Raw film doesn't look that good - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Techniques for Independent Production

Techniques for Independent Production
The challenges of creating Digital Cinema and other narrative forms.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 17th, 2005, 03:12 PM   #16
Tourist
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4
to my knowledge, star wars wasnt shot on film, but rather hd 24p, ,he actually invented the format so to speak.
the most important thing about getting good results with film, is the lense (zeiss), lense speed, and how it is lit. pus also the rating, of the film.
grading of film can be somwhat be compared to "onlining" on a symphony, or adrenaline system where you can colour correct, and adjust the gammas.
but to compare both of them "raw film" and "video" too many variables to take into consideration.
Steven Williams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2005, 07:50 PM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 359
I thought Attack of the Clones was shot with a Cinealta?

Anyway, I still don't think it looks as good as film. It looks great, nearly there but you can still see it's clean and crisp.

Also, I remember playing the DVD in 2x on my player (which is the XBox, and when you double the speed it doesn't judger at all) and it felt like video... due to 'becoming' 48fps. It felt a lot like PAL output in terms of motion...
__________________
Do or do not, there is no try.
Dave Ferdinand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2005, 01:34 AM   #18
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles, Ca USA
Posts: 542
Film can fall apart rather quickly when you begin to look at film prints that went from the original negative to an internegative then to a final print.

That's two extra steps before the film was transferred to video. Nowadays that is for the most part frowned upon. The idea being a digital intermediate gets thrown into the equation, or for stock footage, the video is transferred directly from the original negative to video, and looks quite spectacular.
Sometimes when you look at stock footage you are seeing a third generation print transferred several years ago, and the result won't stand up to what one can do now from the original negative.

Certain television shows that were shot on film have been retransferred in recent years to get even more quality out of the original filmed footage.

One form of education that Non-linear does not teach very well is linear color correction. By that I mean actual knobs and dials where you instantaneously can control several video levels. When Linear color correction is combined with properly set up white clip and black clip, color correction takes on a whole new meaning.

I still use betacam sp for editing and mastering because I color correct EVERY SHOT, and when I combine it with the black and white clip, I can usually make any lower budgeted video shot look better, and I can do it within a few seconds.
Alessandro Machi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2005, 08:22 PM   #19
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Holland, Europe
Posts: 214
ONe thing counts. Most of us are poor, or extremely poor (barely covering monthly Internet costs and montly Micky Mouse magazine). We all want to use video cause that is what we can buy. So that is why everybody feels so damned GOOD when video is portraited as being equal or closely equal to film. Video enhancing makes the difference all right, but you will never get shallow DOF and deep shadows. Although the latest xl2 has some nice-ass shallow DOFS.

Another thing, audio makes the difference. I only need to hear 5 seconds of conversation of the film to judge it as ' cheap' , ' bad acting' or 'film-like'.
Jose di Cani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2005, 06:44 PM   #20
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 61
I'm confused. Always always confused. We strive for the "film look", grain, "softness", color, fps... but we all love HD TV, which is the oposite of film. It's so crips, it's SOO digital, and we all love it! We love all the intense detail, and super clean lines and edges. So why is it that we think we need to emulate, dare I say it? An outdated look.

It reminds me of the camparison of CDs/MP3s to Records. Records are so rich, so full of sound. The Analog wave forms hold so much more that a Digital attempt at a wave can only dream of. Records Scratch and pop, CD's don't. The process we use is the same as adding in Scratches and Pops to the latest music to make it sound "real".

Why is it that we are introducing defects into our movies but not our music? Why is it that we think we need scratches and grain in our movies and not our favorite HD TV show? I understand the color and exposure range arguments, totally. Video has a lot to catch up on in that respect, but the softness and grain ... maybe I'm missing something, but I thought a cleaner image was always better. Next time I wont clean my lens, add some more grit to my footage. =P (that last one was a joke)
__________________
--------------------------
-Riley Florence
SLC, Utah.
http://www.secondsection.com

Last edited by Riley Florence; May 24th, 2005 at 11:24 AM.
Riley Florence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2005, 09:47 PM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 804
I think your "vision" about film might need a bit of.... "adjustments"
Film is not "soft". Film is as crisp as a high acquisition medium can get.
But due to frame size and lens used, has the ability to separate the "important" from "less important" thus, creating the 3D illusion on a 2D screen. The shallow DOF that is so hard to get in video (as the CCD size gets smaller)
Nobody (that I can remember) was looking forward to the natural defects from projections/transfers (scratches, hair in the gate and so on)...
Dan Diaconu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2005, 11:35 AM   #22
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 61
I understand the DoF issue. People complain about Star Wars:EPII because it is so crisp and clean (as a previous poster said), but it still uses DoF like other films, I don't think of 'soft' as refering to DoF. Maybe by soft they are refering to the lower fps and how it interacts with motion on screen?

I suppose the thing that confuses me the most is why people introduce grain and scratches.
__________________
--------------------------
-Riley Florence
SLC, Utah.
http://www.secondsection.com
Riley Florence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2005, 01:57 PM   #23
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wall, NJ
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riley Florence
I suppose the thing that confuses me the most is why people introduce grain and scratches.
its the common misconception that grain will have significant effect in the film look, which isn't really true IMO. If you watch IMAX films, there is hardly any grain what so ever, yet it still looks like film (because it is), and is still absolutely beautiful.
__________________
--Devereaux

]:-( --->

http://geocities.com/anarchist_lb
Jon Laing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2005, 02:00 PM   #24
New Boot
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 9
Yeah adding grain/scratches to video for "film look" is ridiculous. Adding diffusion (softness) seems to help blur the line between the two maybe, but definitely doesn't make any video more or less like film.

I just wanted to toss this in here tho....I'm all for film. I still really love 35mm and larger format photography. It looks incredible, but as far as 35mm motion pictures are concerned, there's not too much there for video to overcome. a 35mm negative resolves to about 3k pixels i think, and there are medium format digital camera backs with CMOS sensors that capture 22 megapixels, EASILY matching the quality of 35mm. There's also a 48 MP large format back out. Anyway I'm just saying that the technology is basically already there. We just lack the ability to store the massive amounts of information fast enough (>24 fps), so film still ultimately wins... for now. I'd say that 35mm color photography is pretty much dead now though. And hopefully interlacing will die soon too... I really hate it. lol.
Matt Kelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2005, 02:56 PM   #25
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 268
Well after I saw Revenge of the Sith...

Film will and should be dead. :)
Young Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2005, 03:45 PM   #26
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 493
Lee,

I'm not sure. A lot of people came out of that movie thinking the opposite, that this digital stuff just doesn't look right.

Josh
__________________
Owner/Operator, 727 Records
Co-Founder, Matter of Chance Productions
Blogger, Try Avoidance
Joshua Provost 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 > Special Interest Areas > Techniques for Independent Production

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:59 AM.


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