filmlook with DV at DVinfo.net

Adam Lawrence · April 23rd, 2003, 02:46 PM

Ive been invovled with many discussions on how to emulate the look of flim using dv on this board.

in my opinion the frame rate is the key element in achiving that look. (e.g. DVX100) when i took my 30p footage from the XL1,
ran it through post (color correction, levels ect.) and outputted the
footage at a 24p frame rate i acvhived a very "cinema like" effect.

Ive done this before and dont recomend it, yet its fun to experiment with it.

for those who are interested, ive posted a clip of something i shot a while back.

http://www.eatdrinkmedia.com/temp/eatdrinkcracker.html

( just right click on the link to download ) aprox. 7mgs

of course there are several elements in achiving great "filmlike" footage, yet i think frame rate is definatly a primary factor

Joseph George · May 9th, 2003, 08:07 PM

FILM LOOK vs. VIDEO LOOK

1. Film look is overall better than video look.
2. Video has elements that look better than on film.
3. You should always strive for the best look, not just for the classic film look.
4. One of the biggest misconceptions is that 24 fps gives you a better look than higher speeds. It will give you a lot of motion artifacts that are typical of the film look, but are not desirable, unless there is some special reason. That's why there were always attempts to raise the 24 fps speed up and on some expensive films in the past 30 fps was used but due to economic reasons this speed was abandoned -- not due to artistic reasons. IMAX HD is 48 fps. Why? Because the higher speed simulates better the look as if we pan with our eyes. This is the optimal motion look.
5. The classic 24 fps motion artifacts are naturally present 100% on 24 fps film. 24p/fps is the ideal format because it is the film speed; it can be shown on PAL without speed change and transferred to NTSC. But it is not the ideal speed for the best motion look.
6. Pulldown from 24 fps to 30p/fps crates lot worse motion artifacts than 24 fps has.
7. Native 30p/fps material has more of the classic film motion artifacts look than 30 fps (e.g. NTSC) created from 24 fps.
8. 24 fps created from 30p/fps by eliminating frames has a lot worse motion artifacts than 30p created from 24 fps.
9. Depth of field is extremely important and shallow depth of field is what video lacks most, compared to film. Larger depth of field is often desirable and can be accomplished better with video.
10. Camera movement, artistic lighting, film gamma, unclipped highlights -- all this is part of a film look
11. Special effects are a lot easier achievable on video and film is normally converted to video for good special effects work. So we add video (video look) to film to make it better.
12. Both film and video have their advantages and disadvantages. Video has definitely less motion artifacts, you can see what you're shooting on a good monitor, can replay it back instantly. That is the biggest advantage of electronic cinema. This is what will make movie production better and less expensive and why films days, or rather years, are numbered.
13. The film naturally has better resolution, highlights, latitude, wider speed choices, etc., but with time video will surpass that.
14. Again, forget film look, go for the best look, although from the two, film normally looks a lot better than video.

Adam Lawrence · May 11th, 2003, 03:35 PM

well.. the point was to emulate the current "look and feel" of film and its 24p frame rate by dropping the frame rate to 24p. Obviously for quality reasons this is a bad idea considering "choppy" motion results when applying this frame rate. Though it displays the difference in "look and feel" in which accompanies the frame rate. (e.g. the xl1 (30p) vs. agdvx100 (24p) comparing the footage between the two cameras is a notable difference due in fact to the frame rate, though the quality of the footage is the same).

I think one may confuse "look" of the footage in terms of "quality".....Two different elements completely.

Currenty the frame rate of film is 24p. And currently videographers
abundantly strive to emulate the theatrical essence of that 24ps
look. Wiether or not its technically "BETTER" is besided the point.
Its wiether or not your video looks like VIDEO and if it can be percieved as "filmic", even much so as to be mistaken.

Akos Szemenyei · May 11th, 2003, 09:13 PM

I agree Joseph George, and just would like to add that if you use the DVX100, cinegamma, lighting, DOF is probably the most important. The 24 fps is just an addition but it's the least important aspect of your production.

Follow this link http://www.cineshare.com/columns/rev...G-DVX100_3.htm and check out what this guy did at the 48 hour competition, it's shot at 24 fps but they are nowhere near the filmlook or any look, looks like video I would say. (There is a tiny "here" link in the first paragraph)

As for your film, it has a look, and I think it's pretty good for what you did, but is it cinelook?

Joseph George · May 12th, 2003, 02:16 AM

What's interesting is that top cinematographers always wanted higher film speed than 24 fps and the videographers always want a slower speed than 30 fps.

Frank Granovski · May 12th, 2003, 02:37 AM

>top cinematographers always wanted higher film speed than 24 fps<

Motion film is shot in different speeds, higher and lower. Some videographers want 24P so that they can make a cleaner transfer to film.

Zac Stein · May 12th, 2003, 03:00 AM

Adam

Could you explain how you achieved that particular look, what software and tools within them, and what you did with them?

Zac

Adam Lawrence · May 12th, 2003, 11:49 AM

<<As for your film, it has a look, and I think it's pretty good for what you did, but is it cinelook?>>

well.. good question. The original intent of this peice was to mock (comedicaly) another peice done by a freind of mine, in which he shot super16.

Did i come close? somewhat. not as pretty as his footage but i think i did ok considering my limitations. Though the point was to emulate 'HIS" paticular "FILM" production.

<<Could you explain how you achieved that particular look, what software and tools within them, and what you did with them?>>

sure.

I used aftereffects to make gamma, level, and color corrections to the footage. for example i would correct the levels therfore the blacks would be "black" and the white would be "white"
I also added a bit of grain and re-rendered the footage out to 24p. Color needed to be a bit of a blue-ish hue. The XL1 tends to shoot warmer in some cases. The effect tends to have a dark and
contrast look to it, in which was the film i was attempting to emulate.

the difference between the 30p and 24p frame rates, made a considerable difference to match the frame rate of the film product. I noted the 30p as looking a bit "slower" that the 24p.

Kevin Maistros · May 13th, 2003, 06:15 PM

Personally, I don't think that 48hour film example looked anything like film at all. Actually, it wasn't even close. Looked more like a homemovie that even had some pretty pour audio work. With the equipment I saw they were using in the quick cuts the audio tech was visible... you'd think they'd have better audio.

Some better examples of DVX100 footage could be seen here:
http://www.tentimesnothing.com/24prackfocus.mov
Another one I knew of was taken down.

Anyway, yes often it's a videographer's goal to emulate the 'look' of cinematic film productions. Movies look amazing.

Lets first consider what is so exciting about the 'film' look to most anyway. The color and quality, and probably the DOF outweigh framerate as far as noticability.

Lighting is probably what, in the end, is going to make the most difference between looking like video and looking like cinema. The way your shots are lit have direct effects on the way you work your levels/color in post.

If you set up your lighting right, then after you post everything.. I've found that the results look more like film than anything. Also using lenses or attachments that widen your field of view.. then zooming in with them, gives more DOF.

I've made things look just as good as film in cinema by using an XL-1s, and paying close attention to the lighting/post work. Without worrying about framerates.

Hope that helps/makes sense.

April 23rd, 2003, 02:46 PM	#1
Adam Lawrence _redone_ Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 224	filmlook with DV Ive been invovled with many discussions on how to emulate the look of flim using dv on this board. in my opinion the frame rate is the key element in achiving that look. (e.g. DVX100) when i took my 30p footage from the XL1, ran it through post (color correction, levels ect.) and outputted the footage at a 24p frame rate i acvhived a very "cinema like" effect. Ive done this before and dont recomend it, yet its fun to experiment with it. for those who are interested, ive posted a clip of something i shot a while back. http://www.eatdrinkmedia.com/temp/eatdrinkcracker.html ( just right click on the link to download ) aprox. 7mgs of course there are several elements in achiving great "filmlike" footage, yet i think frame rate is definatly a primary factor __________________ Adam Lawrence eatdrink Media Las Vegas NV www.eatdrinkmedia.com

May 11th, 2003, 03:35 PM	#3
Adam Lawrence _redone_ Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 224	well.. the point was to emulate the current "look and feel" of film and its 24p frame rate by dropping the frame rate to 24p. Obviously for quality reasons this is a bad idea considering "choppy" motion results when applying this frame rate. Though it displays the difference in "look and feel" in which accompanies the frame rate. (e.g. the xl1 (30p) vs. agdvx100 (24p) comparing the footage between the two cameras is a notable difference due in fact to the frame rate, though the quality of the footage is the same). I think one may confuse "look" of the footage in terms of "quality".....Two different elements completely. Currenty the frame rate of film is 24p. And currently videographers abundantly strive to emulate the theatrical essence of that 24ps look. Wiether or not its technically "BETTER" is besided the point. Its wiether or not your video looks like VIDEO and if it can be percieved as "filmic", even much so as to be mistaken. __________________ Adam Lawrence eatdrink Media Las Vegas NV www.eatdrinkmedia.com

May 12th, 2003, 11:49 AM	#8
Adam Lawrence _redone_ Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 224	<<As for your film, it has a look, and I think it's pretty good for what you did, but is it cinelook?>> well.. good question. The original intent of this peice was to mock (comedicaly) another peice done by a freind of mine, in which he shot super16. Did i come close? somewhat. not as pretty as his footage but i think i did ok considering my limitations. Though the point was to emulate 'HIS" paticular "FILM" production. <<Could you explain how you achieved that particular look, what software and tools within them, and what you did with them?>> sure. I used aftereffects to make gamma, level, and color corrections to the footage. for example i would correct the levels therfore the blacks would be "black" and the white would be "white" I also added a bit of grain and re-rendered the footage out to 24p. Color needed to be a bit of a blue-ish hue. The XL1 tends to shoot warmer in some cases. The effect tends to have a dark and contrast look to it, in which was the film i was attempting to emulate. the difference between the 30p and 24p frame rates, made a considerable difference to match the frame rate of the film product. I noted the 30p as looking a bit "slower" that the 24p. __________________ Adam Lawrence eatdrink Media Las Vegas NV www.eatdrinkmedia.com

May 9th, 2003, 08:07 PM	#2
Joseph George Permanently Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 265	FILM LOOK vs. VIDEO LOOK 1. Film look is overall better than video look. 2. Video has elements that look better than on film. 3. You should always strive for the best look, not just for the classic film look. 4. One of the biggest misconceptions is that 24 fps gives you a better look than higher speeds. It will give you a lot of motion artifacts that are typical of the film look, but are not desirable, unless there is some special reason. That's why there were always attempts to raise the 24 fps speed up and on some expensive films in the past 30 fps was used but due to economic reasons this speed was abandoned -- not due to artistic reasons. IMAX HD is 48 fps. Why? Because the higher speed simulates better the look as if we pan with our eyes. This is the optimal motion look. 5. The classic 24 fps motion artifacts are naturally present 100% on 24 fps film. 24p/fps is the ideal format because it is the film speed; it can be shown on PAL without speed change and transferred to NTSC. But it is not the ideal speed for the best motion look. 6. Pulldown from 24 fps to 30p/fps crates lot worse motion artifacts than 24 fps has. 7. Native 30p/fps material has more of the classic film motion artifacts look than 30 fps (e.g. NTSC) created from 24 fps. 8. 24 fps created from 30p/fps by eliminating frames has a lot worse motion artifacts than 30p created from 24 fps. 9. Depth of field is extremely important and shallow depth of field is what video lacks most, compared to film. Larger depth of field is often desirable and can be accomplished better with video. 10. Camera movement, artistic lighting, film gamma, unclipped highlights -- all this is part of a film look 11. Special effects are a lot easier achievable on video and film is normally converted to video for good special effects work. So we add video (video look) to film to make it better. 12. Both film and video have their advantages and disadvantages. Video has definitely less motion artifacts, you can see what you're shooting on a good monitor, can replay it back instantly. That is the biggest advantage of electronic cinema. This is what will make movie production better and less expensive and why films days, or rather years, are numbered. 13. The film naturally has better resolution, highlights, latitude, wider speed choices, etc., but with time video will surpass that. 14. Again, forget film look, go for the best look, although from the two, film normally looks a lot better than video.

May 11th, 2003, 09:13 PM	#4
Akos Szemenyei Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Saitama, Japan Posts: 111	I agree Joseph George, and just would like to add that if you use the DVX100, cinegamma, lighting, DOF is probably the most important. The 24 fps is just an addition but it's the least important aspect of your production. Follow this link http://www.cineshare.com/columns/rev...G-DVX100_3.htm and check out what this guy did at the 48 hour competition, it's shot at 24 fps but they are nowhere near the filmlook or any look, looks like video I would say. (There is a tiny "here" link in the first paragraph) As for your film, it has a look, and I think it's pretty good for what you did, but is it cinelook?

May 12th, 2003, 02:16 AM	#5
Joseph George Permanently Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 265	What's interesting is that top cinematographers always wanted higher film speed than 24 fps and the videographers always want a slower speed than 30 fps.

May 12th, 2003, 02:37 AM	#6
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	>top cinematographers always wanted higher film speed than 24 fps< Motion film is shot in different speeds, higher and lower. Some videographers want 24P so that they can make a cleaner transfer to film.

May 12th, 2003, 03:00 AM	#7
Zac Stein Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 730	Adam Could you explain how you achieved that particular look, what software and tools within them, and what you did with them? Zac

May 13th, 2003, 06:15 PM	#9
Kevin Maistros Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 129	Personally, I don't think that 48hour film example looked anything like film at all. Actually, it wasn't even close. Looked more like a homemovie that even had some pretty pour audio work. With the equipment I saw they were using in the quick cuts the audio tech was visible... you'd think they'd have better audio. Some better examples of DVX100 footage could be seen here: http://www.tentimesnothing.com/24prackfocus.mov Another one I knew of was taken down. Anyway, yes often it's a videographer's goal to emulate the 'look' of cinematic film productions. Movies look amazing. Lets first consider what is so exciting about the 'film' look to most anyway. The color and quality, and probably the DOF outweigh framerate as far as noticability. Lighting is probably what, in the end, is going to make the most difference between looking like video and looking like cinema. The way your shots are lit have direct effects on the way you work your levels/color in post. If you set up your lighting right, then after you post everything.. I've found that the results look more like film than anything. Also using lenses or attachments that widen your field of view.. then zooming in with them, gives more DOF. I've made things look just as good as film in cinema by using an XL-1s, and paying close attention to the lighting/post work. Without worrying about framerates. Hope that helps/makes sense.