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

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.

<<<--
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.

I must agree with stephenvv, and I am very pleased to see that someone here understands the difference. Yes a video shot in 24P can be made to look like film if the "professional look" is obtained carefully via lighting, depth of field and post production, but stephen's argument that Super 8mm film will always look like film no matter what is 100% accurate.

Basically there are two things separating videos from looking like films.

#1 Lighting and everything else involving how the video is shot and what is done to it in post processing. This is what 99% of the people on this board seem to think is the key to making a video that "looks like film". Super 8mm film has the advantage of actually being film and that factor will help in obtaining a look that can only be replicated with very careful lighting...but that's not the whole issue here:

#2 Motion. A 24P camera is MANDATORY for obtaining the true motion effect of film. True there are some computer processes that are getting better and better at mimicking this, but 30P and 60i will never truly look like film no matter how good the lighting is. I have a digital camera that under proper lighting achieves film like images. Many people do not realize that pictures taken with it were not shot on film. That right there shows the importance of lighting. However, those still frames lack the most important part of shooting on video - movement! The motion is not there on a still picture, but give that a 30P or 60i movement to it and suddenly those fabulous still frames will no longer look like film, but will look like video.

Bear in mind that Super 8mm film generally runs at 18FPS or 24FPS. Still, it always looks like film. On the other end of the stick, there have been film processes in the past that shot and projected at 30FPS. Did it look like film? Yes. What was it that looked "videoish" about it? The motion!

Bottom line here, start with a 24P camera and then worry about your lighting (aka "professional look") as you shoot. In the end your production will look much more like film than someone shooting with a non-24P camera like the XL1.

Now can anyone tell me just when Panasonic is going to actually release their new camera? I've been patiently waiting for months. :)

Hi Brad,

Details on the Panasonic AG-DVX100 are here http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3614 The ship date is October 10th.

Jeff

Brad:

It's nice to have some validation and find some one else who undertstands this perspective of film vs. video.

Your #1 and #2 points are absolutely spot on.

Thanks for posting.

Well... I went and shot it for 6 hours last night.

Yes, you are correct in assuming natural and artificial. Last night was the artificial. I am not a lighting designer and I can see why I am not. I shot in an f-stop range of 1.8-2.2 and a -3 gain. Very dark. I had a lot of depth, with a headache number of, overexposed, areas. Nothing I can't fix in editing, but jeez. The lighting I used was some modified halogen work lights which had a yellow orange hue. Which I happened to like. It fits the story nicely. However, I had wished I realized before shooting 2 hours that it was much too dark. Very sharp and deep shadows. Creatures of the night. I'm glad its fundamental elements are dramatic.

Cinematic maybe the wrong word. You could put a home movie into a theatre and it would be cinematic. Mean't for large screen viewing.

Smooth meaning action and camera movement. Also, editing. Because of the nature of the 'work' of improvisation, I used a tripod 2% of the time and the rest was hand held. The improvs proved very hard to track and keep in frame.

I might reshoot the scene... Not sure yet until I sit and mull it over. I will see what post turns up...

I have found that you can extract a lot of detail from shadows in post (as long as you adjust the gamma curve to keep highlights from clipping) much easier than finding details in highlights with DV footage.

So too dark may not be a problem.

Also make sure that your setup on the NTSC monitor is correct (also called IRE. DV is 0 IRE, but NTSC is +7.5 IRE) Mismatch between devices can cause footage to look darker than it actually is. Computer NLE generally default to 0 IRE.

What editing/viewing setup do you have?

I have both Avid XPRESS DV 3.0 and Premiere 6.0. Both I am a novice with. I am more comfortable with Premiere at the moment. I haven't decided on which system to use, but I am leaning towards Premiere.

Trial by Fire.

Are you using a NTSC monitor to preview or just computer monitor?

Flat screen LCD computer monitor...

I am about to acquire a 19 inch Trinitron too...

Brad (and Stephen):

I agree with most of your assertions, but I will challenge the 24P vs 30P distinction. Whereas I do feel that film shot at 30fps and transferred via telecine to NTSC does have a different motion characteristic than 24fps footage given the same transfer, I don't think that it loses its filmic appearance enough to claim that it looks "videoish". I just shot a music video on Super 16, and while much of it was shot at 24 fps, some of it was shot at 30 fps for various reasons. We also shot with a double-speed music track at 60 fps and transferred at 30 fps to achieve slow motion footage with lip sync. I was somewhat concerned that the 30 fps would not look good intercut with the 24 fps, but I can't say that viewing the final cut, I can discern which is which--and I'm looking very closely, believe me.

I have also seen choppy-looking 24p digital footage, suffering from worse strobing than 24 fps film in my estimation. I've heard various theories about why this might be.

My attraction to the XL1 is almost entirely because of the smoothness of the "30p" (aka faux-progressive) Frame Movie mode. I look forward to seeing the new Panasonic other than in a brief trade show floor once-over, but I am not necessarily assuming that the 24p characteristic will blow away the XL1's look in frame mode just because of the 3:2 pulldown.

This of course is my opinion, on a subject which is probably one of the most hotly debated on this and other forums!

Well, 30 fps film does look more like video than 24 fps film, which I think was Brad's point, especially when lots of motion is involved. But it still looks like film.

Per choppy 24p, that seems to be a shutter speed issue from what I understand. It's something to see how it works with the new Panasonic.

Per Frame-Mode. Frame mode is much lower resolution than 24P. Motion is nice, but you only get around 320 lines of vertical resolution vs. 480 with the Panasonic. Since the Panny does true 30P as well, it will blow frame mode out of the water.

That's why I just sold my XL1 and lens package to get the Panny. 24P won't look like frame mode though. 24P will look like lower res 24P HD. Tweaking the shutter and iris will affect the motion strobe, hopefully enough to get filmlike motion blur.

Okay, this is where I pipe in.

stephenvv:
You are correct in your assessment of the issues. No problem there. BUT I will almost always know if a piece is shot with HD or a video camera BECAUSE of the deeper DoF.

Currently, most people will "associate" a shallow DoF with film only because that's one of the qualities of 35mm lenses and not something that current stock video cameras can match. Right now I think calling the shallow depth of field that comes from 35mm lenses "professional look" is something that confuses me. Why do you consider it the "professional look"? The DoF of a 35mm lens (with the same Depth of View and distance to subject) cannot be accomplished with standard video cameras HD, or otherwise. It's really through the use of 35mm lenses and proper equipment. So because I use this equipment than that's professional? I agree that because of equipment like the mini35 this issue is no longer a "limitation" of video itself. Keep in mind I say 35mm lenses and not 16mm lenses or super 8 equipment.

So in the end, YES, it's not technically the medium of film, but it's the association with 35mm equipment that I believe is important. Of course that will change in the future. Hopefully video cameras will come with shallow focus lenses equivalent to 35mm.

Brad:
"True there are some computer processes that are getting better and better at mimicking this, but 30P and 60i will never truly look like film no matter how good the lighting is. "

I don't believe this is true. I'm sure your footage looks great. But most people don't understand any of the issues discussed here. Viewer tests like that are not empirically accurate, unless you have some other equivalent footage to compare it to.

Now, I propose this. I bet my footage (with the mini35) and a post pulldown will look more like "film" (and beautiful) than something shot with the panny shooting the exact same scene. In fact I'll probably do that test.

Again, I don't want to start a debate or argument here, but as a DP and director I believe the aesthetic of a shallow DoF is an important part of my craft. AGAIN this is a visual aesthetic, perhaps my very own personal taste. All this is really not as interesting as talking about good lighting anyway.

I also believe that in the future hopefully we will be seeing more things shot at a higher frame rate. Why? Because it's looks more like what we see with our eye. I would still want to be able to control the DoF in that case. Douglas Trumbull was a pioneer in this concept with Showscan (70mm @ 60fps).

Anyway, I'm tired, flame away.

Only thing i want to flame Justin is you having a mini35 and i dont :)

Jokes aside though. We are going on in great technical detail about wether or not you can make it look like film with 50/60i materials or if you have to go 24p. We also talk about if shallow DOF is what gives the trick, or if it is lighting.

In the midst of all this debate, between all the "its impossible" and the "it can be done!". Remember who's watching the things we produce. They are not seasoned veterans of cinematography or experts in technical post process techniques and deinterlacing algorithms.

If the end results looks good then its all good. But it's the end results that matters. Not the way there.

I remember a few years ago, when i worked a lot with film people (meaning they prefere to shoot on 35 mm than on anything else). You faced the definite comments like "it's impossible to use video" and "video can never look like film ever". I always asked them. If you shoot on 35 mm and telecine it to edit for your final product, a broadcast piece. You are going from a very high def material (film) to video def (PAL/NTSC). And how ever you turn/twist/rotate it, it's still only 720x576(PAL) pixels with a limited colour depth. The end format doesn't really care what you started with. It will still be the same no matter if the original material was 35mm, 16 mm, 8mm, HDTV or Hi-8.

You can draw a parallel to the debate about CGI effects being good or not. I've worked with visual effects since the early 90's. and there are very few films where i've at the first sitting haven't noticed the effects. And the one thing those films had in common, was a good story and compelling images. Those two make me concentrate on the film that unfolds infront of me instead of looking for errors in the effects. The rest, well.. they come and go without leaving a trace.

Ok. i'll stop ranting now :)
/Henrik

what happens when you use a pal xl1/s shooting at 25p, will that again be more film like?

Surely 1fps difference would be nearly impossible to see with the naked eye?

kermie

Great write Justin! Can only agree with you (and I've seen your
images! Damn.).

Kermie, a 1 fps difference is not detectable. So yes, a 25p camera
will probably a very compatible motion signature to 24p (if correct
shutter speeds are used and such).

I myself am experimenting with shallow DoF to increase the
charm and quality of my pictures. I cannot afford the mini35
rig + lenses, so I'll have to do it with the stuff I have. I had
some great results though and am planning to write some of
this stuff down with pictures. Don't hold your breath though.

<<<-- Originally posted by Justin Chin : Okay, this is where I pipe in.

Again, I don't want to start a debate or argument here, but as a DP and director I believe the aesthetic of a shallow DoF is an important part of my craft. AGAIN this is a visual aesthetic, perhaps my very own personal taste. All this is really not as interesting as talking about good lighting anyway.

Anyway, I'm tired, flame away. -->>>

I'll pull out the flamethrower :)

DoF may well be an important part of your craft, but it's not related to why video looks one way and film another. And does not affect "filmlook" at all.

Consider the deep focus techniques of Gregg Toland. He had to use some tricks given his lenses and stocks, but the huge DoF certainly does not make Citizen Kane look like video or "unprofessional".

So, when someone says "Use short DoF to make your footage look more like film", I always cringe. Because all that happens is you get short DoF video, not film.

Now, if you deinterlace or shoot progressive, add grain, change gamma curves, adjust color rendition, it may start to actually look like somewhat like low-rez film. But then, you could lose the short DoF and still look somewhat like low-rez film.

I was watching a Bravo show, shot on video, that used lots of short DoF shots and low key lighting. It looked like video, although the cinematography and lighting were of very high quality. But interlaced screams video, so it does not fool anyone, except maybe in a still image.

DocuWild:
"It's the end result that counts."

I whole heartedly agree with that statement.

stephenvv:
Yes of course I wouldn't say Citizen Kane is unprofessional, hence my question of why DoF (and lenses) is in your "qualities" list. I do believe it is an esthetic quality so perhaps that is what you mean.

You wrote:
"Now, if you deinterlace or shoot progressive, add grain, change gamma curves, adjust color rendition, it may start to actually look like somewhat like low-rez film. But then, you could lose the short DoF and still look somewhat like low-rez film."

I don't know what you mean by that. Mainly, current stock video cameras do NOT have a short DoF. No where near 35mm lenses (at the same distance to subject and view angle).

My main reason for discussing this is my surprise over the crazy excitement over the panny 24p miniDV camera. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea. But I'd really rather have a camera that can do the DoF of 35mm. Because with the panny you're still going to get what I believe is a traditionally flat looking video image.

Of course the option to do both is even better. And perhaps that's my point. There are so many things that affect your image. 24p in my opinion will hopefully go away, and make room for the screaming fidelity of 60p or dare I say higher. Watching the film Brainstorm really showed the difference. Even though the print I saw was at 24fps the Showscan shot images were that much more vibrant even after the pull down.

Yes staging and lighting helps, but it can only go so far, especially when you shoot in small areas.

Just my opinions.

I teach photography and digital photography at a local school. When my digital photo students attempt a head and shoulders portrait they are surprised by the extreme amount of DoF comparred to 35mm film. They used the same lights, filters, printing etc. and the comment I always hear is it doesn't look like film. The digital camera produced a great 8x10, proper focus, exposure, composition, sharpness, you name it, but it doesn't look like film to them. Why? The background is not out of focus. People notice that, and to their eye it doesn't look like film.

Now go to still pictures moving at (pick your favorite film speed) 24fps. Depth of field is now irrelevent? It is only a technique and is not an intrinsic part of the medium. I don't think so. To the guy sitting in the chair, watching the film on a screen, DoF is part of the look. He may not know what to call it, but when its different, he knows its not film.

Jeff

<<<--
Now go to still pictures moving at (pick your favorite film speed) 24fps. Depth of field is now irrelevent? It is only a technique and is not an intrinsic part of the medium. I don't think so. To the guy sitting in the chair, watching the film on a screen, DoF is part of the look. He may not know what to call it, but when its different, he knows its not film.

Jeff -->>>


Jeff:

Did you not see my post about Citizen Kane (and a number of other films shot with extreme deep DoF). Why do they still look just as much like film as those with short DoF?

It is a technique, not a instrinsic part of the medium.

Super 8 has much more DoF than 35mm at the same focal length.

So, I reject completely that it's part of medium.

It is part of the "look" but that is "professional look" not "film look", thus this thread.

Justin Chin,

"Brainstorm really showed the difference. Even though the print I saw was at 24fps the Showscan shot images were that much more vibrant even after the pull down."

The scenes you are referring to in Brainstorm was shot in 70mm. That is why they look so incredible. The rest of the film was shot in 35mm. The frame rate was 24FPS the entire time. If you really want to see something incredible, you should see it projected in 70mm.

Charles Papert,

"I was somewhat concerned that the 30 fps would not look good intercut with the 24 fps, but I can't say that viewing the final cut, I can discern which is which--and I'm looking very closely, believe me."

It would drive me nuts, and in watching music videos that do this it DOES drive me nuts. Yes I can tell that both frame rates are shot on film, but that 30FPS footage still has that cheezy video look of motion, and that I do not like. Consider this, I used to be into video heavily in the 80s and early 90s. I got out of it and got into film because I had enough of the crappy quality. Only over this last couple of years have I started to get back into video because the quality is finally reaching a point to spark my interest again. With that in mind, I never bothered to check out a DVD image until about 2 years ago. When I saw it it looked great to me. Then a friend pointed out the artifacts in the image. Now it drives me crazy! I feel this is really a similar thing here. You are not bothered with the motion look of 30P and can't tell the difference. Trust me, the day you do you will NOT like your 30P footage any more.

As for the general "more is always better" argument that we are "downgrading" to 24P, that is just nonsense. It's an aesthetically pleasing look of motion. 18FPS is too slow, 30FPS is too fast. Granted those are my opinions, but that is how I feel.

Now why are there so many arguments on this forum about 24P vs. 30P? I don't see why people will bust their butt in trying to make their footage look like film when they can effortlessly obtain the same motion look just by shooting in 24P. Shooting in 24P does not mean you can no longer light your shots the way you want. Shooting in 24P does not mean you can no longer control the depth of field any more. Shooting in 24P just takes the videoish motion out of the image and makes your job that much easier. Granted it will still have a video look to it if it is not lit and shot properly, but shooting in 24P knocks out a big chunk of what makes video look like video. So why all of the anti-24P on this forum???

I can't really understand what the debate is all about.

DV vs. 35mm negative? One reel of 35mm will buy you all the stock of DV tapes you need for a whole feature + your camera setups will move faster EVEN if you light the show like a pro...

So DV will look like s-16mm if shot correctly and postproduced correctly. No doubt about it. I've shot hundreds of music videos on 16mm and my two latest using the PD150P and MB. Wich looks more like 35mm? The ones shot on DV, of course... How come? Because video brings an amount of control on set that demands a lot of financial resources if you do it on film.

I think this debate is utterly pointless. As pointless as debating the fact that films shot with a deep DoF on 65mm (Contact) looks a hell of a lot like 24p HD when viewed on a DVD. If you'd insert 24p footage into that film with the exact same lighting I'd doubt you'd see the difference (when viewed at home)...

****
Did you not see my post about Citizen Kane (and a number of other films shot with extreme deep DoF). Why do they still look just as much like film as those with short DoF?

It is a technique, not a instrinsic part of the medium.

Super 8 has much more DoF than 35mm at the same focal length.

So, I reject completely that it's part of medium.

It is part of the "look" but that is "professional look" not "film look", thus this thread.
**********

If filmmaking is "telling an action which happens inside a space", then professionality to me meens to use all the tools we have to do that. As the screen is flat we have to "fake" the depth. To my knowledge there are only 3 things which helps us in doing this:
- clever positioning of lights
- clever use of lenses (DoF)
- clever use of dolly to change the architectural references

Concerning Citizen Kane: it is an excellent exsample to show how IMPORTANT the controll of DoF IS. I haven't seen anybody posting something like ONLY shallow DoF would be professional. What to my knowledge everybody is saying is, that we NEED the CONTROLL on DoF!!! To make it shallow or not whenever we want it. Video doesn't allow this controll today!

And 24p, 25p, 30p,60p may help to change in the feeling, but doesn't realy influence the storrytelling if screened on the same speed back again, but the above 3 points all do influence the storrytelling.

Also two pennies on the term film. I'm not American so please forgive me, but some considerations I still think I'm able to do. In the most countries there doesn't exist the term "motion pictures" but only film. People go to see a film and rent a video (even if DVD)!!! And to my big sorprise the same happens also here in LA.

I don't think our duty is to educate people to say well I saw the FILM Episode I, and then two years later, wouw this "DLP 3chip" Episode II was indeed exciting?!?! It is the "film" Episode II what people went to see, and not a bit and byte flow from a Harddisc!

I hope I wasn't agressive in this reply, I wish a good weekend to everybody
Istvan

I think the term movie and film are qolluialisms. Here in Florida everbody says do you want to rent a movie. Of course it's not a movie (film) it video, or DVD. It's becoming like Jello and gelatin, Klenex and facial tissue etc. The terms film, movie, video are all becoming genericized. After all, film has only been around a little over 100 years, I don't expect it to be here in another 100.

Jeff

I would almost suggest that the meaning of the term "film" has quietly evolved to include digital storytelling. In other words, it seems "film" has evolved (or devolved, depending on your point of view) to include visual storytelling regardless of format.

For so many decades, visual storytelling with *motion* on a mass media scale has been achieved *exclusively* with film, a chemical emulsion process. And I can certainly understand why a purist would want to keep a distinction between film and other media.

I wonder though if it's even important, because the purist is in a slim minority these days. What matters is the audience at large, what are they calling it. To them, I think it's still a "movie."

I used to ask my friends, "what do you feel like seeing, a film or a movie?" A film was always something artistic and significant. Usually it was something old and foreign but not always. A film is Bergman, Truffaut, Renoir; Cinema Paridiso, Como Agua Para Chocolate, Powaqqatsi. A movie is Spielberg, Zemeckis, Bruckheimer; Apollo 13, Seven Years in Tibet, Pretty Woman. Just about everything that's mainstream American is a movie. Just about every text I had in film school was a film (but not always). I've always thought that movies were to make money and film aspired to acheive artistic significance.

But now since it's no longer all done with film, what do you call it? I have a feeling it's still going to be called film in many circles. Can't think of any examples at the moment, but aren't there already a lot of instances of things still being referred to by a previous existing technology, even though it's being done by another technology? Take AT&T, for instance... "Telegraph" is still part of their name. For a long time, radio was called "wireless" because a society thriving on wired communication didn't know what else to call it.

All of this, including this debate, is what I think might be indicative of a paradigm shift in progress.

2 unsolicited cents from a beginner:

These usually friendly incendiaries end up serving a Greater Purpose: beginners of all types come to forums like this scavenging for info pro/con on every topic imaginable-- by reading the back-and-forth an aspirant gets more diverse tech grounding here than a school curriculum (using perhaps one format exclusively-- film over video etc) could ever provide-- how we newbies apply lessons from such debate is another story...

I feel lucky to even be here, at this time, shooting a feature on DV. In between the natural joy-hells of pulling off a shoot i'm always kicking myself that it took this long to get to this point. ("I coulda had 4 features under my belt by now!")

I could have easily ended up being the local Film Supremacist guy hoarding Bolexes and cases of out-of-date 16mm stock waiting...waiting...for that 'one day' when it would all come together ("I need an Angenieux! I need a magazine! I need three magazines! I need a barney! I need a Nagra! No, I need a DAT! I need a budget! I need a crew! I need a lab account! I need therapy!...) (Wait-- i WAS that guy! Anyway...)

We all want the best available, and most of us want what is'nt available. So we try and balance it out somehow. I made the simple reckoning that my DV work is not going to be a series of test strips to be shown to an ASC convention, but rather the best-executed, best-shot, best-lit, best-audio'd complex of *storytelling* imagery i can obtain at this time. Sure, i want 'cinematic' composition as much as anyone, and with my XL lenses and camera strategies i like what i'm achieving. Is my stuff going to fool Justin with his God's-own Mini-35 rig (which i WANT)? Will Roger Deakins, Robby Muller, Gordon Willis or the beatific ghost of Nestor Almendros be fooled by my camouflaged electronic images? Not by a damn sight. But they would probably each give a figurative tip of the hat to us all for going after the challenge, limitations be damned. The rest of it --including what we *call* our work-- will work itself out. (ref: Chris' 'paradigm shift')

Regardless the venue, the format, or the target audience-- we're trying to *tell* someone about something we (or the client :)) deem worth telling. I feel like all other considerations, techincal, photographic, whatever, derive from this.

So, to my droves of fellow beginners: scour these pages and learn from the debates. There are hundreds of years of cumulative knowledge & experience here. The solution to *your* particular issue awaits...

Let's get to work!

Best to all,


Michael Pace

Still hoarding Bolexes

and trying to wrap a DV feature _________ (film/movie/artifact/project/element/video/picture-show, whatever...) in Florida

Since after reading all this frame mode stuff. I went out and tried it. (I just never got around to doing it yet) It looks pretty cool! So two question and I'm sure they have been ask before, sorry.

1. If you shoot in frame mode does it edit the same? Right now I have a iMac with iMovie. I hope to get Final Cut Pro soon.

2. If you did shoot something in frame mode can it be transferred to film? I read somewhere that it can't.

If you shoot frame mode (eg. canon's) you can 1:1 the progressive frames. Only if you shoot PAL and can live with mucking with the audio to adjust for the difference in frame rates.
Basically, not a clean operation.

Still, according to the senior lab technician at the place I work (Rainmaker Digital Pictures), it works out best if you shoot 60i with 1/60 shutter speed, as the machines for translating use the 60 time slices per second to rebuild 24p (and do an excellent job I might add). He also advises to NOT use frame mode when shooting, as there is not enough time slices to rebuild 24p. If you really want the best footage to put to film, shoot 24p native (eg sony FW900 or PanaDVX100) or shoot 60i. Now, if you just have coverage that you need without audio, then by all means, you can 1:1 30fps photography. I've done it before, mainly when I know I don't need audio sync and want a fast shutter speed.

If you can find it, goto the newstand and pick up the issue of RES with Steven Soderberg on the cover. In there is a detailed description of all the hassles of dealing with PAL footage with audio resync'd to 24p. If I recall correctly, FCP and Cinema Tools required some customization by Apple to deal with it. You'd figure there'd be a preset for doing this sort of thing. Guess they'll have that out later. ;)

Adrian

What you call 'not a clean operation' (I'm guessing you're talking about the time-stretch of the audio to accomodate the transfer from 25 to 24 fps and vice versa, is a standard procedure in PAL country.

EVERY motion picture that ends up being broadcast in PAL or on a PAL DVD is sped up from 24 to 25 fps, processing the audio to the same speed, without a change in pitch.

I don't know why this wouldn't be a clean operation. For people using PAL equipment, the transfer to film would be quite straightforward. No need to edit at 24fps, just do everthing at 25 fps and in the lab they'll take care of the transfer. As a matter of fact if you do bring a 50i tape to the lab, they'll de-interlace it to 25p anyway, before transfer.

The advantage is that there's no need to tamper with the fields, introducing 2to3 or 3to2 pulldown.

Not that I'm advocating shooting PAL in an NTSC world. For most people that would probably be very inconvenient. For NTSC transfer to film, most labs prefer 60i.

Bar3nd

... which is why the PAL version of that new Panasonic 24p camera will only shoot 25p.

Bar3nd

The word 'film', has many meanings, but the word derives from a 'thin layer of material'. Now that in the common conversation we mean 'motion picture' when we say film, means we've pretty much hijacked the word from it's original meaning. And I don't see a problem in having that meaning evolve to accomodate for new technologies.

As a matter of fact, the carrier that contains the magnetic material on DV tapes could be called 'film' also :-)

Bar3nd

If a production is shot on video, transferred to film and distributed to movie theaters, why would it not be a "film." Or if it's shot on film and goes straight to video distribution only... when would it stop being a film.

The term "film" has transcended its technical definition to encompass visual storytelling by a variety of media, a lot of it electronic these days. Besides, as Barend correctly points out, tape itself is -- technically speaking -- a type of film. There's no chemical emulsion involved, but it's still film. It's all motion pictures no matter how you slice it. The general public, the people who are your potential audience, certainly aren't going to argue about it. And that's all that counts.

The question wether or not to use the word film or video is a matter of linguistics. To quote the online Merriam-Websters dictionary :

Main Entry: 1film
Pronunciation: 'film, Southern also 'fi(&)m
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English filme, from Old English filmen; akin to Greek pelma sole of the foot, Old English fell skin -- more at FELL
Date: before 12th century
1 a : a thin skin or membranous covering : PELLICLE b : an abnormal growth on or in the eye
2 : a thin covering or coating <a film of ice>
3 a : an exceedingly thin layer : LAMINA b (1) : a thin flexible transparent sheet (as of plastic) used especially as a wrapping (2) : such a sheet of cellulose acetate or nitrocellulose coated with a radiation-sensitive emulsion for taking photographs
4 : MOTION PICTURE

Note that it didn't say "MOTION PICTURE produced with photographic process on thin sheet of plastic coated with either silver-nitrates or other photosensitive materials".

The point is that the word has changed it's original meaning from a motion picture made with film cameras, into any motion picture wether shot with video, digital or film cameras.

I also noted that most film festivals accept any source material, and you don't see many "Video festivals" out there.

So is it disrespectful to the media to call your little short story "a film about ... " when it's shot with a Xl1-s or PD100 or whatever? Who cares about the media! It's the CONTENT that makes the story, not the media on which it is produced. So i'm more upset if i see a bad movie made with film than a good one made with video. Mostly because it's a waste of good film stock :)

If you want to clamp down on one word, then you are basically engaging into an attempt to define something that no one really cares abotu defining. When does it become a "film"? Is it shot with film cameras? Ok. if you change the film magazine into a digital CCD instead. So everything is 35 mm film camera up onto the actual photographic process? Or if you scan the film and run it through a telecine process since you want to edit it on HD? Is it still film since you now have reduced the photographic information into a limited digital variant no different than if it was captured from CCD. Or do you perhaps have to splice and cut it the "old style" for it to be a true film? A practise which is probably only done in schools today. I know not one production that are going for a boxoffice release that are spliced & cut.

In the end, the person who tells his mates "Hey guys, u wanna go see a film/movie/flick/roll tonight?" won't really care wether or not it's shot on video, telecined, shot on film, or shot on toiletpaper for that matter. He's there to see a story.. not what it was made with.


/Henrik

I agree that most people don't care what a movie is made with necessarily, but most DO care if it looks good or not. And from what I have seen so far, MiniDV does not look good blown up to film and shown on a big screen. I'd rather watch it on a TV... it'd be less distracting for me. In fact there is some movie called "In Praise of Love" that has a lot of video junk in it, and it is so bad that you can see the white halos around contrasty parts of the image due to the sharpness being cranked sky high. It was made by some Jean-Luc Goddard guy (he is supposed to be great or something) but he sure is an awful videomaker. Half of the movie was shot on film I believe (have not seen it).

Shot on DV (speaking of terminology, we'll at least get it right: "Mini DV" is the size of a cassette shell, *not* a format -- the format is DV25, or DV at a bandwidth of 25 megabits per second) -- these were all shot on DV25 -- and where you can see them:

24 Hour Party People (2002 Michael Winterbottom) (35mm & DV mixed) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0274309 see also http://www.au-cinema.com/24-Hour-Party-People.htm -- in theaters, coming to DVD

Anniversary Party (2001 Jennifer Jason Leigh) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0254099 -- on DVD at Amazon

Bamboozled (2000 Spike Lee) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0215545 -- on DVD at Amazon

Cicadas (2000 Kat Candler) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0212873 -- at Dallas Fim Festival, see Film Threat: http://www.filmthreat.com/News.asp?Id=979

Chuck & Buck (2002 Miguel Arteta) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0200530 -- on DVD at Amazon

The Cruise (1998 Bennet Miller) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0150230 -- on VHS at Amazon

Gaza Strip http://www.littleredbutton.com/gaza/ -- now in festival circuit

An Intimate Friendship (2000 Angela Evers Hughey) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0212667 -- on DVD at Amazon

Julien Donkey-Boy (1999 Harmony Korine) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0192194 -- on DVD at Amazon

Split Decision (2001 Marcy Garriott) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0254789 -- direct from http://www.frif.com/new2000/split2.html

Tadpole (2002 Gary Winick) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0271219 -- on DVD at Amazon

Tape (2001 Richard Linklater) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0275719 -- on DVD at Amazon

Timecode (2000 Mike Figgis) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0220100 -- on DVD at Amazon

Waiting (2000 Patrick Hasson) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0270059 -- on DVD at Amazon

Chris. Superb list m8! But isn't Chelsea Walls shot on video aswell? I really liked that movie.

Henrik: << But isn't Chelsea Walls shot on video as well? >>

D'oh!! Yes, on DV.

Chelsea Walls (2001 Ethan Hawke) http://us.imdb.com/Title?0226935 -- on DVD at Amazon

Well, that makes fifteen. Sure would like to see somebody else bring this up to twenty.