Cinematic look with XL1

Charles Papert · July 25th, 2002, 01:10 AM

Ozzie:

The funny thing about that process you refer to is that it says a lot more about the state of telecine back then than anything else, in that to emulate the look of telecined film they were distressing the video. With the current technology like the Spirit etc., it's a whole new game. 16mm has made a comeback since the image looks so incredible compared to what it used to.

I used to send footage to the original Filmlook folks around ten years ago; they had a proprietary 3:2 pulldown process as well as gamma adjustment and variable weave, if required. It helped a lot with a number of projects, but it was pricey.

James, the scenario you describe was almost exactly what we did on a Digi-Beta originated short film I shot a few years ago. We color-corrected the master and made two clones. One went off to be filmed out to 35mm. The other was sent to be Filmlooked and became the video master. We could have done a transfer from the 35mm back to video, but we were warned against that at the time. I think now the technology is in the right place to do that. As far as de-interlacing the Normal mode footage to make a "30p" master, I've read on this forum some post from folks who have had success with that (try searching under "de-interlace"?)

Ken Tanaka · July 25th, 2002, 01:23 AM

Re: De-interlacing and film-looking video...

The Magic Bullet suite of film-look tools is now available for purchase from http://www.toolfarm.com/. This was formerly a process only available on a service basis. You'll find a downloadable free demo of the suite on the Tool Farm site. It can produce some very interesting results.

Rob Lohman · July 25th, 2002, 04:07 AM

I might have some different opinion on how to look at it. What
is the device we are looking at? a TV or film projection?

If output is for TV or LCD/DLP projector (home/business types)
I think you can make video look like film (if that is your goal). Why?
Because it is all pixels. With DVD's people do not suddenly say,
hey, this is not film. Every pixel in a DVD which came from film
can also be made from video (with enough tweaking and post
work and what not -> perhaps even hand painting pixels).

MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT SEE OUR WORK ON FILM! (where we
are now and with our DV camera's). Most people will probably
see it either over the internet or on VCD or DVD. Perhaps even
on a digital festival projection. When they will view it on a DVD
we have the EXACT SAME range as film on THAT format. The
source is wider for film, but the target medium is the same. So
in theory, you should be able to create a similiair image. Motion
signature might be a diffirent thing, but I don't think anyone
can see the difference between 25p (PAL) and 24p (film).

If you are going to transfer your video to film you are not using
the dynamic range to its capability ofcourse. So movies shot on
film will always win there.

I saw a french movie (Vidocq) and Star Wars Episode 2 which
both originated with video. I heard no-one complain that it
didn't look like film. Ofcourse people in the industry with sharper
eyes than your everage viewer and people in the-know might
have seen things. The casual viewer will not have noticed, they
will not even care. As long as the movie is entertaining and it
looks/sounds good it is fine with them.

Just some thoughts of mine... not in a response to anyone....

Martin Munthe · July 25th, 2002, 05:05 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : Guys, since we're here, this is just to satisfy my curiosity. I heard 35mm film was 216 dollars for about 6 minutes. . .correct? Furthermore, that transferring video to film was 500 dollars a minute. . .also correct?

What does a 16mm film camera run for. . .and 35? Just curious, not lookin' to buy anything. -->>>

Josh,

You can get used 16mm cameras for what a brand new XL1s charges. New film cameras are in the price range of $18 000 - $1 100 000. That excludes lenses. A set of 16mm primes costs from $10 000 and up.

A transfer from DV to film is somewhere in the range of $30 000 for a feature film. Totalt lab costs on a 35mm film is hard to bring in under $50 000.

Josh Bass · July 25th, 2002, 11:20 AM

Wild. Maybe some day I'll get there. Right now, I'm living in a video world, and I'm definitely a video girl. . .er boy.

Jose di Cani · March 15th, 2005, 05:41 AM

DVINFO.NET>>>> I AM IN LOVE WITH YOU!

shawn mcbee....thanks for the tip for the cheap solution used to block the sunlight from you rcar's window. Never thought about that one. Going to see if I can buy some second hand.

ROb lohman....you are right. Star Wars 2 is a great example. Everybody asks tooo way much. If you have a amateur cam, you can creat film-like films but there is always going something fishy about your work. It is fake.

This site is just amazing. I learn so much. This is liek going to a online video/film school. And it is free and you can participate as well.

July 25th, 2002, 01:10 AM	#46
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Ozzie: The funny thing about that process you refer to is that it says a lot more about the state of telecine back then than anything else, in that to emulate the look of telecined film they were distressing the video. With the current technology like the Spirit etc., it's a whole new game. 16mm has made a comeback since the image looks so incredible compared to what it used to. I used to send footage to the original Filmlook folks around ten years ago; they had a proprietary 3:2 pulldown process as well as gamma adjustment and variable weave, if required. It helped a lot with a number of projects, but it was pricey. James, the scenario you describe was almost exactly what we did on a Digi-Beta originated short film I shot a few years ago. We color-corrected the master and made two clones. One went off to be filmed out to 35mm. The other was sent to be Filmlooked and became the video master. We could have done a transfer from the 35mm back to video, but we were warned against that at the time. I think now the technology is in the right place to do that. As far as de-interlacing the Normal mode footage to make a "30p" master, I've read on this forum some post from folks who have had success with that (try searching under "de-interlace"?) __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

July 25th, 2002, 01:23 AM	#47
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Re: De-interlacing and film-looking video... The Magic Bullet suite of film-look tools is now available for purchase from http://www.toolfarm.com/. This was formerly a process only available on a service basis. You'll find a downloadable free demo of the suite on the Tool Farm site. It can produce some very interesting results. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

July 25th, 2002, 04:07 AM	#48
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I might have some different opinion on how to look at it. What is the device we are looking at? a TV or film projection? If output is for TV or LCD/DLP projector (home/business types) I think you can make video look like film (if that is your goal). Why? Because it is all pixels. With DVD's people do not suddenly say, hey, this is not film. Every pixel in a DVD which came from film can also be made from video (with enough tweaking and post work and what not -> perhaps even hand painting pixels). MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT SEE OUR WORK ON FILM! (where we are now and with our DV camera's). Most people will probably see it either over the internet or on VCD or DVD. Perhaps even on a digital festival projection. When they will view it on a DVD we have the EXACT SAME range as film on THAT format. The source is wider for film, but the target medium is the same. So in theory, you should be able to create a similiair image. Motion signature might be a diffirent thing, but I don't think anyone can see the difference between 25p (PAL) and 24p (film). If you are going to transfer your video to film you are not using the dynamic range to its capability ofcourse. So movies shot on film will always win there. I saw a french movie (Vidocq) and Star Wars Episode 2 which both originated with video. I heard no-one complain that it didn't look like film. Ofcourse people in the industry with sharper eyes than your everage viewer and people in the-know might have seen things. The casual viewer will not have noticed, they will not even care. As long as the movie is entertaining and it looks/sounds good it is fine with them. Just some thoughts of mine... not in a response to anyone.... __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

July 25th, 2002, 05:05 AM	#49
Martin Munthe Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 331	<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : Guys, since we're here, this is just to satisfy my curiosity. I heard 35mm film was 216 dollars for about 6 minutes. . .correct? Furthermore, that transferring video to film was 500 dollars a minute. . .also correct? What does a 16mm film camera run for. . .and 35? Just curious, not lookin' to buy anything. -->>> Josh, You can get used 16mm cameras for what a brand new XL1s charges. New film cameras are in the price range of $18 000 - $1 100 000. That excludes lenses. A set of 16mm primes costs from $10 000 and up. A transfer from DV to film is somewhere in the range of $30 000 for a feature film. Totalt lab costs on a 35mm film is hard to bring in under $50 000. __________________ Martin Munthe VFX Supervisor/DP/Director

July 25th, 2002, 11:20 AM	#50
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	Wild. Maybe some day I'll get there. Right now, I'm living in a video world, and I'm definitely a video girl. . .er boy. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

March 15th, 2005, 05:41 AM	#51
Jose di Cani Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Holland, Europe Posts: 214	DVINFO.NET>>>> I AM IN LOVE WITH YOU! shawn mcbee....thanks for the tip for the cheap solution used to block the sunlight from you rcar's window. Never thought about that one. Going to see if I can buy some second hand. ROb lohman....you are right. Star Wars 2 is a great example. Everybody asks tooo way much. If you have a amateur cam, you can creat film-like films but there is always going something fishy about your work. It is fake. This site is just amazing. I learn so much. This is liek going to a online video/film school. And it is free and you can participate as well.