Anyone have any downloadable "film looked" video they've done (In mpg2 or such)

[Aaron Koolen]

I've often taken bits of footage I've done and tried to do the "film look" steps that people say to do in post to see how good I can get it looking. Although the footage looks nice on my computer screen, whenever it goes to TV, well it still looks like crappy old video. I'm not after a 35mm with $50 million production budget look but I just can't work out how to remove some of that "videoness". I just don't know what the specifics are that are causing it with my pieces, either as I'm not educated enough on the subject. Not enough colour correction? Bad acqusition (lighting)? Not deinterlaced? Dunno.

Has anyone got some video that they've shot with some prosumer type cam, that they've "film looked" (Yukky term I know) that looks good on TV and that can be downloaded at a good enough res for me to play on a TV and see it?


Aaron

[Dennis Hingsberg]

I have a trailer for a short film "Sophie" that was shot with the Sony VX1000 and "film looked" in post. While the trailer is online in a low resolution format, I'll see if I can't upload a full 720x480 MPG2 version for you. You can also read this www.starcentral.ca/filmlook.htm and see if it doesn't explain how "film look" is achieved.

In the meantime, what prosumer camera are you using? Usually the best results are obtained with a 3CCD camera. Also, what software are you using for your film look? If you are going to TV simply deinterlacing using your editing software is not recommended. Instead try magic bullet, cinelook, cinemotion or dvfilm maker to name a few.

As for coloring try adjusting your gamma from 1.0 to 1.2 or try adjusting your brightness/contrast setting then tweak your color saturation and hue a tad.

[Aaron Koolen]

Hi Dennis, that would be great if I could see that footage.

I use Vegas and shoot on a Canon Xm2. Vegas has all the CC, level adjust and everything I need. Unfortunately I haven't shot on frame mode yet to see how much difference that makes and it would save the deinterlacing. I tried using DVFilmmaker to deinterlace and didn;t notice much difference in the finished product. Although I was rushing to finish my LadyX episode and it was about 5 in the morning ;)

It's hard for me to describe what's wrong which makes it hard to fix of course. I alter colour curves, gamma, brightness etc etc etc but no matter how cool it looks on my computer monitor, it looks naff on TV. Now I know that when I've shot I haven't had the most controlled and perfect conditions, but I would have thought I could have got something that didn't look like a home video on my TV with a bit of effort in post production.

Will check out that link too.

Cheers
Aaron

[Joe Ryan]

hi aaron, did you try using any filters on the camera, tiffen soft fx, that sort of thing?

[Aaron Koolen]

Joe, no I haven't tried that. I was of the thinking like others, to shoot clean and do that in post. But no luck so far.

I know it's just my inexperience - I have no doubt some people can get some really nice stuff on prosumer gear. It's just getting a bit frustrating, compounded by the fact I'm on a deadline for LadyX (I.e. about a day left) having worked on it through the night and need to sleep but can't cause I'm at work ;)


Maybe if I just close my office door.....

Cheers
Aaron

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Do you have anything available online we could see, even if at a low resolution and only a couple of seconds?

And now for a really important question: How does the footage of your camera played directly to TV compare to just regular footage edited with your system and then put out to TV? If you have any kind of difference here, then your problem is not even "film look" related. It could be field settings, field order (odd vs even), codec, compressor, firewire, etc.. .

I also find it odd that your footage when run through DV film does not look any different as it should instantly look smoother and "slowed" down when compared to regular video.

Lastly I wouldn't worry about frame mode just yet. It sounds like the problem could be elsewhere. It would really help to see some of your footage, or even a few frames exported to JPG.

[Joe Ryan]

aaron, for what it's worth good luck, and i look forward to seeing your episode. you're obviously very busy right now so i'm gonna ask denis this question ( or whomever else is interested in sharing some wisdom with someone brandnew ( but learning fast, thanks to this board, and everyone on it) to dv ) shooting clean, advantages?

[Aaron Koolen]

Hi Dennis, sorry I don't have anything online and I'm not sure I'm allowed to prerelease any of the Lady X stuff. I did, in the end manage to get DVFilmmaker to do something with my footage and it does make a lot of difference. Not the best but did remove a lot of that crappy look. The softness and the different movement due to 25fps is very noticeable. I've never actually qualitively seen the difference before but it's quite a lot. Of course your video looks all soft but I guess that's the key ;)


I will have a little play wth DVFilmmaker and if it's good on the rest, buy it. It seems though that a lot of these deinterlacers only adjust moving parts of the screenn. Which can lead to some stuff staying sharp and other stuff softening. And then when I object stops it jumps into sharpness. Will have a fiddle.

Found that virtualdub has filters for deinterlacing, so I'll try those too cause they are free :)


Cheers
Aaron

[Jami Jokinen]

<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Koolen : , compounded by the fact I'm on a deadline for LadyX (I.e. about a day left) having worked on it through the night and need to sleep but can't cause I'm at work ;)
-->>>

This sounds so familiar. You get my sympathy, Aaron. I wish you all the best.

(I didn't sleep practically at all for over a week before our episode (21 and 22). )

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Aaron - just a note that "Sophie" on my site was shot with a NTSC VX1000 3CCD 60i/30fps with no filters on the lens. Post effects used were: color correction, brightness/contrast, hue & saturation & cinemotion (as opposed to cinelook) using After Effects.

You also hit the nail on the head! A good deinterlacer will only fix the areas that have movement or "jaggy's" which you should stay away from built in deinterlacers.

Joe - As for shooting clean advantages, for me it simply leaves you with the most options in post depending on what look you're after. A person like me believes more in shooting 50i or 60i native and getting a progressive or film look in post, and probably would never shoot to tape in 24P - unless you're 101% sure this is what you need. This is also why the DVX100 does not appeal to me. Basically shooting clean is the most versatile but has its downsides too - you will need good software, computing power and knowledge on how to manipulate your images. Read this thread for some interesting perspectives: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...967#post112967


On a last note, I'm shooting a short film in a couple of weeks titled Sous Le Jour, and here's a link to my site where some screen shots were posted of the test footage I shot with the mini 35 on location in Toronto if anyone is interested in checking it out: www.starcentral.ca/mini35rig.htm.

I'd love to hear what you guys think.

[Graeme Nattress]

Denis - just looking through your web site and spotted a couple of things on the PAL v NTSC page.... NTSC DV is 4:1:1 not 4:2:0 and PAL is 4:2:0 not 4:0:0 ( which would make PAL black and white...)

I'd also debate that 4:1:1 is better than 4:2:0 because it allows for easier and more successful up-rezzing. Technically, they're both recording 1 in 4 colour samples, but in a different pattern, so I don't think you can say that PAL is better in this regard.

And I don't know where the PAL being a closer to 16:9 aspect comes from.... That's an utterly bizarre statement.

However, PAL transferred to film generally looks much nicer than NTSC in the tests I've seen - higher resolution and no need for motion interpolation (just slow it down a touch) to get it onto film at 24fps.

And I also agree about shooting 60i NTSC for the utmost flexibility. BTW I used to be PAL in England, and I'm now NTSC in Canada, so I've lived and worked extensively with both formats - and hate them both for different reasons!

Graeme

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Graeme - Thank you for pointing out the mistakes on the color sampling rate, I'll have them corrected.

I think where PAL being closer to 16:9 came from was in trying to say that 16:9 is pretty close in shape to the aspect ratio used for cinema projection in Europe ie. 1.66:1 which your right has nothing to do with PAL.

It's great to hear you've worked with both formats, I just recently started working with PAL on the mini35 here in Canada but have kept my NTSC gear as well.

I checked out your site and based on your solid and technical knowledge in both formats, would you agree or disagree that the PAL is a more versitile format over NTSC for switching standards and going to 24fps film?

[Graeme Nattress]

PAL will go to film and NTSC without throwing away any temporal information. PAL to NTSC does throw away some vertical resolution though. NTSC has to have frames removed to go to film or PAL.

NTSC 60i and PAL50i are pretty much the easiest formats to transfer around. Quantel preach doing everything at 24p as it converts to PAL and NTSC easy.

Basically, I'd say everything is pretty good bar NTSC 30p which is a dog to convert to anything else...

But on balance, I prefer PAL's frame rate, but with DV I prefer 4:1:1 over 4:2:0 because I find it easier to use code to up-rez it to a higher quality in post.

Also, most of the worst problems with NTSC (the never twice the same colour bit) don't happen unless you try to broadcast it. As a digital medium it's colour is as perfect as PALs.

Graeme

[Aaron Koolen]

To be honest, playing around I've made the deinterlacer work on all the fooatage, not just the moving bits. Where it's sharp tend to give it more of that video look, but if it blurs everything a little, it looks better on the TV.

I'll keep playing a little, but I have to render today so I can send it off!


Thanks for the help
Aaron

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Thanks Graeme - what you've said is encouraging then considering I just invested in the PAL XL1SE.

I haven't had time to read through your entire website, but does your PAL -> NTSC software work on anything for the Windows platform? I would really like to try it out with my PAL footage and then watch it on NTSC TV.

I haven't purchased any PAL -> NTSC software yet but until meeting you was only aware of Atlantis by DVfilm.

Good luck Aaron - I'm sure your footage will look great!