[jchen]

This is a question I've always had (and rather newbie-ish as well) about viewing quality: What is the reason for certain, most likely higher budget films to look the way they do, in comparison to the TV shows and then the typical consumer MiniDV type shorts? Is it simply the camcorder? In addition, would it be possible through software to create a film with a very "high budget" look through an inexpensive camcorder (<$1000)?

[k_munic]

Originally posted by jchen:
This is a question I've always had (and rather newbie-ish as well) about viewing quality: What is the reason for certain, most likely higher budget films to look the way they do, in comparison to the TV shows and then the typical consumer MiniDV type shorts? Is it simply the camcorder? In addition, would it be possible through software to create a film with a very "high budget" look through an inexpensive camcorder (<$1000)?

well, you've read the credits of any Hollywood movie�? "director of phtography", not "camcorder user"

ever seen a movie set? tons of light. gigantic lenses. months of post production. Kodak films, which cost dozend of $$$$ per meter�

or, a common tv show uses 500 - 1000 kW of light, dozends of effect lights as "varilights" etc.pp

you CAN try to add some "movie" look - buy a camcorder with progressive shutter (no interlacing while recording); learn about photography (field of depth as an example); buy some light system; use a tripod �

to answer your last question: NO!

[bmedina]

k_munic is definitely right. Professional films have big budgets, so they use good equipment and people who know how to get the most out of it.

That being said, the most noticeable annoyances to me are bad camera work and bad color fidelity. You can clean up a lot of the first with a tripod, and the second can be helped with a 3 CCD camera.

[wvx]

Originally posted by jchen:
This is a question I've always had (and rather newbie-ish as well) about viewing quality: What is the reason for certain, most likely higher budget films to look the way they do, in comparison to the TV shows and then the typical consumer MiniDV type shorts? Is it simply the camcorder? In addition, would it be possible through software to create a film with a very "high budget" look through an inexpensive camcorder (<$1000)?

Shoot with lighting if you can. You can build your own lighting kit. There are probably guides to do this on the web. If you are shooting outside, get or make reflectors to fill in dark spots on people. Pick up a lighting book. Pick up a cinematography book.

Check out some of the new low cost 3 chip cameras coming out...

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...c-PV-GS200.htm

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...c-PV-GS400.htm


Magic Bullet (an After Effects plugin) is really nice too if you want to make video look more like film. I've used it a lot.

http://store.yahoo.com/redgiantsoftware/magic.html

[dlefebvre]

On every big production, there isalso a lot of time spent on color grading and color correction. For every single shot, even if it`s properly shot in the first place. The goal is to create consistency trough the movie. In terms of look and feel, you can do miracles at this stage.

[f1000]

I guess none of you have ever heard about motion blur. I once came across a very good website that explained exactly why film and tv looked different, but I can't find it now so I'll leave you with the following links instead:

http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html
http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.eli...s/x_motion.htm

[bmedina]

Yes we know about motion blur, but what's your point? Film is shot 24p, which consumer cameras are starting to do, as well.

[f1000]

Originally posted by bmedina:
Yes we know about motion blur, but what's your point?"

Motion blur is the KEY difference between the video look and the film look. Even resolution differences are secondary, since movies transferred to television still have that distinctive film-like look. Lighting and whatnot are tertiary (aesthetic) considerations.

Originally posted by bmedina:
Film is shot 24p, which consumer cameras are starting to do, as well.

I hope you mean digital film, because regular film is not "progressive" at all.

[bmedina]

Motion blur depends on shutter speed (and therefore framerate, to some degree). You can buy consumer cameras with manual controls that can shoot in 24p (see wvx's links above). I still don't get your point.

[f1000]

jchen's initial question was what gives film that film-like quality; in other words, why do camcorder videos look different from professionally made movies. Telling him that movie producers used more expensive video equipment didn't give him a technical answer. Telling him to buy a consumer camera that can shoot in 24p didn't explain much either, although it did inform him as to how he can achieve an almost film-like look for cheap.

Anyway, if jchen is happy with the responses, then that's that.

[brianb]

Here is the problem with 24p for the amateur shooter though. when shooting at slower frame rates you have to take into account different properties of motion. If you just point and shoot the motion will look all jittery and give you motion sickness. Directors and photographers spend a lot of time setting up any shots with motion so that the viewer doesn't see the amount of motion jitter

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by brianb:
Here is the problem with 24p for the amateur shooter though. when shooting at slower frame rates you have to take into account different properties of motion. If you just point and shoot the motion will look all jittery and give you motion sickness. Directors and photographers spend a lot of time setting up any shots with motion so that the viewer doesn't see the amount of motion jitter

Iv'e never liked shooting in 24p (yet!) we have the problems you describe. I recently shot a film on Beta SP and after taking it through AE, converting it to 24p and applying mb, looks incredibly like film, no one would know a difference on a DVD anyway (which is where this film went)

We are looking at some Sony HDV camcorders for the future, but I'd really love a CineAlta HD

[brianb]

If you like do shooting in that way you might want to look into the Panasonic HD Varicam. It will give you a nice HD signal and the way it shoots at 60 progressive frames per second. Then you can pull it down to what ever you want when you post the footage. Granted depending on the project the equipment costs may be to much to afford. the camera rents for about $1200 a week( at least here in Minnesota)

[hadocon]

Originally posted by f1000:
Motion blur is the KEY difference between the video look and the film look. Even resolution differences are secondary, since movies transferred to television still have that distinctive film-like look. Lighting and whatnot are tertiary (aesthetic) considerations.


I hope you mean digital film, because regular film is not "progressive" at all.

This is BS - dont listen to it.

[dlefebvre]

One major difference between projects shot on video and on film is depth of field.
Video cameras need much less light and because of that there is almost no depth, everything is in focus.
Film camera have a much narrower depth of field. You can easilly have your main subject in focus and the foreground or background out of focus. It draws attention to the main subject. It's part of the cinematic look equation.

Also, colors are reproduced differently by film and video. There is much more contrast on film than on video. Video is an equalizer and it makes things more bland.

Some consumer and Prosumer camera pretend to do 24p but it's not totaly true. They mostlty do a pulldown and record anyway 30 frames per second.

And to those who say that lighting is less than secondary, I disagree.

The key elements for a cinematic look are (in no particular order):
Framing
Lighting
Spatial resolution (frame rate and motion)
Color correction
and a little noise

Using AfterEffects pulldown function for the final renders somtimes does miracles.

[k_munic]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dlefebvre:
�

The key elements for a cinematic look are (in no particular order):
Framing
Lighting
Spatial resolution (frame rate and motion)
Color correction
and a little noise
�QUOTE]

best answer so far!

and, of course, you can
* buy extra optics to get that depth of field as with a "chemcial camera" for your video camcorder
* buy lots of light
* try to use a 24p camcorder
* use AE or get plug-ins for FCP which offer a film-look (doing progressive with lots of computation, adding noise, doing some color correction)
* learn a few years about color correction

or, get a professional film director of photography

in the end: cheapest way is using that "film look plug ins" offered for FCE/P. it's a nice start. ahh, and a tripod