Flim Look vs Video Look at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds
Sony PMW-300, PXW-X200, PXW-X180 (back to EX3 & EX1) recording to SxS flash memory.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 14th, 2009, 09:48 AM   #1
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kennewick, WA
Posts: 1,124
Flim Look vs Video Look

After using our EX3 for a while now and reading this forum quite a bit, I'm starting to learn that their are two distinct personalities of users.

1) People that want the look of film
2) People that want the look of very high quality video (like on the Discovery Channel)

I think it's important understand the differences here (I'm no expert, feel free to chime in).

FILM LOOK
Shoot progressive (gives a slight shutter look)
Shoot 24p (this isn't always the case, 30P is also popular)
Shoot with detail off (I haven't tried this yet myself)
CINE Gamma settings (CINE4 is popular)
35mm adaptors are also popular

VIDEO LOOK
Shoot interlaced (smooth motion)
Shoot 1080 60i
Shoot with detail on (this is just a guess on my part....might be wrong about this)
STD or CINE gamma settings (both are popular)
Final delivery will be for broadcast use (normally interlaced)

The point is, going for "the film look" isn't the same as wanting the highest quality video. It depends on the look you're going for. I made this mistake as I always thought that the "film look" was the holy grail and had to be the look I wanted. I've found that I don't really like the look of 24p, but have settled on 30p as of now. (might try 60i soon)

There are lots of things that determine "video quality" and some of it comes down to personal taste.

I've found this journey very interesting and enlightening. Just thought I'd share. :)
__________________
Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor
Mitchell Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 09:55 AM   #2
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitchell Lewis View Post
There are lots of things that determine "video quality" and some of it comes down to personal taste.
Probably one of the most profound, insightful declarations on this entire site.
Jay Gladwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 10:56 AM   #3
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
I don't see 'film look' and 'video look' any more. I just see 'a look'. My preference is high framerate progressive scan. High quality 1080/50p would look sublime and I can't wait for it to come onto the market in force.

Otherwise, aside from 720p/50/60 my preference is to shoot 25p, not for film look, but for versatility. I like the look of it too, but I don't use it any more for the purpose of trying dismally to make my video look like 35mm.
Simon Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 11:24 AM   #4
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,940
I have settled for 1080i 50i with shutter at 100 for shooting and 1080i 25p for delivery in pro res 422.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 11:37 AM   #5
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 628
Then there is me that shoots for the internet. Pretty much the only place my video will be seen.

I always shoot progressive because I hate interlaced, and so far my "look" has been crappy white balance...LOL

I"m thinking of have it copyrighted...
__________________
EX3, Q6600 Quad core PC - Vista 64, Vegas 8.1 64bit, SR11 b-cam
Erik Phairas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 11:47 AM   #6
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Los Angeles CA USA
Posts: 507
And I shoot both - 1080i60 for real life looking material (for me that's how-to's, industrials and unscripted reality shows) and 720p30 for scripted dramatic programs, mainly because the stories I shoot have a substantial amount of slow motion and undercrank in them.

Will be experimenting with higher res and framerate progressive for drama if and when, but those are my main modes for now.
__________________
"The content, not the container."
Chris Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 12:02 PM   #7
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kennewick, WA
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass View Post
I have settled for 1080i 50i with shutter at 100 for shooting and 1080i 25p for delivery in pro res 422.
Gary, what's 1080i 25p? hehehehe (I assume that's a typo)

Thanks for sharing everyone. I think this is becoming a useful thread.
__________________
Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor
Mitchell Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 12:31 PM   #8
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
How bizzare - I posted a blog article musing the very same thing just yesterday...

You got the look TV Soup

But to save you the click, I reckon 'The Film Look' is going to become a quaint or stylistic expression, like doing something in black and white.

Lots of cameras have moved on from the 'video' look of narrow exposure range, artificial sharpening and interlaced motion. So are we going to dub the super-real 1080p50/60 clean sharp images 'the HD look'?

And whilst we're here thinking about looks is it my imagination, or has the 'Top Gear' vignette and fast shutter speed 'look', once used sparingly and with absolute precision in the aforementioned entertainment series, become a poultice to apply to 'reality' TV material to make it look 'exciting'? 'Looks'? Bah!

What the camera should be doing (says he, chewing on the meerschaum and kicking the Labrador) is getting a nice neutral image with a range of tones and a neutral demeanour so that the colourist has something to work upon. Interlace be damned. Shoot enough frames and let your format decide.

But what bugs me is that we're pushed higher and higher into the realms of technical quality, yet the biggest market seems to be 'the fourth screen' wherein we'd be lucky to get 640x360. I'd say that with scaling down, it would be hard for most audiences (or even buyers) to tell the difference between 35mm and a well sorted EX or HVX. So then we're into a whole other argument - video acting vs film acting, video script vs film script, video sound vs film sound.

But the nurse says I must rest now.
__________________
Director/Editor - MDMA Ltd: Write, Shoot, Edit, Publish - mattdavis.pro
EX1 x2, C100 --> FCPX & PPro6
Matt Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 01:47 PM   #9
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southend, UK
Posts: 165
I thought interlaced looked better when I first got my EX1. However progressive is the way to go. I have found that you have to shoot in a completely different way.

The motion issues are only a problem if you wave the camera around like a nutcase! I look at stuff on TV completely differently now. Most shots contain lots of movement in the frame rather than the camera moving around. Fast motion within the frame combined with fast cutting gives the feeling of motion without there actually being any, or very little, camera movement.

Music videos and TV ads are a good example. I believe that most commercials are still shot on film. HD cameras have to be handled a lot like film cameras. Film cameras get that "juddery" look too if not used properly.

I don't think I'd ever shoot interlaced again. I love the progressive look. Interlaced just looks far too stark.
Darren Ruddock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 01:54 PM   #10
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 628
I like the smooth motion of interlaced, I just like the solid look of the progressive framerates more. If 1080x60p ever gets widely adopted (by websites, TVs, and so on) and cameras start supporting it.. I'm there.
__________________
EX3, Q6600 Quad core PC - Vista 64, Vegas 8.1 64bit, SR11 b-cam
Erik Phairas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 01:59 PM   #11
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Posts: 3,777
Good thoughts Mitchell.

It really does come down to what you like as well as what you need. The great thing is the EX can do it all. So here's my sentiments.

I don't like 24p. I don't like the lack of temporal resolution. Sure a good DP can work with it with the limits of camera moves etc. but me, I find it a handicap.

I shoot 1080p30 most of the time. I like progressive over interlace but I also like more temporal resolution that 30p affords.

Now if I'm shooting fast action I'll shoot 720p60.

I'll shoot 720p30 if I need to do a lot of overcranking.

If I'm really backed into a DARK corner I might shoot 1080i60 because interlace results in a major sensitivity increase but it's a really dark corner for me to make that choice.

For web, digital signage and corporate HDTV presentation it's progressive as well.

For Broadcast (SD TV spots in my case) I'm sorta torn given I need 480i60 in the end.

Generally 1080p30 is the all around best though. It gives me progressive I like and need for most delivery. It gives me a nice big frame size if I need to use it in a standard def timeline (reposition and "ken burn" type moves on moving video, etc). It gives reasonable temporal resolution for most of what I shoot. It also chroma keys much better than interlace.
Craig Seeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 03:16 PM   #12
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
Interlaced? Schminterlaced!

Please, can somebody answer me...

What HD device can our viewers realistically buy now with even a shred of desire that natively displays interlaced video?

Shooting interlace is just a cheap way of getting twice the frame rate, but with the caveat that you get soft video with at least 25% less resolution as a best case scenario. Shoot 1080iXX and what you're getting is 720p
__________________
Director/Editor - MDMA Ltd: Write, Shoot, Edit, Publish - mattdavis.pro
EX1 x2, C100 --> FCPX & PPro6
Matt Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 11:32 PM   #13
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kennewick, WA
Posts: 1,124
MATT: I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that most television is still broadcast in interlaced format, whether it's HD (Discovery HD, etc...) or SD. Why I don't know, but those are currently the parameters that some of us must work in.

But by responding to your question I am in no way condoning the use of interlaced video. I'm just simply trying to answer your question.
__________________
Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor
Mitchell Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2009, 11:42 PM   #14
New Boot
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 9
I like the look of 1080 30p. What is the final target of this progressive rate. I currently burn to blu-ray and shoot 1080 60i. I did not like 24p (which IS a legal blu-ray spec).

1080 30p looks good but what is your final destination for it?

Mark Miner
Mark Miner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2009, 09:23 AM   #15
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Posts: 3,777
HDTV TV Channels in the USA/NTSC are 720p60 and 1080i60, so interlace is still very much in use for HD. Note that both formats have high temporal resolution.
Craig Seeman is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:16 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network