My 2 cents...
I am a beginner to shooting video, I have never shot film, well, a little 8mm when I was a kid. I would like to add one thing to Paolo's post. 9 times out of 10 if I frame a shot so it is uncommon to normal sight, (low, high, shallow, dutch, long, etc.) everyone watching my films says "ooooo, that was a nice shot". I am convinced that using framing and angles not normally seen makes a shot look like the movies,(not necessarily film). I just got a hd 100 and I am totally overwhelmed when shooting, exposure, focus, framing....geez! So I'm agreeing with Paolo 100%, get out there and practice, practice, practice! The shots I get right look like the movies, the shot I don't quite get look like video. Oh and one more thing, story is more important than film look. If your story is good, most people overlook almost everything else. Story doesn't have to be words, or even actors acting, it can be what you are showing viewers through your eye via the camera.
Nuff said,
Jon

Now, filters are great and can be expensive so do you guys use a mattebox and 4x4 filters or just an 82mm threaded filer. I have a circualar poarizer and it was thebest investment I mad so far for my camera but i dn't want to purchase 2, one for a mattebax and to thread on.
Also do you guys keep the detail off on your camera?

Matte box, detail set to MIN

I had a look at the Tiffen site. There are more choices then you can shake a stick at. So, what are people using – Black promist? White, Warm soft, Warm black, Softnet….? The list goes on and on.

I had my eye on the 1/8 black promist.

Scott, your best option is to find a local dealer where they have the filters and look at them with your own eyes.

Thanks Paulo. Don’t think that will be possible here in Portland.

Do you have any personal favorites?

Thanks a lot Paolo! I am 100% behind you all the way! You are truly a great inspiration for me as a young videographer.
hi, scott.
I just found this store located in the portland area, you might want to check it out. http://www.prophotosupply.com/index.htm

Gabriel.

Let me address this tomorrow when I have more time but the fact of the matter is that Tiffen has asked us to put together 4 packages for the DV shooter that they will then offer. I'm almost through with the evaluation and will post the results tomorrow. Please bear with us until then. I promise, it'll be well worth the wait...and the price. Tiffen will be pricing them specifically lower as 2nd Unit Series, by as much as 20%, than individually and we can get them to you before they hit the stores. You'll buy them from your local dealer eventually when the promo goes out but for now we'll get them for you and just ship them out to you with no markup. We're not in that business.
Jonathan

Simon,

I think we probably all agree that there isn't a single "recipe" for "film look". Even the term "film look" is no absolute, different people have different ideas of what that means.
My post was meant as a, somawhat provocative, suggestion to pay more attention to your optics than to your bits. Because this will yeld faster and better, IMHO, results.
24fps, progressive scan like the one we have on cameras like the HD100 or the Sony F-350 are defintely necessary but by itself 24fps is not enough.

I'm lucky enough that every week I have to gear up for a new episode of "2nd Unit" and this continuos exercise has tought me more in 2 months than the past 2 years. So, my humble suggestion is to "force" ourselves, as much as possible, to forget the computer gadgets and spend more time with the camera.
Filters, camera angles, camera movements , 24fps, etc. All these are necessary elements, it's important that we look in that direction and become proficient in the art of cinematography, more than in the use of a plugin.

I find the "film look" to be a misleading and pointless term...I think we video folk should strive to make the best possible video we can and be proud that we can work within a restrictive medium to acheive presentable results.

As has been said before, film is the film look...make your video look really good. Content is king in both mediums...I've walked out of the theater on 35mm movies before because they were unwatchable...I've been captivated by highly compressed video at quarter TV resolution...let's drop the whole "film look" thing now and move on to great looking video.

I can say no more than Mr. McDonald is precisely right and i applaud him for his conviction and articulation. One of the exciting announcements I can't make until Tuesday is based in this very statement and our selection of cameras, lenses and accoutraments that fit the script bear out Mr. McDonald's position. Bravo Cole. More to come.

Check out Bruce Willis's movie "Hostage" (2005). Film makers know how to create the "Video Look" when they want. When Bruce's character is doing a TV interview they turn on the edge enhancement to a great extreme to contrast the look with the film look. In fact, you see that trick used in movies a lot.

I don't find the description of the "film look" to be pointless or misleading. It is a look that can be studied and emulated in cadence, latitude, colors, etc and looks are often created in post for both video and film to create mood and emotion. The fact is, if you are shooting a story or trying to make a movie you will try to achieve the film look. If you're shooting a corporate piece or documentary, you will be thinking differently about the look and will be satisfied with great video.

The fact that video and post technology is reaching the point where we can now change the look is what these discussions are all about.

The real sources of the film look...
 

Watching a film the other night after browsing this thread, it hit me what the real sources of film look are.

First, is the single camera shooting style where lighting doesn't have to cover all angles at once like it does in daytime drama or sitcoms. This will probably rankle a few people, but the realities of multi-camera shooting, even in the hands of a George Divie (who pushed the key/fill ratio beyond the medium's prior limits and made multi-camera look as good and dramatic as it could), creates a "television" look that is still by it's nature not what can be achieved in a single camera production. I've seen 35mm acquired sitcoms that didn't have, well, they didn't have the "film look!"

For example, two of my best friends were principals on "Family Ties" and I know for a fact that is was shot on 35mm, and expertly so under the multi-carmera realities. But there are probably many one-hour dramas shot in HD today that have far, far more of a "film look" than Family Ties!

Another factor is the mixture of the one-camera format with the skill, training and professionalism of the feature film cinematographers and their lighting crews. Throw in the top make-up people, the well-exeuctued work of the production designers and all the other crafts that it takes to make a production look like a "movie," and you're on your way to the "film look."

Finally, it's the post process and in particular the very skilled and experienced (and expensive) colorist who ultimately gives the film it's look. I had to re-cut some episodes of a film one-hour drama (In the Heat of the Night), and the uncorrected film footage looked worse than just about any video you could imagine, bad green or blue casts, low saturation and so forth. But the data was in there to "fix it in post" -- yes, at least in that case, the colorist even had to give single camera acquired flim it's "film look."

If any of us can approximate those conditions given our level of budget, our access to capable people in all the crafts, and if we are able to block out the time to give these people the chance to fully utilize their talents and abilities, and it gets good color correction, then you will achieve the film look too. Filters, plug ins and everything mentioned on this thread will all blend in to the overall process.

After reading the BBC white paper linked here and learning that the latitude of video really isn't that much (if any) worse than film's, and seeing how the three emulsions in the film have such widely varied exposure/gamma response for each color, it's a miarcle that even film achieves a satisfactory film look. In some ways they may have a bigger hill to climb to get a great image than good video does with our ability to white balance and do real-time monitoring. But the film industry has had many, many decades to season top people, refine their skill sets, and perfect their work flows.

I really believe that we HDV video dogs can refine our skill sets and work flows too and make imagery to rival film and high-end HD acquisition. But we have to pay attention to all the areas above (crafts) and address them as best we can.

Thankfully, it's more about time than money. Take time with lighting so your subject looks the way you think a film should look, then take another look and light the background right as well as the subject. Bother with a make-up person. Bother with some attention to production design, even if you have to do it yourself. Learn to use the color correction tools in your NLE such as Color Finesse and read a book on the colorist's craft if necessary.

And don't forget to study the 2nd Unit episodes for millions of good ideas that will help us ALL shoot and cut like pros.

Tip McPartland
Vice President of Production and Development
TMC Entertainment

I second Tip!

Now there you go. I thought "Family Ties" (an excellent show by the way) was shot using the old tube video cameras. Now that is an excellent example of how Film can be shot to look like Video.
Lighting makes such an impact on the whole look weather film video or?.