I'm not so sure about this. You can have a look at a lot of 'making of' and you'll notice how different the same shot can look super-videoish even with great lighting, only because most making of's are shot with 60i ENG cameras and no, or little, post.

It's the eternal Movie Look (production) vs Film Look (medium) debate that seems to go off every other semester or so.

Personally I think the 'shot with film' look is part of the Movie Look and more important than production values.

Motion cadence and DoF must be the most important things to 'disguise' when shooting with video, because they're also the most obvious video attributes. Buf if you use film you won't be really thinking too much about trying to fake the look you already have...

As to the Citizen Kane argument, that's the exception and not the rule. Most movies use shallow DoF because it 'comes' with film. And we're not talking about your average 'pay as you go' Hollywood director here, *edit I meant Orson Wells of course, but was thinking of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon as well* was an artist down to his soul. So deep DoF may not be for just anyone, even with film. Not just regarding the look but composition, framing, movement, acting, etc.

As I stated almost an year ago, shooting a film with Clint Eastwood using a $300 60i camera and no post will look crap, no matter how good the lighting, actors, etc. you get. Not that you don't need those (they're both crucial for a good movie) but first things first.

"making-of'" have great lighting? Not. They have adequate lighting to do the job, and in most cases use available lighting and adjust the cam for best performance. Nothing compared to what the "filming" camera on set has.

Hey Ken, I was mentioning when the making of is shooting the same scene as the film camera. Of course the angle is slightly different but still the difference is/can be huge.

One that springs to mind is 'The Grudge' where they show both scenes, final film scene and right after the making of shooting the same (with same lighting).

Obviously it looks completely different. I'll try to get a couple of pics and post them here but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. I think they'd give quite interesting analisys (although a bit unfair the the making of didn't seem to have any post).

Don't get me wrong, I think lighting is vital. I'm just focusing on the 'getting rid of video look' thing.

The point is that the scene was lit for the film cam specifically, not the video camera. The lighting was not crafted for the 60i ENG cam, and the cam probably not configured much beyond making sure it had a clear picture. But I fear we have gotten away from the point which is, poorly lit video looks like crap, especially with the HD10 who's demand on quality lighting is its biggest demand. If you want a quality production with the HD10 it is lighting ,not shallow DOF.