"filmlook vs. professional-look" -- Most filmlook arguments here are wrong

[Jay Gladwell]

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

[Chris Hurd]

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).

[Chris Hurd]

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,

[Josh Bass]

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.

[Vinson Watson]

<<"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

[Henrik Bengtsson]

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".

[Charles Papert]

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.

[Robert Knecht Schmidt]

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.

[Chris Hurd]

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

[Charles Papert]

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.

[Jay Gladwell]

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.

[Jeff Donald]

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

[Charles Papert]

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.

[Jay Gladwell]

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?

[Charles Papert]

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.