Wonderful example
 

Go to:

http://www.starwaypictures.com/expired/thefilm.html

and watch "Expired." It's a beautiful little film shot on miniDV that is unbelievable. It shows what the medium is truly capable of.

I almost don't believe that's video.
This is an exceptionaly well done piece. I wish they gave a little more info as to how they achieved the look and what camera they used.

I'm waiting now to hear back from the director for the particulars.

I agree. The only thing that I would have liked is more info on the production. Very nicely done.

That was truly amazing work in my eyes, I got a nice feel, the film was great composed. And that it was shot with miniDV, unbelivable...just think about the posibilities.

Jay: Please let me in on the particulars.

To my eye, look like just a bit of color correction and some compositing. The footage still exhibits all the contrast flatness of DV.

Fine, Robert. Can you make a film like that?

In the credits, Final Cut Pro is listed. My best guess is it's Magic Bullet http://www.theorphanage.com/ It may have been done with another AE plugin, but it looks like MB to me.

Jeff

The point to me has less to do with 4:1:1 color space and all that but with the staging, compostion, lighting and so forth. I was fully engaged by the clip even if the story idea is hardly original. Good story telling.

Jay, perhaps what you're really asking is whether I can reproduce the film look. Who would want to make a movie without a story? ;-)

No, Robert, I meant what I said. I was taking ALL the elements into consideration.

Director's Explanation
 

Below is what the director, Robert Sanders, had to say about production of his film "Expired." (minus some personal banter)

- - - - - - -

"As far as production particulars, this film really was a low-budget friends and family effort. We shot the film using a Sony PD-150. I think the reason the picture quality turned out so well was due to my lighting designer who worked with me very hard to get it right. I was fortunate enough to get Jim Teiper to come out with his 5-ton grip truck and help us on this show. But, the crew was basically my friends and family (albeit friends and family I always use on my productions...which is great because they're FREE!).

"The production design was another thing that I think helps the look of the film. We were able to use a large vacant room in an office building to build our apartment in. They let us paint the walls and plug up other windows with plywood because we didn't want them showing. We pretty much brought all the furniture from my apartment and my neighbor's apartment to the set. You'll probably be surprised to know that the paintings on the wall were simply ink-jet printouts tiled together on foam-core.

"We didn't use any greenscreen or bluescreen behind the window because I needed the background as reference for the matte paintings. So, that meant we had to "rotoscope" all shots with the window. I used Commotion Pro to do that. Man, that was a lot of freakin' work! The background mattes were created from still photographs I took of a building in downtown LA. The "flying cars" were simple 2D layers animated with a lot of motion blur so you can't see detail or the lack of perspective shift.

"That's pretty much it."

Wow! That's great work.

I just watched the short version and thought it looked super. Nice work. Thanks for the link.

Tools & Talent...
 

I just watched the clip and was glad to see that these people didn't stifle thier creative ablilty based on common misconceptions of equipment and it's limitations. The clip reminded me of somthing an old crusty recording engineer said to me at an auction in Nashville: I'd gone to look for a new mixing console and was scouring the auction floor when this old guy came over and said "It really doesn't matter what equipment you use, a hit song is a hit song". His point was that a dog on the best equipment is still a dog, and everyone from Johnny Cash to Elvis & the Beatles were recorded on (by todays standards) equipment that was pretty limted, and yet sold millions of records in spite of the equipment and it's shortcomings. I guess my thoughts are that if you have the talent to act, light, direct and edit etc. you can surely overcome some pretty high hurdles. This clip shows what you can do if you "think outside the box" and replace limitations with hard work and talent. It's not film but it's so well done you forget about the meduim and connect to the content. my 2 cents
Mark

Mark, I couldn't agree with you more. It's not what you've got, it's how you use it! I think Robert has proven there are no limits if one has talent, desire and drive.

Direct download link to the full version at high quality:

http://www.starwaypictures.com/expired/qt_full_length/EXPIRED_Full_640.mov

It is about 110 MB large, be warned!

I can't add anything to the commentary except to note what a wonderful example this really is of what's possible with the basic tools available to us. I've always been immensely impressed by people who just stand and deliver by making creative use of limited resources. What a kick and inspiration to see examples like this.

Thanks so much for sharing it with us all!

And I can't add anything more than what Ken has just said, except to say that, inspired by this, I'll be killing myself on my next shoot trying to get such a nice look. For inspiration value alone, it's worth several looks...and then some.

It's sure looks good, very well composed and lit. Anybody can see that they really worked hard in their production value. But to say it doesn't look like video is a little fantasy. Anybody can see it's video. But it sure looks like good video. The story is not really original.But the production is "A" class!

Cheers

Well actually it's neither video nor film; it's a highly compressed data stream which looks like neither. But still looks damn good. (Yes, the story's a bit hokey.)

You got a point there. But let's not forget we are all watching it on a 10"x4" little screen. Basically on hands of a skillful DP, any DV camera would look good in this size. I would like to know how would this image hold if transferred to film and project on a big screen. I bet it would look just like any of the DV to film movies. If we could get a image quality on the big screen as good as this one, maybe hollywood would not be using the panavisons anymore. They would all save money and buy Dv cameras. Because this short film's picture sure looks good enough in the little bit screen.

And re. the comments about "DV's flat contrast compared to film", ken is touching on a important point here. We don't colourcorrect our important broadcast piece based on a Sorenson 3 quicktime playing on our computer monitor now do we? So wy do we judge the image quality based on what we see on the computer monitor? Now if you were watching the proper video version on a calibrated tv/monitor, then by all means judge.

I personally liked it quite a lot. There was a story, but it was a short one. And coming from a vfx background, the effects with the rotoscoping could perhaps have been done a tad better. The background could easily have been a greenscreen with tracking markers and then done the entire thing in 3D instead. It would most likely have been way less work than rotoscoping the flying cars. I also noted that it was only in certain shots that they bothered. The lack of traffic in close / mid shots were noticable (at least to me, occupational hazard :)
Me personally i would also have muffled the driveby sound a tad, since it should have been behind glass and thus most likely soundproofed.

As for positive notes, i really liked the DOP work and the acting of the nuBreed exec. The voice shifting showing that she was also an android worked pretty well methinks. And the music was excellent though i didnt pick up in the credits afterwards or the online credits who had done it.

Well that is my happy feedback anyway :)

A truly inspiring work.. especially since im now waiting the arrival of my own anamorphic adapter :) wooohoo!

/Henrik

I concur---this looked real nice on my computer monitor---I would love to see it on a TV.

"We don't colour correct our important broadcast piece based on a Sorenson 3 quicktime playing on our computer monitor now do we? So why do we judge the image quality based on what we see on the computer monitor? Now if you were watching the proper video version on a calibrated tv/monitor, then by all means judge."

My original assertion was that the example clip retained all the tonal flatness of DV. Dynamic range is independent of and unrelated to color correction. Gamma does change the way pixel values are mapped to monitor brightnesses, but changes in gamma anywhere in the signal chain do not alter the dynamic range of the footage.

A significant advancement for filmlook, and a necessary step in video's quest to overtake film, would be a pumping up of dynamic range. Even an intelligent requantization process that could be implemented in post would go a long way toward removing the stigma of uck!--that looks like video! (STAR WARS--Episode II was a fiasco in this respect. Everything looked so flat.)

Very rarely have I been fooled into thinking that video was film, but it its relatively easy to make film look a lot like video by resampling and quantizing it, in effect lowering it down to video's resolution and dynamic range.

If your point is that we should only judge video-originated footage on NTSC monitors (not computer monitors), I fail to see the logic. Computer monitors are higher resolution, higher dynamic range--quite simply, they're built to higher spec. If what we're looking at is a digital video stream, we shouldn't expect to suffer the loss of minute analog nuance by looking at the stream on our computer monitor anyway. The color may not match perfectly, but our perception of (lack of) dynamic range will be unaltered.

tv monitors vs computer monitors
 

There are a great many people in this community who are very proficient in the technical aspects of video. I am not one of them--never have been. My strength lies in getting results (not that you can't have both). If I'm required to explain technically (beyond naming the tools) how I did it or achieved the result, I'm at a loss.

Having said all that, all I can say is, everything I've ever read (which I didn't always fully understand) has said that you cannot properly judge the video image on a computer monitor. There are major differences between the two. This is why the major NLE software manufacturers (Vegas Video, Premiere, Final Cut Pro, Avid Express, etc.) strongly recommend you have, in addition to your computer monitor, a NTSC monitor on which to properly, and fully, evaluate your video image. Based on everything I've seen (and in this instance I have seen many) I whole-heartedly agree. Walk into any major video production facility (a state-of-the-art t.v. studio, for example) and you will immediately notice that they are not viewing their video on computer monitors (except in the edit bays, which always have a NTSC monitor along side the computer monitor).

Therefore, I have to respectfully disagree with Robert's evaluation above. If you can afford it, by all means, get a NTSC monitor and do not attempt to rely on your computer monitor alone.

Yes, and one would think that the goal of those who want to make video look more like film is to transfer their video to film, then I for one would love to see the end product projected on the big screen---

I don't think that Robert was saying that you should judge the
look of your video on your monitor (although I cannot speak
for him ofcourse). I think he meant that you do not need
an NTSC (or PAL) monitor to see the flatness (as he
refers to it) of the/a video signal.

Just my two cents

Rob, his statement was, and I quote, "If your point is that we should only judge video-originated footage on NTSC monitors (not computer monitors), I fail to see the logic."

When "judging" an image--something visual, be it video, film, photograph, painting, etc.--what are we doing if we're not judging or evaluating the way it "looks"?

He said "footage" (image). You said "signal" (electronic information, either analog or digital). I think most would agree that those are two different elements.

By-the-way, thanks for your two cents. ;o)

Dont get me wrong, I think it looks fantastic---but I can show you a load of stuff I have compressed for streaming on the net that looks real cool---but when blown up loses so much. That was my whole point---

The days of editing and color correcting for just broadcast are over. I have clients that have me correct (color, gamma, etc) a piece different ways for different uses. If the project isn't going to broadcast we stretch the black level, gamma, white clip etc to fit the medium. The 7.5 IRE black level is only for broadcast. Why lose part of your range if the piece will never be broadcast? I correct one way for web use and another for broadcast and even another for DVD. It's like giving a painter only one size brush.

I don't do much work for transfer to film. But I would correct DV for film differently than DV for web.

Jeff

Jeff, you bring up and excellent point. I hadn't thought of it, but you're right. It depends on the final form in which the piece is being exhibited.

Rob Lohman had me right, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. To restate and rephrase, For digital video, viewing the video signal on a computer monitor is sufficient to make the assessment that the material originated on DV (not film) simply by observing contrast flatness.

Of course, I am also of the school that a properly calibrated high-resolution production monitor (NTSC or PAL, depending on where you hail from) is an essential tool for shooting and editing. On my editing desk I have twin 17" Viewsonic computer monitors and twin 14" SONY NTSC video monitors for my work.

When it comes to digital video, however, what you see on your computer screen (given that your system is gamma-calibrated and the material you're working with has a dynamic range of 24 bits per pixel as DV does) is the truest representation of the video signal--truer that the DA converted signal you'll see on NTSC output, which, in systems math terms, just adds one (or several) more transform matrix (or matrices) to the signal pathway chain.

It should be pointed out that most video production houses, those facilities riddled with big expensive NTSC monitors--TV stations comprise the largest segment of this class of facilities--still work in analog video.

Post facilities that work in high definition, however--e.g., CG work for film or 24P video--tend not have lots of NTSC or even HD TV monitors sitting around. These folks work off computer screens.

If it's in the digital domain, and the material is of standard dynamic range (e.g., 24 bits per pixel), your computer monitor is plenty sufficient to observe the whole true signal.

If your work is intended for broadcast, an NTSC Production monitor is used (along with a waveform monitor and vectorscope) for quality checks and final approval. Computer RGB differs from DV NTSC in color space and the monitors require different phosphors. Different phosphors reproduce different colors. I don't know of any post house (digital or analog) that uses computer monitors for final approval of work intended for broadcast.

Work destined for film output may be a different matter. Film recorders and their associated support equipment are not my area of expertise.

Jeff

Robert. My point was more in the fact that you are watching a compressed (lossy compression at that) stream than what monitor you were looking at (sorry if this didn't come through clearly). Compressing video involves a lot of messing about with the pixels, and colourcorrection and foremost, judging the colours compared to a video or film media usually goes right out the window.

I'm definately not good enough to judge if the image is flatter on a highly compressed quicktime stream. Hell, im not sure im good enough to judge it on a "proper" media =)

/Henrik

The rotoscoping questions and answers got split out to here http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=5564

Jeff

Not entirely... when creating computer gen'd images for output to film or HD, 24bit per pixel (8bit flat) colour space is NOT correct for matching to a film output. What you need is to work in a higher colour space (i.e. 10bit log, 12bit flat, 16bit flat or HDR), and to simulate what it would look like when imaged to film, you must use a LUT (or Look-Up-Table) to alter your 8bit flat display to mimick that of a 12bit flat or 10bit log of tiff or cineon out to be laser imaged to film or dumped to HD.

/Adrian


<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : Rob Lohman
Post facilities that work in high definition, however--e.g., CG work for film or 24P video--tend not have lots of NTSC or even HD TV monitors sitting around. These folks work off computer screens.

If it's in the digital domain, and the material is of standard dynamic range (e.g., 24 bits per pixel), your computer monitor is plenty sufficient to observe the whole true signal. -->>>

I don't disagree, Adrian, and I stand by my statement that a computer monitor is sufficient to evaluate the dynamic range of DV footage.

I dunno about MB. It wouldn't put those tacky, ramdom fake scratches on the image like you get with the stock Quicktime effect.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : In the credits, Final Cut Pro is listed. My best guess is it's Magic Bullet http://www.theorphanage.com/ It may have been done with another AE plugin, but it looks like MB to me.

Jeff -->>>

Well just finished watching the movie. Great piece, although the one thing that really bothered me about the movie, technically was how the filmmaker gave the video a "film look". Whatever process he used, it gave the film a too blurry look, like as if he shot it with a 360 degree shutter. It looks similiar to 1/30 sec. shutter which annoys the hell out of me.

It definitely does not look like film. It reminds me of some cheapie DV commercials that air here in Vancouver, most noticeably those annoying Shaw Cable commercials. They employ the same smeary look and overblown highlights that always look bad. Im just commenting on the technical aspect of the piece. It was well lit and all, but the annoying film look really bugged the hell out of me. It would have looked alot crisper had the filmmakers used a straight de-interlace, without mucking around with the frame rate or whatever.

It was a good piece overall so no negative comments here. Anyone else notice the smeary look of the piece?