those terms. For me, 'video' has some specific elements, centering on the fact that 'video' until the modern age, was limited to the following attributes:
525 horizontal lines of which 480 (or so) were visible, for NTSC countries, and that means all of the US... PAL being slightly different but essentially the same.
That deals with resolution.
The other aspect of 'video' is the all powerful 'dynamic range', and was limited. Blooming highlights, 'image retention', etc. and the lowering of contrast, to allow for 'any TV' to display somewhat of an acceptable TV image, are 'video'.
When 'video' cameras were updated to general 'digital' data, they retained much of the characteristics, and much of the TV baggage. Such terms as 'dynamic range' was a video/electronic phrase, use of 'dB gain' to indicate signal levels... in fact the use of the term 'signal' for an image was from 'video' in nature.
To be sure some folks in the image processing for machine vision used these terms... because... they were using 'analog video' cameras then later CCD arrays for such applications, but Film film people outside of some types of image analysis did not.
So with all that in mind, when someone says 'video', I think, 'flat lighting, low resolution, image suitable for standard Broadcast TV'.
Some people wax elequent on 'filmic'...
Personally this is my recollection of 'filmic'...
And even this example is 'quality' relative to some I've seen...
But that aside, for me the 'filmicness' of a digital film clip has more to do with lighting, set design, use of dialog, acting, etc. than 'what camera, and what settings'... with in limits...
Just as one distinguishes 'happy shots' from an Kodak Instamatic camera, from a 'pro' DLSR or larger format camera, just so one can distinguish moving pictures done by 'pro' or those who aspire to a higher quality.
In brief... if the photography allows me the willing suspension of disbelief... even if I occasionally come to some momentary consciousness about the film 'quality'... that is the point of making moving pictures... whether it is presented on a TV or some other device.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
So, when these high frame rate digital cameras produce 1/1000 second exposures, or more depending on say 500 fps or more, then slowed down to 24 fps for presentation... they all look 'video'... you've got to b kidding me.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Since I have DVX100A, that could explain why my GH-1 has it... guilt by association...
Ebrahim Saadawi
Carbonite Member
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/5067-what-is-the-film-look-define-it
This is a nice discussion we had over at EOSHD about the same subject
This is a nice discussion we had over at EOSHD about the same subject
Ian-T
Veteran
Someone please remind me of that experiment that was done many years back with 35mm film (something ?? scan) when they shot it at 60 frames per second. If I recall the end result looked nothing like film but more like ..reality video. It basically lost all of its "organic" qualities when sped up (got sharper probably due to increase in shutter speed and lost its judder etc.). Sure you can argue 24 fps helps...but then again we all know that's really not it. If it were...then all these low end cameras that shoot 24p (which is most of them) will look like film.....or...as the topic suggests "filmic." Video to film is like CD's to Vinyl recordings. Digital anything is much more harsh whether visually or audibly. That's what seperates film from video today in my opinion. All this talk about 24 fps / Dynamic Range / Color Science / Light Fall-Off / Resolution /Light Sensitivity / Adding Noise and on and on still does not equate to "organic looking film." I think if you combine all of those things AND find a way to soften the image (maybe completly turn off sharpness in cam) that would be a step in the right direction even with motion. No matter how close a video camera comes to film in its look (even something like the Alexa) what always seem to bother me is the motion at some point when viewing. I strongly believe it has to do with the natural harsh edges of digital video.
Last edited:
I believe the OP is only interested in the camera tech part of FILM LOOK - even though we all know script, lighting, acting, sets etc all add up to looking like a movie.
So, he pretty much nailed it in his first post: what the CAMERA needs to imitate film.
Now.... I would LOVE to see FILM imitate DIGITAL!! hahahaha that would be a trick.
(EDIT posted seconds after previous post about shooting 60fps on film) bring on real life 120fps! Then we'll see some cool movies.
So, he pretty much nailed it in his first post: what the CAMERA needs to imitate film.
Now.... I would LOVE to see FILM imitate DIGITAL!! hahahaha that would be a trick.
(EDIT posted seconds after previous post about shooting 60fps on film) bring on real life 120fps! Then we'll see some cool movies.
Ian-T
Veteran
to me, the organic qualities are merely shortcomings: grain, colors not right, softness innacurately capturing the live scene.... now, we have a chance to move beyond those.
It's only one generation dying off away.
Exactly. We've been trying so hard to mimc film's weaknesses with these digital cameras. I've been saying for the last few years that 35mm film today doesn't even look like film anymore (if you know what I mean). Post processing cleans it up so good that film looks like....an Alexa or a glorified Red camera.
cpreston
Veteran
You should also probably include the distortion caused by an anamorphic lens.
Seriously, this topic is so overplayed and it should be treated like any other geek argument in which people overlook the forest for the trees. Anybody who attempts to disparage a camera using a comment involving the word "filmic" should just be ignored. I'm not saying that the word can't help to define the video to a certain extent based on the list the OP is putting together, but it just doesn't matter. Most of time people actually mean cinematic anyway, which is much more related to how the camera is used.
Seriously, this topic is so overplayed and it should be treated like any other geek argument in which people overlook the forest for the trees. Anybody who attempts to disparage a camera using a comment involving the word "filmic" should just be ignored. I'm not saying that the word can't help to define the video to a certain extent based on the list the OP is putting together, but it just doesn't matter. Most of time people actually mean cinematic anyway, which is much more related to how the camera is used.
Ian-T
Veteran
Added that one.
So FilmConvert doesn't do if for ya... I came across another interesting attempt: "GH4 and Gh3 Getting rid of the video look"