Raw film doesn't look that good

Steven Williams · May 17th, 2005, 02:12 PM

to my knowledge, star wars wasnt shot on film, but rather hd 24p, ,he actually invented the format so to speak.
the most important thing about getting good results with film, is the lense (zeiss), lense speed, and how it is lit. pus also the rating, of the film.
grading of film can be somwhat be compared to "onlining" on a symphony, or adrenaline system where you can colour correct, and adjust the gammas.
but to compare both of them "raw film" and "video" too many variables to take into consideration.

Dave Ferdinand · May 17th, 2005, 06:50 PM

I thought Attack of the Clones was shot with a Cinealta?

Anyway, I still don't think it looks as good as film. It looks great, nearly there but you can still see it's clean and crisp.

Also, I remember playing the DVD in 2x on my player (which is the XBox, and when you double the speed it doesn't judger at all) and it felt like video... due to 'becoming' 48fps. It felt a lot like PAL output in terms of motion...

Alessandro Machi · May 18th, 2005, 12:34 AM

Film can fall apart rather quickly when you begin to look at film prints that went from the original negative to an internegative then to a final print.

That's two extra steps before the film was transferred to video. Nowadays that is for the most part frowned upon. The idea being a digital intermediate gets thrown into the equation, or for stock footage, the video is transferred directly from the original negative to video, and looks quite spectacular.
Sometimes when you look at stock footage you are seeing a third generation print transferred several years ago, and the result won't stand up to what one can do now from the original negative.

Certain television shows that were shot on film have been retransferred in recent years to get even more quality out of the original filmed footage.

One form of education that Non-linear does not teach very well is linear color correction. By that I mean actual knobs and dials where you instantaneously can control several video levels. When Linear color correction is combined with properly set up white clip and black clip, color correction takes on a whole new meaning.

I still use betacam sp for editing and mastering because I color correct EVERY SHOT, and when I combine it with the black and white clip, I can usually make any lower budgeted video shot look better, and I can do it within a few seconds.

Jose di Cani · May 20th, 2005, 07:22 PM

ONe thing counts. Most of us are poor, or extremely poor (barely covering monthly Internet costs and montly Micky Mouse magazine). We all want to use video cause that is what we can buy. So that is why everybody feels so damned GOOD when video is portraited as being equal or closely equal to film. Video enhancing makes the difference all right, but you will never get shallow DOF and deep shadows. Although the latest xl2 has some nice-ass shallow DOFS.

Another thing, audio makes the difference. I only need to hear 5 seconds of conversation of the film to judge it as ' cheap' , ' bad acting' or 'film-like'.

Riley Florence · May 23rd, 2005, 05:44 PM

I'm confused. Always always confused. We strive for the "film look", grain, "softness", color, fps... but we all love HD TV, which is the oposite of film. It's so crips, it's SOO digital, and we all love it! We love all the intense detail, and super clean lines and edges. So why is it that we think we need to emulate, dare I say it? An outdated look.

It reminds me of the camparison of CDs/MP3s to Records. Records are so rich, so full of sound. The Analog wave forms hold so much more that a Digital attempt at a wave can only dream of. Records Scratch and pop, CD's don't. The process we use is the same as adding in Scratches and Pops to the latest music to make it sound "real".

Why is it that we are introducing defects into our movies but not our music? Why is it that we think we need scratches and grain in our movies and not our favorite HD TV show? I understand the color and exposure range arguments, totally. Video has a lot to catch up on in that respect, but the softness and grain ... maybe I'm missing something, but I thought a cleaner image was always better. Next time I wont clean my lens, add some more grit to my footage. =P (that last one was a joke)

Dan Diaconu · May 23rd, 2005, 08:47 PM

I think your "vision" about film might need a bit of.... "adjustments"
Film is not "soft". Film is as crisp as a high acquisition medium can get.
But due to frame size and lens used, has the ability to separate the "important" from "less important" thus, creating the 3D illusion on a 2D screen. The shallow DOF that is so hard to get in video (as the CCD size gets smaller)
Nobody (that I can remember) was looking forward to the natural defects from projections/transfers (scratches, hair in the gate and so on)...

Riley Florence · May 24th, 2005, 10:35 AM

I understand the DoF issue. People complain about Star Wars:EPII because it is so crisp and clean (as a previous poster said), but it still uses DoF like other films, I don't think of 'soft' as refering to DoF. Maybe by soft they are refering to the lower fps and how it interacts with motion on screen?

I suppose the thing that confuses me the most is why people introduce grain and scratches.

Jon Laing · May 24th, 2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riley Florence

I suppose the thing that confuses me the most is why people introduce grain and scratches.

its the common misconception that grain will have significant effect in the film look, which isn't really true IMO. If you watch IMAX films, there is hardly any grain what so ever, yet it still looks like film (because it is), and is still absolutely beautiful.

Matt Kelly · May 24th, 2005, 01:00 PM

Yeah adding grain/scratches to video for "film look" is ridiculous. Adding diffusion (softness) seems to help blur the line between the two maybe, but definitely doesn't make any video more or less like film.

I just wanted to toss this in here tho....I'm all for film. I still really love 35mm and larger format photography. It looks incredible, but as far as 35mm motion pictures are concerned, there's not too much there for video to overcome. a 35mm negative resolves to about 3k pixels i think, and there are medium format digital camera backs with CMOS sensors that capture 22 megapixels, EASILY matching the quality of 35mm. There's also a 48 MP large format back out. Anyway I'm just saying that the technology is basically already there. We just lack the ability to store the massive amounts of information fast enough (>24 fps), so film still ultimately wins... for now. I'd say that 35mm color photography is pretty much dead now though. And hopefully interlacing will die soon too... I really hate it. lol.

Young Lee · May 27th, 2005, 01:56 PM

Well after I saw Revenge of the Sith...

Film will and should be dead. :)

Joshua Provost · May 27th, 2005, 02:45 PM

Lee,

I'm not sure. A lot of people came out of that movie thinking the opposite, that this digital stuff just doesn't look right.

Josh

May 17th, 2005, 06:50 PM	#17
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	I thought Attack of the Clones was shot with a Cinealta? Anyway, I still don't think it looks as good as film. It looks great, nearly there but you can still see it's clean and crisp. Also, I remember playing the DVD in 2x on my player (which is the XBox, and when you double the speed it doesn't judger at all) and it felt like video... due to 'becoming' 48fps. It felt a lot like PAL output in terms of motion... __________________ Do or do not, there is no try.

May 18th, 2005, 12:34 AM	#18
Alessandro Machi Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Los Angeles, Ca USA Posts: 553	Film can fall apart rather quickly when you begin to look at film prints that went from the original negative to an internegative then to a final print. That's two extra steps before the film was transferred to video. Nowadays that is for the most part frowned upon. The idea being a digital intermediate gets thrown into the equation, or for stock footage, the video is transferred directly from the original negative to video, and looks quite spectacular. Sometimes when you look at stock footage you are seeing a third generation print transferred several years ago, and the result won't stand up to what one can do now from the original negative. Certain television shows that were shot on film have been retransferred in recent years to get even more quality out of the original filmed footage. One form of education that Non-linear does not teach very well is linear color correction. By that I mean actual knobs and dials where you instantaneously can control several video levels. When Linear color correction is combined with properly set up white clip and black clip, color correction takes on a whole new meaning. I still use betacam sp for editing and mastering because I color correct EVERY SHOT, and when I combine it with the black and white clip, I can usually make any lower budgeted video shot look better, and I can do it within a few seconds. __________________ https://alexlogic.blogspot.com/ Los Angeles Emmy Winner (yes, used a video edit controller and loved doing so.)

May 23rd, 2005, 05:44 PM	#20
Riley Florence Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 61	I'm confused. Always always confused. We strive for the "film look", grain, "softness", color, fps... but we all love HD TV, which is the oposite of film. It's so crips, it's SOO digital, and we all love it! We love all the intense detail, and super clean lines and edges. So why is it that we think we need to emulate, dare I say it? An outdated look. It reminds me of the camparison of CDs/MP3s to Records. Records are so rich, so full of sound. The Analog wave forms hold so much more that a Digital attempt at a wave can only dream of. Records Scratch and pop, CD's don't. The process we use is the same as adding in Scratches and Pops to the latest music to make it sound "real". Why is it that we are introducing defects into our movies but not our music? Why is it that we think we need scratches and grain in our movies and not our favorite HD TV show? I understand the color and exposure range arguments, totally. Video has a lot to catch up on in that respect, but the softness and grain ... maybe I'm missing something, but I thought a cleaner image was always better. Next time I wont clean my lens, add some more grit to my footage. =P (that last one was a joke) __________________ -------------------------- -Riley Florence SLC, Utah. http://www.secondsection.com Last edited by Riley Florence; May 24th, 2005 at 10:24 AM.

May 24th, 2005, 10:35 AM	#22
Riley Florence Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 61	I understand the DoF issue. People complain about Star Wars:EPII because it is so crisp and clean (as a previous poster said), but it still uses DoF like other films, I don't think of 'soft' as refering to DoF. Maybe by soft they are refering to the lower fps and how it interacts with motion on screen? I suppose the thing that confuses me the most is why people introduce grain and scratches. __________________ -------------------------- -Riley Florence SLC, Utah. http://www.secondsection.com

May 27th, 2005, 02:45 PM	#26
Joshua Provost Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 493	Lee, I'm not sure. A lot of people came out of that movie thinking the opposite, that this digital stuff just doesn't look right. Josh __________________ Owner/Operator, 727 Records Co-Founder, Matter of Chance Productions Blogger, Try Avoidance

May 17th, 2005, 02:12 PM	#16
Steven Williams Tourist Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 4	to my knowledge, star wars wasnt shot on film, but rather hd 24p, ,he actually invented the format so to speak. the most important thing about getting good results with film, is the lense (zeiss), lense speed, and how it is lit. pus also the rating, of the film. grading of film can be somwhat be compared to "onlining" on a symphony, or adrenaline system where you can colour correct, and adjust the gammas. but to compare both of them "raw film" and "video" too many variables to take into consideration.

May 20th, 2005, 07:22 PM	#19
Jose di Cani Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Holland, Europe Posts: 214	ONe thing counts. Most of us are poor, or extremely poor (barely covering monthly Internet costs and montly Micky Mouse magazine). We all want to use video cause that is what we can buy. So that is why everybody feels so damned GOOD when video is portraited as being equal or closely equal to film. Video enhancing makes the difference all right, but you will never get shallow DOF and deep shadows. Although the latest xl2 has some nice-ass shallow DOFS. Another thing, audio makes the difference. I only need to hear 5 seconds of conversation of the film to judge it as ' cheap' , ' bad acting' or 'film-like'.

May 23rd, 2005, 08:47 PM	#21
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	I think your "vision" about film might need a bit of.... "adjustments" Film is not "soft". Film is as crisp as a high acquisition medium can get. But due to frame size and lens used, has the ability to separate the "important" from "less important" thus, creating the 3D illusion on a 2D screen. The shallow DOF that is so hard to get in video (as the CCD size gets smaller) Nobody (that I can remember) was looking forward to the natural defects from projections/transfers (scratches, hair in the gate and so on)...

May 24th, 2005, 01:00 PM	#24
Matt Kelly New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 9	Yeah adding grain/scratches to video for "film look" is ridiculous. Adding diffusion (softness) seems to help blur the line between the two maybe, but definitely doesn't make any video more or less like film. I just wanted to toss this in here tho....I'm all for film. I still really love 35mm and larger format photography. It looks incredible, but as far as 35mm motion pictures are concerned, there's not too much there for video to overcome. a 35mm negative resolves to about 3k pixels i think, and there are medium format digital camera backs with CMOS sensors that capture 22 megapixels, EASILY matching the quality of 35mm. There's also a 48 MP large format back out. Anyway I'm just saying that the technology is basically already there. We just lack the ability to store the massive amounts of information fast enough (>24 fps), so film still ultimately wins... for now. I'd say that 35mm color photography is pretty much dead now though. And hopefully interlacing will die soon too... I really hate it. lol.

May 27th, 2005, 01:56 PM	#25
Young Lee Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 268	Well after I saw Revenge of the Sith... Film will and should be dead. :)