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.

Cinematic Look
 

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.

DVINFO.NET>>>> I AM IN LOVE WITH YOU!

shawn mcbee....thanks for the tip for the cheap solution used to block the sunlight from you rcar's window. Never thought about that one. Going to see if I can buy some second hand.

ROb lohman....you are right. Star Wars 2 is a great example. Everybody asks tooo way much. If you have a amateur cam, you can creat film-like films but there is always going something fishy about your work. It is fake.

This site is just amazing. I learn so much. This is liek going to a online video/film school. And it is free and you can participate as well.