If you shoot frame mode (eg. canon's) you can 1:1 the progressive frames. Only if you shoot PAL and can live with mucking with the audio to adjust for the difference in frame rates.
Basically, not a clean operation.

Still, according to the senior lab technician at the place I work (Rainmaker Digital Pictures), it works out best if you shoot 60i with 1/60 shutter speed, as the machines for translating use the 60 time slices per second to rebuild 24p (and do an excellent job I might add). He also advises to NOT use frame mode when shooting, as there is not enough time slices to rebuild 24p. If you really want the best footage to put to film, shoot 24p native (eg sony FW900 or PanaDVX100) or shoot 60i. Now, if you just have coverage that you need without audio, then by all means, you can 1:1 30fps photography. I've done it before, mainly when I know I don't need audio sync and want a fast shutter speed.

If you can find it, goto the newstand and pick up the issue of RES with Steven Soderberg on the cover. In there is a detailed description of all the hassles of dealing with PAL footage with audio resync'd to 24p. If I recall correctly, FCP and Cinema Tools required some customization by Apple to deal with it. You'd figure there'd be a preset for doing this sort of thing. Guess they'll have that out later. ;)

Adrian

at the risk of moving away from the original topic...
 

What you call 'not a clean operation' (I'm guessing you're talking about the time-stretch of the audio to accomodate the transfer from 25 to 24 fps and vice versa, is a standard procedure in PAL country.

EVERY motion picture that ends up being broadcast in PAL or on a PAL DVD is sped up from 24 to 25 fps, processing the audio to the same speed, without a change in pitch.

I don't know why this wouldn't be a clean operation. For people using PAL equipment, the transfer to film would be quite straightforward. No need to edit at 24fps, just do everthing at 25 fps and in the lab they'll take care of the transfer. As a matter of fact if you do bring a 50i tape to the lab, they'll de-interlace it to 25p anyway, before transfer.

The advantage is that there's no need to tamper with the fields, introducing 2to3 or 3to2 pulldown.

Not that I'm advocating shooting PAL in an NTSC world. For most people that would probably be very inconvenient. For NTSC transfer to film, most labs prefer 60i.

Bar3nd

... which is why the PAL version of that new Panasonic 24p camera will only shoot 25p.

Bar3nd

The word 'film', has many meanings, but the word derives from a 'thin layer of material'. Now that in the common conversation we mean 'motion picture' when we say film, means we've pretty much hijacked the word from it's original meaning. And I don't see a problem in having that meaning evolve to accomodate for new technologies.

As a matter of fact, the carrier that contains the magnetic material on DV tapes could be called 'film' also :-)

Bar3nd

If a production is shot on video, transferred to film and distributed to movie theaters, why would it not be a "film." Or if it's shot on film and goes straight to video distribution only... when would it stop being a film.

The term "film" has transcended its technical definition to encompass visual storytelling by a variety of media, a lot of it electronic these days. Besides, as Barend correctly points out, tape itself is -- technically speaking -- a type of film. There's no chemical emulsion involved, but it's still film. It's all motion pictures no matter how you slice it. The general public, the people who are your potential audience, certainly aren't going to argue about it. And that's all that counts.

The question wether or not to use the word film or video is a matter of linguistics. To quote the online Merriam-Websters dictionary :

Main Entry: 1film
Pronunciation: 'film, Southern also 'fi(&)m
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English filme, from Old English filmen; akin to Greek pelma sole of the foot, Old English fell skin -- more at FELL
Date: before 12th century
1 a : a thin skin or membranous covering : PELLICLE b : an abnormal growth on or in the eye
2 : a thin covering or coating <a film of ice>
3 a : an exceedingly thin layer : LAMINA b (1) : a thin flexible transparent sheet (as of plastic) used especially as a wrapping (2) : such a sheet of cellulose acetate or nitrocellulose coated with a radiation-sensitive emulsion for taking photographs
4 : MOTION PICTURE

Note that it didn't say "MOTION PICTURE produced with photographic process on thin sheet of plastic coated with either silver-nitrates or other photosensitive materials".

The point is that the word has changed it's original meaning from a motion picture made with film cameras, into any motion picture wether shot with video, digital or film cameras.

I also noted that most film festivals accept any source material, and you don't see many "Video festivals" out there.

So is it disrespectful to the media to call your little short story "a film about ... " when it's shot with a Xl1-s or PD100 or whatever? Who cares about the media! It's the CONTENT that makes the story, not the media on which it is produced. So i'm more upset if i see a bad movie made with film than a good one made with video. Mostly because it's a waste of good film stock :)

If you want to clamp down on one word, then you are basically engaging into an attempt to define something that no one really cares abotu defining. When does it become a "film"? Is it shot with film cameras? Ok. if you change the film magazine into a digital CCD instead. So everything is 35 mm film camera up onto the actual photographic process? Or if you scan the film and run it through a telecine process since you want to edit it on HD? Is it still film since you now have reduced the photographic information into a limited digital variant no different than if it was captured from CCD. Or do you perhaps have to splice and cut it the "old style" for it to be a true film? A practise which is probably only done in schools today. I know not one production that are going for a boxoffice release that are spliced & cut.

In the end, the person who tells his mates "Hey guys, u wanna go see a film/movie/flick/roll tonight?" won't really care wether or not it's shot on video, telecined, shot on film, or shot on toiletpaper for that matter. He's there to see a story.. not what it was made with.


/Henrik

I agree that most people don't care what a movie is made with necessarily, but most DO care if it looks good or not. And from what I have seen so far, MiniDV does not look good blown up to film and shown on a big screen. I'd rather watch it on a TV... it'd be less distracting for me. In fact there is some movie called "In Praise of Love" that has a lot of video junk in it, and it is so bad that you can see the white halos around contrasty parts of the image due to the sharpness being cranked sky high. It was made by some Jean-Luc Goddard guy (he is supposed to be great or something) but he sure is an awful videomaker. Half of the movie was shot on film I believe (have not seen it).

Shot on DV (speaking of terminology, we'll at least get it right: "Mini DV" is the size of a cassette shell, *not* a format -- the format is DV25, or DV at a bandwidth of 25 megabits per second) -- these were all shot on DV25 -- and where you can see them:

24 Hour Party People (2002 Michael Winterbottom) (35mm & DV mixed) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0274309 see also http://www.au-cinema.com/24-Hour-Party-People.htm -- in theaters, coming to DVD

Anniversary Party (2001 Jennifer Jason Leigh) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0254099 -- on DVD at Amazon

Bamboozled (2000 Spike Lee) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0215545 -- on DVD at Amazon

Cicadas (2000 Kat Candler) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0212873 -- at Dallas Fim Festival, see Film Threat: http://www.filmthreat.com/News.asp?Id=979

Chuck & Buck (2002 Miguel Arteta) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0200530 -- on DVD at Amazon

The Cruise (1998 Bennet Miller) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0150230 -- on VHS at Amazon

Gaza Strip http://www.littleredbutton.com/gaza/ -- now in festival circuit

An Intimate Friendship (2000 Angela Evers Hughey) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0212667 -- on DVD at Amazon

Julien Donkey-Boy (1999 Harmony Korine) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0192194 -- on DVD at Amazon

Split Decision (2001 Marcy Garriott) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0254789 -- direct from http://www.frif.com/new2000/split2.html

Tadpole (2002 Gary Winick) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0271219 -- on DVD at Amazon

Tape (2001 Richard Linklater) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0275719 -- on DVD at Amazon

Timecode (2000 Mike Figgis) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0220100 -- on DVD at Amazon

Waiting (2000 Patrick Hasson) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0270059 -- on DVD at Amazon

Chris. Superb list m8! But isn't Chelsea Walls shot on video aswell? I really liked that movie.

Henrik: << But isn't Chelsea Walls shot on video as well? >>

D'oh!! Yes, on DV.

Chelsea Walls (2001 Ethan Hawke) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0226935 -- on DVD at Amazon

Well, that makes fifteen. Sure would like to see somebody else bring this up to twenty.

Like it or not, the meaning of words are changing. Language is not a static thing. It changes with the times. New words are added and words become archaic and even deleted. We live in an exciting time with many new words being added and meanings of old words changing. Embrace the change, rather than being stuck in the past. Except things that you can not change and learn to move on.

Jeff

The topic of the thread, filmlook vs. professional look?

ok. lets look at this in TWO different areas (that has been mixed up completely during this thread).

1. End product distributed in video resolution...

There has been a lot of discussion of what makes it look like film and video. And the ONLY part that i can see that makes any difference whatsoever is the progressive vs interlaced part. With true progressive cameras (24P) you get a bit more information than if you convert interlaced material. The 25p/24p framerate also gives a slight "strobing" effect that many connects with film.

The way to achieve this with video source is to either shoot it progressive or run a de-interlacer (proper de-interlacer, fieldskit/magic bullet) on it.

As for colour correction so it "looks" like film, this is a misconception imho. Its a matter of setting a visual style of the footage which involves colour correcting, doing white blooms (or black blooms) and generally making the footage look like the DP/Director intended. This has nothing whatsoever to do with film or not film. Its all about what visual style is intended. The tools here can be anything that affects the colours & luminance of the image. Recently it has been popular to have a colder, desaturated feeling to the image, but this "fashion" in images change all the time.

2. End result blown up to film stock...

The only main difference here is the resolution. It's ideal to shoot on HD or as near HD as possible,just because the end resolution will be nicer than if shot on DV. But this is a matter of 1) budget and 2) personal preferences. It is perfectly possible to blow up video material to film, but obviously you will get it grainy and not as sharp as a higher def format would be.

Some additional points that is often brought up:

"Lighting it to make it look like film..." - Now this i don't understand. Having "good" lighting is again a matter of conveying the mood and the message of the scene/subject you are filming. Why would that be different between film & video. The only thing that IS different is the strength of the light you may need, not its placement or how it luminates the subject.

"You get more colours with film... "- True to a degree. You DO have more information stored in the photographic process. But if you want to keep that information when editing the materials you need to work with at least 48 bit graphics. And not many systems handle this massive ammount of data today. And if you are going to video for end result, you can't keep the data anyway.

Ok. these are my very personal opinions re. filmlook vs. professional look. Maybe you agree, maybe you disagree. Its still my personal opinions :)

<<<-- Originally posted by Good Dog : When people say "light it to make it look like film" they are talking about "traditional" lighting as used in major motion pictures--whatever that might be. -->>>

Yepp. thats what i figured aswell, and my point is that this is not a matter of "lighting like film" it's a matter of doing the job proper imho. If the scene requires strange lighting (such as totally flat lighting) then by all means it should be done. But what i was objecting to was the idea that there are any magic lighting techniques that will make your video look like it was shot on 35 mm. It's a step towards being too focused on the technical details so you loose track of the story.

In one of Stephen's earlier posts in this thread, he said, "Consider the deep focus techniques of Gregg Toland. He had to use some tricks given his lenses and stocks, but the huge DoF certainly does not make Citizen Kane look like video or "unprofessional"."

(By-the-way, not all of the deep depth of field achieved in "Citizen Kane" was done in-camera. Some shots with the incredible depth were created optically, i.e., mattes.)

At any rate, I've often wonder about this. The depth of field in miniDV is often sited as one of its "failings." I've read others' statements declaring, "If it has a deep depth of field, I know it's video!" Yet I have read more articles in American Cinematographer than I count where the DP did double flips and stood on his head in order to increase the depth of field in certain situations. Now that we have it, we're adding six inches of ND filters on the end of our lenses in order to reduce the depth of field.

Strange beast, the human animal. There's no pleasing him!

Henrik: << "Lighting it to make it look like film..." - Now this i don't understand. Having "good" lighting is again a matter of conveying the mood and the message of the scene/subject you are filming. Why would that be different between film & video. >>

I've been guilty of saying "light it for film" on many occasions. Here's my clarification. The very common question of how to make video look like film oftentimes comes from individuals who shoot video in existing light or with very little additional light, and wonder why it doesn't look like film.

My response "light it for film" has more to do with budget really than lighting. Pick up any copy of American Cinematographer and browse an article about how a certain feature was lit. Usually there's a set plan showing a complex lighting arrangement. My point is that there's a serious budget and serious talent on the set, which has everything to do with it.

Stephen's original post was, that this is an example of professional look, not so much film look. And I agree. But I think film look comes out of that, as an extension of professional look. Ultimately if you want it to look like film, you should shoot it on film, but the best way to begin to approach it is to start with the professional look -- professional lighting -- as a key ingredient along the way.

I would suggest to someone "light it for film" as a way to begin thinking about how much planning, budget, talent and resources are involved in professional feature filmmaking. Those 35mm cameras don't begin to roll until a complex organization of money, expertise and time are all in place. It doesn't just happen. It's intricately funded, staged, rehearsed and executed by a small army of talent.

There's so much more to the equation of course -- and I don't think anyone has mentioned audio yet -- how a cinematic treatment of audio is crucial to a film look. In the words of Douglas Spotted Eagle, audio is 70% of everything you see on the screen.

One side note, with regard to depth-of-field control, this is why the P+S Technik adapter is such a significant factor now. Pretty soon there will be features going into production shooting on High Definition video with Panavision lenses thanks to that adapter. Talk about a film look, I think it will be indistinguishable -- that is, utterly transparent -- to the moviegoing audience, especially when transferred to 35mm. Can't wait to see that stuff. As long as it's got a good story, of course.

Jepp. couldnt' agree more. And as more and more DOP's learn how to shoot with video and get a good end result, the more well lit & shot productions will we see =) And if we are REALLY lucky, they will have good story & good acting aswell :P

And sound is a very important part. Just try to watch a movie with the sound off.

Who here has some video clips they believe looks like film? This can be from good lighting, or 24P or post effects, or whatever. I would just like to see a few good examples. Everyone talks on this forum over and over about how all that matters is the story and lighting. Just looking around this is what the vast majority of the members say here. The story I'll definitely agree with, but I would really like to see first hand what the DV format can look like when "professionally lit". So far all I see is talk. Someone make a believer out of me please, because I have never seen lighting make video look like film.

As for making a believer out of you Brad, check out some of the items of Chris list earlier (page 6 i think it is on). And me personally liked a lot of the different lighting on Chelsea Walls.

If it "looks like film" i will answer when you define exactly how film looks. Especially since during the many years film has been used as a media, it has had quite a lot of different visual styles and looks. So it all bottoms into what YOU think look like film. It doesn't necessarily mean its what I think looks like film.

How about this...it it looks like ANY kind of film?

You're right, I don't particularly care for all of the different looks that film can have, but if someone can replicate a look that is found reasonably common to say a major Hollywood movie, then I will be convinced and hold my head in shame publicly here. :)

I think this forum program has different page numbers depending on the user's profile. Can you tell me a date/time of the post on your page 6? I only have 3 pages to this discussion.

Yes. Post made by Chris Hurd, October 29th, 2002 10:29 AM.

It's a list with several different movies made with video as the source material (cameras).

And i would like to suggest Chelsea Walls to that list. It's shot on digital video (DVCAM methinks) using both prosumer and pro models.

Henrik,

Here is another link to a site that has a fairly extensive listing of films shot on DV.

http://www.nextwavefilms.com/moviemaking/bullfront.html

Trailer for Chelsea Walls at [url]http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/chelsea_walls.html[//url]

However I don't think any online web-compressed Quicktime trailer is going to make an instant believer out of a skeptic.

<< I would really like to see first hand what the DV format can look like when "professionally lit". >>

If you re-read my post, you'll see that I've made no such claim that professional lighting is an instant-on switch for making DV look like film. What I said was, and this ties in with the original post that Stephen made at the beginning of this thread, is that professional lighting is the first step in the right direction toward acheiving cinematic attributes with DV. As I've said before, there is so much more to it than lighting, but lighting is a great place to start (depth of field, frame rate, color correction, so many other factors make up the equation).

Just a quick note:

Certain members are advised to read and understand this board's FAQ before posting. Link at the top of the page. Thanks,

I hope this counts:

There's a PSA that's aired here in Houston several times. I can't remember what it's for (drunk driving or some such, maybe). I swear it looks like film except for the framerate, and I'm sorry, I have no idea how it was shot. Some kind of DV or Betacam. It was beautifully done as far as shot composition and lighting, but that framerate gives it away. I think I've mentioned it before somewhere too on this forum.

<<"Lighting it to make it look like film..." - Now this i don't understand. Having "good" lighting is again a matter of conveying the mood and the message of the scene/subject you are filming. Why would that be different between film & video. The only thing that IS different is the strength of the light you may need, not its placement or how it luminates the subject. >>

Lighting like film? I think this refers to traditional 3 point lighting. A lot of people going for the film look chose this lighting set up. My lighting set up is simply replacing bulbs with 250 watt photofloods.

<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Redifer : What I find interesting is that people use the term "film" as opposed to "digital". Nearly everyone including Lucas himself have preached about how much better "digital" is than "film". Why? Because it's digital. So if you really want to impress, you'll say "A Chris Hurd DIGITAL Production" or similar. Maybe use your own name instead of Chris Hurd's, but you'll STILL be able to impress as long as you throw in "digital" somewhere. That is the current buzzword that turns heads. Serious. Remember, Lucas says that film is outdated technology and has outlived its usefulness. You don't want your productions to be associated with a format that Lucas Himself doesn't even like, do you? -->>>

Wow someone got it right. I plan to swim in the idea that my stuff is shot "digitally". And truly the "film" vs "video" argument (this one and all the rest of them actually) don't stand up under the weight of what's going on today. There's no argument. Whether you consider your production a film or a "digital film" (another buzzword) what you have is a production "shot digitally". There's a lot of money to be made on that buzzword alone. Sure it takes advantage of people's ignorance, but isn't what media's all about. :) . Look around you. Media is what you make it. I would say "A (insert name here) Production and include the phrase "shot digitally" or "shot on digital film". Even better "Shot with digital cameras provided by (insert place you got camera)" I'm pretty good at this kind of stuff.

-Vinson

Re. "Lighting like film" - this i dont understand.

I may have been a bit unclear about that :) What i don't understand is why people use this as an argument. You use 3 point lighting regardless if it's shot on video or film IF the scene demands 3 point lighting.

The use of that argument most likely means "light it professionally" which in my book means, "light it to fit the scene". And the main difference between using video and film to shoot that scene is in the power of the lights needed.

I think its time to quote my old mentor. "There are rules to this, and you need to know them well... so you can break them and get away with it".

On the "lighting for film" issue...

My multiple-decade journey in lighting is at a stage where I am trying to learn how to "unlight" when the mood is right--that is, take light away rather than add. This is not a new concept, but it really calls for restraint and taste. For instance, if the ambient lighting in a room results in a flat, evenly lit face, rather than try to add light to increase contrast on one side, perhaps bringing in negative fill (i.e. a solid aka blag flag) on the other to create contour and richness may create a more interesting environment. I have had the honor of watching some of the best DP's in the business do amazing things along this line. This spring I worked for Roger Deakins, operating a walk and talk shot in a day exterior. The shot began with the sun to one side, then panned and ended up in backlight, then we shot the other side of the conversation with the sun behind us. Towards the end of that scene I suddenly realized that there was not one light, reflector, bounce or silk in use on the whole sequence. Even with several 10-ton lighting and grip trucks at his disposal, Roger had simply figured out exactly what time he wanted to shoot the shot, and worked with the existing light. I'm sure his knowledge of the film stock in use and exposure were all designed with the end result in mind also. I imagine it will be perfect, just as all of his images are.

Now--that's 35mm. Doing the same shot in DV would probably NOT result in a perfect image. The backlit portion would have been overly contrasty, the frontlit section harsh. It takes a lot of attention to make "filmic" images on DV, if that is the intention. Sometimes it requires lighting "like film" or as Chris clarified it, in a film style. Sometimes it requires more than that to reign in the beasts of clipping and noise and blockiness in the blacks and all the other demons of our revered little format.

And on a side note--Chris posted: "One side note, with regard to depth-of-field control, this is why the P+S Technik adapter is such a significant factor now. Pretty soon there will be features going into production shooting on High Definition video with Panavision lenses thanks to that adapter."

The Panvavision/Sony 24P HD system has been working in the field for two years now (that's what the last Star Wars was shot on, amongst various other features). The lenses were designed for the 2/3" format. Even though they are beautiful glass, they still deliver the same depth of field characteristic as any broadcast video lens (which is roughly the same as the 16mm film format). The P+S Technik system is, amazingly, the only widely available device on the market to deliver a 35mm lens format image in a video application. However, the design is not likely to be emulated for high-end feature production because of the drawbacks associated with rephotographing off a ground glass, although I hear a 2/3" version is in the works.

Charles (or Justin or anyone),

Do you know what the chromatic aberration characteristics of the P+S system are? I've had a hard time getting a straight answer on this from the sales guys.

If anyone wants to want to try it out, a great test is to backlight a large piece of blackwrap that has a matrix of small holes poked in it. (The backlight is the only light source.) Then, shoot the blackwrap from straight on and observe if any particular colors are offset, and if so, which holes they occur on. If someone with the adapter cares to try this out, and send a screenshot, I could host it, or perhaps Chris Hurd could use it as a basis for a Watchdog article, as such an image would be a useful metric for qualitatively evaluating the chromatic aberration of the P+S system.

As Charles says, I'm not sure how this system can ever catch on as an HD application.

Charles -- many thanks; it's the 2/3rd inch version I'm excited about.

Robert -- I have some XL1S-with-P+S Technik clips; just need to get the okay to host them from the copyright holder. Putting a call in tomorrow to ask for that.

(update 31 Oct 02): okay, I did get permission to run those clips. Here's one of 'em: www.dvinfo.net/media/mini35/Familienrevier.mpg

Robert,

I haven't done exhaustive tests with the adaptor. I spent a fair amount of time with it at NAB this year. I've seen some amazing things shot with it. But I can see some optical artifacts present which keep me from going too wild about it.

Such as: a tendency for extreme highlights to bloom, similarly to a white pro-mist. Spinning the groundglass helps somewhat, but if a super-clean look is desired, the characteristic can't be eliminated. It's not always possible to hide the visual "vortex" created by the rotating element either.

Several of our regular posters here such as Justin Chin have worked extensively with the system and swear by it. Maybe I'm being too picky, I admit it. I am actually considering using it for a short film this winter.

Exposing my ignorance
 

Is the P+S Technik device similar in function to the mini35?

<addendum>

Went to the P+S Technik web site and answered my own question.

[DISCLAIMER: The following is pure opinion. If you find "opinions" offensive, you are urged not to read any futher.] ;o)

I have not seen any clips shot with this device that haven't been compressed for web broadcast. At any rate, I don't think the clips I have seen are an accurate representations of what the tool are capable of, one way or the other.

However, I don't see, philosophically, how the little it adds to (and more importantly how it might subtract from) the image justifies such an expense. It reminds me of something a friend of mine did many years ago--he bought a new VW Beetle and then proceeded to put a Porsche engine in it. I don't deny his "right" to do it. I simply don't understand/agree with the ecomomic thinking that led him to do it.

It's one and the same. P + S Technik is the manufacture and Mini 35 is the product. I believe ZGC (community sponsor) is the exclusive importer for the product, not 100% sure about that.

Jeff

Jay:

Even having voiced my issues with the product, I will tell you that I saw a couple of clips at NAB that I am fairly convinced that, had I not been informed as to how they were shot, I would have believed to be 35mm originated. That is a major achievement. They were nicely composed and exposed, they exploited the shallow focus available from the format without being flashy about it, and they had been creatively color-corrected to emulate a film gamma and tone rendition. Also I think they were shot in frame mode, or had been software-modified. All in all, I have very rarely been fooled by any digital format (including HD) but this was impressive.

However, I can see that in certain situations, the limitations of the system would require some attention and effort, and it's hard to justify taking time on set to attend to this sort of thing when time is so precious.

The expense is signficant. However, I would compare this system to the costs of originating a project on 16mm or 35mm for video delivery. The equipment rental package would be similar, but the savings in stock, processing and telecine are obvious.

Thanks, Charles. That helps allay many of my concerns. Still, I can't help but wonder if the same end result might be achieved with more preplanning, care, and attention to detail both during production and post?

Jay:

There is no way to simulate the depth-of-field characteristic of a 35mm optical system at a given field of view without using 35mm lenses. 16mm and 2/3" video will deliver more than twice the depth of field...DV delivers over 7 times the depth of field. Certainly the factors you mentioned are important, but given the same attention and external factors, the Mini35 on an XL1 vs a standard lens on an XL1 will have a very different look. It just isn't possible to achieve focus separation on a standard DV system at anything less than telephoto, even wide open.

Charles i wouldn't say it is impossible to get a shallow depth of field with a dv camera, bloody difficult or a pure fluke but not impossible.

I did it by accident with a single chip panasonic mx3. The light was so bad, i had to push the camera so hard that everything in the background, just past the main actor is completly blurry and out of focus. If i did it again, it most likely wouldn't be achieved but it was that day and looked very nice.

kermie

ps. not saying this is the same as 35mm, just venturing into the same ballpark.

* * ON AND ON... * *
 

The two are so different... If you want the film look/feel then lobby people to produce your project, earn the dough, and shoot on 35MM.

Given: Digital Video is economical and is maluable through all kinds of NLE Editors and color correction tools. Create a film-like environment for your story.

If you are shooting for a film-look/professional-look you are missing the target to developing your own style using whatever you have available to you.

I see this going On and On... The subject of filmlook and professional look aesthetics are very subjective. Please post the things you do or adjust to achieve your aesthetic look using facts and your realities.

i.e.

1. I light for film (Using an 3 point lighting system-Arri)
2. XL1S - Set the Gain to -3
3. ...
4. ...
ETC.

This is not to spurn anyone. I am interested in learning what you did with the facts. I could be buying equipment until I am broke and not doing the work. Here today gone/out-of-date tomorrow.

Cheers!

Derrick

Derrick--

You made an excellent point.

I read an article, "How to Make Video Look Like Film," in the December issue of DV magazine by cinematographer/videographer and author John Jackman, SMPTE, about this very subject. I would highly recommend it to all.

Now, to address your question--"the things [I] do or adjust to achieve [my] aesthetic look using facts and [my] realities are:

1. Set the gain on my XL1s to -3db.
2. Light for film, using a 3 or 4:1 ratio on the key subject.
3. Worse case (when I have little or no control), I exposure for the highlights and allow the shadows to fall where they will.
3. Use ND filter(s) to aid in reduction of DoF, allowing for wider aperture.
4. When shooting people, I use the Tiffen Black F/X .5 filter.
When shooting all else, I use the Tiffen Soft F/X 1 filter.
5. I "cheat" the white balance by using a graduated series of pale, blue cards to "warm" the image, depending on "feel" I'm trying to achieve.
6. After shooting, I deinterlace the footage using DVFilm.

And I might add it is an every changing process, trying new things and attemtping to fine tune it constantly.

Hope this helps.

Charles: << I will tell you that I saw a couple of clips at NAB that I am fairly convinced that, had I not been informed as to how they were shot, I would have believed to be 35mm originated. >>

I remember watching those with you at the booth at NAB. I think this is one of those clips. It's a 40 megabyte download which should play fine in a Quicktime viewer.

www.dvinfo.net/media/mini35/Familienrevier.mpg

Well, it looks nice. Lots of video noise in the images. I guess they weren't shooting at -3 dB.