the video look? at DVinfo.net

Nate Fields · August 16th, 2006, 05:09 PM

i wonnder if you go to any film(not video) forum that any of them always talk about getting that video look. i know they dont but i thought it would be funny to speculate, like if i put it in the splice machine and a mini60i on i can get that video look.

Marcus Marchesseault · August 16th, 2006, 09:40 PM

I see movies where the "video look" is artificially created frequently. The video look has artificial scan lines, digital static overlay, and a flashing red "record" in the corner even when the video is not supposed to be a POV of the person with the camcorder. I don't remember watching any of my footage and seeing the "record" indicator overlayed onto my tape. I also don't remember seeing static through either my old Hi8 or my digital camera. I've seen some movies whose poor production quality makes their film look far worse than most of the instances of video from the users of this forum. That is why bad movies intentionally downgrade video - it might look as good as the film on their inexpertly-lit set.

At this point, I don't think most audience members could tell the difference between film and HD. Film still has some advantages, but between film and HD the real importance is the quality of the crew.

Roger Rosales · August 17th, 2006, 11:56 AM

I believe there's far too much emphasize on the "filml look".

We have cameras today that shoot 24p, but people are still struggling to get a more authentic look. It wont happen with these cams. I say, use what you have to the best of your and the cameras abilities.

Do you really think 90% of the moviegoers can really tell the difference of video or film? Do you really believe they even care?

The 10% that do are because they're either

a) movie buffs
b) filmmakers themselves
c) know someone that does know the difference and have gotten into discussions about.

But yeah, I see your point Nate and that would be pretty funny to see =D

-Roger

Tim Goldman · August 17th, 2006, 03:14 PM

well common really, people sat through the blair witch movie, and that was horrible (in both production and video quality). So i don't htink people really care . Only the techies make a big deal out of it, even the late great orson wells didn't care, his last project he was working on was a video project.

August 16th, 2006, 05:09 PM	#1
Nate Fields Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Markleville IN Posts: 58	the video look? i wonnder if you go to any film(not video) forum that any of them always talk about getting that video look. i know they dont but i thought it would be funny to speculate, like if i put it in the splice machine and a mini60i on i can get that video look.

August 17th, 2006, 03:14 PM	#4
Tim Goldman Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Marietta, GA Posts: 135	well common really, people sat through the blair witch movie, and that was horrible (in both production and video quality). So i don't htink people really care . Only the techies make a big deal out of it, even the late great orson wells didn't care, his last project he was working on was a video project. __________________ Wish I had something witty to say

August 16th, 2006, 09:40 PM	#2
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	I see movies where the "video look" is artificially created frequently. The video look has artificial scan lines, digital static overlay, and a flashing red "record" in the corner even when the video is not supposed to be a POV of the person with the camcorder. I don't remember watching any of my footage and seeing the "record" indicator overlayed onto my tape. I also don't remember seeing static through either my old Hi8 or my digital camera. I've seen some movies whose poor production quality makes their film look far worse than most of the instances of video from the users of this forum. That is why bad movies intentionally downgrade video - it might look as good as the film on their inexpertly-lit set. At this point, I don't think most audience members could tell the difference between film and HD. Film still has some advantages, but between film and HD the real importance is the quality of the crew.

August 17th, 2006, 11:56 AM	#3
Roger Rosales Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 254	I believe there's far too much emphasize on the "filml look". We have cameras today that shoot 24p, but people are still struggling to get a more authentic look. It wont happen with these cams. I say, use what you have to the best of your and the cameras abilities. Do you really think 90% of the moviegoers can really tell the difference of video or film? Do you really believe they even care? The 10% that do are because they're either a) movie buffs b) filmmakers themselves c) know someone that does know the difference and have gotten into discussions about. But yeah, I see your point Nate and that would be pretty funny to see =D -Roger