WANTED: Most "film look" bang for the buck?

[Bruce Foreman]

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

I myself am not wild for 24p, and have greater interest in developing good video imagery than pursuit of making video look like something else. I have zero patience for dust, grain and scratches plugins, for example.

I'm in full agreement with all Seth says here and in the rest of his post. I was never in motion picture film at a professional level, I used a fair amount of 8mm (mostly Kodachrome) and some 16mm. Edited by splicing film (the only way in those days). When I, and others like me, got dust, excessive film grain (using stock other than Kodachrome), and film scratches, that caused the utterance of expletives best deleted.

I have no patience whatsoever for the mindless application of "plug ins" to emulate the above FAULTS and especially the "light struck" look we could get on the tail end of film rolls (or when some idiot opened the camera).

[Bruce Foreman]

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Cox

I'm glad no-one's gone on about it so can I just say how much I've grown to hate shallow DoF? It's become like the auto-tune of video.

You can "dislike" it, but don't cast it aside. Selective focus (shallow zone of acceptable focus or shallow DOF) is a valid tool for isolating a subject from potentially distracting elements in the scene. For concentrating attention on the subject when the film maker specifically wants the viewer to stay focused on the main subject.

Yes, it has become quite overused since those with no grounding in basic photography have siezed on it for it's look and the belief that that one technique can make their project look "cinematic".

YOU don't have to "overuse" it, but my advice is that you don't fail to use it when appropriate.

(I get pretty long on advice sometimes)