What gives you a more real/authentic feel in 1080?
- Thread starter Denise0
- Start date
Won't that give my film the feel of being a movie, and not of real life?
The home-videoish feel is what I'm going for.
If 60i gives a home-videoish feel, then what feeling does 60p give?
Also, if I shoot in 60i and upload to a video sharing site (i.e. YouTube), then will it remain interlaced, or will YouTube convert it to progressive, thus giving it a different feel?
What frame rate would you suggest?
Lliam Worthington
Active member
***
EDIT: Just read your Homevideoish post after I finished typing/posting my message. If you want real old school looking home video, I'd shoot 24p and doctor it in post...
New... well thats a video look as per my pos belowt, so 30p, 60i... But Gahanto's right, you can achieve a home video look in post, if it's not already just acquired directly out of your cam?? Which it should be - and could makes this whole conversation pretty hilarious. Another option would be to shoot at 720 instead of 1080... depends on what your doing with this after... onto the web? DVD? etc...
***
LOL, first thread I'v ever read where someone is concerned with making sure that there video doesn't look too much like film!! My but times are changing
Really, anything between around 20 - 3o or so fps can be generally regarded as giving fairly natural looking movement as its similar to what our human eye can perceive...
Will 24p make your project look more "film" like? Yes, in so much a thats what we all see film playing to us as. Whereas 30p is more familiar (somewhat smoother) movement that we associate with
seeing video. But does that make it more natural? Strictly speaking it doesn't give either of them the moral ground as being more natural than the other.
It's usually more a case of personal preference combined with editing/workflow considerations, your distribution/screening intent and the capabilities of your camera.
FWIW, I never watch films and say, gee its funny how they move weird, buy hey thats film for ya! Nor do i ever watch video and say, that looks so unnatural...
They all look natural and life like really. Some may be more personally palatable or pleasing, but that can be anything from resolution, to colour grading, to camera movement..etc...etc...
and is usually a combination of all these and more.
For mine,
I prefer the movement and look of 24p... so perhaps you could then conclude that for me 24p looks more "Natural"
But I'm a narrative film maker. And many doco makers might prefer 30P for all I know, believing it to be more natural looking.
30p to me looks more like video, as by association it should, ... but does that make it less natural? Neither has the connotation of
unnatural to me. One has the connotation of film, and the other video.
So really it all comes down to what I think you are suggesting looks "real life" to you.
I suspect that your probably just after clean sharp images with natural colour tones and nothing too contrasty or stylised and 30 or 24p is not the real issue here.
I don't think you have nothing to fear shooting digitally at 24P and having it looking like an "unnatural" film piece. And effective stylised film look at the budget end of HD shooting is something most people actually work very hard to create.
So, for the "look" (I'll leave out the "natural") that you want, I'd suggest what will be likely more important than your frame rates, is your style of shooting/shot selection/lenses, lighting choices and colour grading.
What I'd do is find a piece of work that I felt really had the "look" I wanted - and then ask questions to find out what their equipment/set up was and how they graded the image afterwards... and also watch 24p footage next to 30p, and see if the slightly smoother video aesthetic is what your after. For me I'd prefer 24p.
Hope thats of help.
Best
LW
EDIT: Just read your Homevideoish post after I finished typing/posting my message. If you want real old school looking home video, I'd shoot 24p and doctor it in post...
New... well thats a video look as per my pos belowt, so 30p, 60i... But Gahanto's right, you can achieve a home video look in post, if it's not already just acquired directly out of your cam?? Which it should be - and could makes this whole conversation pretty hilarious. Another option would be to shoot at 720 instead of 1080... depends on what your doing with this after... onto the web? DVD? etc...
***
LOL, first thread I'v ever read where someone is concerned with making sure that there video doesn't look too much like film!! My but times are changing
Really, anything between around 20 - 3o or so fps can be generally regarded as giving fairly natural looking movement as its similar to what our human eye can perceive...
Will 24p make your project look more "film" like? Yes, in so much a thats what we all see film playing to us as. Whereas 30p is more familiar (somewhat smoother) movement that we associate with
seeing video. But does that make it more natural? Strictly speaking it doesn't give either of them the moral ground as being more natural than the other.
It's usually more a case of personal preference combined with editing/workflow considerations, your distribution/screening intent and the capabilities of your camera.
FWIW, I never watch films and say, gee its funny how they move weird, buy hey thats film for ya! Nor do i ever watch video and say, that looks so unnatural...
They all look natural and life like really. Some may be more personally palatable or pleasing, but that can be anything from resolution, to colour grading, to camera movement..etc...etc...
and is usually a combination of all these and more.
For mine,
I prefer the movement and look of 24p... so perhaps you could then conclude that for me 24p looks more "Natural"
But I'm a narrative film maker. And many doco makers might prefer 30P for all I know, believing it to be more natural looking.
30p to me looks more like video, as by association it should, ... but does that make it less natural? Neither has the connotation of
unnatural to me. One has the connotation of film, and the other video.
So really it all comes down to what I think you are suggesting looks "real life" to you.
I suspect that your probably just after clean sharp images with natural colour tones and nothing too contrasty or stylised and 30 or 24p is not the real issue here.
I don't think you have nothing to fear shooting digitally at 24P and having it looking like an "unnatural" film piece. And effective stylised film look at the budget end of HD shooting is something most people actually work very hard to create.
So, for the "look" (I'll leave out the "natural") that you want, I'd suggest what will be likely more important than your frame rates, is your style of shooting/shot selection/lenses, lighting choices and colour grading.
What I'd do is find a piece of work that I felt really had the "look" I wanted - and then ask questions to find out what their equipment/set up was and how they graded the image afterwards... and also watch 24p footage next to 30p, and see if the slightly smoother video aesthetic is what your after. For me I'd prefer 24p.
Hope thats of help.
Best
LW
Last edited:
***
EDIT: Just read your Homevideoish post after I finished typing/posting my message. If you want real old school looking home video, I'd shoot 24p and doctor it in post...
New... well thats a video look as per my pos belowt, so 30p, 60i... But Gahanto's right, you can achieve a home video look in post, if it's not already just acquired directly out of your cam?? Which it should be - and could makes this whole conversation pretty hilarious. Another option would be to shoot at 720 instead of 1080... depends on what your doing with this after... onto the web? DVD? etc...
***
LOL, first thread I'v ever read where someone is concerned with making sure that there video doesn't look too much like film!! My but times are changing
Really, anything between around 20 - 3o or so fps can be generally regarded as giving fairly natural looking movement as its similar to what our human eye can perceive...
Will 24p make your project look more "film" like? Yes, in so much a thats what we all see film playing to us as. Whereas 30p is more familiar (somewhat smoother) movement that we associate with
seeing video. But does that make it more natural? Strictly speaking it doesn't give either of them the moral ground as being more natural than the other.
It's usually more a case of personal preference combined with editing/workflow considerations, your distribution/screening intent and the capabilities of your camera.
FWIW, I never watch films and say, gee its funny how they move weird, buy hey thats film for ya! Nor do i ever watch video and say, that looks so unnatural...
They all look natural and life like really. Some may be more personally palatable or pleasing, but that can be anything from resolution, to colour grading, to camera movement..etc...etc...
and is usually a combination of all these and more.
For mine,
I prefer the movement and look of 24p... so perhaps you could then conclude that for me 24p looks more "Natural"
But I'm a narrative film maker. And many doco makers might prefer 30P for all I know, believing it to be more natural looking.
30p to me looks more like video, as by association it should, ... but does that make it less natural? Neither has the connotation of
unnatural to me. One has the connotation of film, and the other video.
So really it all comes down to what I think you are suggesting looks "real life" to you.
I suspect that your probably just after clean sharp images with natural colour tones and nothing too contrasty or stylised and 30 or 24p is not the real issue here.
I don't think you have nothing to fear shooting digitally at 24P and having it looking like an "unnatural" film piece. And effective stylised film look at the budget end of HD shooting is something most people actually work very hard to create.
So, for the "look" (I'll leave out the "natural") that you want, I'd suggest what will be likely more important than your frame rates, is your style of shooting/shot selection/lenses, lighting choices and colour grading.
What I'd do is find a piece of work that I felt really had the "look" I wanted - and then ask questions to find out what their equipment/set up was and how they graded the image afterwards... and also watch 24p footage next to 30p, and see if the slightly smoother video aesthetic is what your after. For me I'd prefer 24p.
Hope thats of help.
Best
LW
Hello Lliam Worthington.
My film is kind of like 'Paranormal Acitivity' where there is found footage. I want the "found footage" to give the viewer a homey (home videoish) or real feeling, instead of the typical cinema/film look.
I'm thinking of just buying a regular point and shoot for that portion of the film. For 1080p 24fps there is the Canon Powershot ELPH 300 HS, for 1080p 30fps there is the Nikon Coolpix P300, and for 1080i 60fps there is the Sony DSC-WX9.
Would you suggest the point-and-shoot path? If so, which camera would you suggest?
Lliam Worthington
Active member
Ahhhh ok,
You could do this... but personally I would recommend just saving the dollars and shooting it on your better quality A cam and then dumbing it down to a home video look in post.
It won't be hard to do, but it will give you the flexibility to select/create exactly the look you want without fear that the compression/codec limitations of a point and shoot may mean you'll end up with an image that will degrade in ways you wish it wouldn't if being blown up to a bigger sized screen...
But with the right workflow... either will work, and depending on the look your after, hell you may even want/need to degrade the 1080p point and shoot...
But this will depend on your primary footage? If it's 35mm film, the footage of a Panasonic GH1 in comparison to it, might be a great "video" look but it will
also be a versatile and worthwhile addition to your tool kit, much more so than the other point and shoots you listed.
Best
Lliam
You could do this... but personally I would recommend just saving the dollars and shooting it on your better quality A cam and then dumbing it down to a home video look in post.
It won't be hard to do, but it will give you the flexibility to select/create exactly the look you want without fear that the compression/codec limitations of a point and shoot may mean you'll end up with an image that will degrade in ways you wish it wouldn't if being blown up to a bigger sized screen...
But with the right workflow... either will work, and depending on the look your after, hell you may even want/need to degrade the 1080p point and shoot...
But this will depend on your primary footage? If it's 35mm film, the footage of a Panasonic GH1 in comparison to it, might be a great "video" look but it will
also be a versatile and worthwhile addition to your tool kit, much more so than the other point and shoots you listed.
Best
Lliam
I've read that the GH1 has poor low light abilities, and it isn't great without the "hack" (I guess Panasonic updated the firmware and put a lock on it to prevent the "hack" from being applied).
What are your thoughts on that?
pulpfiction007
Veteran
The GH1 even without the hack is a fine camera...low light is not it's best attribute, but a fast lens takes care of a lot of that. I owned a hackable GH1 for a while, but I never applied it. The footage looked great to me with just the factory settings...you could use it on one of the MJPEG SD modes to make it look more "home video" Oh and BTW, the low light and other abilities of an unhacked GH1 will KILL any point and shoot....
Also FWIW...Vitaly (the man behind the hack) said he'd buy one of the NEW locked GH1s or a GH2 before trying to buy a hackable model. He says the newer GH1s have improved over the old ones and for the little money you have to pay...it's worth it to go that route instead. As far as the GH2, he feels it's just plain better.
Last edited:
shoot in higher than 25 fps ,30p is ok but more is even better for camcorder look ,50fps or 60fps ,interlaced or not it doesnt matter but should be on low shutter speed 1/50 for 50fps is ok so theres a lot of motion blur which makes the video look like video.
Then overexpose ,you can bump up bright areas in post but its better to overexpose on location.
Zoom quite a lot ,shoot close ups on wide end.
Basically make every mistake possible .
Then overexpose ,you can bump up bright areas in post but its better to overexpose on location.
Zoom quite a lot ,shoot close ups on wide end.
Basically make every mistake possible .
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
You should just direct a stage play.
I kid, I kid.
IMO, nothing is like real world. One has a smoother cinema look, one has a video look. I don't really associate one or the other with 'real life'. Technically the video would be closer to what we see, but it'll never be close enough to be compared to how we see.
Lliam Worthington
Active member
What he said...
Barry_Green
Moderator
1080/60i (or 720/60p) will give you that home-video looking-through-a-window "reality" look.
One characteristic of homemade videos is very deep DoF. A GH1 will have focusing issues, ie it will have a set focus point. From the sound of it you want something that looks (and sounds) like you tossed a camera into the hands of a 12 year old and let it roll. So my suggestions:
1) Shoot in 60i (or shoot in 24p and do heavy color correction)
2) put everything in auto
3) Perfect audio cues that say its a homemade movie, the small details like camera handling noise, you know, when you can literally hear the camera being moved around. Small cues like these really help the audiences accept what you are trying to tell them.
4) Set the iris to f/8 or higher for deep dof, unless you go with the handycam which then set iris to auto haha
1) Shoot in 60i (or shoot in 24p and do heavy color correction)
2) put everything in auto
3) Perfect audio cues that say its a homemade movie, the small details like camera handling noise, you know, when you can literally hear the camera being moved around. Small cues like these really help the audiences accept what you are trying to tell them.
4) Set the iris to f/8 or higher for deep dof, unless you go with the handycam which then set iris to auto haha
No color correction will change the underlying motion cadence of the frame rate. If you want the "live look" of home video, 24p isn't going to give you what you want no matter what you do with the colors.
I'd shoot 60p. It will give you video motion, but less of a headache than anything interlaced when you try to exhibit it or work with it. If you put it online you can get nasty and distracting interlacing. Likely the same when it's projected. And in a few instances, if things aren't handled correctly, when it's play back on HD TVs.
The only problem is, in narrative work, anything but 24p tends to have a low budget, low quality feel that may say more about the quality of the overall production (in the mind of the viewer) than where the footage is supposed to be from. In other words, it may look "not on purpose".
If you shoot blown out, shaky 24p with whatever the most videoish gamma setting is on your camera it might be a slightly distilled "found video look" that will still get what you are after but seem more "on purpose" and less like bad production value.
The only problem is, in narrative work, anything but 24p tends to have a low budget, low quality feel that may say more about the quality of the overall production (in the mind of the viewer) than where the footage is supposed to be from. In other words, it may look "not on purpose".
If you shoot blown out, shaky 24p with whatever the most videoish gamma setting is on your camera it might be a slightly distilled "found video look" that will still get what you are after but seem more "on purpose" and less like bad production value.
you might also check out this project
Mark Harris's the Lost Children
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?196949-THE-LOST-CHILDREN-A-FEATURE-FILM-by-Mark-Harris
A lot of footage in the film is supposed to be found and one of the problems that Mark faced was that almost everything, iPhone footage even, looks too good, so he wound up having to do a lot of degrading and fakery in post to make things look lost and found. Not sure where exactly in the thread he discusses this. you might start looking backwards from the end of the thread (if there's not a directory on the first page.)
Mark Harris's the Lost Children
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?196949-THE-LOST-CHILDREN-A-FEATURE-FILM-by-Mark-Harris
A lot of footage in the film is supposed to be found and one of the problems that Mark faced was that almost everything, iPhone footage even, looks too good, so he wound up having to do a lot of degrading and fakery in post to make things look lost and found. Not sure where exactly in the thread he discusses this. you might start looking backwards from the end of the thread (if there's not a directory on the first page.)