[Xeo]

This is my first post in this neck of the woods. Bear with me.

Background: in high school (early 2000), a friend and I did various projects for classes using the DV camera his family got the Christmas before. We played with FCP and did some things we thought were cool. It always wowed the technologically-illiterate people in our school (everyone, practically), but looking back, they suck. They were fun, but they were not good quality.

So, for the first time in almost 5 years, I'm going to do a video project, and will use FCP 4 to do it. So I'll probably be asking a few questions for the next month or so until I put the camera away for another 5 years.

Here's the question. Video shot with a DV camera (or any other camcorder) have a "home video" look to them. Video that Hollywood and TV stations put out, don't. What can I do to avoid the home-video look. I hate it.

Sorry this post was long for a short question. It was meant to be half life-story so deal with it.

[Steve SpotOn]

The biggest thing for me that makes things look 'home movie' is hand held camera work. Stick it on a tripod and don't zoom or pan unless you've got a decent fliud head.
DV can look pretty good if you shoot with a decent tripod and camera (Sony DSR570) and set it to 16:9 format. Then just apply some 'film effect' filters in the edit.
G fitlers:
http://www.nattress.com/

There are DV cameras that do film effects in the camera (de-interlace etc.) but I prefer to shoot as clean as possible then apply these filters in the edit.

It might be worth taking a look at the new HDV camera that Sony have just brought out (HDR-FX1) which will also record on DV as well as HDV in true widescreen. Unfortunately FCP doesn't support HDV yet but its rumored that it will soon.

Steve

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by Steve SpotOn:
The biggest thing for me that makes things look 'home movie' is hand held camera work. Stick it on a tripod and don't zoom or pan unless you've got a decent fliud head.

It's not so much that it's handheld it's the way it's shot handheld that makes home movie stuff look home movie-ish. I recommend getting a shoulder mount for your camera if you want to be able to move around a lot.

I'd say the main problem with a lot of amateur video is that no thought at all is given to lighting or sound. The basic impulse is just to use available light and the camera's built-in mic which results in poorly lit video and noisy, muffled sound. If you're serious about making your video look great invest in or rent a lighting kit (this one ain't bad. Likewise if you want it to sound good then buy a decent microphone that suits what you're doing (depending on what that is you might also want to add a boom to the operation, but this adds the requirement of having at least one crew member, and possibly a mixer).

Definitely get a nice tripod. I probably wouldn't spend less than $300.

[k_munic]

Hi Xeo,

a few things were mentioned above; but to be honest: even Hollywood movies like "shaky camera"�-

sound: the internal mic is NEVER as good as a seperate one�-

light - YES!

tripod - yes again�

pic quality . ooh, ooh, welcome to the jungle�- have a look at a pro video-crew, how big the camcorder is: gigantic lenses, lots of hardware�- they use a totally different recording system, less compression inside the camera and so on�

another thing: progessive shutter.
video splits the picture not only into pixels, but also into lines; you have even and - surprise! - uneven lines; they are broadcastet one after the other; a fast moving object makes jaggys, zigzag at the border lines etc�- it looks "electric" not as movie.
and: the tiny weenee ccd inside your camcorder makes the field of depth from here to ? - a "chemical" camera just shows parts of the picture sharp.

so, there are some tricks on the market; what I like best (not only, it is for FREE!), is a tool called JES Deinterlacer, you can get it here:
http://home.planet.nl/~jeschot/

after finishing your project, you transfer the .dv into it and let it run (LOTS of computation!) - you get a new one with e very "filmish" look. give it a try!

[demograph68]

Magic Bullet but it's pricey.

[Randman]

And know what you're going to shoot and how you want it to look once you're done BEFORE you hit the record button. A decent home film can be salvaged by careful editing, but it's always easier to go into the recording knowing what you want.

[tooki]

To actually get a cinematic look, you need to use a 24p progressive-scan camera, like the $4000 Panasonic AG-DVX100. (It uses 3-2 pulldown in recording to DV, so you then run the footage through FCP's reverse-pulldown filter to create the original 24p frames for editing.)

If you just want the broadcast video look:
1. all the suggestions from above (good lighting and audio are crucial!)
2. a 3-CCD camera. One of the biggest sources of the "home video" look is the de-bayerizing that occurs in single-CCD cameras (and almost all digital still cameras, for that matter).

As for camera shake... there's a huge difference between the jittery chihuahua-like shake typical of the no-weight handheld camcorders of today and the big shoulder-held broadcast/cinema cameras that weigh 20lbs and up. The latter may shake, but it's got a certain smoothness to the shake. Consumer camcorders just... vibrate with every breath.

tooki

[dlefebvre]

Lighting and sound is capital. A few movies released in theaters were shot usig a DV camera (Full frontal, 28 days later, Tape) proving that with decent lighting you can get pretty good results. A good microphone with a boom is also essential, because nothing breaks the mood like hearing the camcorder motor.