"filmlook vs. professional-look" -- Most filmlook arguments here are wrong
 

Too many "film look" arguments are talking about a completely different subject that I will call "professional look". Unfortunately, this completely confuses the core issues of what differences there are between the mediums themselves (I mean medium literally, as in emulsion vs. CCD).

And the confusion continues with the upcoming release of the AG-DVX100. Sample arguments have been - "well, you have to use film style lighting to make the 24P mode look like film".

First, most of the film vs. video look arguments have to do with qualities other than the medium itself including:

(1) Lighting
(2) Camera moves
(3) Lenses and DoF
(4) Filters & gels
(5) Acting, writing, production design

etc. etc.

These are all part of what I call "professional look". Many folks here and other places argue that applying "professional look" fools audiences into thinking video is film. I would argue that this does not make your production look like film at all. It just make it look professional and audiences will respond to it more seriously than an unskilled, amateurish production.

But good sound design and music does the same thing and clearly has nothing to with the "look" of the film, although it strongly changes the way that people perceive your project.

The sound remix on Blair Witch cost much more than the whole film itself.

"Filmlook" should be a technical argument ignoring these items entirely.

Consider this example. Give a 4 year old a super 8, autofocus, autoexposure cam. The footage they shoot will lack all aspects of "professional quality", but will clearly look like film, not video.

That's the key question. What are the inherent qualities of each medium that defines them.?

I believe a starter list will examine these points:

(1) Frame rate
(2) Exposure Latitude & light response
(3) Color Depth
(4) Resolution
(5) Color Rendition
(6) Grain vs. noise
(7) Frame issues (Interlace, Gate Weave, progressive etc.)

By separating these two arguments, we should get a lot more clarity and agreement of how to achieve film look in the DV world.

Stephen, you're the first person to mention professionalism being confused with film look. Based on my reading, I think most everyone here knows what they're talking about when they discuss "film look," especially those who have being answering other folks' questions. Too, I think most everyone here understands what is and isn't "professional." The posts here will, I believe, show that to be true.

You are right in saying that "image" is only one aspect of making a narrative drama look professional. I'll give you that one!

>>The posts here will, I believe, show that to be true.

But why are so many of the subject headers here about "professional look issues" like DoF, lighting, etc?

I think there is much confusion about the two concepts on this board as well as others DV discussion areas.

My only complaint which you address is that these issues are handled usually in one thread.

I agree. Discuss professional production separately from the technical issue of how to get the image looking film-like.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. If so, I apologize. Why not give give us an example? Can you point to a specifc thread that illustrates your concern?

The only thing I can think of is maybe some of the people that are new to all this are perhaps getting their terms confused.

<<<-- Originally posted by Good Dog : Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. If so, I apologize. Why not give give us an example? Can you point to a specifc thread that illustrates your concern?

The only thing I can think of is maybe some of the people that are new to all this are perhaps getting their terms confused. -->>>

Just look through them. This one is typical:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=681

Plus all the DoF threads and many the long, older threads as well. Plus look for November DV mag or number of web-sites covering this issue.

So, if I understand you correctly, you want the discussions to focus (excuse the pun) on the projected "image" alone and none of the other considerations and/or visual elements required for the production of a motion picture. Is that accurate?

<<<-- Originally posted by Good Dog : So, if I understand you correctly, you want the discussions to focus (excuse the pun) on the projected "image" alone and none of the other considerations and/or visual elements required for the production of a motion picture. Is that accurate? -->>>

Bingo. My point it to limit discussion and debate to the technical considerations ofgetting a filmic image to items directly affecting the physical medium of film vs. CCDs.

Production values and professional look are really separate discussions.

Figuring out why Super 8 never looks like video, but 24P sometimes looks like video is a more interesting question and ultimately more helpful for those trying to achieving a film look with DV.

Okay, thanks for the clarification and patience.

Maybe Chris can/will open another topic on the board to deal with production values. But on second thought, I guess such discussions could go under "Open DV Discussions" or "The TOTEM Poll: Totally Off Topic, Everything Media."

stephenvv,

This is not the first time these ideas on film look vs. ? (insert your favorite topic) has been discussed. I very good thread was started on this very topic the beginning of July. Unfortunatly a server crash wiped out that thread. But to paraphase, the particapants had come to the same conclusion as you. I think this forum is perfect for the discussion. Just start it with your proposal and ask for input on defining the influences on DV acheiving a film look, or some such thing.

Many beginners come here seeking answers. They are beginners, novices. They have perhaps read a few magazines and a book or two. However, they can not find the answers to very specific areas that confuse them. In my 21 years of teaching, I have found DoF and lighting to be among the hardest concepts to learn and apply skillfully. Professionaly applying DoF to achieve a certain mood, look, emotion (maybe even film look?) is just the application of knowledge. Knowledge of DoF, knowledge of equipment and knowledge of their audience or market, to name a few. But to a novice it sure may look more like the scenes they see shot on film.

So, when you start the topic, I'll give you my first question. What is the difference between Color Depth and Color Rendition?

Jeff

* * STEVENNVV and folks * *
 

I am a neophyte at this and I think this questioning post is just what I needed.

Who the hell wants something haphazardly thrown together on DV to look like film? Unless they are just experimenting to see what it looks like.

I appreciate the catagorizing of the two or more processes. It makes it easier to understand and learn from.

I am working on a short experimental dv. I am using lighting in some places and not in others. I am shooting for a film/cinematic look, but I want it to be smooth and focused on support of the story. I am not looking to fool an audience, its an artistic/aethestic choice. If I wanted to do that, I would have bought an Arriflex 16S, a couple of 400' magazines, and fool them with the real thing. I can see an un-thought-out (unprofessional/amateur) story being technically bad in either film or digital video. There is a scene in my dv film that I am unsure about... I digress... I am sure to make some mistakes...

However, in support of your tearing into the differences, please keep questioning and probing the topics. I am listening/watching/ taking notes and questioning.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : stephenvv,

So, when you start the topic, I'll give you my first question. What is the difference between Color Depth and Color Rendition?

Jeff -->>>

I think this is a good spot for it. To my semantic ear, Color Depth is as defined in digital imaging i.e. the number of colors that can be differentiated by the medium. Color Rendition is the accuracy of what the color is in the real world to our eye compared with how the color is then recorded by the medium. Feel free to clarify or restate.

Re: * * STEVENNVV and folks * *
 

<<<--
I am working on a short experimental dv. I am using lighting in some places and not in others. I am shooting for a film/cinematic look, but I want it to be smooth and focused on support of the story. -->>>

I assume you mean your using artificial lighting in some places and other spaces using natural light. As opposed to complete darkness :)

Could you define your "film, cinematic look" further and/or give some examples? Also, by "smooth" are you referring to camera moves or to something else?

<<<-- Originally posted by Good Dog : So, if I understand you correctly, you want the discussions to focus (excuse the pun) on the projected "image" alone and none of the other considerations and/or visual elements required for the production of a motion picture. Is that accurate? -->>>

Bingo. My point it to limit discussion and debate to the technical considerations ofgetting a filmic image to items directly affecting the physical medium of film vs. CCDs.

Production values and professional look are really separate discussions.
***********************

I love this form, I learned so many things here, often things I don't even need to know, but I learned to understand other's problems ways of going to solve there work. So my question why do you want to LIMIT DISCUSSIONS here?

Istvan

Not limit, clarify.