Neil Slade
July 13th, 2003, 11:50 PM
How do I make my video look like a classic film?
Will my GL2 work somehow-- or should I get a more expensive Panasonic DVX100 to shoot at 24 frames per second progressive mode?
The main issues seem to be this:
1) Film like ability
2) Color rendition
3) Sharpness
4) Cost effectiveness
I pondered this question deeply and at great detail. My dilemma was this-- I have a FEATURE project, that is to say a 1-hour to 90-minute "film" to produce-- AND I have my own distribution network. I.e. YES I will actually sell thousands of copies of my finished DVD.
I have no interest really in whether or not my feature will make it to the big screen, as this competeing with Star Wars thing is a huge gamble, lottery, and game I'm just not interested in. Right now I make my entire living selling my own original books and CDs, and a DVD to add to my product line will assuredly sell nicely.
SO- my question was, as a current GL2 / Vegas Video owner, "Will I be content with my production values with the GL2 or will the DVX100 give me a noticeable improvement in final product, and perhaps better recognition and acceptance of my final product-- and most importantly, will >>I<< like how it looks better on the GL2 or DVX ?????
Importantly I AM INTERESTED IN THE FILM-LIKE presentation and I really am not interested in a VIDEO-like look. Think FILM here. Quality classic look.
"Film-look" depends on many things, including light, camera handling, editing, etc.
But what I learned was that given all things the same, can one make a video camera have that classic look one recognizes in film productions- using a VIDEO camera? Would the DVX deliver that SOMETHING extra, significantly so, over the GL2 that would say to viewers "NO, this is not another home movie."
My first experiment was to see if there was in fact a noticeable difference in actual footage, indoors and outdoors between the two cameras.
I went to my local video supply rental, actually TWO DIFFERENT places that rented DVX cameras. They were both nice enough to let me shoot tape in their camera for about 30 minutes at each place. I shot tape using my GL2 in the same locations under the same conditions.
I then looked at the footage at home on my new really nice Toshiba 20' flat screen TV, carefully adjusted and tweaked.
I used the Canon in both FRAME and REGULAR mode, and the DVX in 24pA (24 frame advance)
I immediately noticed FOUR important differences.
1) The DVX produced a noticeably sharper picture. No doubt about it. This was visible within seconds. I went- "holy cow, that is one SHARP picture."
2) The DVX did not gather as much light in dim conditions. Yes, the Canon will shoot in very dim light and has tons of nice gain. The DVX does fine in regular room light (natural or artificial) in progressive mode, but you don't have gain added in very low light. Relatively irrelevant for me as I don't plan on shooting in the dark.
3) The DVX color was more natural and accurate, especially noticeable in RED. The GL2 has always had trouble giving me a really true deep red, NO MATTER HOW I TWEAKED IT. I could get a good red-- but then it messed up the YELLOWS and made them green. I've tweaked and tweaked-- its impossible.
The best balance gave me yellow yellows, but slightly magenta/pink reds. Livable, but not perfect. The DVX nailed the colors-- and on top of that is EXTREMELY adjustable in many more respects than the GL2.
4) The DVX had HORRIBLE aliasing on fine diagonal lines. At the time, I did not know how to fix this.
ADDITIONALLY
5) I did not immediately notice a big difference between Canon Frame mode motion of objects and the DVX 24 frame mode motion of objects.
Okay, so after this initial exposure and playing, I was indeed happy with my GL2. I, in fact, could not tolerate what appeared to be an insurmountable problem with aliasing with the DVX. Every telephone pole line, and sharp diagonal edge had just too much stair-stepping to tolerate. I didn't notice a big difference between 24 frame and Canon's Frame mode.
SEVERAL WEEKS LATER
We shoot some test footage with the GL2. I take it home, do a little editing and look at it.
I am not totally thrilled, because FRAME mode still has this VIDEO look to it and when you horizontal PAN, you really get a lot of FRINGE along contrasty edges. It's okay, but it does not look like film no matter what I do. I try everything.
We did everything right in our test, and DAMN-IT STILL looked like home video-
REALLY REALLY GOOD video-but it was still VIDEO looking, and thus conveyed the inescapable quality of TV. Even the best video productions on network TV have this look--- and I didn't want it for this project.
So I decide to RENT a DVX for a full day-- $150, to make sure I am using the right camera for my project, since I will not get a second chance to film what will be hundreds of hours of footage.
This time, I read the DVX instructions and get a better sense of how to use the camera. Both myself and my subject-- a inexperienced in film 17 year old high school senior (artist however with an EYE) look at the results.
It was a NO BRAINER.
It was SO CLEAR.
The GL2 looked like a home movie.
The DVX looked like professional film. Ahhhhh!!!
Here's what we found, beyond a doubt:
1) The DVX is sharper, again, no doubt about it. The aliasing problem I first encountered can be adjusted-- it is actually a function on the sharpness of progressive fram video. Without going into long details, I found I could adjust this aliasing if it came up in a scene by adjusting the "sharpness" (called DETAIL in the DVX) if necessary. IN many situations, it did not come up and was an irrelevant issue. Mostly the picture of the DVX was REALLY SHARP.
I found that this did not necessarily translate into still captures from the video- yes the stills from the DVX were sharper, but you could REALLY tell when you watched the footage moving on a TV, then it was even more apparent to the eye. I imagine this sharpness is do to both the bigger lens on the DVX and the 1/3" CCD chips versus the 1/4" CCD chips on the Canon.
2) The DVX colors look more accurate-- this is not a HUGE difference, because the GL2 has pretty damn good color to begin with.
3) The DVX in 24p mode LOOKS LIKE FILM. It looks like something you would tell a STORY with, unlike a documentary which is fine on video. This was noticeable on a static scene, and even more so in a scene with motion. My subject put it this way "The DVX has more depth, it looks 3-D. The GL2 looks flat by comparison." Yep, unmistakable this time. It helps to read the directions and have the right settings on.
When we A / B the Canon against the DVX, looking at exactly the same thing moments apart in the same light the difference between the two cameras is quite NOTICABLE. Especially after a few moments of contemplation.
The Canon produces what looks like VERY VERY GOOD >>>VIDEO<<<. To most people for most of the time, this is an exceptionally nice thing. HOWEVER, it does not look like film.
The DVX is nearly a dead ringer for 16mm film. The motion is right, the resolution is right, the colors are right. DAMN!! This is what I was looking for.
A) THE FRAME RATE.
The only way to get film frame rate motion is to produce a SINGLE PICTURE changing at 24 frames per second. That's what the DVX does. The Canon does not.
Film looks mostly like film mostly from this one thing.
You can change the light, the plot, the action, the motion--- and film will look like film because of 24 fps and video will not look like film until you video at 24 UN-INTERLACED fps. Period. You can get everything the same-and video will look different than film merely because of interlaced frames and frame rate.
Accept it.
B) The gamma (light and contrast) of film and video are different. Essentially video is more "contrasty" and highlights become over saturated and flare.
Video is usually shot BRIGHTER than film. The Panasonic people were very clever and set up there camera with a CINE-LIKE PRESET so that the camera will automatically film less contrasty, and less bright with film like gamma. This is IMPORTANT, though not as crucial as #1 above, alas many films are shot very contrasty and bright-and they still look like film because of the frame rate and non-interlaced picture.
The best thing about the DVX is that you really can adjust it to do almost anything you want, from plain normal interlaced bright contrasty video looking video to 24fps cine-like gamma that looks like 16mm film. The Canon does not go as far, and the FRAME mode only hints at film look.
C) The DVX just has a higher quality picture than the GL2. It has a bigger lens,and bigger chips and so in the end gives you a higher quaility more professional picture to start with. You can tweak it and trash it out to your hearts desire, but you START OUT cleaner and finer. You can't add cleaner and finer to a picture that doesn't have it to begin with.
***
I've tried to make STILL PHOTOS which demonstrate clearly the difference between the two cameras and it does NOT DO THE DIFFERENCE JUSTICE. So I'm not going to add to whatever is already out there on the web. You have to see the cameras on a TV side by side, and then you will go "YEAH, I SEE IT. YUP. THERE IT IS." Or you have to trust what a few of us are now observing.
It's like trying to describe the taste of strawberries to someone with words or pictures.
This is a combination of frame rate and motion that does not translate to low-resolution computer web language or stills.
But the difference in presentation of these two cameras is UNMISTAKABLE.
***
Will my GL2 work somehow-- or should I get a more expensive Panasonic DVX100 to shoot at 24 frames per second progressive mode?
The main issues seem to be this:
1) Film like ability
2) Color rendition
3) Sharpness
4) Cost effectiveness
I pondered this question deeply and at great detail. My dilemma was this-- I have a FEATURE project, that is to say a 1-hour to 90-minute "film" to produce-- AND I have my own distribution network. I.e. YES I will actually sell thousands of copies of my finished DVD.
I have no interest really in whether or not my feature will make it to the big screen, as this competeing with Star Wars thing is a huge gamble, lottery, and game I'm just not interested in. Right now I make my entire living selling my own original books and CDs, and a DVD to add to my product line will assuredly sell nicely.
SO- my question was, as a current GL2 / Vegas Video owner, "Will I be content with my production values with the GL2 or will the DVX100 give me a noticeable improvement in final product, and perhaps better recognition and acceptance of my final product-- and most importantly, will >>I<< like how it looks better on the GL2 or DVX ?????
Importantly I AM INTERESTED IN THE FILM-LIKE presentation and I really am not interested in a VIDEO-like look. Think FILM here. Quality classic look.
"Film-look" depends on many things, including light, camera handling, editing, etc.
But what I learned was that given all things the same, can one make a video camera have that classic look one recognizes in film productions- using a VIDEO camera? Would the DVX deliver that SOMETHING extra, significantly so, over the GL2 that would say to viewers "NO, this is not another home movie."
My first experiment was to see if there was in fact a noticeable difference in actual footage, indoors and outdoors between the two cameras.
I went to my local video supply rental, actually TWO DIFFERENT places that rented DVX cameras. They were both nice enough to let me shoot tape in their camera for about 30 minutes at each place. I shot tape using my GL2 in the same locations under the same conditions.
I then looked at the footage at home on my new really nice Toshiba 20' flat screen TV, carefully adjusted and tweaked.
I used the Canon in both FRAME and REGULAR mode, and the DVX in 24pA (24 frame advance)
I immediately noticed FOUR important differences.
1) The DVX produced a noticeably sharper picture. No doubt about it. This was visible within seconds. I went- "holy cow, that is one SHARP picture."
2) The DVX did not gather as much light in dim conditions. Yes, the Canon will shoot in very dim light and has tons of nice gain. The DVX does fine in regular room light (natural or artificial) in progressive mode, but you don't have gain added in very low light. Relatively irrelevant for me as I don't plan on shooting in the dark.
3) The DVX color was more natural and accurate, especially noticeable in RED. The GL2 has always had trouble giving me a really true deep red, NO MATTER HOW I TWEAKED IT. I could get a good red-- but then it messed up the YELLOWS and made them green. I've tweaked and tweaked-- its impossible.
The best balance gave me yellow yellows, but slightly magenta/pink reds. Livable, but not perfect. The DVX nailed the colors-- and on top of that is EXTREMELY adjustable in many more respects than the GL2.
4) The DVX had HORRIBLE aliasing on fine diagonal lines. At the time, I did not know how to fix this.
ADDITIONALLY
5) I did not immediately notice a big difference between Canon Frame mode motion of objects and the DVX 24 frame mode motion of objects.
Okay, so after this initial exposure and playing, I was indeed happy with my GL2. I, in fact, could not tolerate what appeared to be an insurmountable problem with aliasing with the DVX. Every telephone pole line, and sharp diagonal edge had just too much stair-stepping to tolerate. I didn't notice a big difference between 24 frame and Canon's Frame mode.
SEVERAL WEEKS LATER
We shoot some test footage with the GL2. I take it home, do a little editing and look at it.
I am not totally thrilled, because FRAME mode still has this VIDEO look to it and when you horizontal PAN, you really get a lot of FRINGE along contrasty edges. It's okay, but it does not look like film no matter what I do. I try everything.
We did everything right in our test, and DAMN-IT STILL looked like home video-
REALLY REALLY GOOD video-but it was still VIDEO looking, and thus conveyed the inescapable quality of TV. Even the best video productions on network TV have this look--- and I didn't want it for this project.
So I decide to RENT a DVX for a full day-- $150, to make sure I am using the right camera for my project, since I will not get a second chance to film what will be hundreds of hours of footage.
This time, I read the DVX instructions and get a better sense of how to use the camera. Both myself and my subject-- a inexperienced in film 17 year old high school senior (artist however with an EYE) look at the results.
It was a NO BRAINER.
It was SO CLEAR.
The GL2 looked like a home movie.
The DVX looked like professional film. Ahhhhh!!!
Here's what we found, beyond a doubt:
1) The DVX is sharper, again, no doubt about it. The aliasing problem I first encountered can be adjusted-- it is actually a function on the sharpness of progressive fram video. Without going into long details, I found I could adjust this aliasing if it came up in a scene by adjusting the "sharpness" (called DETAIL in the DVX) if necessary. IN many situations, it did not come up and was an irrelevant issue. Mostly the picture of the DVX was REALLY SHARP.
I found that this did not necessarily translate into still captures from the video- yes the stills from the DVX were sharper, but you could REALLY tell when you watched the footage moving on a TV, then it was even more apparent to the eye. I imagine this sharpness is do to both the bigger lens on the DVX and the 1/3" CCD chips versus the 1/4" CCD chips on the Canon.
2) The DVX colors look more accurate-- this is not a HUGE difference, because the GL2 has pretty damn good color to begin with.
3) The DVX in 24p mode LOOKS LIKE FILM. It looks like something you would tell a STORY with, unlike a documentary which is fine on video. This was noticeable on a static scene, and even more so in a scene with motion. My subject put it this way "The DVX has more depth, it looks 3-D. The GL2 looks flat by comparison." Yep, unmistakable this time. It helps to read the directions and have the right settings on.
When we A / B the Canon against the DVX, looking at exactly the same thing moments apart in the same light the difference between the two cameras is quite NOTICABLE. Especially after a few moments of contemplation.
The Canon produces what looks like VERY VERY GOOD >>>VIDEO<<<. To most people for most of the time, this is an exceptionally nice thing. HOWEVER, it does not look like film.
The DVX is nearly a dead ringer for 16mm film. The motion is right, the resolution is right, the colors are right. DAMN!! This is what I was looking for.
A) THE FRAME RATE.
The only way to get film frame rate motion is to produce a SINGLE PICTURE changing at 24 frames per second. That's what the DVX does. The Canon does not.
Film looks mostly like film mostly from this one thing.
You can change the light, the plot, the action, the motion--- and film will look like film because of 24 fps and video will not look like film until you video at 24 UN-INTERLACED fps. Period. You can get everything the same-and video will look different than film merely because of interlaced frames and frame rate.
Accept it.
B) The gamma (light and contrast) of film and video are different. Essentially video is more "contrasty" and highlights become over saturated and flare.
Video is usually shot BRIGHTER than film. The Panasonic people were very clever and set up there camera with a CINE-LIKE PRESET so that the camera will automatically film less contrasty, and less bright with film like gamma. This is IMPORTANT, though not as crucial as #1 above, alas many films are shot very contrasty and bright-and they still look like film because of the frame rate and non-interlaced picture.
The best thing about the DVX is that you really can adjust it to do almost anything you want, from plain normal interlaced bright contrasty video looking video to 24fps cine-like gamma that looks like 16mm film. The Canon does not go as far, and the FRAME mode only hints at film look.
C) The DVX just has a higher quality picture than the GL2. It has a bigger lens,and bigger chips and so in the end gives you a higher quaility more professional picture to start with. You can tweak it and trash it out to your hearts desire, but you START OUT cleaner and finer. You can't add cleaner and finer to a picture that doesn't have it to begin with.
***
I've tried to make STILL PHOTOS which demonstrate clearly the difference between the two cameras and it does NOT DO THE DIFFERENCE JUSTICE. So I'm not going to add to whatever is already out there on the web. You have to see the cameras on a TV side by side, and then you will go "YEAH, I SEE IT. YUP. THERE IT IS." Or you have to trust what a few of us are now observing.
It's like trying to describe the taste of strawberries to someone with words or pictures.
This is a combination of frame rate and motion that does not translate to low-resolution computer web language or stills.
But the difference in presentation of these two cameras is UNMISTAKABLE.
***