You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Professional Look?

Posted: Tue, 19th Jul 2005, 8:05pm

Post 1 of 65

angelx

Force: 0 | Joined: 24th Apr 2005 | Posts: 110

Member

I was just wondering if any programs are able to put a sort of "sheen" over a video so it looked like it was filmed with a professional film camera. I mean, a lot of these independent movies are good (and special FX are great nowadays) but most of 'em still look really amateur (no offense to anyone).
I use Pinnacle Studio 9 to edit my movies and I think there's something like this on that, but anyone know anything about this?
Posted: Tue, 19th Jul 2005, 8:26pm

Post 2 of 65

sk8npirate

Force: 590 | Joined: 28th Feb 2004 | Posts: 757

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I dont even understand what your asking. If you could explain what you mean by "sheen"
Posted: Tue, 19th Jul 2005, 8:51pm

Post 3 of 65

Jrad

Force: 230 | Joined: 30th Apr 2005 | Posts: 478

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Do you mean like make it sharper and more clearer? I myself am not too sure how to do this. I think that you have to mess around with the contrast and color. I'm NOT too sure. Once you find out let me know too.
Posted: Tue, 19th Jul 2005, 9:05pm

Post 4 of 65

xbreaka

Force: 490 | Joined: 8th Jul 2004 | Posts: 525

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

magic bullet-
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/magbulsuit.html
Cinelook-
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/magbulsuit.html
Digigrade-
www.fxhome.com
Posted: Tue, 19th Jul 2005, 10:31pm

Post 5 of 65

Lithium Kraft

Force: 2728 | Joined: 10th Jun 2005 | Posts: 538

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think what he means is,

You can tell the difference between video on TV
and video that you're watching on the TV straight from your camera.

There's a distinctive difference that's extremely hard to explain, but it's big enough that it's noticable.

and xbreaka- You posted the link for Magic Bullet under Cinelook.
Posted: Tue, 19th Jul 2005, 10:43pm

Post 6 of 65

LilCaesars

Force: 480 | Joined: 27th Dec 2004 | Posts: 530

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

One difference between major films and amateur films is the frame rate. Film cameras shoot in 24 frames per second and home cameras shoot in 30 frames per second or 60i. There are two things you can do. One is get a camera that can shoot in 24p such as the DVX100A or XL2. The second option is to get a 24p convertor which will take 30p or 60i footage and convert it to 24p. Here's an example of such a program http://www.courseptr.com/ptr_detail.cfm?group=Digital%20Video&isbn=1%2D59200%2D599%2D3
Like others have said too digital grading is a huge part too. Magic Bulllet and Cinelook will do you no wrong. Combine that with 24p and you should have a generally film looking movie.
Posted: Tue, 19th Jul 2005, 10:55pm

Post 7 of 65

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +3

To grade the footage to look more like film, you usually need to do a few things:

Add/Reduce contrast- Usually adding a bit of contrast is better seeing as film has more than video does.

Desaturate slightly- again, a little less color and saturation will make the video look less like video.

Glow- this is a filter on most big NLE's that highlights and spreads the white in an image, giving it a glow. Use this sparingly, and you're on your way to a more professional look.

Color Sheen- add a shade or tint of a specific color of your choice to your footagew to give it a unique look. In most movies the colors are subtle, but in others like the Matrix (green) or Schindler's List (red) they are more apparent.

and finally,

LIGHTING- the most important thing when going for a professional look. With the right lighitng to start with, post-production grading is a lot easier.

Here, I'll post some examples.

Okay, on the left is the original material. It looks pretty good to start, because we actually spent time lighting the footage in the first place. The center is the footage after it's graded- extra contrast, lowered luminance, and a slight glow, with my specific band of greensih yellow tint added. The series of shots on the right are a graded version as well, but with a more yellow tint, less saturation, and normal luminance. Again, a slight glow is added to sell the professionalism. The film these stills are from can be found- heh, that's actually the name of the movie- by clicking my sig. It's compressed for the web, so it doesn't look as good as the stills, but you get the point.

Hope this helps, Ben
Posted: Tue, 19th Jul 2005, 11:24pm

Post 8 of 65

sk8npirate

Force: 590 | Joined: 28th Feb 2004 | Posts: 757

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I really like the look you have going for that ben, I cant wait to see the entire film.
Posted: Tue, 19th Jul 2005, 11:31pm

Post 9 of 65

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Actually, the biggest factor in making it look like film is camera movement. second is frame rate, third is lighting, fourth is filtering In my opinion.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 4:13am

Post 10 of 65

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

Actually, the biggest factor in making it look like film is camera movement. second is frame rate
Partially, but not totally true. Camera movement is most certainly a subjective thing, which means it can't be a classifyinh factor for the professionalism of a movie. I'd say lighting is first, then grading, then frame rate.

Maybe frame rate second. But not camera movement first. Look at Saving Private Ryan or the Bourne Supremacy. Shaky-Cam all over the place, and they're professionally made movies!
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 4:26am

Post 11 of 65

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

True, but they did the shakiness artistically, like the handheld look in War of the Worlds. But it can't look like Dad holding a VHS cam back in '87. It is the way they do it. Also, with a nice visual look, it will obviously look more proffesional than Dad's shot. That is why grading comes before camera movement in my book as well in terms of how proffesional it looks. Also, the shakiness in those movies had meaning. It was either to add drama to a shot, or for a fast paced scene, or to point out something that wasn't really in the actor's viewing range. Not because the camera man was a half-wit.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 4:36am

Post 12 of 65

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

Also, the shakiness in those movies had meaning. It was either to add drama to a shot, or for a fast paced scene, or to point out something that wasn't really in the actor's viewing range. Not because the camera man was a half-wit.
I understand what you're saying, but: I was saying you couldn't classify camera movement as making something look professional, rather, it is whether or not the camera movement has meaning, as you said. A culmination of grading, lighitng AND camera movement all create the visual look of a film. But, in reference to the original query speaking of a 'sheen' for professionalism that looks like film as opposed to the visual look and sheen of video; lighting and grading are the MOST necessary. Things that have more to do with pre and post-production, rather than production- e.g. shooting of the video.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 6:41am

Post 13 of 65

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Imagine if a professional director took a crappy low end dv camera and made a high budget movie with it, using all the camera rigs and steadicams and cranes. Now think of a dumbass talentless amatuer and give him a $100,000 24p HD cam and filters, but no cranes, dolly's, or any other rigs. seeing those smooth pans and dollys and cranes with the right person, and no one is going to question. Perhaps you see what i mean.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 6:46am

Post 14 of 65

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Couldn't agree more Bryce. Good camera does not equal good filmmaking.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 7:16am

Post 15 of 65

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

But good rigs does not equal good filmmaking either.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 7:49am

Post 16 of 65

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Ben seems bang on here. Some seem to be equating money with professionalism, The two dont go together necessarily. It's quite possible to shoot a film with no camera movement at all so how can that be top of the list.

anyway here's a link I found about creating a film look in sony vegas.

http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/tutorials/filmlook_in_Vegas6.htm

and also some free plugings/actions for Adobe premiere

http://www.cinevidproductions.com/CVP/LookOfFilm.htm

I know you dont have premiere but it gives you some idea of what is to be done.

I think a lot of what ben says here is great apart from the desaturation thing. That depends on your subject matter and your original footage. Most consumer cams actually produce a more washed out look than film and saturation levels do depend on the subject matter of the film. the vogue for war epics is to desaturate to create then necessary atmosphere, other subject might require increased saturation. What Ben does say about lighting however cannot be emphasised enough. Look at the first link, thats metioned in there as well. No point in having the best steadycam or crane if you haven't got the basics of lighting right.

Oh yeah and if you really want the film look, shoot in 16:9 widescreen if your camera supports it.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 7:59am

Post 17 of 65

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Well, Im also thinking that its all how the movie is percieved. If a movie has fluid camerawork but it looks grainy and unfiltered and non-24 fps, people assume its artistic. Like the bourne supremacy, that was mostly available daylight and people Still knew it was professional. so lighting isn't the key. The camerawork was "artistic" but fairly controlled chaos, so again, assumed professionalism. the filtering was fairly underplayed. What really makes a movie shine is the acting. and story. and camerawork. most people i know will accept no filtering and lighting if the acting and story (and editing) work.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 8:14am

Post 18 of 65

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The original question was how to add a 'sheen' to make a movie look more like film. Telling someone to change their own style of acting, cinematography, and editing, is like saying you can only make a movie one way. And you can't. One thing most professional movies have in common is they're ALL LIT WELL and HAVE BEEEN DIGITALLY GRADED. The two main answers to the original question. Said and done. We all know certain camerawork makes a film look professional, but I don't think this is actually pertainent to the orginal question. He wants to know how to make his videos look like film. Like I said, lighting and grading, and you're done.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 8:36am

Post 19 of 65

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

i think whats really the problem here is the wording of the title of the thread. The guy is asking about "Film look" but the thread has the word professional in the title. So whats said about camera movement is true, it's just not top of the list for creating the "sheen" that the question is about. Perhaps a quick forum or google search on "Film look" might have helped before this posting was made. It's pretty clear from the question that the guy wasn't sure what this look is often called. Obviously camera movement is important for an overall pro look but not everyone can afford cranes and steadycams and the like. Most can however find the money for a few cheap working lights to help light a scene. Just a few pounds or dollars each from a good hardware store. Things have to be prioritised and camera movement has to be a bit further down the list thats all. it's still important of course
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 4:43pm

Post 20 of 65

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Well, obviously everyone is going to have a different opinion. for a while i was just focusing on filtering and 24 frames per second motion, but have since realized my camera moves need to be on target as well. But, For quick and easy fix to make video look a little more like film, just turn up the contrast and saturation abit (don't add grain.), and use some very light radial blur such as shine or whatever you're nle has in place of it, which i think looks better than diffusing the whites or blacks, and your all set. I suppose i suggested all that other stuff in order for him to improve as a filmaker and not take the easy way out....
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 4:43pm

Post 21 of 65

angelx

Force: 0 | Joined: 24th Apr 2005 | Posts: 110

Member

Thanks a lot.
I'll look into these programs.
And I'm sorry for any inconviences created by the title of the thread, etc.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 8:59pm

Post 22 of 65

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

It's cpol. We had a fun little arguement while it lasted. smile

Glad everyone could be of help.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 10:26pm

Post 23 of 65

Gnome326

Force: 10 | Joined: 21st Mar 2005 | Posts: 436

Windows User

Member

Look at Saving Private Ryan or the Bourne Supremacy. Shaky-Cam all over the place, and they're professionally made movies!
yeah, but you also have to use the shaky camera movement at the right times, they used it in SPR for effect, and to help you get into the film a little more than if it was still camera, thats also another reason why they took out the sound is for effect, so I guess it kinda depends on what kind of movie your making when you look at shakyness in the camera.
Posted: Wed, 20th Jul 2005, 10:47pm

Post 24 of 65

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

The endless debate.

If you want to make your video look like film, shoot on film...


You can always do stuff to make your shots look better. But you can not apply some fancy filter and suddenly your videocamera can equal a 500'000 ARRI 35mm Cam. It's not gonna happen. Ever.

The main difference between Videocameras and "professional filmcameras" lie in things you can not change with a simple filter.
It's the way the lenses are recording depth of field, that make the most difference. It's the way it records movement and how it handles motion blur (film has totally different way of doing that than video).

Do what what Ben suggested with your videomaterial and it will look better. But it won't look like a film made with a pro cam. His doesn't, mine doesn't, and yours won't.
Posted: Thu, 21st Jul 2005, 1:29am

Post 25 of 65

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Aha, i was waiting for someone to say that. However, you CAN make video look like film, if you get one of sonys $200,000 HD 2p cams used in starwars. alternately you can just buy panasonics upcoming $6,000 HD 24p cam and get as close as possible.
Posted: Thu, 21st Jul 2005, 9:22am

Post 26 of 65

aargh

Force: 261 | Joined: 16th Nov 2003 | Posts: 48

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Film is dying. It's sad, but true. I think everyone should get into a mind set of creating thier OWN look. That's the beauty of digital. the trial and error can be on a larger scale. Trust me, I've shot on film before and it's a pain in the a**, especially if your on a foodstamp budget like I was. Your shooting ratio has to be low, you have to load the film in blindly in a black bag, and blah, blah, blah. Not to say it didn't look good. But if you want your video to look like film then good luck. You can put a pig in a tuxedo, but it's still a pig in a tuxedo. And I think we all get caught up in the look and not substance. Of course, this is just my opinon, but the steps to create a good movie applies to both film and video. You need a story. No story, no movie. The camera is just a tool. Same goes with lighting. If you know how to use these TOOLS along with a STORY, then you'll have a great product on your hands.

Some things to keep in mind when making your movie.

-LIGHTING! Everyone can say it until the word is worn out, but it's still very important.

-DEPTH OF FIELD - this not only makes your images / video have more character, but it help direct the audience to what you want them to see.

-SOUND - Sound is 50% of a movie. Watch your favorite movie with the sound off. Then play the movie again, but don't watch it, just listen to it. You'll see how much it really makes a difference.

A lot goes into making a good movie but one thing to remember: You never stop learning and the best way to learn is to make mistakes, listen to others and their critiques, and be your self...okay so that's two things.

And Sollthar said it best. If you want the film look, shoot on film.
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 8:26pm

Post 27 of 65

Bugclimber

Force: 1305 | Joined: 7th Jul 2004 | Posts: 635

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Ben, what NLE do you use?
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 9:29pm

Post 28 of 65

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I have Premiere, but on most days I use a culmination of Vegas 3, 4, and a lite version known as Video Explosion Deluxe. Normally I use Vegas 4 for all of my post-production stuff such as grading, I still can't get the hang of Premiere.
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 10:01pm

Post 29 of 65

Bugclimber

Force: 1305 | Joined: 7th Jul 2004 | Posts: 635

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Does any1 have experience with Final Cut? Shud I get it?
Posted: Sun, 24th Jul 2005, 2:38am

Post 30 of 65

Bugclimber

Force: 1305 | Joined: 7th Jul 2004 | Posts: 635

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Does any1 know if there's a way to simulate glow in iMovie?
Posted: Sun, 24th Jul 2005, 3:33am

Post 31 of 65

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You can get plugins for glow.....

at these places:
Stupendous Software's Glow Pack
Some Weird Site's Glow Pack
Apple's Glow Pack

Maybe that'll help.
Posted: Sun, 24th Jul 2005, 4:05am

Post 32 of 65

Bugclimber

Force: 1305 | Joined: 7th Jul 2004 | Posts: 635

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

LOL! Ben, those are all the same. They're all from SS, those r just different ways of getting it. Too bad they're all demos, and in order to get one effect, u have to buy a whole pack.
Posted: Sun, 24th Jul 2005, 4:40am

Post 33 of 65

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well thought I might as well put as many options to get them as I could. wink
Sorry I couldn't help.
Posted: Sun, 24th Jul 2005, 11:10pm

Post 34 of 65

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I can't believe that for this whole thread no-one has mentioned the ONE THING that makes video look like film. Someone got close when they mentioned the framerate. Never mind the lighting, camera movements, expensive lenses, depth of field, colour grading, etc, etc ,etc.
That will make your video footage look spectacular, but it will still look like spectacular video. The only thing that will really change it is deinterlacing the footage. Because of the way video works, there are two images mixed together in a single frame, whereas there is just one image in film. That's what you need to fix...
Posted: Sun, 24th Jul 2005, 11:37pm

Post 35 of 65

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

CurtinParloe wrote:

I can't believe that for this whole thread no-one has mentioned the ONE THING that makes video look like film........Because of the way video works, there are two images mixed together in a single frame, whereas there is just one image in film. That's what you need to fix...
But this doesn't drastically change the 'look' of the video. Sure, it changes the way the video plays, and it may make the video play as if it were film, but Joe Moviegoer isn't gonna notice the difference so long as grading, good lighting, and good framing are already in a video.

The term 'look like film' is used way too loosely around here. When I read the original question, I assumed this person was one of the many that wanted to get rid of that video-ish look, and make it look more like what they knew as film- that polished looking picture they see in the theatres- but I don't think they all wanted an in-depth report of how exactly to make your picture process at the same speed, or how to alter the framerate. To an amateur videographer, I doubt these differences are noticable.
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 1:42am

Post 36 of 65

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah, deinterlacing really isn't even as essential as 24 fps motion. Also, deinterlacing is a fairly alright way to go, but if you just HAVE to have that, buy a progressive shooting camera. It looks ALOT better/
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 1:46am

Post 37 of 65

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Keep in mind the Canon prosumer cameras (GL1, GL2, XL1, XL1s) can directly shoot in frame mode, which is just as good as 24fps. The XL2 shoots ion true 24fps, but lkike I said, frame mode- to me at least- looks and is just as good.
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 3:55am

Post 38 of 65

Bugclimber

Force: 1305 | Joined: 7th Jul 2004 | Posts: 635

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Does any1 know of a FREE glow plugin for iMovie?
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 5:46am

Post 39 of 65

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Site with some iMovie freebies:
http://www.partnersinrhyme.com/osx_software/FreePlugins/FreeImoviePlugins.html

http://www.geethree.com/slick/

Search around those sites, they may have one.
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 6:15am

Post 40 of 65

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

hahaha..ben...frame mode DEFINATELY isn't as good as 24p. not even close. It even causes resolution loss.
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 11:06am

Post 41 of 65

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:


But this doesn't drastically change the 'look' of the video. Sure, it changes the way the video plays, and it may make the video play as if it were film, but Joe Moviegoer isn't gonna notice the difference so long as grading, good lighting, and good framing are already in a video.
I disagree with you in part. The mise-en-scène, cinematography and picture grading are all important to stop video from looking poor, it's true, but the way it plays is extremely noticeable. Take sitcoms (in the states. in the UK look at eastenders), for example. They are lit, shot and graded well enough, but there's no way they look like film.
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 11:24am

Post 42 of 65

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

well perhaps they didnt want them to look like film ?
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 12:04pm

Post 43 of 65

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Actually, most of the sitcoms in the United States are shot on film...

They just use a lot of lighting which washes out the look.
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 12:11pm

Post 44 of 65

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

A good example in the UK of the vast difference between film and video is to compare ER to Casualty.

Things will be changing around a bit with Star Wars-style HD cameras becoming more affordable, and with digital grading taking off. The recent Doctor Who series was shot on video, but had quite a bit of grading which made it look pretty good.

I'd say the most noticeable differences (especially to people that aren't film experts) are in lighting and lens types. If I put a nice wide angle lens on an XM2, light the scene properly and shoot in progressive, the results look fantastic.

Last edited Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 12:48pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 12:36pm

Post 45 of 65

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

By widescreen I assume you mean an anamorphic adaptor Tarn ? and by progressive you mean frame mode ? Just asking coz I have an XM2. Are the century optics adaptors any good ?
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 12:48pm

Post 46 of 65

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

By progressive, yes, I mean frame mode. Very useful for effects work, being able to work with full frame res images. In theory could cause problems playing back on some TVs, but I've yet to encounter one that can't handle it.

Not sure why I said widescreen lens, I meant wide angle. Not sure what the exact make or type of wide angle lens we used, you'll have to ask schwar about that. It makes a huge difference, gives the shot much more depth and makes it more exciting and dynamic, introducing some nice curvature instead of that flat, news-style look that normal camcorder lenses create.
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 12:55pm

Post 47 of 65

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I love my wideangle lens, you get some great effects, reminiscent of the Overlook Hotel in the Shining, where Kubrick used a wide-angle lens to make the walls seem to loom over the actors.

Progressive is definitely the way, although I tried it on a Sony PD150 (I believe that was the model) and it was dire. Probably wasn't the best camera for that...
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 1:02pm

Post 48 of 65

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

ah wide angle ok. Well that idea is cheaper at least. Those anamorphic adaptors are not cheap
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 6:10pm

Post 49 of 65

Spanish Prisoner

Force: 310 | Joined: 21st Aug 2003 | Posts: 378

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

What I actually did with my last two short movies (1minute and 1:30 minute), I added 1-2%slow motion to reach a smiliar effect like 24f/s.

anyway, you can use it when you don't have a too long movie and much dialogue, because I guess with time you get out of sync with the sound. But try it out for a short movie.
Posted: Mon, 23rd Jul 2007, 1:08pm

Post 50 of 65

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Desaturate slightly- again, a little less color and saturation will make the video look less like video.
Well, MiniDV camcorders that are around $200 to $400 (which is what I use) tend to not pick up enough color, so in my case (and I'm sure some other people's cases) it's actually best to saturate the footage slightly instead of desaturating it. Then again, you may want to change the saturation amount depending on the feeling you want to put into a perticular scene, like if you want it to seem really happy you might want to pump a good amount of color into it whearas if you want it to be a sort of boring or maybe a sad scene you might want to take away a lot of the color.
Posted: Mon, 23rd Jul 2007, 5:08pm

Post 51 of 65

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

And this thread comes back from the dead to see just a little light again!
Posted: Mon, 23rd Jul 2007, 7:15pm

Post 52 of 65

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

CurtinParloe wrote:

I can't believe that for this whole thread no-one has mentioned the ONE THING that makes video look like film. Someone got close when they mentioned the framerate. Never mind the lighting, camera movements, expensive lenses, depth of field, colour grading, etc, etc ,etc.
That will make your video footage look spectacular, but it will still look like spectacular video. The only thing that will really change it is deinterlacing the footage. Because of the way video works, there are two images mixed together in a single frame, whereas there is just one image in film. That's what you need to fix...
I disagree- I think 24p is overrated TO A POINT. What I mean by that is that I think you are half right- the "p" in 24p means "progressive" which is the opposite of a (standard) interlaced image as you've stated, but I think 30p looks smoother thatn 24p- 24p can have an unpleasant "strobing" effect on scenes with a lot of movement. Some of the Canon cameras shoot in 30p and I think the movement is smoother while still providing the progressive "look"

IMO THE most important thing about improving the look of your videos (to make them look more professional) is lighting. That includes understanding how your camera performs in low light, etc... After that it becomes camera technique and framing (how they camera moves, what perspective it's at, how you frame your shots) and then EDITING - how the shots are cut together into a cohesive narrative- then AUDIO - then all your fancy grading etc...increasing contrast, decreasing saturation, etc...

I like 30p, and I do agree that progressive images impat less of a "video quality" to the footage.
Posted: Mon, 30th Jul 2007, 8:17am

Post 53 of 65

FXhomer5899

Force: 0 | Joined: 24th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1

Member

first of all video does not shjoot in 24 fps...not does film shoot in 30fps.
NTSC (american) film shoots at 29.97 and video is rounded to 30 for conventional use. both film and video shoot 24 fps if it is PAL (europe)

lens work, as well as shot choice is you top thing that wil help make your video look more professional. the natrual daylight comment about bourne: bull shit.

they control sunlight, they have tons of filters and reflectors to make light hit where it needs to be. lighting is your big image difference, video is not lit film is. done deal.

your biggest thing to make your image look nice (apart from technical aspects such as camera work and lighting) is color correction and a slight diffusion. films are shot with lens filter which can be simulated in post. but if you dont light you wont even come close to getting a film quality image

...and if you dealing with day light..you need to understand how to manipulate the light to do what you want. which can only be done be experimenting and learning how daylight works cause daylight can very easily screw up your footage if your not careful....

superman returns, once upon a time in mexico, and all three of the newest star wars were shot digitial, its all about lighting your shots right and post. just for image quality alone.
Posted: Mon, 30th Jul 2007, 8:20am

Post 54 of 65

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

FXhomer5899 wrote:

first of all video does not shjoot in 24 fps...not does film shoot in 30fps.
NTSC (american) film shoots at 29.97 and video is rounded to 30 for conventional use. both film and video shoot 24 fps if it is PAL (europe)
PAL is 25fps.

superman returns, once upon a time in mexico, and all three of the newest star wars were shot digitial, its all about lighting your shots right and post. just for image quality alone.
Phantom Menace wasn't shot on digital, it was shot on film (except for a single shot, apparently).
Posted: Mon, 30th Jul 2007, 9:03am

Post 55 of 65

SlothPaladin

Force: 2900 | Joined: 30th Nov 2004 | Posts: 637

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think part of the 'professional sheen' is that the cinematographer on the 'pro' movie knows his tools and is trying to ACHIEVE something, they have a mood or feel they are ACTIVELY pursuing. They aren't worried about making it look like film, they will see what kind of mood that is called for in that part of the movie and try to set the lights, lenses, angles and everything else up to help convoy that while keeping with the aesthetic look of the whole movie.

If you get a film camera and just shoot footage and say, "This footage is going to look like it's shot on film becouse it's !@#$ing film!" it will look as bad as DV footage shot without a clear goal.

Most of my 'look' is created with lights, dimmers, gels, and lots of stuff to block the light and carefully setting the white balance, shutter speed, and aperture. When lighting try to back light your characters so they stand out from the background. Also make sure the color temperatures on all the light sources match. If you don't understand what I'm saying you best start reading about lighting.
Posted: Mon, 30th Jul 2007, 9:03am

Post 56 of 65

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Superman Returns was shot on Super35 film, the highest resolution you can get- the same that 'Lawrence of Arabia' and '2001: A Space Odyssey' were shot on.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico was shot on video, but RR is also a big grading and lighting guy, and added a lot of grain and elements to get that effect. Yes, it looks like film- but it was achieved through painstaking work to emulate the effect.

The Star Wars movies (2 and 3) look horribly, ridiculously like video. There's no creative framing or lighting, as, well, they're on a greenscreen you fool! smile

Phantom Menace, like Tarn said, was on film. (Do you know that digital shot, Tarn? smile)

So.........................basically you're................wrong. wink



Kidding, kidding.
Posted: Mon, 30th Jul 2007, 9:11am

Post 57 of 65

SlothPaladin

Force: 2900 | Joined: 30th Nov 2004 | Posts: 637

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Just a note: 35mm is NOT the highest resolution you can get, Mark Osborne's More was shot on 70mm film (IMAX sized) But they usually only shoot nature documentaries and such in that format as it's ridiculously expensive.
Posted: Mon, 30th Jul 2007, 12:26pm

Post 58 of 65

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Out of interest, Jabooza, why exactly did you feel the need to reply to a post from July 2005 in the first place?
Posted: Mon, 30th Jul 2007, 12:40pm

Post 59 of 65

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I guess because someone linked to it recently (referring to ben's 'technique' for grading).
Posted: Mon, 30th Jul 2007, 11:45pm

Post 60 of 65

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Okay- can somebody tell me why exactly 24 fps is better than 30 fps? I understand that if it's filmed that way originally, then the lens captures more light and color, but I've tried converting footage to 24 fps on the computer, and there is no noticeable difference.
Posted: Tue, 31st Jul 2007, 1:24am

Post 61 of 65

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

There is, even if all you're seeing is ghosting between frames. When I converted GL2 footage that was in either slow-motion or fast-motion to 24p, it take away some of the 'video' effect of altering the motion.
Posted: Tue, 31st Jul 2007, 8:02am

Post 62 of 65

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Darth Penguin wrote:

Okay- can somebody tell me why exactly 24 fps is better than 30 fps?
It's better because it makes converting to film for theatrical projection easier and with good results. So if you're planning on a theatrical release, it's the way to go.

If you're not planning to show your film in cinemas, then it's rather a waste of time.

I understand that if it's filmed that way originally, then the lens captures more light and color, but I've tried converting footage to 24 fps on the computer, and there is no noticeable difference.
The lens is a completely separate issue to the frames-per-second. They're not connected.
Posted: Wed, 1st Aug 2007, 4:07pm

Post 63 of 65

FXhomer14113

Force: 0 | Joined: 1st Aug 2007 | Posts: 1

Member

to make your film look more professional you shout try putting it wide screen a.k.a 16:9 ratio and putting the contrast up a bit so that it looks less like a camcorder. if your making a dark sort of film then try putting the saturation of the colour of the footage down a bit so it is more black and white. after that its up to you and where you put the camera. the angles at which you film at also make a difference between camcorder and pro cameras. if you put something like plant etc... in from of the camcorder and position it so that the plant is blurred then it looks more like an actual film and less like someone just being followed around with a camera. but make sure that the plant is just, say, in the edge of the picture and doesn't block the characters face.
Posted: Wed, 1st Aug 2007, 9:55pm

Post 64 of 65

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

"To make your video look like film, put a plant in front of your camera"

Fantastic advice. This thread is great. smile
Posted: Wed, 1st Aug 2007, 10:39pm

Post 65 of 65

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

"To make your video look like film, put a plant in front of your camera"

Fantastic advice. This thread is great. smile
You just made tea come out my nose with mirth biggrin

Anyway, it must be why gardening programmes always look so damn good!