What does footage on high end cameras look like with no lighting?
- Thread starter Azmyth
- Start date
If film looks like shi* to you then what more can i say ? It was captured in 24p but it doesnt matter that its delivered in 15 fps because blur and movement looks the same like in most tv shows shot on film.Especially takes when hes standing up from chair and driving his car.I see the difference and i see the difference between 35mm and 16mm because there is difference and you can tell almost immediately when its 16mm and when 35mm when you see amateur short films.
I cant show any "home movies " shot on 35mm film but some short films are made with almost no budget and with available lights ( sun)on exterior shots but IT DOESNT MATTER because all i wanted to show is that MOVEMENT of actor when shot on 35mm film reminds you about most TV shows and motion pictures when you look at it, after like 2 seconds you know that its motion picture and not home video.Look at this :
http://vimeo.com/7639973
http://vimeo.com/1028035
Even here you can tell that its film not video and has this TV cinematic look even when shes not acting and not moving
http://vimeo.com/1759163
OK here you have "home video" shot on film and i admit it looks terrible , worst film footage ive seen ,youve got to know what youre doing when you shooting ,not everyone can be DP,but distracting is way the camera is handled ,like a camcorder ,you dont see any proper framing for a movie here:
http://vimeo.com/2883324
Here at the beginning it looks great until shes inside the house (about 4:25)then it looks like crap:
http://vimeo.com/3765969
Last edited:
Like 24 fps 180 degree shutter? That's already been done on video. Almost every modern prosumer video camera now shoots 24p so on that point shooting film is no difference. Unless you want to argue that 24p shot on a video camera somehow looks different than film.
In any case the "cinematic" look doesn't derive from movement. Once you get past 24p as a technical requirement (some may argue that it's not) then you're back to proper lighting and set design.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I don't know, this maybe looks better than most amateur videos... but it's pretty crappy to me... I haven't seen the film in years and years, but I was struck when it was shown in a film class, as in 'why the hell am I watching this film... and I don't care what Truffaut thought of it'...
"The Honeymoon Killers"(1970)
In the early phases of TV, a show was either broadcast live, or shot on film, then transfered... I believe this snap from "I Love Lucy" is a 35mm shot for TV broadcast. As I recall Ball and Arnez insisted that it be done with 35mm and so they set up a 3 camera studio for buring 35mm, the edited and transfered to video for broad cast.
The main point is that both of these shots have pretty flat lighting, and in one a bit of grain, in the other a somewhat shallow depth of field... but otherwise, they look pretty 'videoesque' to me.
Last edited:
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
Film does not look like crap to me, but the example you posted does and that is what I was referring too.
I'm not even going to touch the statement that motion blur and movement look the same delivered at 15fps as they do at 24fps. Ridiculous.
The one thing I have noticed in most of the examples you have posted are the distinct gama and grain you get from telecined film. Are you sure that this isn't what you are interpreting as something looking like film? I mean, "The End of the Tunnel" doesn't even look like it was transferred right. There is stuttering and frame blending all over the place in that Vimeo file.
But I've become confused on the point you are trying to make anyway.
Ok, now it's officially ridiculous. The 7D has a sensor that is nearly equal to that of 35mm film, so a 50mm film on the 7D will produce nearly identical DOF. No idea what you're trying to say here. And yes, 24p on the 7D or on any video camera looks IDENTICAL to that of film; there's no trick to it. The motion of film is exactly reproduced by these cameras.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Well... of course not... There are plenty of examples of crappily shot 35mm film for any value of 35mm... but by the same token, one can say 70 mm film has a difference from 35mm... just because there is more area. By the same token, digital (still/moving) images are going to have something 'less' for some value of less.
So what... personallly I don't think any 35mm still camera for any value of film selection compares with a 8x10 camera and a contact print.
So what...
The point of the exercise is not to claim that X is 'just as good', the point of the exercise is to make X as good as it can be. If of course, one has a fetish for certain processes, then there will be no point at which someone is satisfied...
The fact that one can make crappy video images these days, much more easily than in the past using 35mm, 16mm, or 8mm... really is meaningless.
As a note... given the recent Baz Luhman effort on attempting to make a 'David Lean' like epic with "Australia" (2008)... suggests there's more missing than just 70mm film, or even CinemaScope on 35mm.
As a note, note, I have no idea where one would get a 'home movie' shot on 35mm film... that would be a rare find indeed...
As for crappily exposed 35mm film... lots of examples from the 60's when film crews started using far more location shoots than in the past... and crappy 16mm... well there's an entire porn industry that was 16mm based that churned out crappily exposed images for almost as long as mainstream 35mm films...
Adam J McKay
Veteran
Have you ever seen a Steven Soderbergh film? Kind of like that...
Edit: I was late into this thread when I posted this and I didn't read the whole thing. I also feel I should mention that my post is in now way negative. I rather like the look of Stevens work.
Edit: I was late into this thread when I posted this and I didn't read the whole thing. I also feel I should mention that my post is in now way negative. I rather like the look of Stevens work.
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Whoa, wtf is going on... I feel like I just arrived after a good bar fight, just 5 min to late.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Ryan, you really want to have a conversation about if video can look like film and film like video...???
how the hell is this crappy footage? this was nominated for best short film -.-'
and through MY eye, it looks good.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Hahaha, no. I've been down that road as a youngster, and it just loops around again.
BUT.... with that said, I do like to take part when I'm bored. :happy:
Such as...
Well that is because parts of that are not film.... I hope another film guy is on these boards and can back me up (patryk?
) but there are shots in that short film which certainly don't look like film, and there are sunflares which seem to have the signature CCD vertical streak smear... Last time I checked, film cameras using celluloid, don't have those streaks. Maybe horizontal if anamorphic or if not as strong an off sync shutter.... but those certainly scream as CCD artifacts.
Last edited:
yeah I think those parts must have been shot on video. the frame blending also makes it look like they came from a 30p camcorder.
I think in that case "no lighting" might have been preferable to bad lighting. Those shadows are so harsh, I'm guessing they just set up some bright lights without using any sort of fill light. Were all those scenes filmed in a warehouse? Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with shooting with available light. Lighting kits are supposed to be used in a way that emulates natural lighting anyway.
I think in that case "no lighting" might have been preferable to bad lighting. Those shadows are so harsh, I'm guessing they just set up some bright lights without using any sort of fill light. Were all those scenes filmed in a warehouse? Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with shooting with available light. Lighting kits are supposed to be used in a way that emulates natural lighting anyway.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
What better way to show crappy 35mm FILM, by giving a digital video example...
What was this thread for again???
For me shi*ty images are well... shi*ty. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference how the image was captured... Although with shi*ty film, one can be a bit saddened by the waste of the silver... wasted tape or electrons... who cares... tape can be reused, and the universe has plenty of electrons...
From my personal POV, until the last 10 years or so, 'video' has always meant flat lighting, and necessarily flat presentation... but as more people are moving to digital from 'filmmaking' there has been a noticeable difference in how 'video' has been lit, which for me is the most significant aesthetic element.
There's also the issue of lenses and for consumer/prosumer video cameras the fixed lens factors in a bit... but then I've never had a 'shallow DoF' fetisch..
visugeek
Well-known member
Most wide exterior day shots have little to no lighting. They look good because of the camera placement, filtration, and composition. The choice the DP makes regarding lighting in this situation is what time of day, and what time of year, and filtration. It's the only control that they have for these shots.
I can think of many examples of gorgeous exterior shots, every western, car chase, skiing film, surf movie, war film, etc.
Lighting control is very important, using available lighting is also an art. Philip Blooms tests with the 7D use available light, and don't look like home videos. There is a reason for that.
I can think of many examples of gorgeous exterior shots, every western, car chase, skiing film, surf movie, war film, etc.
Lighting control is very important, using available lighting is also an art. Philip Blooms tests with the 7D use available light, and don't look like home videos. There is a reason for that.
Galleddrim
Active member
Barry_Green
Moderator
I classify lighting control under the same category as lighting. Spraying light without control isn't "lighting", so I consider the proper use of lighting control as part of lighting. Therefore, if someone is controlling the light properly, they're "lighting", and it wouldn't look like home videos.
Control comes in many ways, from flags to silks to nets to reflectors to mirrors, to just knowing where to position oneself to make the existing light most flattering to the subject.
visugeek
Well-known member
Well, the topic is what do high end cameras look like with no lighting.
I guess the right answer would be DARK.
As Barry correctly points out, there is always lighting, even if it's available lighting so lighting control is the issue.
The correct question should be what do high end cameras look like with a cinematographer who knows nothing about lighting. The answer there is often crap.
I guess you could say, there is always lighting if you have the eye to see it and the skill to use it. That takes practice.
