Flim Look vs Video Look
 

After using our EX3 for a while now and reading this forum quite a bit, I'm starting to learn that their are two distinct personalities of users.

1) People that want the look of film
2) People that want the look of very high quality video (like on the Discovery Channel)

I think it's important understand the differences here (I'm no expert, feel free to chime in).

FILM LOOK
Shoot progressive (gives a slight shutter look)
Shoot 24p (this isn't always the case, 30P is also popular)
Shoot with detail off (I haven't tried this yet myself)
CINE Gamma settings (CINE4 is popular)
35mm adaptors are also popular

VIDEO LOOK
Shoot interlaced (smooth motion)
Shoot 1080 60i
Shoot with detail on (this is just a guess on my part....might be wrong about this)
STD or CINE gamma settings (both are popular)
Final delivery will be for broadcast use (normally interlaced)

The point is, going for "the film look" isn't the same as wanting the highest quality video. It depends on the look you're going for. I made this mistake as I always thought that the "film look" was the holy grail and had to be the look I wanted. I've found that I don't really like the look of 24p, but have settled on 30p as of now. (might try 60i soon)

There are lots of things that determine "video quality" and some of it comes down to personal taste.

I've found this journey very interesting and enlightening. Just thought I'd share. :)

Probably one of the most profound, insightful declarations on this entire site.

I don't see 'film look' and 'video look' any more. I just see 'a look'. My preference is high framerate progressive scan. High quality 1080/50p would look sublime and I can't wait for it to come onto the market in force.

Otherwise, aside from 720p/50/60 my preference is to shoot 25p, not for film look, but for versatility. I like the look of it too, but I don't use it any more for the purpose of trying dismally to make my video look like 35mm.

I have settled for 1080i 50i with shutter at 100 for shooting and 1080i 25p for delivery in pro res 422.

Then there is me that shoots for the internet. Pretty much the only place my video will be seen.

I always shoot progressive because I hate interlaced, and so far my "look" has been crappy white balance...LOL

I"m thinking of have it copyrighted...

And I shoot both - 1080i60 for real life looking material (for me that's how-to's, industrials and unscripted reality shows) and 720p30 for scripted dramatic programs, mainly because the stories I shoot have a substantial amount of slow motion and undercrank in them.

Will be experimenting with higher res and framerate progressive for drama if and when, but those are my main modes for now.

Gary, what's 1080i 25p? hehehehe (I assume that's a typo)

Thanks for sharing everyone. I think this is becoming a useful thread.

How bizzare - I posted a blog article musing the very same thing just yesterday...

You got the look TV Soup

But to save you the click, I reckon 'The Film Look' is going to become a quaint or stylistic expression, like doing something in black and white.

Lots of cameras have moved on from the 'video' look of narrow exposure range, artificial sharpening and interlaced motion. So are we going to dub the super-real 1080p50/60 clean sharp images 'the HD look'?

And whilst we're here thinking about looks is it my imagination, or has the 'Top Gear' vignette and fast shutter speed 'look', once used sparingly and with absolute precision in the aforementioned entertainment series, become a poultice to apply to 'reality' TV material to make it look 'exciting'? 'Looks'? Bah!

What the camera should be doing (says he, chewing on the meerschaum and kicking the Labrador) is getting a nice neutral image with a range of tones and a neutral demeanour so that the colourist has something to work upon. Interlace be damned. Shoot enough frames and let your format decide.

But what bugs me is that we're pushed higher and higher into the realms of technical quality, yet the biggest market seems to be 'the fourth screen' wherein we'd be lucky to get 640x360. I'd say that with scaling down, it would be hard for most audiences (or even buyers) to tell the difference between 35mm and a well sorted EX or HVX. So then we're into a whole other argument - video acting vs film acting, video script vs film script, video sound vs film sound.

But the nurse says I must rest now.

I thought interlaced looked better when I first got my EX1. However progressive is the way to go. I have found that you have to shoot in a completely different way.

The motion issues are only a problem if you wave the camera around like a nutcase! I look at stuff on TV completely differently now. Most shots contain lots of movement in the frame rather than the camera moving around. Fast motion within the frame combined with fast cutting gives the feeling of motion without there actually being any, or very little, camera movement.

Music videos and TV ads are a good example. I believe that most commercials are still shot on film. HD cameras have to be handled a lot like film cameras. Film cameras get that "juddery" look too if not used properly.

I don't think I'd ever shoot interlaced again. I love the progressive look. Interlaced just looks far too stark.

I like the smooth motion of interlaced, I just like the solid look of the progressive framerates more. If 1080x60p ever gets widely adopted (by websites, TVs, and so on) and cameras start supporting it.. I'm there.

Good thoughts Mitchell.

It really does come down to what you like as well as what you need. The great thing is the EX can do it all. So here's my sentiments.

I don't like 24p. I don't like the lack of temporal resolution. Sure a good DP can work with it with the limits of camera moves etc. but me, I find it a handicap.

I shoot 1080p30 most of the time. I like progressive over interlace but I also like more temporal resolution that 30p affords.

Now if I'm shooting fast action I'll shoot 720p60.

I'll shoot 720p30 if I need to do a lot of overcranking.

If I'm really backed into a DARK corner I might shoot 1080i60 because interlace results in a major sensitivity increase but it's a really dark corner for me to make that choice.

For web, digital signage and corporate HDTV presentation it's progressive as well.

For Broadcast (SD TV spots in my case) I'm sorta torn given I need 480i60 in the end.

Generally 1080p30 is the all around best though. It gives me progressive I like and need for most delivery. It gives me a nice big frame size if I need to use it in a standard def timeline (reposition and "ken burn" type moves on moving video, etc). It gives reasonable temporal resolution for most of what I shoot. It also chroma keys much better than interlace.

Interlaced? Schminterlaced!
 

Please, can somebody answer me...

What HD device can our viewers realistically buy now with even a shred of desire that natively displays interlaced video?

Shooting interlace is just a cheap way of getting twice the frame rate, but with the caveat that you get soft video with at least 25% less resolution as a best case scenario. Shoot 1080iXX and what you're getting is 720p

MATT: I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that most television is still broadcast in interlaced format, whether it's HD (Discovery HD, etc...) or SD. Why I don't know, but those are currently the parameters that some of us must work in.

But by responding to your question I am in no way condoning the use of interlaced video. I'm just simply trying to answer your question.

I like the look of 1080 30p. What is the final target of this progressive rate. I currently burn to blu-ray and shoot 1080 60i. I did not like 24p (which IS a legal blu-ray spec).

1080 30p looks good but what is your final destination for it?

Mark Miner

HDTV TV Channels in the USA/NTSC are 720p60 and 1080i60, so interlace is still very much in use for HD. Note that both formats have high temporal resolution.