Hello everyone,

I have had my XL1 for 8 months and I am very pleased with the results I get from it. I am going to be producing a 10 minute short video, which I want to look as much like 35mm cinema film.

I have heard that turning down to -3 Gain db will give the picture a much more forgiving cinematic curve, but what exactly dose it do?

Are there any other tips to try and make miniDV look a bit more like 35mm with the XL1, with out getting it transfered?

Your help is much appreciated.

Ed

-3db gain will help to make your depth of field a bit more shallow and flattens the contrast a bit.

You want to make your video look like film, light it for film. Film look is all in the lighting. Study how lights are used on a motion picture set -- that will do more than anything else to make your video look like film. Hope this helps,

I really have to agree with Chris. After reading and trying dozens of clever and funky tricks and tips for making "video look like film", I've concluded that the "film" look is at least 90% the "professionally produced look" which generally translates into total control of the camera's motion (particularly lack of same), skilled lighting, and skilled framing/scene composition.

The trick with lighting, however, is that lighting for film is different than for video. In general, video needs a bit less light to achieve good color saturation and proper contrast. You also have a bit more on-the-fly latitude with tape than with film, particularly with cameras that have good DSP's. But starting from a film approach will certainly put you on the road to success.

Ken,

I agree with what you have to say about capturing the "film look" on tape. I would point out to EdSmith that video in general is less forgiving and has a narrower contrast range than most film stocks. Because of this, a lot more attention needs to be paid to contrast range in video than film. Part of what makes video seem more flexible is that "on-the-fly" latitude. After all, when was the last time any of us used a lightmeter to measure light ranges in a scene when shooting video? Why bother when you can just look at the monitor? But the care in lighting that film demands by its very nature is part of what contributes to that "professionally produced look." Try using an incident lightmeter to light a few scenes without looking at a monitor (or through the view finder). It's an excercise in controlling light "organically" that translates into a better lit frame for video.

What Chris points out is also true - lenses. Shooting long to reduce the depth of field. Or, as Chris suggest, opening up the iris by reducing the gain. I woud try using prime lenses if I could find some that would give me the equivalent of something wider than a 105mm.

Ozzie,
You made me grin; you must be psychic. Just this weekend I was cleaning up a closet in my office and came across a light meter I used to use for 35mm photography in the early 1980's. (The battery had long since fried itself.) I began to wonder why these aren't used more for video work (although I'm not even sure I'd know how to use it for video, at least the version that I have).

Then, reading your post, I realized that we videographers indeed do just look through the magic viewfinder. In Zebra We Trust, eh?

Maybe I'll play around with using a light meter again.

Thanks, Ozzie.

Yeah, video has made us all very lazy. Before I stated working in broadcast video I taught television in college. I remember having my students (who were a few years younger than me) go around the studio with a light meter just to make sure the light ratios were within tolerances. I still have my trusty old Luna Pro and occasionally I take it out just for fun.

But don't feel dumb using a light meter with video. There are a lot of DPs I know who still use them in video. I worked in Austin for a while (in the mid 70s at KLRN) and the chief engineer had a seemingly anachronistic but valid way of ligting. He would set up all the cameras to "unity" - to bars off a chart and the video operator would not touch them once they were set. It was up to the lighting director to light the set to yield good pictures. No riding the gain or adjusting colors. At first I thought this was the hard way of doing it but I soon got to appreciate what that chief engineer was doing and why. We got some of the best lit video I've ever seen.

I am a beginer and would like to put some comments based on
my short-term experience.

I had a chance to play with my friend's XL1 PAL and XL1S NTSC
for a day.

I set both in manual mode, 16:9, Frame/Regular mode.

I found that PAL version with frame mode image was closer to the film look.

PAL image had more detail (625 vertical vs. 524) and more color.

I heard that many independent film maker use PAL to copy
their works to 35 film.

I am seriously considering buying PAL version because I like
the PAL image.

I will edit it in Premire and view them in PAL monitor.

If I have more money, I would buy a professinal NTSC cam
such as DVPRO or analog BetaCam-SP to get the film look.

Read "Digital Moviemaking by Scott Billups" to get more
information about the digital movie making.

I've read all the good advice on this post but how can someone find out how to light - more specifically what are the best lights (watts/volts) to use for a short film, etc.?

Also,

What about lighting in the field? What can you use for field work that does not require electric cords but still puts out good lighting?

Where can I purchase a good inexpensive lighting set?

Thanks.

There is no shortage of good books on lighting for filmaking and videography. Aggregate books such as "The Digital Filmaker's Handbook" and "The Filmaker's Handbook", as well as Scott Billup's book mentioned earlier all cover the subject of lighting to some depth. Just spend some time on amazon or Barnes and Noble and I'm sure you'll find many worthwhile works.

But there's no substitute for just experimenting. This is less a matter of "what should I buy?" than "what should I do?". It's easy to get caught-up in the consumerism of amatuer videomaking and then decide that your wallet is what limits your abilities. Lighting kits can be purchased for relatively modest sums. Basic lighting kits can even be -made- for even more modest sums. OK, so you won't be able to light a 6000 sq.ft. set with such kits. So what?

Like the Nike people say, Just Do It. Put your eyes and ears to work and have some fun!

Vuduproman, (boy, I wish people used their real names or at least names)

Vudu,

There are a number of lighting kits that come with an assortment of lights, stands, reflectors, and whatnots, to allow anyone to light. The kits run from $700 to $2000. I've found that no kit is ever "perfect" for everything, that's why we hire a lighting director and a gaffer who come with a truck full of every conceivable light, flags, gobos, reflectors, you name it.

Take a look at Lowel Light Kits and Tota Lights (I believe that's the correct name). Both make a variety of kits for different types of lighting and job size. Even if you don't buy any of the kits, at least become familiar with the instruments they contain.

You'll probably end up improvising a great deal, that's how many lighting instruments were "invented" - e.g. the Chimera. She shot in a large store once that had fluorescent lights - possibly the worst lights for lighting (they strobe, their color temperature is all over the place, they hum). Still we couldn't light the entire store. The LD decided to use them and augment the closeups with panels of same tubes the store already had. This was a home-made unit that has become a staple of many lighting directors.

My favorite Lighting Director? - the late Nestor Almendros. Why? Is technique was to make use of the natural light and use as few intruments as possible. Take a look at "Blue Lagoon".

For the consumerism record <g>, I certainly agree with Ozzie that Lowel makes some of the most versatile kits for relatively modest budgets. I own 2 Lowel sets. One contains 2 "Omni" lights and one "Tota", along with stands, barndoors and an umbrella. The other is a Caselight 4, which is a 4-lamp high-output flourescent panel. Both kits come in very compact carrying cases. The Caselight, in particular, is a very clever design that packs to a case just slightly larger than a briefcase and weights around 10lbs.

Ozzie:

<< boy, I wish people used their real names or at least names >>

I do too, and this is actually in the Community FAQ as a general posting guideline. It's not particularly enforced, but I would like it known that I'll always show preference for those who are up-front and sincere and comfortable with themselves that they use their names. I simply don't understand "handles." There's no reason for anonymity here, and I tend to get suspicious, wondering why someone feels like they have to hide their identity. Rant mode off. Thanks and much respect to you and *everybody else* who has the confidence to say who they are,

If you want to try rolling your own lights try this URL:

http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/FL-Lights.htm

Nathan Gifford

(Escaped mental patient ;-)

Chris/Ozzie,

Sorry about the name thing - The name of my company is Vudu Productions. When I registered it asks for a user name and not first name/last name.

If possible, I would appreciate it if you changed my user name to my real name. I certainly do not want to ruffle any feathers. I love and appreciate the advice I receive here.

Gilbert Labossiere

Gilbert,

No problem -- company names are fine in my book and I'm happy to accomodate a change if you want. Do you prefer Gilbert Labossiere or Vudu Productions -- either one is terrific -- send me a private e-mail to chris@dvinfo.net and I'll change it for you right away.

Much respect,

Cheers guys for all the help, it now means I will have to invest in a lighting kit, light meter and up my budget a little bit, but any way it will be worth it in the end.

Thanks Chris for help with the -3db question, it answered the question and it was something I was expecting.

Little tip try using a Cokin P series filter, far more cheaper than Canon own, and come in a varity of effects.

Chris I also hope that my name is alright, if you have'nt worked it out its Ed Smith.

Ed

I sent a message before this but it did not seem to appear. Sorry if this is repeated!

I managed to fish out my dads old SLR light meter, but how do I know what ISO/ ASA setting to put in it? Dose the XL1 have a standard ISO/ ASA setting (100/ 200/400/800 etc)?

This light meter I have to set the ISO/ ASA level and turn the aperture dial to find the best shutter for it, would this be any good? If not can somebody advise me on what type would be best?

All the best

Ed Smith

See "XL1 ASA Rating, Parts One & Two," under Camera Head in the XL1 Watchdog Articles Menu.

Cheers Chris.

Its a great help, I must commend you on such a fantastic website, with out it I don't think I would have brought the camera!!

What do people prefer, Red Heads, Blondes or Lilliput?

Apart from the wattage what are the differences, which ones would be best for lighting, a broard area outdoors?

Ed

One of the regulars here sent me an Email asking about more information on shooting with natural light and requesting any books on lighting. His question was prompted by my earlier post on Nestor Almendros. Here's my reply.

Ellis,

I had forgotten I had placed a message about lighting in DVInfo. In fact I just got the Almendros book. I had to wait for two months before Amazon found a used copy. I recall reading the book when it was first published. It's an elegantly written book told informally in the first person. Almendros takes the reader through all his films in chronological order beginning with his early experimental films in Cuba. Although it's not quite a "how to" book, Nestor is full of tips and ideas. One can't help but pickup some of his techniques. I highly recommend it as interesting reading if for no other reason. Check out Amazon and have them look for a used copy. I paid $20.

I can't really recommend any particular book on lighting. There are many but they all seem to miss the mark - they are either too narrow in scope or too broad. The Almendros book is good in that it pulls you into his influences which he translates into his personal lighting techniques. He talks a great deal about Vermeer and how he used light in his paintings.

I'm currently trying to write an illustrated article for DV Watchdog based on my experience with MiniDV, directing, and lighting. [Chris, trust me, I will get that article written.] The short of it is that it's either all or nothing when it comes to lighting. It's best to try to use available light with just the barest use of instruments - natural lamps, white board reflectors and the like. Once you begin to add light then you've got to go all the way and you'll soon find yourself right where you didn't want to go. This is what, by necessity, we ended up doing in our shoot.

It's really all a matter of experimentation, of trial and error. I've found the XL-1 cameras not to be the best when it comes to dealing with low lighting no matter what anyone or the specs say. Those cameras need as much light as you can supply. Even with lighting instruments, we often found ourselves shooting wide open and at a +6db just to get an acceptable picture. We also had to do quite a bit of brightening in post.

I hope this has been helpful. I know Chris would rather keep this kind of dialog up on the board where everyone can benefit. Feel free to continue the chat on the site.

About the name thing. I'm Josh Bass, and I'm an alcoholic. . .wait sorry. . .videographer. If there's an easy way for you to change the name, I can further annoy you with silly questions using the name my mother gave me. I put the user name because the form asked for one. . .if it had said real name, I would have put that.

Also, about the lighting thing. . .I shot this little demo reel recently around my house, just to show someone how I shot, and I kind of liked the look of using the available light. Am I alone, or do I just have bad judgment?

I light with 500w halogen worklights (they come two to a stand, so it's essentially 1000w) that I got from Wal-Mart for $30.oo. Has anyone else tried this method, particularly people who have also used more "pro" setups? I'd be interested in knowing how they compare.

This method has worked fine for me thus far, but the project I'm working on is a little minimalist anyway (a mockumentary). Now I just need to figure out how to rig some barn doors that can handle the heat that the lights throw off.

-Shawn McBee

P.S. As far as the name thing, I'm JediBugs all over the internet and have been since I dialed in on that 14.4kbps modem oh-so-long ago. It's habit and easy to remember when you always log in with the same name.

Am I correct when I assume that the lightmeter (when used for
video) is primarely used to measure contrast? So that you know
your not over or under-exposing?

Okay. I also got a question for you people with Lowel light-kits:
if I can only afford to buy one kit (with 3 or 4 lights in them),
which one should I get? They will be used to light indoor primarely

Should I also get bounce bords, reflectors (gold, silver?)

I just don't have the money to buy more than one of these kits.
It will probably get even more expensive because they have to
ship it to me (am glad Lowel does have european power
connections available).

Any thoughts? Suggestions?

Thanks!

jedibugs:
I've used a friends 500w worklight set up, much like you described, when I needed all the light I could muster on a shoot. Well, the lights didn't do much. Their color temperature was much warmer than my tungsten 1k ArriLites. They just didn't fit in with my bank of Arri's.

Now it doesn't mean that you can't use them for any film work. They're good enough for simple lighting schemes. They are a little weird to work with, but I'm sure you can come up with some creative solutions.

Rob:
I'd get their Ambi kit or something around that. It all depends on your budget. These kits are small, the lights are small and are very versatile. The great thing about the Tota's is that you can put a 1k lamp in them. That kit comes with EVERYTHING you might need, and some things you might not. You might also like the Tota/Omni Core kit. Download their catalogue and check out the kits. But I suggest the Totas and Omnis. Small and a lot of power.

You can't really go wrong with Lowel on small/medium productions. I used Lowels in pro shoots, bluescreen work. I'd also advise looking on ebay for used items or kits. That's where I sold my Ambi Kit.

Bounce cards you can get an art store, use foam core. Or you can get a photoflex, with gold on one side and white on the other.

As for light meters you can use them to check overall ambient light and certain light details to keep a constant light exposure to match shots or an entire scene. Generally you know when you're over/under exposing through the view finder.

I've found that a good alternative to the gold & silver reflector screens are the sunshades you buy to put in your windshield to protect your dash from the sun (not the cardboard ones, but the ones that collapse into a little bundle and FWOOP open when you need them). They're esentially the same thing, only a bit smaller and come in a variety of colors like silver, white, gold, I even have some chrome-like shiney ones.

Thanks for the advice Justin. I had noticed the warm look, which has worked pretty well on my projects just far, but I wonder how well a blue or green gel would negate that?

-Shawn

Justin,

Thanks. I'll take a look at those you mentioned. Why did you
sell your Ambi?

Thanks again!

I needed heavy duty lights, that I could easily cut down with cookies, flags, and doors. That is the one thing that Totas and Omnis are not well suited for, easy drop-in cookies. They have a specialized scrim system. The drawback is that the Arris are double the cost.

I was also upgrading pretty much everything in my setup. Bogen head to Sachtler, Lowel to Arri, VX1000 to DV500 to mini35.

I started out much like you Rob, weekend warrior. Now I'm "full time". This year, my accountant tells me, "Just call me the moment you think you'll break even."

Ha.

Okay, perhaps I should stop writing long answers to short questions. This is like online therapy.

No! Don't stop writing long answers to short questions! And I'm going to need to see you at least three times a week for the next five years.

Thank you Justin! Your answers are invaluable, thanks!

Hi all-

I have two of those 2x 500w home depot sets and a 500w (low to the ground) light, as well. I don't like them very much anymore because they are heavy and the light is a bit green and stark, for my taste. I know it sounds crazy, but I'm not crazy about them. If you are in Los Angeles and you want them, hit me up- I'll be glad to sell them for your production for next to nothing.

What I do use is a small team of smith victor 650w's. I love these babies. I 7 of them. They all have barn doors and they all came to me as unwanted orphans and found a much wanted home in my little studio set up. I love them for a few reasons, they are:
a. they don't use much juice so I can plug any 3 in and not blow someone's house fuse (if I'm working inside a home).
b. they are small and not bulky. easy to transport and move on my own, since almost all of my productions to date have not had the luxury of an asst in the budget for me.
c. they are easiy controled (they have barn doors which are great ways to attach gels and diffusers).

Just a note, I was able to get really nice light from he home depot set by hanging 20lb copy paper over the lights. It didn't catch fire and burn us all to a crisp (although use your judgement or someone else if you are going to do that), but instead added a really nice light that wasn't green or ugly, anymore. Just a note, for what it's worth.

I also use a light meter. It's crucial for me for two reasons, they are:
1. eyes lie. my eyes will adjust to perfect lighting to many situtations that really dim and horrible. don't trust what you see.
2. you can work backwards by recreating a certain temperature that worked well for a certain character or mood or turning point in the script knowing what your numbers where in the last scene you did (where you saw the dailies and they were right on). You just try to get as close to that number as possible and you'll come pretty close to the look.

In addition to my little smith victor team of lights I also have a smaller light (with a white umbrella on the front) that is light and not as strong (only 200w) and I use that to add a glow to the actors eyes or to light them head on with a softer light (sometimes a wall take this light incedibly well).

A note, you will want to have some fans handy. These lights are all hot lights and your actors are going to sweat and get annoyed and thirsty and their concentration (regardless of how great they are and how great their focus) will wane a little. Turn off the majority when you break and get those fans on to bring everyone back to comfort level.

I won't mention power and temps because previous links talked all about basics.

Also, I almost always always always shoot in -3 exposure. My xl1 and the 14x lens harmonize and I get a very sweet and coldish picture this way that is nothing short of beautiful.

Good luck to everyone.

Christian Calson
Nebunule Films

does anyone happen to know the color temperature of those halogen lights (home depot and walmart style)? i saw a few the other day..okay i confess, i was in there to look for cheap lights...came across some 250w and 500w halogens that looked like they could be mounted on stands. my DP hasn't called me back yet about it. i left a message on his answering machine, "please tell me we can use halogens." BTW we're using a PAL XL1.

Guys, I don't know jack about lighting, but couldn't you gel the cheapy lights and somehow achieve the correct color temperature that way? Some kind of light-correction gel or filter?

i just read on another thread (is that what it's called?) here on dvinfo.net that the halogen color temperature is 2900K, and that if you put a 1/4 CTB gel over it, it should approximate 3200K, which is the color temperature of tungsten.
so why should i buy a "real" light kit, made by lowel or arri, etc?
if the light is bright enough for me, and the right color temperature, what is the difference?
i know that it's going to be a pain to rig barn doors and scrims, etc, onto a homemade light, but that's not what i'm asking.
as far as the light itself...what is the difference?
(calling all DPs...calling all DPs...help!)
BTW, using PAL XL1, FCP3

I know when I eventually buy lights, I'll go with the real thing simply because I'm a retarded engineer.

I am about to embark on a major doc using the XL1S, I have done some tests and shooting in Frame mode is clearly more "filmic" than in regular movie mode. Are there any drawbacks to shooting in frame mode, particlularly when the finished edit is transfered to 16 mm film, and what about combining frame mode and 16:9? Also, has anyone found any advantage to replacing the 16x Optical lens with the 16x mechanical servo zoom lens...I'm so used to using broadcast quality glass with external focus I just can't get acustomed to the 16x optical lens. Also, besides setting the camera to -3db gain and shooting in low light with the aperature wide open and getting as far away from the talking head as possible, what else can i do to throw that background out of focus with the 16x optican lens?

Move away from the background?

But seriously, there's not much more you can do short of going to prime lenses. If you can afford a silk (scrim) you can always place it between the subject and the background but it requires careful lighting and no wind to blow the "invisible" silk.

I've found the frame mode to significantly soften the image, so be very careful with your focusing. Don't even think of using the EVF. Use a hires monitor. These are not the sharpest of lenses, especially when wide open, that will add to the softness. I started a project in frame mode and switched after two days. The editors who were looking at the images on a large hires monitor were very unhappy with the softness.

Ozzie:

Going to prime lenses vs the zoom to decrease depth of field...how? Only if they are longer focal lengths. A 25mm prime will deliver the same DOF as the 25mm marking on a zoom.

May I amend your reference to"silk" to "net"? We commonly use double nets (with the red border) outside windows and occasionally behind actors to knock down the background, which will also soften it slightly, as you are indicating. A silk will photograph as a barely translucent white.

The softness issue with Frame mode is one of those debatable things. I like the look of Frame mode so much, it's the specific reason I bought an XL1 (and put up with no XLR inputs and the myriad of little annoyances which of course are present in any "prosumer" camera). I have seen images in this mode projected on a 30 ft. screen, and had no issues with their sharpness. Considering that many feel that the answer to creating a "film look" is to arbitrarily slap a Promist filter up front, which has a very specific effect on the image in areas like highlights that is not so much filmic as Promist-ic...I feel that the Frame mode does a tremendous amount of good and virtually no evil. Smoothing the edge off the fine lines present in video IS filmic, to me. But, as I said, it's debatable and purely a matter of taste.

James, I have not had experience with it yet but have heard the majority of those who have say that Frame mode is NOT desirable if you are intending to finish out to film, due to frame rate extrapolation. Even if you shoot in standard 60i ("normal" mode), the transfer to film will take care of the "filmic" look at least as far as motion characteristic is concerned.

Also, if you're really planning to do a transfer to film you'd be strongly advised to consult with your transfer shop BEFORE you shoot. Some prefer normal (interlaced) footage.

Charles,

Correct - primes don't give you any better, or worse, depth of field than a zoom. I was thinking the quality of the image as seen through, say, a good qality 50mm prime lens will be much sharper and the contrast a little higher than seen through the 50mm marking on a Canon zoom, and any other "inexpensive" zoom. $1200 may not seem inexpensive but it is. Better quality can be obtained from Canon primes.

The silk/net issue - either or both. I called the silk a scrim (fine cheese cloth) since, with proper lighting (i.e. no light falling on the scrim) it does become "invisible" if it is far away enough from the subject and out of the focal range. I've had occasion to use this to bring down the background as well as diffuse it with very good results. It works best with CUs and MCUs, not so much with wide shots since the depth of field is greater.

While I'm at it, I've never understood this "video looking as film" thing. Video will NEVER look like film, no way, no how. Film has a much wider latitude than any video. That alone makes it impossible to get the exact same results. Just the other day I was making a dub of some of my old work. I was dubbing material shot with DV, BetaSP, DigiBeta and then came an old show from the 80s. The fact that it was film was immediatelly apparent. It was rich, saturated, and well, film. The closest a video camera ever came to looking almost like film was with a DigiBeta (I forget the model) - it accepted chips that, when inserted, would change the entire profile of the camera, and someone had spent the time to change the parameters to make it look like film. It almost did. I have some samples of this material I'll put up for viewing sometime.

The XL-1s and others can approximate the "film look" but never duplicate it. The Canon creates a soft, smooth image that is very appealing as such, but it's not film. No one will be fooled, if that's what's intended. For film, just raise the budget by 25% to 30%and get an Eclair or an Arri and shoot with fine grain negative stock. ;-)

Why can't video be video and film film? We just need to make them look aesthetically great.

Nice going guy. . .now you've just gone and made a bunch of people mad at you. (Myself excluded).

I think we've gone after this one before, but it's always worth working over in case something new falls out.

Imagine a controlled lighting setup such as a woman sitting next to a floor lamp, shot in a studio setting. Let's say the scene is first lit and shot on film, and the film transferred to tape, and the tape played back through a waveform monitor. Now the same scene is lit for video (we've rented the studio for the intervening couple of days, so everything is just where it was!) and we toggle back and forth on the waveform between the film scene and the video scene. We adjust the lighting so that the levels are as close to each other as possible. I think it would be intuitive to assume that the lighting ratio will be less for video since it has a lesser dynamic range. Let's say we even manipulate the gamma of the video camera to mimic the film image.

Now, we have two pieces of footage in which the contrast is effectively identical. The question is, have we made film from video? Of course not. Making an a/b comparison between the images will show that there is a substantitive visual difference between the mediums that transcends contrast, frame rate and depth of field issues. It's like the difference between a Polaroid and a 35mm print (well, that's being a bit unfair to the video side in that analogy, but you get the idea).

I think, Ozzie, that the idea may be as you said, to make video look as good as possible--and having a film image in mind as the ultimate goal is not a bad way to go. Wait until you see Rodriguez' new 24p film, "Once Upon a Time in Mexico". That's pretty much the best video-originated material I've seen yet.

I just read repeatedly in this forum that if you are gpoing to transfer to film later, do not shoot in Frame Mode, yet I just read in the DV to 35 mm article on the Watchdog site (article by CHris Hauser) that if you are going to transfer to film that you must shoot in Frame mode first. A contridiction no less. Of course he was assuming for the purposes of his article that we are using a PAL XL1S not the NTSC, and I am using the NTCS XL1S.

What about this scenerio...shoot in Normal mode, and make two clones for output from the final edit, one to go to film transfer, the other to be de-interlaced and then mastered for video/televsion broadcast. I sort of agree that if you are going to transfer to film later, (which will give your "film look") there is no need to "create" an artificlai film look by shooting in Frame Mode despite what Chris Hauser says in his article....and if indeed the transfer labs want the original DV footage shot in Normal Mode, that seems pretty clear to me...but what about getting that "film look" for the video/broadcast version which will not be from any film transfer....Pro Mist and Lighting alone will not cut it...I've been there...If the difference between Normal and Frame mode is essentially the same as interlaced and de-interlaced, would it be possible to shoot in Normal mode and keep the film transfer labs happy, and then de-interlace the final edited master or one clip at a time, for the video/broadcast version??? I'm sure is not as simple as that though. One thing I have decide not to do, is shoot in the non-Native 16x9 on the XL1S, I'll just compose for 16x9.

Charles,

There used to be a post facility, in Texas I believe, way back in the late 70s or 80s, that would make video look exactly like film, at great expense. I actually had some video processed by them. Their secret, among many, was to actually introduce a slight, imperceptable weaving and jitter to the picture to imitate the mechanical process of the film passing by the sprockets. Tape is rock solid and film isn't. They also added subliminal negative dirt and an occasional scratch besides messing around with the gamma and who knows what else. The process was quite effective but the question was - why not shoot it on film to begin with? At their rates it was almost a wash.

James2002,

I can't comment on what's best for transfer to film. All I can say is that NTSC video has been transfered to film for years with hardly any problems. I'm assuming 24p might be better but I've yet to see the results.

My only experience is with shooting DV in frame mode, and the image does get slightly softer. Again, I'm looking at the picture on a 21" broadcast Barco monitor. A monitor that has a higher resolution than the camera. So these problems become more apparent. Most consumer TV sets actually enhance the picture. Almost anything will look good on a home Trinitron.

I'll second what Ken said earlier - check with the film transfer facility and get their opinion before you start. You might even run some tests for comparison.

Guys, since we're here, this is just to satisfy my curiosity. I heard 35mm film was 216 dollars for about 6 minutes. . .correct? Furthermore, that transferring video to film was 500 dollars a minute. . .also correct?

What does a 16mm film camera run for. . .and 35? Just curious, not lookin' to buy anything.

Ozzie:

The funny thing about that process you refer to is that it says a lot more about the state of telecine back then than anything else, in that to emulate the look of telecined film they were distressing the video. With the current technology like the Spirit etc., it's a whole new game. 16mm has made a comeback since the image looks so incredible compared to what it used to.

I used to send footage to the original Filmlook folks around ten years ago; they had a proprietary 3:2 pulldown process as well as gamma adjustment and variable weave, if required. It helped a lot with a number of projects, but it was pricey.

James, the scenario you describe was almost exactly what we did on a Digi-Beta originated short film I shot a few years ago. We color-corrected the master and made two clones. One went off to be filmed out to 35mm. The other was sent to be Filmlooked and became the video master. We could have done a transfer from the 35mm back to video, but we were warned against that at the time. I think now the technology is in the right place to do that. As far as de-interlacing the Normal mode footage to make a "30p" master, I've read on this forum some post from folks who have had success with that (try searching under "de-interlace"?)

Re: De-interlacing and film-looking video...

The Magic Bullet suite of film-look tools is now available for purchase from http://www.toolfarm.com/. This was formerly a process only available on a service basis. You'll find a downloadable free demo of the suite on the Tool Farm site. It can produce some very interesting results.

I might have some different opinion on how to look at it. What
is the device we are looking at? a TV or film projection?

If output is for TV or LCD/DLP projector (home/business types)
I think you can make video look like film (if that is your goal). Why?
Because it is all pixels. With DVD's people do not suddenly say,
hey, this is not film. Every pixel in a DVD which came from film
can also be made from video (with enough tweaking and post
work and what not -> perhaps even hand painting pixels).

MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT SEE OUR WORK ON FILM! (where we
are now and with our DV camera's). Most people will probably
see it either over the internet or on VCD or DVD. Perhaps even
on a digital festival projection. When they will view it on a DVD
we have the EXACT SAME range as film on THAT format. The
source is wider for film, but the target medium is the same. So
in theory, you should be able to create a similiair image. Motion
signature might be a diffirent thing, but I don't think anyone
can see the difference between 25p (PAL) and 24p (film).

If you are going to transfer your video to film you are not using
the dynamic range to its capability ofcourse. So movies shot on
film will always win there.

I saw a french movie (Vidocq) and Star Wars Episode 2 which
both originated with video. I heard no-one complain that it
didn't look like film. Ofcourse people in the industry with sharper
eyes than your everage viewer and people in the-know might
have seen things. The casual viewer will not have noticed, they
will not even care. As long as the movie is entertaining and it
looks/sounds good it is fine with them.

Just some thoughts of mine... not in a response to anyone....

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : Guys, since we're here, this is just to satisfy my curiosity. I heard 35mm film was 216 dollars for about 6 minutes. . .correct? Furthermore, that transferring video to film was 500 dollars a minute. . .also correct?

What does a 16mm film camera run for. . .and 35? Just curious, not lookin' to buy anything. -->>>

Josh,

You can get used 16mm cameras for what a brand new XL1s charges. New film cameras are in the price range of $18 000 - $1 100 000. That excludes lenses. A set of 16mm primes costs from $10 000 and up.

A transfer from DV to film is somewhere in the range of $30 000 for a feature film. Totalt lab costs on a 35mm film is hard to bring in under $50 000.

Wild. Maybe some day I'll get there. Right now, I'm living in a video world, and I'm definitely a video girl. . .er boy.