Film Look Cameras at DVinfo.net

Chris Evans · January 13th, 2006, 04:20 PM

Hi, would anyone be able to help me. What is the cheapest way to go about getting a camcoarder not necessarily High Defenition that will give me great Film looks. I have looked here

http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcp...ini35test2.php

and these are the types of shots i would like to achieve. But it is expensive and i couldnt afford this. I would like the same equipment as this, however my main problem is the lens cost's $ 7,455, id be dreaming. Is there an alternative way of achieving this with cheaper lens etc.

Thankyou very Much

Chris Evans

Robert Niemann · January 13th, 2006, 05:59 PM

I would recommend the JVC GY-HD100. The clips, you have seen, were shot with this camera.
Take a look at all the clips, that were posted here at DV Info Net and at DVXUser regarding not only the JVC, but also the Canon XL H1, Panasonic AG-HVX200 and Sony HVR-Z1, and then make your own decision.
But for me the choise is clear. Nate Weaver has already made some great and filmlike looking footage with the JVC, also Tim Dashwood, who provided some very usable scene files with cinelike gamma and cinelike colour matrix settings, and Stephen L. Noe posts nice footage too all the time. Just have a look at the JVC section.

Walter Graff · January 13th, 2006, 06:22 PM

Even easier, you can use any camera and apply great 24 frame effects like Nattress filters that are indistinguishable from in camera 24 frame. It can save you the expense of a new camera. Here are two local commercials I shot in regular video with a DVX and used Nattress filters to make it have a film-like 24 frame appearance:

http://www.bluesky-web.com/al1.mov

http://www.bluesky-web.com/zeropercent.mov

Glenn Chan · January 13th, 2006, 06:42 PM

I don't think you can communicate the difference between 60i and 24p on a progressively-scanning computer monitor (which can really only show 24p and 30p, but not 60i). You really need to watch the material on a CRT-based TV to really see the difference.

If you have FCP, just get the Nattress demo and see for yourself. In my opinion it's not a big difference (between 60i and 24p), but it is a difference. The whole 24p thing is vastly overrated in my opinion. Lighting will make a much bigger difference.

2- In my opinion again, the camera doesn't make too much of a difference. Check out the trailer for "the silencer" in the DV for the masses forum... shot on a Canon GL2. (Caveat: There are many other things going on in that movie clip, like the use of Magic Bullet Editor's [not that I would endorse the product, but it does dramatically alter the look].)

Matthew Greene · January 14th, 2006, 02:26 AM

My personal opinion is that what sells the film look in order are:

24P or 30P capture instead of 60i.

Crafting the shots and light (including shallow DOF and crafted camera moves).

Reducing electronic detail and adjusting gamma curves. Creative color correction

Chris Evans · January 14th, 2006, 02:29 AM

Thanks for the great reply guys, im goanna experiment with what you have said, and thanks for the footage example's.

Cheers

Chris Evans

John Hudson · February 9th, 2006, 02:18 PM

Matthew Greene - I agree 100 % with your take on this subject matter. The 24 cadence is number 1 on the checklist in my opinion.

Chris - Don't let anyone tell you different. Start with native 24 in camera. It is not overrated and it is most definately not the same thing using a deinterlace or filter program.

Glenn Chan - I am amazed that people still refer to 24p as overrated. The 24p (fps) cadence is the main ingredient to that 'mystical' filmmlook it seems most persons are after. Professional lighting and 60i is a soap opera. (I love Simon's SILENCER footage; but isn't that FRAME MODE in PAL LAND ?) And it most definatley does not look like 24p

How can you say 24p is overrated if someones goal is specifically the filmmlook ? How can you say it is not a big difference ? The difference is NIGHT and DAY.

Quote:

Even easier, you can use any camera and apply great 24 frame effects like Nattress filters that are indistinguishable from in camera 24 frame

I think this is misinformation that confuses people and leads them astray. Nothing could be farther from the truth that this statement. Doesn't using a deinterlace program reduce your resultion practically in half (you know this mang) ?

And that footage you submitted with 'Regular' 60i just doesn't compare to native progressive. Sorry to burst your bubble on this one. Ya know, the filters do make it look better, but the blur is a much diffferent effect thaan the actual progressive framerate capture.

Meryem Ersoz · February 9th, 2006, 02:40 PM

seems like the absolute cheapest way currently to get a good in-camera non-high-def 24p film look is a used DVX-100. this is the camera which put 24p on the map, after all. you can pick these up fairly inexpensively these days.

Mathieu Ghekiere · February 9th, 2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn Chan

In my opinion again, the camera doesn't make too much of a difference. Check out the trailer for "the silencer" in the DV for the masses forum... shot on a Canon GL2. (Caveat: There are many other things going on in that movie clip, like the use of Magic Bullet Editor's [not that I would endorse the product, but it does dramatically alter the look].)

I think it was even a GL1 :-)!!

Rob Lohman · February 9th, 2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Hudson

Doesn't using a deinterlace program reduce your resultion practically in half (you know this mang) ?

Those days are far behind us. In the absolute worst case that might happen,
but that kind of software has gone through tremendous quality improvements.

They will probably never match the real deal, but that is not to say such software
is unusable or throws away half your resolution, not anymore.

Andrew Todd · February 9th, 2006, 04:33 PM

the p+s technik in that link you gave is a depth of field (35mm) adapter. check out the alternative imgaing forum. i own the letus35 and use it with my xl1s. they let you use a 35mm slr still lens and preserve the same picture (dof, focal length, etc...) you can get these for really cheap

The "film look" on that page is mostly because of the adapter.. not the camera. my xl1s gets the same film (depth of field) effect with my letus.

John Hudson · February 9th, 2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Lohman

but that is not to say such software
is unusable or throws away have your resolution, not anymore.

I would never say it was a throwaway or unusable. It has it's place for those that settle.

(Muahahahhahah)

Mike Marriage · February 9th, 2006, 04:59 PM

Chris,

What is your budget?

If the most important aspect for you is "filmlook" meaning progressive scan, get a camera that will record it in camera if you can afford it. Ideally something like the XL2, DVX100 or JVC HD100. If you budget is lower, a second hand GL1 is a lovely camera and has the "progressive like" frame mode. With the release of the HVX, I'm sure there are going to be a lot of 2nd hand DVXs coming on the market, so you may be able to grab a bargain.

You can add the effect in post but why waste time rendering and loosing a little quality if you don't have to.

It is just my opinion but in general, a £1000 camera combined with £1000 of lights will give better results than a £2000 camera alone. Of course you need to know how to use them as well. :)

Andrew Todd · February 9th, 2006, 05:12 PM

the original post was about how he wanted an image like the ones in the link he posted... 35mm adapter is your answer!!!! thats what the product on that page is.. get a letus or an sg35 etc...

Charles Papert · February 9th, 2006, 05:22 PM

I think you are probably right Andrew. Chris, is it purely the depth-of-field characteristic you are referring to? i.e. in my article I show the same shot with and without the Mini35, demonstrating the shallow depth of field...? Also wondering what is the $7445 lens you are referring to--perhaps you mean the Mini35 adaptor itself (which is closer to $10K all in).

January 13th, 2006, 04:20 PM	#1
Chris Evans Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 26	Film Look Cameras Hi, would anyone be able to help me. What is the cheapest way to go about getting a camcoarder not necessarily High Defenition that will give me great Film looks. I have looked here http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcp...ini35test2.php and these are the types of shots i would like to achieve. But it is expensive and i couldnt afford this. I would like the same equipment as this, however my main problem is the lens cost's $ 7,455, id be dreaming. Is there an alternative way of achieving this with cheaper lens etc. Thankyou very Much Chris Evans

February 9th, 2006, 04:33 PM	#11
Andrew Todd Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Saint John, CANADA Posts: 633	the p+s technik in that link you gave is a depth of field (35mm) adapter. check out the alternative imgaing forum. i own the letus35 and use it with my xl1s. they let you use a 35mm slr still lens and preserve the same picture (dof, focal length, etc...) you can get these for really cheap The "film look" on that page is mostly because of the adapter.. not the camera. my xl1s gets the same film (depth of field) effect with my letus. __________________ video : xl2 / letus35xl / bogen 503 photo- canon 1dmkII - bronica etrsi

February 9th, 2006, 05:12 PM	#14
Andrew Todd Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Saint John, CANADA Posts: 633	the original post was about how he wanted an image like the ones in the link he posted... 35mm adapter is your answer!!!! thats what the product on that page is.. get a letus or an sg35 etc... __________________ video : xl2 / letus35xl / bogen 503 photo- canon 1dmkII - bronica etrsi

February 9th, 2006, 05:22 PM	#15
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	I think you are probably right Andrew. Chris, is it purely the depth-of-field characteristic you are referring to? i.e. in my article I show the same shot with and without the Mini35, demonstrating the shallow depth of field...? Also wondering what is the $7445 lens you are referring to--perhaps you mean the Mini35 adaptor itself (which is closer to $10K all in). __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

January 13th, 2006, 05:59 PM	#2
Robert Niemann Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany Posts: 109	I would recommend the JVC GY-HD100. The clips, you have seen, were shot with this camera. Take a look at all the clips, that were posted here at DV Info Net and at DVXUser regarding not only the JVC, but also the Canon XL H1, Panasonic AG-HVX200 and Sony HVR-Z1, and then make your own decision. But for me the choise is clear. Nate Weaver has already made some great and filmlike looking footage with the JVC, also Tim Dashwood, who provided some very usable scene files with cinelike gamma and cinelike colour matrix settings, and Stephen L. Noe posts nice footage too all the time. Just have a look at the JVC section.

January 13th, 2006, 06:22 PM	#3
Walter Graff Hellgate Pictures, Inc. Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: New York, NY Posts: 124	Even easier, you can use any camera and apply great 24 frame effects like Nattress filters that are indistinguishable from in camera 24 frame. It can save you the expense of a new camera. Here are two local commercials I shot in regular video with a DVX and used Nattress filters to make it have a film-like 24 frame appearance: http://www.bluesky-web.com/al1.mov http://www.bluesky-web.com/zeropercent.mov

January 13th, 2006, 06:42 PM	#4
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	I don't think you can communicate the difference between 60i and 24p on a progressively-scanning computer monitor (which can really only show 24p and 30p, but not 60i). You really need to watch the material on a CRT-based TV to really see the difference. If you have FCP, just get the Nattress demo and see for yourself. In my opinion it's not a big difference (between 60i and 24p), but it is a difference. The whole 24p thing is vastly overrated in my opinion. Lighting will make a much bigger difference. 2- In my opinion again, the camera doesn't make too much of a difference. Check out the trailer for "the silencer" in the DV for the masses forum... shot on a Canon GL2. (Caveat: There are many other things going on in that movie clip, like the use of Magic Bullet Editor's [not that I would endorse the product, but it does dramatically alter the look].)

January 14th, 2006, 02:26 AM	#5
Matthew Greene Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV / Branson, MO Posts: 63	My personal opinion is that what sells the film look in order are: 24P or 30P capture instead of 60i. Crafting the shots and light (including shallow DOF and crafted camera moves). Reducing electronic detail and adjusting gamma curves. Creative color correction

January 14th, 2006, 02:29 AM	#6
Chris Evans Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 26	Thanks for the great reply guys, im goanna experiment with what you have said, and thanks for the footage example's. Cheers Chris Evans

February 9th, 2006, 02:40 PM	#8
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	seems like the absolute cheapest way currently to get a good in-camera non-high-def 24p film look is a used DVX-100. this is the camera which put 24p on the map, after all. you can pick these up fairly inexpensively these days.

February 9th, 2006, 04:59 PM	#13
Mike Marriage Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: NE of London, England Posts: 788	Chris, What is your budget? If the most important aspect for you is "filmlook" meaning progressive scan, get a camera that will record it in camera if you can afford it. Ideally something like the XL2, DVX100 or JVC HD100. If you budget is lower, a second hand GL1 is a lovely camera and has the "progressive like" frame mode. With the release of the HVX, I'm sure there are going to be a lot of 2nd hand DVXs coming on the market, so you may be able to grab a bargain. You can add the effect in post but why waste time rendering and loosing a little quality if you don't have to. It is just my opinion but in general, a £1000 camera combined with £1000 of lights will give better results than a £2000 camera alone. Of course you need to know how to use them as well. :)