There's certainly something to be said for Jon's general comment (I'm interpolating) that the 'way' something is shot can have a huge impact on whether it is percieved to be film or video.

I remember a large group of DVinfo.net readers thinking that the TV series, '24' had obviously been shot on high-def video, when in fact, this series is shot on Panavision 35mm cameras -- probably the most 'filmiest' of film cameras.

However, the show is almost exclusively handheld with a lot of fast zooms for emphasis rather than the more stable tracking/dollying. This seems to say 'video' to some folks.

However, the show also uses very short DOF and one can see the characteristic film highlights (both the purity of the color and the way they are 'approached'). No way this can be mistaken for video.

Fun discussion, but I was recently reminded that it doesn't matter much after all. Check out the widely-released (in theaters and subsequently on DVD) film, 'Pieces of April' which was shot on a PD-150.

It's obviously video. But once the story grabbed me, I stopped thinking about it. I just 'watched'. It didn't matter what it was shot on. We all worry too much about whether the things we shoot look like film -- we should spend more time getting a good story and good performances. :)

I quite generally agree with Jon and Jonathan. Over saturated, soft images with bad highlight handling scream video to me. Something about the way video handles extreme saturation. Beats me. To me it seems like video handles the desaturated look much better than saturated (probably due to it's color space and compression). One thing in particular always says "video" and that's bad skin tones. Too yellow, too warm etc. Always a dead give away that someone was trying too hard to make video look filmish.

As for format: quite right the format isn't nearly as important as the story. Still, once you have a good story, shooting on a good format is next in line. You can't get really good results with only one.

<<<--
Ive done a number of things to my videos and have gotten pretty close to the film look (especially with the XL2) and i think the depth is the only thing still screaming video to me.
-->>>

Hello Jon,

I don't get it ??

I use XL1s/XL2s, and I find that the DOF is workable. I can use selective focus quite effectively, and rack focus with room to spare, so what am I missing?

Thanks!

<<<-- Originally posted by Jonathon Wilson :
However, the show is almost exclusively handheld with a lot of fast zooms for emphasis rather than the more stable tracking/dollying. This seems to say 'video' to some folks.
-->>>

Hello Jonathon,

I don't agree about the hand held shots at all. I have been watching with a fair degree of scrutiny, and unless you know something that I don't, a lot of those "handheld shots" are actually mounted and moved to look Handheld Like.

This is my guess anyway. I couldn't move that accurately handheld (nor any of my DPs, or any of the DPs that I know of).

Do you have any inside info??

Thanks :-)

Quite a bit of production information ("24") in this article in ASC:

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/feb04/cover/page2.html

(I can't seem to get back to the first page but there's lots of info on the 2nd and 3rd).

... and yes -- you're right on the handheld... looks like most of those 'shaky' shots are simulated on a lockdown... although the article does hint at some handholding in the series.

My comment was really more aimed at the fast zooms... seems like only 4-5 years ago, I was reading multiple articles suggesting that you "shouldn't use zooms... it will make your film look amateurish" Nowadays, the fast zoom has certainly come back into vogue.

Any comments on The SunDowning (http://gumspirits.com/sundowningtrailer.html)?

to zoom? or not to zoom! That!.... is the question...
fashion comes and goes. good pictures are worth watching again and again..... why?
ANYTHING that will CRY for attention like ZOOM, unnecessary/rough camera move, bad framing, editing or SOUND,... (list is long) will DISTRACT from the story and break the "spell":
" oh.. nice crane there" "uhh that was a long take, poor steadicam guy".... Zoom (during a take) is distractive no matter what.
Film (as a medium) is less and less used. The rules of a "quality production" should not go with it only because "tape is cheap" and we can we-we on the screen all we like for $8/1h of "footage".

on a general note here:
It looks like the more attention (and respect) one pays to a picture (framing, camera moves (should I say smooth unless required by action), color settings, etc) the more attention one's picture gets. Leave aside story (which should grab one's interest to begin with) but if it is not nicely told is going to loose audience.
When I see handheld going "dutch" on TV while someone talks I turn off the TV. Not worth watching. If "they" do not respect the host, why should I?
The more are making the less are watching. over 1000 channels? Overwhelming worthless offer. But if it is out there, someone will stumble across that channel for a minute.......
Realism or pessimism? Does not realism lead the way to pessimism?
Oh well.... just my 2c on the issue.

<<--I use XL1s/XL2s, and I find that the DOF is workable. I can use selective focus quite effectively, and rack focus with room to spare, so what am I missing?

I do alot of photography with 35mm slr's hence im used to a lot of depth that even with the longest lense and the aperature open all the way, the XL2 still wont match. I've done alot of rack focusing and selective focusing as well, but it just doesnt compare with what you can do with 35mm, which is what we're trying to replicate.

So when i look at a shot on one of my videos and notice that the background is still reasonably in focus despite my use of longer lenses and wide aperature.

This is what i was getting at.

And i agree entirely with Jonathan about the story being more important than the format. It's still nice when you tell people you shot it on video and they flip out.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jonathon Wilson : ... and yes -- you're right on the handheld... looks like most of those 'shaky' shots are simulated on a lockdown... although the article does hint at some handholding in the series.

My comment was really more aimed at the fast zooms... seems like only 4-5 years ago, I was reading multiple articles suggesting that you "shouldn't use zooms... it will make your film look amateurish" Nowadays, the fast zoom has certainly come back into vogue. -->>>

Hello, and thanks for the link!

I like zooms, but my favorite technique is a very, very slow zoom, so that it is nearly undetectable, but psychologically effective.

Fast zooms and camera movement can be a character, or be the critical ingredient to make the scenes point.

I am fascinated by the work going on today !!!

You guys are great !

<<<-- Originally posted by Jon Laing : <<--I use XL1s/XL2s, and I find that the DOF is workable. I can use selective focus quite effectively, and rack focus with room to spare, so what am I missing?

I do alot of photography with 35mm slr's hence im used to a lot of depth that even with the longest lense and the aperature open all the way, the XL2 still wont match. I've done alot of rack focusing and selective focusing as well, but it just doesnt compare with what you can do with 35mm, which is what we're trying to replicate.

So when i look at a shot on one of my videos and notice that the background is still reasonably in focus despite my use of longer lenses and wide aperature.

This is what i was getting at.

And i agree entirely with Jonathan about the story being more important than the format. It's still nice when you tell people you shot it on video and they flip out. -->>>

I hear you, I was a still photographer many, many moons ago. I see your point, I can get an out of focus background, but can I get the background lights to enlarge and go patel like 35mm... it's been a while....

Thanks !!